Penheaded
Wednesday, April 28, 2004
Maybe, but Kerry...
I don't know if I've just been missing this all along but something has come to me as a sort of epiphany. It seems the Republicans like to home in on some fine point of an opponent while glossing over the really gross points on their side. It also always seems to have a comic irony to it.
Alright, this Kerry thing: I can't believe his advisors haven't been able to counter this recent assault on the "medals" issue. It strikes me that there are essentially two points here; one of semantics and one of Kerry being a political animal.
The easy semantic one first. Most people will ask a serviceman (or woman) about the "medals" on their chest. They will most likely get a modest answer and no correction on the point that really what the civilian is looking at are "ribbons". Kerry threw his ribbons and the medals of other veterans across the fence. To use one overall collective noun, "medals", is not inappropriate. The fact that Kerry's handlers didn't have the mental dexterity to flip this is not a good sign.
But really the frosting on this, the comic irony, is that his detractors cut and ran when they had their chance to stand up and earn a medal. We know all of Kerrry's record. We don't know what was Shrub's reason for dereliction of duty. I had some Republican, talking about Clinton, tell me recently that it was wrong for Clinton to lie under oath. Well, yeah. And Shrub's oath to serve? Lying about a BJ where everyone was a willing participant versus lying to send people to their death and usurp the democratic deliberative process- how can you compare? It strikes me that you have to be hung up on orthodoxy and totally out of touch with any kind of a moral balance to say that the two are even in the same neighborhood ethically. It also strikes me that it is usually these self-described people "... of character" that will usually pull that kind of crap.
Now, Kerry equivocating on this. He rightly smelled what the Republicans were winding up for. It has become their stock in trade to question the patriotism and national loyalty of anyone that opposes them. It is such a sickening display that I'm not even going to bother with an example. If you haven't seen it, you haven't been paying attention or are dead.
Any day of the week, even if I don't trust Kerry, I'd still put my faith in a man who, as Kerry did, puts his butt on the line. A man who has risked his life has certainly earned the right to question what he did it for. I trust that man over the one that says he has such a great love for his country and then cuts and runs for drugs and dallying.
¶ 4/28/2004 10:11:00 PM 0 comments
Alright, this Kerry thing: I can't believe his advisors haven't been able to counter this recent assault on the "medals" issue. It strikes me that there are essentially two points here; one of semantics and one of Kerry being a political animal.
The easy semantic one first. Most people will ask a serviceman (or woman) about the "medals" on their chest. They will most likely get a modest answer and no correction on the point that really what the civilian is looking at are "ribbons". Kerry threw his ribbons and the medals of other veterans across the fence. To use one overall collective noun, "medals", is not inappropriate. The fact that Kerry's handlers didn't have the mental dexterity to flip this is not a good sign.
But really the frosting on this, the comic irony, is that his detractors cut and ran when they had their chance to stand up and earn a medal. We know all of Kerrry's record. We don't know what was Shrub's reason for dereliction of duty. I had some Republican, talking about Clinton, tell me recently that it was wrong for Clinton to lie under oath. Well, yeah. And Shrub's oath to serve? Lying about a BJ where everyone was a willing participant versus lying to send people to their death and usurp the democratic deliberative process- how can you compare? It strikes me that you have to be hung up on orthodoxy and totally out of touch with any kind of a moral balance to say that the two are even in the same neighborhood ethically. It also strikes me that it is usually these self-described people "... of character" that will usually pull that kind of crap.
Now, Kerry equivocating on this. He rightly smelled what the Republicans were winding up for. It has become their stock in trade to question the patriotism and national loyalty of anyone that opposes them. It is such a sickening display that I'm not even going to bother with an example. If you haven't seen it, you haven't been paying attention or are dead.
Any day of the week, even if I don't trust Kerry, I'd still put my faith in a man who, as Kerry did, puts his butt on the line. A man who has risked his life has certainly earned the right to question what he did it for. I trust that man over the one that says he has such a great love for his country and then cuts and runs for drugs and dallying.
¶ 4/28/2004 10:11:00 PM 0 comments
Sunday, April 18, 2004
"...I know which choir box I am in."
http://rogerlsimon.com/
I've read a great deal of the blogger-back-slapping and I'm less than impressed. The problem with activistchat.com, and some of the linking sites, are the ads for the Shah's family. Quite honestly, the whole thing smells like a right-wing pr effort. Activistchat.com is now being linked to by LGF and some of the other "war-blogs". The Shah was the original problem. A leftist solution was not a culturally acceptable alternative to the western puppet so Islamic fundamentalism was able to garner the strength to overthrow the Shah. I don't think there is an American reading this that would want to live under the Shah's secret police.
It would seem that now would be a good time for an evolution in American thinking about foreign policy. Previously we have employed client states and surrogates with less than sterling results (see Iraq, Iran and South America). We need a philosophy that is neither of the right nor left, not isolationist nor expansionist but uniquely American in a basic fairness. Before we prop up another tin-horn despot we should ask ourselves a question about the people of that country. In the cause or struggle that we need that dictator, is it reason enough that we ourselves would be willing to endure the hardships that a people living under such a regime will?
Posted by penheaded @ 04/13/2004 06:38 PM PST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
penheaded, that activistchat has been linked by lgf or anyone else is proof of nothing. I would recommend the use of more specific proof than this form of guilt-by-association. If ativistchat is some kind of apologist for the Savak, I would be against them. But so far I have seen no evidence of this.
Posted by Roger @ 04/14/2004 11:04 AM PST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger,
My objection to activistchat was clearly noted, they appear to be pimping the return of the Shah's regime (ads and articles about the glorious days of the Shah). The site came on my radar when it hit some of the blog indices and I noted who was linking to it for the rankings. The linkings by LGF,et al are just part of the conservative meme spread.
Posted by penheaded @ 04/14/2004 02:04 PM PST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ActivistChat is not advocating a return of the Shah's regime.. Regarding articles about the glory days of the Shah - yes, if Iranian want to they may freely discuss those days which were 1 million times better than the days of the jackoff mullahs.. Penheaded - you are an apologist for the Mullahs - anyone that goes to your piece of lowsy site can see this. Also, if when Iran is free - the Iranian people want Reza Pahlavi to come and serve some position of the government they are free to do so. All Reza Pahlavi is advocating is that the Iranian people be free to choose their own government, not the government by the mullahs who are advised by the British. Seriously, make your case in an xtreme left whacko site, not this quality blog..
Better luck convincing the ANSWER type than the people here..
Posted by Swordfish @ 04/14/2004 02:50 PM PST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fishy,
Looking forward to the useability study on your site. One of the things I am trying to do is provide an outlet for a great many of the democratic aspirations being voiced in Iran. There are links that are put into context. Two such links are activistchat and the official government news agency. Both are appropriately labeled for their propaganda.
My particular perpective on Iran comes from knowing people who lived under the threat of Savak. It was obviously bad enough that the people of Iran thought the mullahs would be better. There was a lot of popular support for the revolution. Anybody can make a mistake, we elected Bush.
Yes, you are right, anybody should be free to discuss anything they want. But why would they want to discuss the Pahlavi's in the context of a democratic society? Perhaps, if they were supported by them. I don't think it has been lost on the Pahlavi's how that hack, Chalabi, manipulated the situation in Iraq.
Thanks very much for your suggestions on other venues. I know which choir box I am in.
Posted by penheaded @ 04/15/2004 03:53 PM PST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
¶ 4/18/2004 11:36:00 AM 0 comments
I've read a great deal of the blogger-back-slapping and I'm less than impressed. The problem with activistchat.com, and some of the linking sites, are the ads for the Shah's family. Quite honestly, the whole thing smells like a right-wing pr effort. Activistchat.com is now being linked to by LGF and some of the other "war-blogs". The Shah was the original problem. A leftist solution was not a culturally acceptable alternative to the western puppet so Islamic fundamentalism was able to garner the strength to overthrow the Shah. I don't think there is an American reading this that would want to live under the Shah's secret police.
It would seem that now would be a good time for an evolution in American thinking about foreign policy. Previously we have employed client states and surrogates with less than sterling results (see Iraq, Iran and South America). We need a philosophy that is neither of the right nor left, not isolationist nor expansionist but uniquely American in a basic fairness. Before we prop up another tin-horn despot we should ask ourselves a question about the people of that country. In the cause or struggle that we need that dictator, is it reason enough that we ourselves would be willing to endure the hardships that a people living under such a regime will?
Posted by penheaded @ 04/13/2004 06:38 PM PST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
penheaded, that activistchat has been linked by lgf or anyone else is proof of nothing. I would recommend the use of more specific proof than this form of guilt-by-association. If ativistchat is some kind of apologist for the Savak, I would be against them. But so far I have seen no evidence of this.
Posted by Roger @ 04/14/2004 11:04 AM PST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger,
My objection to activistchat was clearly noted, they appear to be pimping the return of the Shah's regime (ads and articles about the glorious days of the Shah). The site came on my radar when it hit some of the blog indices and I noted who was linking to it for the rankings. The linkings by LGF,et al are just part of the conservative meme spread.
Posted by penheaded @ 04/14/2004 02:04 PM PST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ActivistChat is not advocating a return of the Shah's regime.. Regarding articles about the glory days of the Shah - yes, if Iranian want to they may freely discuss those days which were 1 million times better than the days of the jackoff mullahs.. Penheaded - you are an apologist for the Mullahs - anyone that goes to your piece of lowsy site can see this. Also, if when Iran is free - the Iranian people want Reza Pahlavi to come and serve some position of the government they are free to do so. All Reza Pahlavi is advocating is that the Iranian people be free to choose their own government, not the government by the mullahs who are advised by the British. Seriously, make your case in an xtreme left whacko site, not this quality blog..
Better luck convincing the ANSWER type than the people here..
Posted by Swordfish @ 04/14/2004 02:50 PM PST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fishy,
Looking forward to the useability study on your site. One of the things I am trying to do is provide an outlet for a great many of the democratic aspirations being voiced in Iran. There are links that are put into context. Two such links are activistchat and the official government news agency. Both are appropriately labeled for their propaganda.
My particular perpective on Iran comes from knowing people who lived under the threat of Savak. It was obviously bad enough that the people of Iran thought the mullahs would be better. There was a lot of popular support for the revolution. Anybody can make a mistake, we elected Bush.
Yes, you are right, anybody should be free to discuss anything they want. But why would they want to discuss the Pahlavi's in the context of a democratic society? Perhaps, if they were supported by them. I don't think it has been lost on the Pahlavi's how that hack, Chalabi, manipulated the situation in Iraq.
Thanks very much for your suggestions on other venues. I know which choir box I am in.
Posted by penheaded @ 04/15/2004 03:53 PM PST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
¶ 4/18/2004 11:36:00 AM 0 comments
Monday, April 05, 2004
New effort
An effort that grew out what I perceived to be some wussiness in the blogging community. They were cheering on the efforts of Iranian bloggers under a repressive regime while our government clamped down on our ability to help give them a voice. I don't plan on slacking in my effort here, but I think it best to give the complete story on this at Persia via Penheaded
¶ 4/05/2004 11:09:00 PM 0 comments
Friday, April 02, 2004
Tough life, they chose it
No problem whatsoever with what Kos says. It is a hard boiled character that picks up that life. Sorry, even more cold-blooded, it was most likely poor craft that did them in. They bet on their talents and lost.
¶ 4/02/2004 06:15:00 PM 0 comments
