Greatest Placard Ever

August 5, 2007

Leave the Che shirt, take the poster.

Leave the Che shirt, take the poster.


9 Responses to “Greatest Placard Ever”

  1. O.G. Says:

    Ahh, the new NIE must really hurt.

    (Don’t worry, here’s an essay that can deal with this pain for you; you can add it to your collection of war-cheerleading pieces.)

  2. Who the hell are you to send me links to Podhoretz?

    I couldn’t be happier about the National Intelligence Estimate.

    Feel free to let me know which pieces are “war-cheerleading.” And since you seem a pretty simple-minded reader and happy assumption maker, let me explain it to you: I’m not being facetious; I like this placard and I agree with its sentiment.

  3. O.G. Says:

    My mistake. I must’ve mistakenly and wrong-headedly assumed, from your collection of essays and your blog posts, that you fully supported the invasion of Iraq — though you may quibble with the administration’s execution of and follow through on the invasion — and would cheerfully support the bombing or invasion of Iran.

    But as you suggest, that’s probably just my simple-minded and incorrect reading. My bad. Obviously I was wrong, and you would not and did not support — much less cheer on — either effort, and you would never agree with the positions of someone like Podhoretz, or say, Daniel Pipes. You obviously never believed, in the wake of 9/11, that our prime objective should be to invade Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. And once we had invaded Iraq and created a monumental disaster there, you never would’ve endorsed, for our next act, bombing Iran.

    Thanks for setting me straight.

  4. Who the hell are you? Why do you care what I think? Do I know you? Did I meet you with Kris and offend you? Why do I have to justify myself to you, especially considering you’re wrong in every assumption and insinuation you make about me?

    Here’s what judgements I would make about you if I were as simple minded in my black and white assumptions as you seem to be:

    You’re a Chamberlain, a Hamas donater, a Ron Paul Googler, an appeaser, an anti-semite, a defender of Saudi rape laws, a moral relativist, an honor killer, an anti-Christmas warrior, a pacifist, a burqa-on-the-wife-and-daughter enforcer, a Chomskyite, an only-Kucinich-can-save-us man, a communist, an anti-Afghanistan war Taliban excuser, an anti-American, a female genital mutilator, a Micheal Moore fan who thinks the chickens were coming home to roost on 9/11 and, hell, they were all little Eichmans anyway.

    Do you like those assumptions being made about you? No, probably not. I’m sure they’re not true, and I wouldn’t make such assumptions about you or anyone else – but I could care less. You should just hear how dumb you sound when you talk about someone you don’t even know.

    Since you seem determined to believe things about my opinions that aren’t true (Why are you interested in what I think anyway? Don’t you have anything better to do than spend your time thinking about someone you don’t even know?) let me “set you straight” about what I think (sorry, since you would really like to pigeon-hole me, if I don’t see things as black and white as you do, and am given to qualifications and, indeed, ‘quibbles’):

    A. I was against the Iraq war.

    B. I am against bombing Iran, and was happy to hear about the NIE, because 1. it meant it is less likely they are building a bomb and 2. the Bush administration now has less excuses to bomb Iran, and is now very unlikely to.

    C. I detest Podhoretz, and I don’t like Pipes (that doesn’t mean I approve of shouting him down like a pack of thugs – I wouldn’t approve such theatrical protests in almost any case – I’m for freedom of speech and common decency during debates).

    There’s nothing in any of my posts that suggests otherwise.

    In the apparently offensive essays by others I’ve posted you might be able to, as you troll for evidence of warmongering, find a handful of sentences that “support” “the war,” or other things that you – in your righteousness – disagree with. Well, in that case, you got me. I posted those essays because I agree with their general theses, if not every point (none of them, I think, call for war on Iran or Iraq or sing songs of love to Podhoretz), and I think they’re well written (most of them were posted so I could recommend them to specific friends via email).

    Again, feel free to tell me which ones are “war-cheerleading,” and which of my posts led you to believe I supported Iraq or bombing Iran (let me anticipate a couple of responses: I have mastered the ability to be both against hanging homosexuals in Iran and bombing Iran, and can hold both of these opinions in my head at the same time: radical Islamists are scary, and so is Dick Cheney.)

