I am royally pissed off tonight.
First, I have just spent over an hour cleaning up comment spam from the most annoying comment spammer who has ever hit my site. I had to turn off comments yesterday to clean up his shit. I had to turn comments off again tonight so I could do cleanup. Is there anyone out there who would like to earn some money by upgrading my Movable Type and installing MT Blacklist for me? I don't have time to try it myself and I'm afraid I would just mess up my site. I enjoy comments and I even enjoy some of the dissenting opinions as long as they are presented properly. I don't want to turn comments off because of comment spammers.
The second reason I am pissed off is something Matthew put in the comments on my Letter From Iraq post. I vented in that thread and I expect an apology to my nephew, my sister, her husband, me, and every American fighting man. I know he thinks that we should just surrender in the War on Terror, but unfortunately, he doesn't understand that we have no choice but to fight. If he had been alive in the 1930's he would have been one of the people who thought appeasing Hitler would have worked. Appeasement didn't work then and it won't work now. We have to take the war to them and kill them before they kill us. I do not want to see another 9/11.
OK. To lighten things up a bit, here's a joke from Woody:
Ahmed came to the United States from Iraq. He was here only a few months when he became very ill. He went to doctor after doctor but none of them could help him. Finally, he went to an Arab doctor.
The doctor said, "Take dees bocket, go into de odder room, poop in de
bocket, pee on de poop, and den put your head down over de bocket and breathe in de fumes for ten minutes."
Ahmed took the bucket, went into the other room, pooped in the bucket, peed on the poop, bent over and breathed in the fumes for ten minutes.
Coming back to the doctor he said, "It worked! I feel terrific! What was wrong with me?"
The doctor said, "You were homesick."
eww! hah! :D
Posted by: Susan on August 10, 2004 01:01 PMOf September the eleventh, 2001
I remember it quite clearly. I had just turned 19 – the age of your nephew – and had began college that week. Because of the abysmal quality of British special schools, I lacked the qualifications to go to university, so September 2001 saw me starting two courses at Macclesfield college, about six miles from my house. The first two days were half days, filled with activities for students to get acquainted with the new surroundings. It was very different from the rather mothering environment of school, which had been more like day-care than education.
The 11th, you will recall, was a Tuesday. I had been brought home in time for lunch. Unusually, both my parents were home from work, perhaps keen to see how I had got on, and after lunch Dad began flipping through satellite television channels. I was slouched in an armchair, not very interested in the television, when dad switched to CNN, and I saw the first tower smoking in the autumn sun.
“A Cessna” I thought, “some idiot in a Cessna had crashed his plane into the tower!” We watched the smoke rise and cover New York, and then a second plane hit. This was no accident; the world had changed.
At that moment I felt personally grieved. I had been up those towers. I had also seen the beauty of the American country; smelt the sequoias up in the Rockies; I had been to a baseball match and had loved every moment; I had read the novels of Hemingway and Twain; in short, I loved America and its people. How could anyone do such a thing? How could anyone hijack a plane and murder so many people in cold blood?
For, regardless of America’s actions abroad, it was in cold blood that those attacks were carried out. At school, I had been around people who had fought so hard for life, many of whom would not reach their twenties. How could these terrorists just throw their life away – not only theirs but those of hundreds more, and for a faith for which they have no proof? I resolved that these people are the antithesis of my friends, whom I regard so highly: these people are scum.
I maintain – and this I swear – that I still love the United states. I love to travel, and would go to your country tomorrow, if I had the chance, although this applies to just about anywhere. I mean no harm to her people: yourself, your sister, and especially not your nephew. However, I would argue that criticising American foreign policy and criticising it’s armed forces are not the same thing, and I know that the latter is doing a fine job.
Yet how can I feel so aggrieved at the atrocities of September the eleventh and not support the war on terror? This, I admit, is a bit of a paradox. There is no doubt that we must prevent another such atrocity. But if we go out and actively seek to kill terrorists, I fear that the fundamentalists will be angered so much that their numbers will swell, rather than deplete. Over the last few days we have seen militancy growing in Iraq, with some reports claiming a death toll of 300. both the CIA and MI5 have, apparently seen evidence of more terrorist preparations, which must be stopped.
Like Hitler, the terrorists must not be appeased, but unlike Hitler, they cannot be invaded. They have no territory we can invade, no battlements we can storm. Attack, and their numbers may multiply; do nothing and they will attack. Bush chose the former, but I would argue that the latter sends out a stronger message: we will not be cowed and continue with our lives regardless. Try to swat a fly, and one will anger it further till it stings again, but stay still and ignore it, and it will fly off.
Nevertheless, please accept this letter as my apology. I have learned many things from your site, and although I still believe that the government, as an extension of the people, is the best way to achieve some kind of equality, I have learned many things from reading your entries.
Yours truly,
Matthew Goodsell
"Attack, and their numbers may multiply; do nothing and they will attack. Bush chose the former, but I would argue that the latter sends out a stronger message:"
How the F could doing nothing and allowing more attacks possibly send a stronger message? Unless the message you wanna send is "We're weak and cowards, so please make us your bitch." France.
"Try to swat a fly, and one will anger it further till it stings again, but stay still and ignore it, and it will fly off."
First of all, these bastards aren't just gonna fly away if we ignore them. Slick Willie ignored them since 1993 and look where that got us - Somalia, Embassy bombings, USS Cole, and 9/11, among others.
And if you kill it when you swat it, you don't have to worry about generating another more angry sting. Dead is dead.
But if we go out and actively seek to kill terrorists, I fear that the fundamentalists will be angered so much that their numbers will swell, rather than deplete."They hate us, want to kill all of us, but, but, if we attack them, they might get, angered." One might think that flying planes into buildings, bombing public trains, sneaking into homes and murdering five-year olds, shooting a pregnant woman and her three children, cutting the heads off hostages, and declaring the US the Great Satan might imply some form of anger, but perhaps my standards of obvious anger are different from others.
"Attack, and their numbers may multiply; do nothing and they will attack. Bush chose the former, but I would argue that the latter sends out a stronger message:"
A profoundly flawed thought. The first portion of the contention is based on an unknown and point of debate (i.e., their numbers may multiply) and the other is a certainty (i.e., do nothing and they will attack).
Using the former to base the latter is not that of clear thinking. Why is it not put forth that attacking them will dwindle their numbers? Why is there an outright assumption that attacking and killing them makes more of them in geometric ("multiply") quantities? Did the Third Reich, the SS, the SD, and the Nazi establishment become more or less prolific when met with British, American, and Soviet forces? Did Communists increase in number when repelled from Afghanistan? Did Islam become more or less established in continental Europe when met by Christian armies?
Why is the obvious point of the psyche of the Islamist mind left out? That is, they follow the strong horse, the winner, because nothing, as they say, succeeds like success. One cannot talk liberal Western values with someone who values power above all.
Show them power first and there is a chance they can be convinced to choose different career paths (e.g., not flying planes into buildings) or come to learn different values, but, and this is the essential flaw in the thinking that is being critiqued, if you show them liberal Western values first, they see weakness and will kill you. For reference, see Israel, post Oslo Accords and Camp David. The waves of attacks came from Islamists solely because the Israelis compromised--they showed, to the Islamist mindset, weakness. [As an aside, see the Arabic word for cease-fire, Hudna. It does not mean cease-fire but a time for the Muslim to reinforce, gather arms, and establish a point of attack. The idea of compromise is foreign the militant Muslim.] Sharon, however, has shown power (killing three of Hamas' top four, destroying most of Arafat's compound, withdrawing from the settlements and creating the fence/wall, destroying the homes of suicide bombers, etc.) and there have been two suicide bombing attempts in the past four or five months. You cannot have peace with first having victory.
"...we will not be cowed and continue with our lives regardless." Not if we are dead, we won't. Appeasement has a batting record of .000. Why should human nature suddenly reverse itself? Because you say so?
Such is the tortured thought processes of someone I thank God has no say in national security. As though dying via pacifism is noble or admirable. As though dying and making no attempt to defeat your enemy makes you somehow honorable...utter rubbish.
"Try to swat a fly, and one will anger it further till it stings again, but stay still and ignore it, and it will fly off."
As one who grew up watching a considerable amount of documentaries and Discovery Channel shows, one need only view any of the massive video available on Ethiopians or Lesothians or the like to see that flies, when left alone, amass in great numbers and show no sign of leaving (who hasn't seen the heart-string-pulling Save The Children ads with children walking around with twenty or thirty flies crawling about their faces and they do nothing in the way of swatting them away--obviously they learned the flies came back no matter what).
government...is the best way to achieve some kind of equality...
Equality is a pipe dream, a utopian vision by people who either scoff at the known history of mankind, or believe--by discarding the known history of mankind--that man can be made over again. Karl Marx had thoughts on this and we know how that came out.
There will never equality as long as humans are born with genetic differences, grow up with different parents, grow up in different environments, have varying levels of energy and drive (e.g., this guy compared to this lady), look different from one another, etc., etc., etc., etc. It will never happen in a positive fashion. Continental European countries, particularly the Western ones, are becoming more equal with society--equally poor, equally non-working, equally vacation taking, equally not having children, etc. People can only be equally miserable or poor, and then, only because it was forced on them by a government or authoritative body. It is one of the tragic truths of life. You can have equal poverty and misery, but not equal wealth and happiness--the latter require work and determination, the former do not.
Posted by: addison on August 11, 2004 10:29 PMNo, Addison, we are not all equal: some have while others have not. this is often through no fault of their own. But why shouldn't we try to leveel the playing field?
you would argue that poor people are poor because they are lazy. How simplistic. poor people are poor through a viriety of reasons, ranginng from accident of birth, to cunning, to pure luck. To say that poor people just have to work harder is mind-numbingly naive. I would rather have an equally poor society than a blatantly unjust one, ruled by the few with, rather than the many without.
I think tery jones once wittilly wrote "theyre bombing a noun". you cannot destroy an idea. germany was finite, and could be nvaded, like any other country. but an organisation like al qaida is not finite and has no boundaries. even if we kill bin laden, there will be another to take his placce.
America is fighting something she cannot defeat. we are trapped in this endless war, and i wish you luck.
Posted by: matthew g on August 12, 2004 09:45 AMLet's review some basic history: Charles Martel stopped the muslim armies ON THE PLAINS OF TOURAINE in 753. It took 739 YEARS to drive them off the continent of Europe (Ferdinand and Isabella, 1492). So by your thinking, Matthew, they should have just turned their bellies up and let them conquer. Right?
But in a way you can thank Islam for America; when Grenada fell, it freed up the funds they had been using for war; they were given to Columbus to discover the New World. So thanks, Islam!
We've been fighting this war for over 1,000 years. Now they are trying to do it by stealth; overwhelming birth rates and immigration.
We have to win. We will win. If we don't win, you, and the rest of the world, will be subject to sharia law. You can live with your face in the dust to your master, but I'll die free. Capish? Good.
Elizabeth
Imperial Keeper
Matthew - We had an equally poor society. It was called the Soviet Union. I would not like to see the return of that and I would not like to live in that society. I was in Russia about ten years ago. It was really sad what 70 years of your equally poor society did to that country and the people of that country. You really are a die hard communist aren't you? In the United States 90% of the poor are poor because they made bad choices. They dropped out of school and had children they could not afford. It pisses me off to have to support those parasites. The other 10% who are poor through no fault of their own (catastrophic disease, accidents or other probems beyond their control) I have no problem helping. Our misguided social welfare programs have created a permanent underclass dependent upon the gommint for their survival. This is not good for those people or our society.
Posted by: Denny Wilson on August 12, 2004 10:38 AMWe ARE all created equal. Thing is, too many misconstrue that. It does NOT mean we all start with the same abilities, skills, resources, etc. What that means is we are all equal in the eyes of the law. That's the level playing field, and we have it, at least in theory. Other societies don't. Of course, this leads to the problem created by governmental meddling with the welfare state, which Denny's mentioned many times over.
Some succeed financially and some don't, for whatever reason, including ambition, effort, or lack thereof. But the opportunities are there. Thats your level playing field.
And Matt, why do you turn every discussion into a debate about societal (governmental) responsibility to provide for the poor? Can't we even debate terrorism without getting into that? We all know your views on the former, can't we get beyond that and talk about something else?
Posted by: Daniel on August 12, 2004 12:35 PMSorry, dudes: this has turned into another rich/poor thread. Its one of my bugbears - I've always wanted to be equal to everyone else, so I strive for an equal society. my cp gave me an inferiority complex, I suppose.
Apporopos islam, elisibeth, we are not in a holy war! this isn''t islam vursus christianity. that you would think so I find ridiculous. we're not in a thousand year war: If we were, I'd say it's high time humanity abandoned the foolish notion of religion.
question: how can we conquer something which is not finite and has no borders?
Posted by: matthew g on August 12, 2004 01:04 PMyou would argue that poor people are poor because they are lazyOf course not. Don't insult me with such sophistry.
For there to be uniform poverty (particularly in America), laziness would be a component. Not getting married would be another. Where people are married and both work, you do not find poverty.
We were discussing broad, uniform applications, so I referenced it as a broad generality. Of course not all poor people are lazy. Jesus.
America is fighting something she cannot defeat.
When it is shown that Sharia and Islamism (Wahhabism) have no application in reality, they, too, will join the graveyard of horrific and evil ideas.
The alternative, saying they cannot be defeated, is an appeasement stance. It is the policy of a Jimmy Carter. Actually, we can thank Jimmy for this whole mess.
Posted by: addison on August 12, 2004 01:34 PMmy cp gave me an inferiority complex, I suppose.That would be a great starting point for you to step back and analyze your thinking.
No one--no one--here has criticized or attacked you for having CP. They attack and critique your ideas, not the physical you. If someone did otherwise, they would catch Hell from Denny and other posters here.
You are no less to me because of CP and you need to know that; you need to understand that. I am sure Denny feels the same way; that is why he is so patient with you. He sees potential that goes beyond what you view as an inferiority. You use what you perceive as an inferiority as a mental crutch and develop your thoughts from that. You're smarter than that; you can work around it.
Posted by: addison on August 12, 2004 02:19 PMNonono, mr Addison - I know you didn't disrespect me for my c.p, and i'm sorry if you inferred that. What I mean is tthat I am usually unequal to my peers on a physical level - for example,, my brothers can do sport better than I can ettc. this has given me an urge to become equal to my peers, which makes marx appeal to me. It is all about making people equal.
We both know that marx has as much chance of working than I have bowling like freddiie flintoff! but just as I can still bowl a few balls to my brothers, I think elements of marxism, such as the wealthfare safety-net, are necessary.
I'm sorry if i'm using my c.p in this debate too much. if it's getting nauusiating, please say.
Posted by: matthew g on August 12, 2004 03:15 PMAddison - "Actually, we can thank Jimmy for this whole mess." Amen, brother.
Matt - "What I mean is tthat I am usually unequal to my peers on a physical level - for example,, my brothers can do sport better than I can ettc".
Who gives a crap? Take that in the spirit in which it is intended, friend. Know what? Your brothers can probably do better in sports than me too (except for hunting and anything firearms related, but that's beside the point). Point is, we don't care. If we were placing bets on the football field, maybe, but here, it is the competition of ideas.
Bottom line is this - your c.p. will be an impediment only of you let it be. Are things harder for you because of it? Certain things probably are, but we never would have known about it if you hadn't mentioned it, so we strongly encourage you to develop your ideas and arguments independent of that.
Don't view your c.p. as a burden which places you behind others at the starting gate. It only will be if you let it. We all have some thing or another we could rely on for excuses, including me, but - its not how you start, its how you finish.
Enough with the freakin pep talk - DEFEND YOUR POSITIONS!
Marxism? PLEASE! At least support something that hasn't yet been proven wrong.
Matthew - We're trying real hard here but we cannot seem to break through to you. Marxism has been and always will be a colossal failure. Do you know why? Human nature. If everyone is equal and every one makes the same amount of money where is the incentive? Why should someone go to medical school and work long hours learning to be a doctor when he will make the same amount of money (or less) than a taxi driver. In fact, taxi drivers did make more than doctors in the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union could not compete with the United States because there was no incentive for their people to work hard. Is that the kind of society you desire? Where have all the medical advances occurred? Not in communist countries. The country with the best health care system in the world happens to be the United States which is the most capitalistic society in the world.
You are looking for equality of outcomes which guarantees mediocrity. In the United States we have equality of opportunity. I give as examples my sister and myself who grew up poor and members of a dysfunctional family. We got no financial assistance from the gummint because this was before the Great Society of Lyndon Johnson. We did have equality of opportunity and we both took advantage of it. Through hard work and education we both became rich. In the United States that is possible for almost anyone who is willing to work hard enough. And my career really took off after I became disabled. Do you know why? Because I didn't want anyone to say that the only reason I had a job was because I was a cripple, so I worked harder. I put in 60 hour weeks. I outworked my peers and was rewarded for it.
I'm sure none of my readers wants to abolish the social safety net. We do, however, want to abolish the social hammock which consists of parasites who live off the gummint.
Get rid of your Marxist ideas. They have been completely discredited by the history of the 20th Century.
Posted by: Denny Wilson on August 12, 2004 08:30 PMI'm sure everyone's ideas regarding the extent government social services should be provided would be interesting to hear. How many readers here have ever had to rely on government assistance in order to make ends meet until they were back on their feet? I think it would be interesting to know.
Posted by: crash on August 13, 2004 12:43 AMI'm not sure about what you said about health care - I'm a great believer in the NHS, free at the point of use etc - but broadly you speak the truith about incentives etc. why become a doctor when one can be a taxi driver for the same money?
I think i'm for a broadly capitalistic society with a social safety net in certain areas like healthcare. this doesn't mean outlawing private healthcare, but I still think sociaalised healthcare is necessarry for those who might need it.
Posted by: matthew g on August 13, 2004 05:19 AMMatthew: You may think we're not in a holy war, but that's what the Muslims think. Didn't Osama bring up the crusades? Hello? They are STILL in that mindset. We'd better be, too.
And as for health care, I'm a volunteer EMT. In a region that is not known as the high rent garden spot of Richmond. I've picked up people who were UNDER the bottom of the barrel. No one, and I repeat no one, has ever been kicked out of the hospital because they didn't have the money. All have been given the same treatment as one who could pay.
Crash, I was one. I went on welfare from January to March of 1979 due to medical circumstances. The man at the welfare office was absolutely flabbergasted when I called to say that I would be returning to work. There was at least 30 seconds of silence on his end of the line. Since I had called to say that I would be returning to work in the middle of March and would you like half the money back, he then said that I could keep the money. I thanked him and hung up and never went back. That's what welfare should be but isn't.
Elizabeth
Imperial Keeper
elizebeth, your second and 3rd paragraph I agree with, and have no problem with. However, it's your attitude to the war that scares me.
to think this tis a christian vursus muslim war is wrong. it's as if you want to destroy the entire islamic faith before they destroy us. Well, firstly, the islamic terrorists are insane, secondly, they want to destroy the west which (contrary to the belliefs of some evangelical nuts) isn't the same thing as western civilisation, and thirdly, to engage them in such a crusade will only make things worse..
Posted by: matthew g on August 13, 2004 10:41 AMGood for you, Elizabeth! I've never used a government program for assistance, but I have leaned on my family a few times. I believe the family should be the ones to bear the burden, not the government. That's just the way my family is. I realize this isn't the norm. It's a dependence issue. Does one depend on my family, who may set rules and carry expectations I will have to meet in order to receive their continued assistance, or do I rely on a faceless government organization whose bueracracy?(I'm too lazy to look it up this hour)is easy to abuse and penalties are almost nil? Maybe social welfare has something to do with transferring dependency from the family to that of the government. What do I know? I'm just a blue collar Joe.
My fear is hxaving to depend on one's family would only make one's family poor beginning aaa vicious circle of poverty.
Posted by: matthew g on August 14, 2004 07:39 AMMatthew - Once again you are looking at things through the lens of your having CP. None of the Republicans/libertarians who comment on this site have any problems with the gummint dealing with cases like yours. I'm all for taking care of the poor who are poor through no fault of their own or who have a temporary problem like Elizabeth. What we are against is people who game the system.
