Doonesbury (10-12)
Antonio E. Gonzalez
<http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2008/10/12/>
On another note, great to see Chase again!
--
- ReFlex76
- "Let's beat the terrorists with our most powerful weapon . . . hot girl-on-girl action!"
- "The difference between young and old is the difference between looking forward to your next birthday, and dreading it!"
- Jesus Christ - The original hippie!
<http://reflex76.blogspot.com/>
<http://www.blogger.com/profile/07245047157197572936>
Katana > Chain Saw > Baseball Bat > Hammer
rex...@gmail.com
> Wow, he went there, and it even got published!:
>
> <http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2008/10/12/>
>
http://www.therightreasons.net/index.php?showtopic=10434
Scroll down a bit.
I wonder if they'll get away with THAT.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
>On Oct 13, 2:08 pm, Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Wow, he went there, and it even got published!:
>>
>> <http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2008/10/12/>
>>
>And somebody very convincingly rewrote it here:
>
>http://www.therightreasons.net/index.php?showtopic=10434
>
>Scroll down a bit.
>
Nope, not convincing at all; rather trite to boot! Rather telling
that you didn't even try to deny anything on the original comic!
Bill Ayers: Old and debunked; and re-debunked at the last debate;
nice new touch with the book thing.
Rev. Wright: *Really* old and debunked! (sorry, a 20 second gotcha
clip doesn't hold up to long-term scrutiny)
ACORN: This is already going down in flames upon closer examination.
Racism: This seems to be projection from racists, as I'm yet to hear
anyone in the Obama Campaign claim racism, much less Obama himself.
The campaign has been all about his tax plan and the economy of late;
you know, relevant stuff . . .
All this and more covered here, and the usual fact-check sites
(Snopes; FactCheck):
>I wonder if they'll get away with THAT.
Well, just about anything can be put on the internet, and I'm sure
there are extremist newsletters that have no problem with crap like
this . . .
Anyway, here's how it's done right, not right-wing . . .:
<http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2664888>
Carl Fink
> Nope, not convincing at all; rather trite to boot! Rather telling
> that you didn't even try to deny anything on the original comic!
However, you have to admit that the lettering looks a lot like Trudeau's.
--
Carl Fink nitpi...@nitpicking.com
Read my blog at blog.nitpicking.com. Reviews! Observations!
Stupid mistakes you can correct!
Jym Dyer
>> http://www.therightreasons.net/index.php?showtopic=10434
=v= Rarely has one web page sucked so very very much.
<_Jym_>
Antonio E. Gonzalez
wrote:
>On 2008-10-17, Antonio E Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Nope, not convincing at all; rather trite to boot! Rather telling
>> that you didn't even try to deny anything on the original comic!
>
>However, you have to admit that the lettering looks a lot like Trudeau's.
Well, yeah . . .
Dann
ac44c9...@25g2000prz.googlegroups.com.
> On Oct 13, 2:08 pm, Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Wow, he went there, and it even got published!:
>>
>> <http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2008/10/12/>
>>
> And somebody very convincingly rewrote it here:
>
> http://www.therightreasons.net/index.php?showtopic=10434
Both seem to have the BS meter at roughly the same level. IMO.
--
Regards,
Dann
blogging at http://web.newsguy.com/dainbramage/blog.htm
Freedom works; each and every time it is tried.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
>On 17 Oct 2008, said the following in news:b97f41a1-eb64-4f79-b1bf-
>ac44c9...@25g2000prz.googlegroups.com.
>
>> On Oct 13, 2:08 pm, Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> Wow, he went there, and it even got published!:
>>>
>>> <http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2008/10/12/>
>>>
>> And somebody very convincingly rewrote it here:
>>
>> http://www.therightreasons.net/index.php?showtopic=10434
>
>Both seem to have the BS meter at roughly the same level. IMO.
Please point out the problems with the original, then; the many
with the rewrite have already been covered . . .
rex...@gmail.com
> On 2008-10-17, Antonio E Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Nope, not convincing at all; rather trite to boot! Rather telling
> > that you didn't even try to deny anything on the original comic!
>
> However, you have to admit that the lettering looks a lot like Trudeau's.
> --
>
That's what I meant when I brought this up. Excellent hoax. And he
seems to be imitating Trudeau's idea-rhythm quite well. Most such
attempts aren't convincing at all. But this one had me going. When
there was no twist at the end, I knew I'd been hoaxed.
nickelshrink
Sure.
1. 5 different colleges? Who the bleep cares? I gather that is
supposed to make her look flighty and indecisive, but the last one
considered her credits sufficient to earn her their degree. If they
didn't care where she got them, why should i? Flitting from school
to school and never committing is one thing, but she had to have
committed to a school's requirements to get the degree.
2. Stay-at-work mom? Is that supposed to be anti-Family Value?
Many political conservatives don't embrace that idea either.
Or was it hiding the pregnancy? Who cares? Everybody knew
she had 4 kids. She had some obligation to reveal there'd be a 5th?
Does anybody have an obligation to reveal a pregnancy before it
makes itself obvious? Is that somehow FamVal hypocritical?
3. Daughter's unwed pregnancy? This could be a whole post by
itself. Anti-Palinists are pointing to that as her failing to practice
the FamVals she preaches but it's just way too common. Bob Jones
students, even the Amish, once in awhile young horny kids can't
keep it zipped. The redneckness or unhappiness of the boyfriend
isn't *Palin* being FamVal hypocritical.
4. Brother-in-law who tasered his stepson. Evoking this is a
stupid thing on the part of any anti-Palin person because it
only makes Palin look like she has good taste to despise the
man, even while one can disapprove of her crossing the ethics line
to get him fired.
But either way, a jackass brother-in-law fails to prove her values
are suspect.
5. Todd's affiliation with an anti-American group - At last! The one
and the only meaningful point in the strip.
6. The Shotgun Wedding. Back to Bristol's pregnancy. It's twisted
logic to call the pregnancy a FamVal hypocrisy, and then to call it
hypocrisy for the kids to do their FamVal Duty. Pick one, although
frankly i will disagree with either one being evoked to reflect too badly
on Palin herself. Try to control a 17-year-old sometime. Dare ya.
In case you forget -- since i am using one of my 3 annual
agreements with Dann -- i'm a raging liberal, and i hate the inhumane
narrow-minded things that the religious right means when it evokes
"Family Values" but, with that one exception of Item 5, the strip fails
to prove that Palin does not practice the godawful things she preaches.
It was a rare, but VERY weak Trudeau effort. IMO.
--
pax,
ruth
Save trees AND money! Buy used books!
http://stores.ebay.com/Noir-and-More-Books-and-Trains
Mike Beede
nickelshrink <nickel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 3. Daughter's unwed pregnancy? This could be a whole post by
> itself. Anti-Palinists are pointing to that as her failing to practice
> the FamVals she preaches but it's just way too common. Bob Jones
> students, even the Amish, once in awhile young horny kids can't
> keep it zipped. The redneckness or unhappiness of the boyfriend
> isn't *Palin* being FamVal hypocritical.
I guess the part I liked about this one was that she's an
advocate for ignorance-only sex education, and a day after
announcing her candidacy we find she has a teen daughter
that's pregnant. Because that's kinda sorta what happens
to teens that don't take precautions and have sex . . . and
pretty much they ALL have sex eventually. It being part
of life and a really strong drive and everything.
I couldn't care less whether she's following her FamIlyValUes
or what--that particular FamiLyValue is dumb dumb dumb.
Mike Beede
Dann
@mid.individual.net.
> In case you forget -- since i am using one of my 3 annual
> agreements with Dann -- i'm a raging liberal, and i hate the inhumane
> narrow-minded things that the religious right means when it evokes
> "Family Values" but, with that one exception of Item 5, the strip fails
> to prove that Palin does not practice the godawful things she preaches.
**applause!!**
I hearby nominate you for the position of "Exception on the Left". The
perks include a bonus annual agreement with Dann, rose petals to be
strewn liberally in your path whenever you visit mid-Michigan, and I will
kiss your feet.
No tongue, though. A guy's got to have his limits.
aemeijers
> In article <6m12f3F...@mid.individual.net>,
> nickelshrink <nickel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> 3. Daughter's unwed pregnancy? This could be a whole post by
>> itself. Anti-Palinists are pointing to that as her failing to practice
>> the FamVals she preaches but it's just way too common. Bob Jones
>> students, even the Amish, once in awhile young horny kids can't
>> keep it zipped. The redneckness or unhappiness of the boyfriend
>> isn't *Palin* being FamVal hypocritical.
>
> I guess the part I liked about this one was that she's an
> advocate for ignorance-only sex education, and a day after
> announcing her candidacy we find she has a teen daughter
> that's pregnant. Because that's kinda sorta what happens
> to teens that don't take precautions and have sex . . . and
> pretty much they ALL have sex eventually.
Oh, I wouldn't say all, if you are limiting it to actual teenage years.
Some of us socially clumsy types (and we are legion)had to wait for
college, to find somebody similarly clueless to bond with (albeit not
for lack of trying). But, yeah, most teenage kids do manage to pair off
at some point, however briefly. Including the ones from very
strait-laced families.
--
aem sends, ruefully....
Antonio E. Gonzalez
>On 17 Oct 2008, said the following in news:b97f41a1-eb64-4f79-b1bf-
>ac44c9...@25g2000prz.googlegroups.com.
>
>> On Oct 13, 2:08 pm, Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> Wow, he went there, and it even got published!:
>>>
>>> <http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2008/10/12/>
>>>
>> And somebody very convincingly rewrote it here:
>>
>> http://www.therightreasons.net/index.php?showtopic=10434
>
>Both seem to have the BS meter at roughly the same level. IMO.
The term for this is "False Equivalence," something we've been
seeing a little too much of lately . . .:
<http://www.idrewthis.org/2008/10/fear-and-loathing.html>
"You see a lot of false equivalencies in the media. It's sort of their
creed: if you report that Republicans have done something that makes
them look bad, you must immediately find a way to say that Democrats
do it also. That is how you seem "fair." If the Republicans are, for
instance, lying through their teeth, and the Democrats aren't, you're
obligated to say something like "Republicans are claiming that Ted
Kennedy is a serial killer, but Democrats today used a very generous
interpretation of their tax plan, so both sides lie."
For instance, on ABC's "this week," Paul Krugman (who is brilliant)
and Cokie Roberts (who is a complete tool) had the following exchange:
Krugman: This is not just about McCain and what he did. The fact
of the matter is, for a long time we have had a substantial fraction
of the Republican base that just does not regard the idea of Democrats
governing as legitimate. Remember the Clinton years. It was craziness,
right? They were murderers, they were drug smugglers, and the imminent
prospect of what looks like a big Democratic victory would drive a lot
of these people crazy even if Sarah Palin wasn't saying these
inflammatory things. It's going to be very ugly after the election.
Roberts: On both sides that's true. I think that you've also had a
huge number of Democrats who think that the Republicans are
illegitimate, and that was particularly true after the 2000 election,
and to some degree after 2004. And so you really do have at the core
of each party people who are not ready to accept the verdict of the
election.
Krugman: I reject the equivalence.
Jeez.
I'm just going to quote Hilzoy's response in full, because it's better
than I could put it:
I do too, on two counts. First, there is no analogy between 1992
and 2000. In 1992, there was no question that Bill Clinton won the
election. He had 370 electoral votes to Bush's 168. He got 5.6% more
of the popular vote than Bush. It was not close.
In 2000, by contrast, Gore won the popular vote, and the electoral
vote turned on Florida, whose results in turn were decided by the
Supreme Court. And the decision in Bush v. Gore was very hard to
explain as a principled decision: justices in the majority not only
abandoned long-held positions on federalism, but announced that their
decision should not be cited as a precedent in future cases. I really
do not want to re-argue the 2000 election. But I think that the idea
that there's some sort of equivalence between doubting the fairness of
the 2000 and 1992 elections is absurd.
Second, while a lot of Democrats had deep concerns about the
outcome of Bush v. Gore, the overwhelming majority of us accepted that
the courts had the right to adjudicate questions of law. As a result,
most of us accepted the idea that whether or not George W. Bush had
actually won the election in straightforward common-sense terms, he
was entitled under the law to be our President.
Or, in short: we had a lot more reason to regard George W. Bush as
illegitimate than the Republicans had to regard Clinton as
illegitimate. Despite that fact, most of us accepted the fact that,
like it or not, he was our President. We did not go around claiming
that he had killed one of his closest associates, or was a drug
smuggler, or hung crack pipes from his Christmas tree.
There is no equivalency here. None at all.
Maybe next week I'll take on the (cough) challenging task of
explaining why there is no equivalence between saying that Clinton was
a murderer and saying that George W. Bush is a war criminal. Hint:
it's the same reason there would be no equivalence between saying that
Bush held up a convenience store and saying that Clinton was
unfaithful to his wife.
Amen.
I want to add, though, that this seems, to me, to point out a distinct
difference between the Democratic base and the Republican base.
I think, for the most part, we see politics as the clash of competing
ideas. Which is why a lot of alleged Democrats and liberals were
willing to give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt for
so long. Those of us on the "angry left" (the "dirty fucking hippies"
to use Atrios's phrase) were left helplessly pointing out that Bush
was lying us into war, that his administration was staffed with
incompetent cronies, that his proposed social security policies were
presented dishonestly and were actually a big gift to Wall Street at
the expense of the least among us. Eventually, more and more people
came around to our view, because it got really hard to avoid--Bush and
his minions didn't just represent an alternate set of proposals we
could battle honestly, they represented something much more insidious,
dishonest, and destructive.
People who reached this conclusion did so almost entirely on policy
grounds. Bush's policies, and their results, just got so hateful and
disastrous that open-minded people could no longer ignore it, which is
why Bush's approval ratings are now dipping to sub-Nixonian levels.
In short, it wasn't that we hate him and therefore we look for reasons
to justify that hate. For the most part, we started out giving him the
benefit of the doubt and found that his actions left hating him as the
only honest option.
Contrast that to the way conservatives, even allegedly "mainstream"
ones, treated Bill Clinton. From the very, very beginning, they
accused him of having murdered Vince Foster, of being a drug smuggler,
of operating death squads in Arkansas to whack his political enemies,
of somehow having committed impeachable offenses in a 1974 Arkansas
land deal on which he lost money. They hated him with a passion that
bordered on psychosis.
And it clearly wasn't that they hated him because of his policies, or
even because they'd heard that he was a murderer or a rapist or a drug
smuggler. They hated him because he was THE ENEMY.
And this is my point. The conservative base doesn't see politics as a
clash of competing legitimate ideas. It sees politics, and everything
else, as a clash between good and evil. When George W. Bush said
"you're either with us or you're against us," he wasn't just talking
about that one moment in history. Conservatives think that about
literally everything.
During the Cold War they were able to conveniently structure their
worldview along capitalist vs. communist lines. When that ended, they
had ten years to wait for al Qaeda to offer them a new group to hate.
So they spent the 90s adrift. And, rather than adapt to newer, more
complex realities and engage in an honest debate with Democrats and
liberals about how to move forward, they just cast American politics
in the same tribalist terms.
They hate Bill Clinton because, to them, the whole world is a Saturday
morning cartoon, populated by Good Guys and Bad Guys. They see the
world like I did when I was 5. And their identity as Good Guys
requires them, at all times, to be fighting against some historic and
unprecedented EVIL FORCE. After the cold war, they conveniently and
suddenly had a Democratic president to hate. So, they believed all
that shit about him not because they found it plausible, but because
it conveniently fit into their need for the opposition not just to be
the opposition, but to be THE BAD GUY.
In short, it had nothing whatsoever to do with policy (Clinton
actually agreed with them on a number of issues, like welfare reform).
They hated him because that's how they feel about the enemy, and all
those ridiculous slurs fit neatly into their need to justify their
hate.
So no, there is no equivalence. The difference is categorical. We feel
that a lively and engaged and honest policy debate is essential to
effective governance. They feel that He-Man needs to crush and defeat
Skeletor.
Conservatism in the 1990s had a distinctly anti-authority slant. The
fringe of that movement was utterly convinced that Clinton was a
tyrant who was going to come take their guns away and make them bow
down to the UN or something. Somewhat more "mainstream" conservatives,
at the very least, felt that it was the epitome of patriotism not just
to disagree with Clinton, but to absolutely loathe and detest him, to
regard him as illegitimate despite his having twice been legitimately
elected president.
And then, bizarrely, after a Republican got "elected" president, they
did a 180, and became hardcore authoritarians, regarding any criticism
of the new president, however mild, as not only unpatriotic, but
treasonous. the "good guy/bad guy" lines were redrawn: Bush was the
Good Guy. Al Qaeda was the Bad Guy--and so was anybody who said
anything bad about Bush the noble hero and his quest to vanquish the
Bad Guys.
As usual, there is no such thing as legitimate disagreement. It's
always good vs. evil.
And the hateful, Munich-beer-hall style crowds at McCain/Palin rallies
is a sign of how this is going to manifest in the Obama/Biden
administration. It'll be the 90s all over again but with a "terrorist"
flavor.
To these crowds of crazy-base-world conservatives, Barack Obama is the
Bad Guy for the same reason Bill Clinton is--he's the opposition, and
there is no such thing as legitimate opposition. He has a
Muslim-sounding name, which feeds nicely into their preexisting
framework of Muslim Bad Guys, but even if he didn't, they would still
be calling him a "terrorist" because to them, "terrorist" is simply a
synonym for "Bad Guy." And any Democrat about to be elected president
would by definition play that role for them.
I don't know exactly why they always see things this way. Maybe
tribalism is built into our genes by evolution (in ancient times it
made us more likely to protect our own genetic line, and thus those
genes survived). Maybe fundamentalist Christianity has something to do
with it, casting the universe as it does in stark good vs. evil terms
(witness the rumors that Obama might be the antichrist).
I suppose we can congratulate ourselves on having, to a much greater
degree, transcended our tribalist evolutionary roots and come to see
the world in more nuanced terms, as a clash of competing ideas rather
than a war between GI Joe and Cobra. Because there is absolutely no
equivalence. We are not like them. (And, to their credit, some
conservative intellectuals, like David Brooks and Christopher Buckley,
have begun to acknowledge that the intellectual conservatism of
decades past has been replaced by lizard-brained reactionary
ignorance--Buckley has even endorsed Obama).
They are the small-minded thugs. We strive to be ruled by the better
angels of our natures. Keep fighting the good fight. This time at
least, we're about to win."
racs...@gmail.com
> In article <6m12f3Feau4...@mid.individual.net>,
Well, it speaks to McCain's judgement. This woman has so much on her
plate and so little to offer -- by population, being governor of
Alaska is the equivalent of being mayor of Memphis -- that to select a
woman with a pregnant kid, a husband linked to a fringey secessionist
group and a nasty ethics case pending is just unacceptable. Let's be
fair -- I could see saying to her "Look, you're a good prospect, but
you need to get through this stuff first. Let's talk in 2012."
But to choose her now? Good lord -- it comes down to this: If they
can't even select a respectable, credible runningmate, how on God's
green earth do you expect them to make good choices in running the
nation?
Palin is a disaster. But thank God we all got the word now, and not
after McCain and his gang of nitwits was in the White House!
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
Dann
news:vhbnf4dd9j7iug3u9...@4ax.com.
> The term for this is "False Equivalence," something we've been
> seeing a little too much of lately . . .:
Indeed. From you.
And yet you have the cajones to complain about it now that the comparisons
don't swing your way.
Sheesh.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
>On 19 Oct 2008, Antonio E. Gonzalez said the following in
>news:vhbnf4dd9j7iug3u9...@4ax.com.
>
>> The term for this is "False Equivalence," something we've been
>> seeing a little too much of lately . . .:
>
>Indeed. From you.
>
>And yet you have the cajones to complain about it now that the comparisons
>don't swing your way.
>
>Sheesh.
I complain the comparison doesn't swing my way, because it doesn't;
it's that simple, deal with it . . .