    Or, just be a man and admit you were wrong and guilty of making false accusations.

    (I really could care less if you post a response, but please don’t use phrases like “my bad” again.)

  5. O.G. Says:

    First, I hope your paragraph of hatred felt good and provided you with some cathartic release (I especially liked the cute “I’m sure they’re not true” ). I don’t think I came anywhere near matching your level of vitriol: as I read that paragraph, I could feel the enraged spittle flying. You have outdone me, sir. Congratulations. I apologize for hitting any raw nerves. Now we will attempt the “common deceny during debates” that you endorse. (Also, I support Obama, by the way.)

    Second, I stand corrected. I was wrong in making my assumption simply because you had posted articles by Christopher Hitchens (eleven of them), author of “A War to Be Proud Of” and bellicose supporter of the Iraq war, Victor David Hanson, author of “Looking Back at Iraq: A War to Be Proud Of“, another vociferous supporter of the invasion of Iraq, etc., and that you have posted no essays by opponents of the Iraq War, and I have found no evidence on this site that you were against the Iraq War or against military action against Iran. Given this background and the tenor of your posts and the nature of the sites you have linked to, I am, frankly, amazed to learn that you were against the Iraq war. This just shows my ignorance and lack of imagination. I am guilty of false assumptions — if not quite “false accusations”.

    And you’re right, it is weird that I would care at all what you think; it’s absolutely none of my business, even though you’ve made your blog accessible to anyone on the planet with an internet connection. But it really is none of my business.

    (I have tried to keep my language and phrases to your liking this time — I hope I succeeded.)

  6. I think you just said, in your comment, that you were wrong, but you still seem to try to justify that your out-of-the-blue sarcastic attack was due to my “spittle,” “vitriol” and your overwhelming temptation to comment on someone’s blog just because it wasn’t blocking everyone. (Couldn’t you have just said “Sorry, I got a little carried away cause I’m upset about Bush and the war?”)

    I am in fact fairly surethose cliches like “appeaser” and “anti-semite” are not true about your or almost anyone else – I cringe when I hear them used. You might have been a Ron Paul googler or a Michael Moore fan, but obviously my point was that almost no one would like to be called any of those things, and it would be lame – and thought-avoiding cliche – to make those conclusions about someone just because they oppose “the war.” Learn your lesson, and don’t make prejudice assumptions about someone you don’t know, especially when there is enough evidence right in front of you.

    You were indeed wrong to make those assuptions about why I posted essays by Hitchens and Hanson, and yet you still try to sound sarcastic about it.

    It’s also lame and ideological to think that because Hitchens is a supporter of the war, that his other essays (once again, none of the ones I’ve posted here are “supporting the war”) have no literary or good-times value. In fact, as he’s – in yourr eyes – so notorious for only supporting the war, you might have noticed that everything I posted by him was specifically not about the war.

    “The deadly sin is to say ‘X is a political enemy: therefore he is a bad writer’.” Look it up, and try to use “Two Minutes Hate” in a way that wouldn’t embarrass it’s writer next time (he would have been the first to boo and laugh at a oligarch’s puppet who claimed his country didn’t have the “phenomenon” of homosexuality while not so secretly killing thousands).

    As for Hanson, I’ve spent about ten minutes of my life thinking about him, outside of appreciating that essay. If you’ve got the goods on him, more power to you.

    Be “amazed” indeed that someone, might think outside of the little boxes you put them in (despite the “tenor” of my posts — and which “tenor” offended you so much?). You might also read the post about the Iraqi interpreters, or click on the “Bush on Science” essay, read what I wrote there, and feel stupider than you already do.

    I don’t feel the need to prove I was against the war by posting essays about it, just like I don’t feel like I have to wear a little American flag pin to prove I’m a patriot (be amazed that I support Obama too). Umberto Eco said he made the first hundred pages of the Name of the Rose intentionally boring to weed out the readers he didn’t want anyway; if you feel so righteous to make such comments about me based on what you see here, I know about all I care to know about you.