In my particular case, my family at times would have been eligible for food stamps and AFDC (Aid for families with dependent children) if they had had those programs when I was growing up. In all probability we would have done what Elizabeth did. What we did was what humans have done since time began: relied on family resources, not for support but for things like hand-me-down clothes. My mother could stretch a dollar a mile. My sister and I both started working at a very young age. I quit getting an allowance after I was 14. I worked in the school cafeteria and for that I got a free lunch and 35 cents a day. The 35 cents was more than my previous allowance. I have said before that I raked leaves, cut lawns and did other yard work, cleaned gutters, and shoveled snow (That trained me for shoveling bullshit.) Gummint should not be in the business of supporting people, especially those who are capable of supporting themselves. We have thrown $5 trillion dollars at poverty since the Great Fucking Society began in the middle 60's. All it has done is create a class of people dependenat on the gummint, who by the way, vote for Dimocrats, because they will continue giving them money with no accountability.
Please tell me where socialism has ever worked without bringing down the economy. You can see that France is in trouble with their generous version of socialism. The example always used for successful socialism is Sweden and they are starting to reap what they have sown
Posted by: Denny Wilson on August 14, 2004 12:12 PMMatthew,
In many cases I have seen families who rely on each other increase their wealth and standard of living. Young adults are in such a hurry to be 'independent' of their parents they move out of the house before creating and saving any substantial wealth. I'm not talking hundreds of thousands of dollars, but enough money to make a healthy down payment on a house and a fully paid for vehicle. Instead they move out and struggle paycheck to paycheck trying to pay for a new car or truck and STILL make rent payments for a shitty apartment they will never own nor ever have the potential to sell. Bad decisions and poor judgements(unprotected sex, gambling, drinking, lotto tickets, etc.) just contribute to the struggling individual. Should my money go to help someone because they choose to spend twenty dollars a week on lotto tickets, forty dollars a week on alcohol, and then still try to take care of their poor children's needs? Vicious cycle of poverty? Maybe. But it's been broken over and over again by people who, not by government assistance, but by their own hands and intelligence recognized the need to change their habits and make their lives better for themselves and their children. My family did it, so can many more. Tools should be provided by the government to help people better themselves. I believe the government should strive to create conditions to stimulate economic growth and job creation. That's it. The rest if up to you. Get a job, work hard, make some money, show some pride in what you do. Be smart with your money and life will take care of itself.
:)
Posted by: crash on August 14, 2004 06:14 PMIf poor people are dunderheaded enough to spend what little money they have on beer, cigarettes and such, then your right. we should encourage hard work, not sloth, or we'll never get anywhere. NB, although I recieve DLA, I have every intention of getting a job (after university). But how can one tell the difference between the unlucky poor and the stupid poor?
btw, saw a program on stalin yesterday, and I have no mre fantasiess about communism.
Posted by: matthew g on August 15, 2004 11:12 AMThis will be my last comment on this thread.
Matthew,
What person living in poverty doesn't consider his/herself unlucky? If assistance were to come from the goverment, I'd much rather see it organized and operated on a much lower/local level. Make the local community see the results of their money and not just pouring their income into some federal bueracracy and take them for their word the money is helping some poverty stricken community in northeast Ohio or central Wyoming. So many of us have clawed our way out of a low income existence by our own initiative, is it so hard to understand why we don't desire to see our income taxed for programs which prop up others? The world isn't fair. Life isn't fair. A fair playing field is the best we can hope for and if the government can create and maintain such conditions it's the best one can hope for. I think socialists hearts are in the right place, but their minds fail to see the human limitations on such policies. Man will corrupt where he can. Be it a capitalist, socialist, communist, fascist, whatever society. So far capitalism and the republic have been the only two when combined to catapault incomes and living conditions which set the standards all other countries on this planet try to mimic. I can see I'm rambling here as the Nyquil has set in. Look forward to chatting with you in other posts, Matt.
C.
Posted by: crash on August 15, 2004 09:56 PM