|The Mudville Gazette|
Friday, March 21, 2003
Greyhawk's quality guarantee: If I quote you, plagiarize you, or even mention you here I will gladly post your e-mail response alongside it! (Unless you spew venomous Nazi insults) The rest of you will have to be witty.
Also, you might be able to 'attack' me live on Scott Ott's ScrappleFace - http://www.scrappleface.com - if I'm not there you'll still have fun with the people who are, and Scott Ott is the finest news reporter of the day, period!
AND THEN FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT:
"Ooglay Hussein's Diary" is now online at http://crazythirdson.blogspot.com/
WHAT NEXT FROM LEFT FIELD?AS THE LEFT STRUGGLES TO SALVAGE SOMETHING from the "ashes of defeat", can you feel some little sympathy for them - timing their little demonstrations for what they thought was the height of the bombing that never came? Naaah, me neither.
So will we see damage comparisons between Baghdad and San Fran? Oh well, gotta expect some losses. (Hey, San Franciscans, I know the majority of you are good and moral people. You have my sympathy.)
Here's the next spin-job heading down the pike. Are you ready?
"The Iraqi people would have overthrown Saddam years ago if it wasn't for the sanctions"
Do I need to address the obvious? Coming from the Iraqi people (and I surely wish nothing but the best for them now and always) this will sound like a pale attempt for sympathy, or an excuse for not tossing Stalin Jr. 10 years ago.
Coming from elsewhere it will be used to advance agendas and in support of this corollary:
" We owe the Iraqi people _(insert whatever you think we owe them here)__ for the years of suffering we caused them"
Of course, the U.S. will be providing for the Iraqi people for some time, but as always, watch out for the "we" people, know what I mean?
And here's the most insidious corollary, which also will likely be used as a stand-alone:
"Bush decided not to Bomb because of our protests"
Great self-esteem booster for the flower power throw-backs, sure-fire recruiting tool, will look good on the cover of the brochures.)
And here, if it's true, is another one (we'll know soon)
"Bush just got lucky"
There will be variations on the theme, I'm sure, but I'll bet most will sound like these basic lines. I might even keep a scorecard.
Pathetic. But if you find yourself discussing it here or elsewhere, be nice to the poster (they're probably just parroting) politely point out their failed logic, and you might gain a convert. Or at least plant that first kernel of truth.
They're going to come out of the woodwork people, from every persuasion, every imaginable group, every imaginable agenda. "Now we have to...."
But what do you think, does the CinC have a plan?
Seems like it so far...
Thursday, March 20, 2003
FIRST IRAQI SOLDIERS ACCUSED OF BIOLOGICAL WARFARE!!Iraq, near the Kuwaiti border (IP):
American soldiers today captured two Iraqi combatants who were promptly charged with Biological Warfare Crimes.
"They were hurling what appeared to be fecal matter at the approaching Company of US GIs." Said Camp Spokesperson Capt Jeff (Names changed for security purposes) "and on closer examination it turned out to be Camel dung."
When questioned, the two revealed they were Iraqi regular Army members, and only wanted to surrender.
"Hurling Camel Dung with our hands was our only weapon" said one. "since we lost the rubber-band powered dung launcher Saddam gave us."
When quizzed as to why they threw dung at people they wanted to surrender to, the pair explained "We thought they were Republican Guards."
----IP Staff and Wire reports
Wednesday, March 19, 2003
I will post any response you care to send to
(Or provide link to your own Blog)
A SIMPLE CIVIL DISCUSSION ON THE EVE OF WARYaksun,
You addressed a post to me on ScrappleFace. I choose to answer here rather then take up space there. I reproduce your post below, and enter my comments.
Again we engage in civil discourse. (To others who may read this: Yaksun and I have "spoken" before.) First a minor rebuke to you sir, for exposing your anger in replies to others who replied to this post. You lost ground. I know, you're a Texan! I respect that. Angry Texans are what make our military great. I mean it.
A second rebuke: you called me by name at the start of your post. But then you made me into a straw man by inventing positions to argue against. I don't think that's what you intended to do, none the less you did. We agree on many fundamental things. We diverge on the details.
Because I respect you ,
I answer you.
Your paragraphs are bold, mine are not.
"I support the US troops and wish for their safety.
"It is my right as a free, thinking citizen to conclude that the Bush administration has not shown evidence justifying the making of war on Iraq at this time, as opposed to, say, North Korea. Every reason he has given has so far paled when exposed to the light of day."
I will stand with you against any who would deny you your right.
You are right in the NK comparison. Here is what I would say to NK: "Practice falling down, We'll be there in a minute" ; )
We were committed to Iraq first. You know that. You (or anyone) attacking Bush for not switching in mid-stride is unwarranted. I mean really, think that through, okay?
And think back to the "axis" speech.
I pray we "solve" Korea diplomatically.
And I pray the NK "leaders" are not as insane as I fear they are.
The "paled in light of day" is your opinion. You are welcome to it.
"Enforcing the UN resolutions following Gulf War I: Why now? One could argue that 100,000 UN troops on the ground in Iraq would keep the peace just as effectively. Can anyone deny that Saddam has been peaceful AND compliant by the simple presence of hostile troops nearby?"
Hypotheticals. We'll never know what a united world could have achieved. But the UN could not agree on anything, the situation degenerated, and here we are. Status quo was not working. The French were too desperate for oil and trade at any cost. Well-intentioned Americans were led into the streets by Communists (and others) with an agenda. The media distorted the split. Many in America and abroad thought they could manipulate the situation to their personal gain. They miscalculated. The fire is lit.
"Terrorism - 9/11: How many Iraqis flew planes into US targets? There is NO evidence tying Iraq to al quaeda. Apparently, Bin Laden despises Saddam for the degenerate he really is."
Okay, so Bin Laden can help us on this one then...right? But you are correct. Personally I pray for the collective lives of the Iraqi people. Many of them (not all) look to us as their hope for the future. As I stated clearly in previous posts: those who brought this war upon us have blood on their hands. A united world could have ended Saddam's reign of terror. (Please don't give me comparisons to other dictators we've supported in the 70's or haven’t gotten to yet. See my Korea comments above.)
"Freedom for Iraqis: Freedom apparently means constitutional democracy, American style. Well you heard it here first, American style democracy is not a one size fits all concept. It requires, for one thing, a stable economy. It also requires as a corollary, a working class. A person who's main thought for each day is getting food for his kid's belly doesn't give a rat's arse about the nuances between one party and another. And what about the Afghans? Aren't they entitled to freedom, too. Or shall they be relegated to the pages of history like a jilted lover?"
This is not a "liberal attitude" as some have said. It is neither liberal nor conservative. It does, however, sound elitist. The average citizen of the world does indeed consider a day successful when he or she has fed his or her family or self. But Iraq is an oil-rich nation that has been trading with the world uninterrupted for years. Indeed they should have a middle class and a stable economy. Like Qatar, or Kuwait. What then is the difference in Iraq? You and I both know it's not America's fault, and it's not anyone named "Bush" or "Clinton".
Afghanistan: We are still there. We have not abandoning them. If you have forgotten them, I assure you I have not. Who is helping us? We did not destroy that nation - it was rubble before the first bomb fell.
The people who rush to be human shields in Baghdad could have rushed to help "post war" Afghans instead. Still can, now that they've fled (or been kicked out of) Iraq. Why haven't they? Has it never occurred to these world- minded people?
(I deleted a paragraph here. I'll reinsert it and comment if you want but I think on re-reading you may agree. I got the impression you were speaking in anger. Your call, you know where to find me.)
"What troubles me now is that Bush, by default, has found the best reason to galvanize the public in suppert for this adventure - France is opposed to it. Rather than having one clearly identifiable positive reason, he will rely on the public's resentment at feeling betrayed by our "ally" - stabbed in the back as it were. Okay, by God, we'll show them who the No. 1 Superpower is. We don't need anybody!!! Is that really the best reason to go to war with Iraq at this time?"
I thought about deleting this paragraph for you too. I believe you spoke in haste. You have insulted your fellow Americans here, Yaksun. Let's be realistic, do you really believe any American anywhere is willing to go to war (or send their sons to war) to spite France? The French, in their Gallic pride, may believe that Yaksun. Do you really want to go on the record with this? Again I think you spoke in haste, and I hereby give you the opportunity to recant...
"Now you know a good clean debate is great fun. But you yourself said it best. Somebody's mom, wife or kids are going to be receiving flags when this is over instead of their loved one. And that's just on our side."
"We will win. Saddam will be out, and that's good from a relative standpoint. Maybe we'll even find that reason for being there in the first place. I hope it happens and quickly. Cuz just wait till Al-Jazeera starts rolling that film of all those mutilated, asphyxiated, blistered women and children..."
God bless you sir. They may indeed roll that video, then, there will also be video of celebrations, then exposure of war crimes, then accusations and counter accusations, ad infinitum, and more wars will be fought and people will die, and the world will continue to turn.
"Call me still unconvinced. It's my right."
"Posted by yaksun at March 18, 2003 04:52 PM"
It's your right as an American Yaksun. And I'll defend it proudly. And I'll say no more.
Tuesday, March 18, 2003
Host: Hi there callers, megadillos! I'm back for another day of hot political chat! Who? Phil Gonerwho, that's who! First on-air personality for the multi-millionaire funded nation-wide anti-capitalist liberal talk radio network. The Name of my new show is "Buck Fush"
(sound of applause - theme music plays - Elton John's "Sad Songs")
Host: Yes, today we're all as sad as D'ashole because Bush is such a fool that he couldn't unite the world to stop a madman like Saddam Hussein! What a loser! But hey, it's not all bad, every cloud has a silver lining! And we're going to talk about why this war is bad for America, a disaster for the Stock Market, and good for the Democratic party!
(Audience applauds loudly)
Let's start with a call. And folks we've got a conservative listener on line one. Go ahead caller, you're on!
Caller: Phil, the stock market is going up, but you said,,,
Host: Well...isn't that the typical right-wing response? People are going to die in a war and all you care about is your investment portfolio! You rich republicans kill me!
Caller: They'd like to kill you, Phil, but their morals interfere. But I'm not rich. I don't even have enough money to invest Phil, I was just responding to...
Host: You have no money to invest, and you think the Bush tax cut will fix that? Buddy you won't get enough for car repairs...
Caller: I wasn't talking about the Bush tax cut...
Host: Nobody's talking about it now, and that's the way Bush wants it. It's another reason he's going to war, to distract from the failed economy!!!!
We'll be back people, after a word from our sponsors...
Monday, March 17, 2003
LIBERAL TALK RADIO HITS THE AIR
Host: Hi there callers, megadillos! I'm Phil Gonerwho, formerly a big-time TV star, now the first host of the new multi-millionaire funded nation-wide anti-capitalist liberal talk radio network. The Name of my new show is "Buck Fush"
(sound of applause)
We are gonna roast those conservatives here, people! The gloves are off now that I'm no longer on that ultra right-wing MSNBC show. Can you believe they fired me, even though with seven viewers I had the highest ratings on the network? We were increasing in ratings every week people, and the man shut me down!
But I'm back, and the gloves are off! Welcome to "Buck Fush", where we tell it like it is!
(Loud cheers, then the theme music plays, it's "Goodbye Earl" by the Dixie Chicks!")
Host: (as music fades): okay lets start right off by taking a couple calls...hello, Fort Dix New Jersey, you're on "Buck Fush"
Caller: Hey, Megadillos, Phil. About time we had an intelligent talk radio show. Thank the Goddess you're off MSNBC and available to get the word out to the masses!"
Host: Thanks caller! What's on your mind today?
Caller: Hey I think what you're doing is great! But you've got to stop playing Dixie Chicks! I'm a NOW member and they offend women of intelligence everywhere with that "Chicks" thing...
Host: Yes, but they're anti-war and that means we play 'em here on "Buck Fush!" It's all about free speech here, lady. This isn't one of those loud conservative hate monger shows! Call back with a real issue. Next caller. Chicago, you're on "Buck Fush"!
Caller 2: Ahhh yes, hello. This is the Reverend Jack Jesson., and ahh..
Host: Wow! On five minutes and a call from the top! (crowd noise, appreciative ooohs and ahhhs) What's on your mind sir?
Caller 2: That "Dixie" music is highly offensive to..."
Host: Say no more! You'll never hear that hate music on this show again! I knew we could expose those racist fascists for what they were! Megadillos to you sir, what else can we dialogue on?
Caller 2: Well, ahhhh, given the highly volatile and sad state of affairs that is the world today I ahhh... feel that we need to focus our efforts on broad scale issues...ahhh ...issues that affect the community, that seperate people, when they most need to be united together! So yes, I’m off to resolve a little problem with a flag in South Carolina!
(Click...dialtone...brief quiet pause, applause grows to thunderous ovation)
Host: Wow, (applause quiets, like turning down a volume knob) the heavy hitters are lining up to speak on "Buck Fush" - the long awaited radio voice of the liberal left. Okay folks, today's topic is "Bush is a Big Fat Dumb Head". The Phew Institute took a poll of our focus group and found that 95% of them think it would violate the constitution to go to war without UN approval. Still it looks like that moron in the oval office wants to override public opinion, kill Iraqi babies and their mothers, and enrage the terrorists who will fly their planes into our elementary schools and we will deserve it. Bush is a big fat idiot! What do you think callers? Line 2, Berkeley, you're on!
Caller 3: Yea, megadillos, Phil! Love the show, it's the real new age answer to Rush!
Host: Thank you caller. I agree completely, I am great. But let's not compare to Rush! We here at the Excrement in Broadcasting Network do not invite comparisons to anyone! Now what's your take on Bush?
Caller 3: I agree, Phill! Bush is a big fat idiot!
Host: Right on, caller, you have defined the issue exactly. Very insightful comment. Now for those of you who thought we wouldn't present an opposing view, here's another caller who's a little "right of center", shall we say...go ahead, South Beach, you're on!
Caller 4: Yea, look man, you guys are hosed dude. I mean, yea, you know, like, Bush, dude he's big and dumb but he's not fat, man. I mean come on....
Crowd Noise: Boooo booooo....
Host: No, no, let's let our man have his say...
Caller 4: Well he is kinda chunky...
Crowd errupts in cheers..
Host: Next caller! Portland Oregon
Caller 5: Yea Phil, megadillos, just wanted to point out that Bush is a big fat idiot and I hate that he's so anti-diversity...
Host: Whooaaa now caller, one topic at a time. Diversity is tomorrow's topic, we'll get there! Now we’ll be right back after this word from Evyan Water...
(theme music swells, it's Bob Dylan's "The Times They are a Changin') ...
Sunday, March 16, 2003
Just got back from Scrapple Face where I posted a request for anyone to provide a comparable site with a liberal point of view. Got some responses that included near misses, (hamster.com) and some tongue-in-cheek (Usama.com), but no real leads. The comment section on Scrapple Face, primarily a one-man news satire site, is quickly becoming the great public forum of our day. But it’s predominately conservative in nature. No surprise then, that the few attempts by liberal posters to make any points there are rather quickly exposed for what they are - feeble and poorly thought out, or mere repetitions of catch phrases and slogans. The ease with which these would-be pundits are dispatched with simple fact and logic is astounding. This was the motivating factor for my request: could I successfully run circles around them on their own forum? Imagine then my disappointment; there is no such forum!
Which lead me to this thought: The liberal view in the liberal vs. conservative debate can not survive the immediate "printed" media that is today's web.
Think about it. In Nazi Germany Hitler could address the masses without fear of another opinion. In communist nations of the later 20th century (and in American universities to this day) a few stooges in the rent-a-crowd to lead the cheers at the appropriate moments ensured minimum dissent from the hive-mind. In American TV debate a moron can chant catchy slogans (It's the economy, stupid! Where was George? If it don't fit, you must acquit!) and be declared "witty" by the media. And what about that media? Can you imagine CNN with a comment section like Scrapple Face? Why can't they have one?
Simple. Once a liberal puts feeble arguments in writing in a place where feedback can be delivered immediately and read by the same people reading the original argument then their comments can be exposed for the thoughtless drivel and nonsense that they are. When all parties can review and reflect (and re-read for accuracy) both sides of an argument, the logical, reasoned, and moral side will generally win the day. In 21st century American politics, that side is invariably the conservative side.
So since there’s no liberal equal to scrapple face, how about the more “traditional” news sites? Let USA Today put a "Comments" tag on their next protest march coverage (always complete with lots of photos of those "witty" signs; "Buck Fush" seems to be the most compelling anti-war statement of this generation.) Let CNN post a “comment” link with their next story about a poll telling me what the majority of Americans are thinking. C’mon Fox News, you guys are unbiased, right? Try it! I know we won’t get the die-hards to change their minds, but maybe we can stop the brainwashing of the young. Let’s all celebrate true diversity on the World Wide Web.
Til then, see y’all on Scrapple Face!
scroll about half way down for my original requests, continue down for responses
scroll about halfway down for my (and others) debate with “The Frenchman”
includes my debate with “Frogwatch” – my favorite