    I post things here for my friends, but I’m happy for anyone to read them. Yes, anyone on the planet. I claim the right, however, to mock them (you ditched the decency in debate, not me) if they decide to spend their time trying and failing to make a (stupid, middle school) point at my expense, and in front of my friends and acquaintances. People do read what I write here, and if they don’t know me well or are as narrow-minded as you they might believe what you write. You should watch what your libelous comments on blogs that anyone on the planet can read.

    If you find some big distinction between declaring your (false) assumptions about someone to everyone on the planet (and yet with the knowledge that only that person’s friends will read them) and making false accusations, you’ve managed some mental acrobatics that surpass how you avoided all the evidence contrary to your assumptions about me in the first place. You seem to be good at that.

    And you have avoided dumb, cringe-inducing cliches in your writing this time, thanks (almost: “enraged spittle (?),” “you have out done me, sir,” “stand corrected,” and “hit a raw nerve” all got to go). Try doing it with your ideas and ideological assumptions next time, and you might ease up on the sarcasm-as-admittance as well.

  7. And the nature of what sites that I link to? Democracy Now and New York Review of Books? Were those not enough to make you doubt your pigeon-holing? I think the links I have balance out just fine between the two black and white sides of conflict you’ve drawn for the world. I guess I should have included Wonkette.

  8. O.G. Says:

    Honestly, I am not being sarcastic right now, but that was hilarious.

    Maybe you missed it — I’d draw a picture to make it clearer for you — but my comment about your “vitriol” and “spittle” was directed to the the third paragraph in your second comment, the one that begins with “You’re a Chamberlain, a Hamas donater, ….”. Take a look back and see if you get it.

    Also, if you’re going to try to correct the writing of others, please try to use English properly yourself. Just a thought.

    Okay, enough of all that — none of this, from my side or yours, is in the holiday spirit. And it’s mostly my fault for starting it, Honestly, I am sorry that I was wrong about your views and apologies for upsetting you.

  9. I got what paragraph you were referring to, you don’t need to “draw me a picture”. My point was that, now that you must admit you “stand corrected”, you still try to suggest that because certain topics like “the war” (what war?) were raised, and some posts had a certain “tenor” (what posts?) plus with the “nature” of the links here and the “bellicose and vociferous” writers whose essays, while while not being about the war, were still so suggestive of right wing hysteria — all of these things overpowered you into commenting wrongly about someone you know nothing about. If I confused some of your hackneyed words and phrases that, when certain topics like “the war” are raised, you tack together like the sections of a prefabricated henhouse (look it up) — well that’s what happens when my tenor turns to bellicose vitriol and enraged spittle.

    With “Given this background and the tenor of your posts and the nature of the sites you have linked to… you suggest that your urge to post foolish, narrow-minded assumptions was reasonable. It was not, it was dumb.

    And if, as you sift around for some final point to make so as not look completely like an ass, you think trying to make it look like I don’t know the difference between “its” and “it’s” is a real gotcha moment… Typos happen; your platitudes and trolling hunt for war cheerleaders, and your determination to prove I am one goes far to confirming my assumption that you live in the Black and White Land of the Anti-war, where anyone who reads something Hitchens wrote is a neocon and anyone who mocks murderous Islamists is an Islamaphobe.

    I’m not upset; since my second comment it’s been my pleasure and duty to mock you (as you thought it was your duty and right to mock me when you thought I was for various warmongering actions: “This person I don’t know has ELEVEN Hitchens articles! Therefore I must be sarcastic towards him! No doubt he thinks Saddam was behind 9/11, too! Goes without saying he wants to bomb Iran. I’ll teach him to have such thoughts: ‘Oooh, the NIE must hurt, nyah, nyah, nyah’.” And that is just about the only thought process by which you could have arrived at your assumptions).

    I think people who think and act like you should be treated with derision and contempt, lest they think they can get away with not behaving decently, and with arguing without thinking. How would you put it? “You started it,” and then couldn’t bring yourself to can it. Your first comment was assumptive and sarcastic, your second one, even after I explained what I thought, was triply so, plus accusative. When you finally get around to apologizing (”in the holiday spirit”) it’s qualified (”mostly”? try “entirely”) and preceded by a childish last-ditch effort to insult.

    Too late, and too qualified: apology not accepted. Get lost. Wonkette’s waiting.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: