Is there any quick way for me to revoke all those powers I gave my office?
(George Bush)
picture: dunno source, via our lol builder. lol caption: Slackertarian
-
-
Copy & paste this:
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous There’s no toilet paper in this one | WIFE SWAPPING Next »
Is there any quick way
» 257 comments
Leave a Reply
-
Recent Comments
Tommycat on Today on Maury Geary on What About the Underdog? Geary on The Final Word Bob the eternally un… on What About the Underdog? Bob the eternally un… on What About the Underdog? Geary on What About the Underdog? Geary on Today on Maury Geary on Today on Maury Geary on What About the Underdog? Geary on Faster Than You Might Thi… 
Cheezburger Company BlogPrint on Demand
More I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER?
I Can Has Cheezburger? - Lolcats n Funny Pictures
Happy Birthday, Maru!
Lolcats - Lolcats n' Funny Cat Pictures
Hooman thought I shed too much...
I Has A Hotdog - Loldogs n Cute Puppies
Goggie GIF: Jail Break
Animal Capshunz - All of the Internet's Animals. Captioned
Well, Ain't This Just Ducky
Animal Videos - Cute and Hilarious Animal Videos
Rhino Meets Triceratops
Animal Gifs - Cute and Hilarious Animal Gifs
Illusions, Shadows on the Wall
Daily Squee - So cute your brain might explode.
Squee Spree: Cup of Loris
Historic LOLs - Captioned Portraits of Yore
Oh Bobby, You Cad!
My Food Looks Funny - Funny Food Photos
Ron Swanson Cake
So Much Pun - Visual Puns and Jokes
And by That Do You Just Mean the KGB?
ROFLrazzi - Lol Celebs and All That's Fab Funny in Showbiz
I'm Hot... And You're Not!
Totally Looks Like - Stuff That Looks Like Other Stuff
Vanessa Moser Totally Looks Like Kreayshawn
Must Have Cute - See. Want. Must Have!
Epicute: Pinata Cupcake
If Style Could Kill - OMG Style!
Angel on My Shoulder
Lovely Listing - Strange Findings in Real Estate Listings
Oh So THAT'S How it Works!
![\"Quantcast\"/](\"http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-94wNw88f65Rhk.gif?labels=MTVN%20Digital%20Tribes\")
As you sow, so shall you reap.
Or, as Nelson would put it, ha ha….
Sure, for a start you need to manipulate the legislature to your every whim.
.
Can’t do that any more you say? Too bad then.
Unfortunately I highly doubt that BHO will have the cojones to listen in on terrorist conversations, or to torture terrorists, or to go to war.
In fact, if he closes Guantanamo, I think he should be impeached for under-use of his authority. Then he should be tried for peace crimes for the illegal lack of war in Iran.
You sir. Fail at fact finding.
Wow. “Peace Crimes”. Seriously?
ha ha, oh wow
Sarcasm, not sarcasm? It’s getting harder to tell all the time. “Cojones” says serious, “peace crimes” says sarcasm.
Is there a separate term for the political version of Poe’s law, or does it fall under the same rubric?
I’m hoping for sarcasm. But I think steroid may be serious. Perhaps it is the ‘roid rage?
His balls may have already shrank. No wonder he’s bitter.
Ahh, maybe that’s the reason for cajones remark! Those ‘roids are bad news.
The “illegal lack of war” kinda has me leaning to sarcasm.
Im just reminded of John Stewart on ‘roid use in the Major Leagues with
“Shrinkynuts McAngrypants.”
So glad I don’t have that problem.
I don’t know of a political version of Poe’s Law, but you’ve nailed this one, methinks.
Perhaps I am naive or woefully uninformed. What is Poe’s Law?
“Poe’s Law — Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that someone won’t mistake for the real thing.”
All thanks to Wikipedia.
Thank you! Poe’s law applies to religion, but L&C points out that it could apply to right wing rants, too. It’s hard to parody anything intrinsically absurd.
Oops–I didn’t mean to speak for L&C just then!! Bad Rho!!
You’re exactly right ’bout Poe’s Law & religion. I can tell you, unless I’ve tagged a one-liner with a big flashing “IT’S A JOKE” five minutes prior, my congregation really have no idea what shot past. Irony is possibly a product to get wrinlkey out of shirts…
It’s a fact that many religious people eschew humor – at least about religion. The inherent ability of humor to point up differences is something many don’t want – might make you think about slight flaws in the application of logic or consider other (differing) viewpoints.
I should say, ‘deadly serious usually fundamentalist’ religious people, heaven knows the folks I hang with are prety amused and amusing.
Why not peace crimes? Why is a foolish peace not as bad as a foolish war?
Aha, so you weren’t being sarcastic??
I am saddened for the state of our nation’s schools.
I am, too. Let’s cut their funding even more to show them we mean business.
WAR ON EDUCATION.
Aptly annagrammed(sp?) W.O.E.
Ohhh… now that I think about it anagram is NOT the word Im looking for
… a little help? Its my workweek monday!
Acronym.
Thank you! Its been a hellavu day :-\
Agreed. I think last week was so crazy it’s spilled over into this week.
No. And the question stands. Why was, for example, George H. W. Bush’s failure to invade Iraq in 1991 worse than George W. Bush’s invastion in 2003?
I understand what you mean about peace crimes, but there is a time for war and a time for peace. Maybe we need to pull in our horns for now though and nurse our wounds. Can’t let the country go to hell while defending it, I just hope we can be back in shape by the time AlQuaeda (sp??) gets back up.
In answer to your question, it wasn’t. G.H.W. Bush stopped when he should have, perhaps if his Ambassador had not sent the wrong signal, he wouldn’t have had to do go to war to begin with. However, George W. Bush decided to invade Iraq, as his right as CinC,. He chose poorly and must now live with that choice. Rather than fighting and winning against Al-queda in Afghanistan and elswhere in the world, he diverted critical assets and undercut critical international support.
If only it was just GWB who has to live with that choice. We all (world wide) suffer the consequences of his John Wayne (Rambo for the young ‘uns) complex, and we will for decades to come.
That’s the nature of the beast. If being President was easy, anyone would do it. While I disagree with his decision and have since the fall of 2001, I understand why he made it… it isn’t cut and dry, as the CinC he chose to cast his spear in the ground in Iraq, in other words that is where he chose to fight the fight brought about by our enemies. At this point, it appears to have been the wrong decision… time will tell.
and completely ignored things like how well operation Barbarossa worked out fo the Germans…
The fact he lied to do it seems less a ‘bad choice’ to me…
Not sure Rambo is an appropriate metaphor here. If you remember the first Rambo movie “First Blood”, he’s basically a shell shocked veteran.
IMDB synopsis: “A mentally unstable Vietnam war vet, when abused with a small town’s police force, begins a one man war with it.”
Not trying to troll, I just remember how ridiculous this movie was.
D’oh, I meant it the other way around of course. We should have gone all the way to Baghdad in 91, then W. wouldn’t have had to in 03.
No, I knew what you meant, I still disagree and my answer is the same, President GHW Bush could only go as far as he did, he only had the authority to remove the Iraqi Army from Kuwait, the coalition would have disintegrated and the Saudi’s would not have stood by and allowed it to happen. President GW Bush, in my opinion made a grave strategic error, one that has cost us dearly.
So the sole standard of right or wrong in international conflict is what the coalition says? Which means if we could bribe, bully, or beg the UN to, say, let us invade Saudi Arabia for the purpose of taking the oil, that would be OK?
Not the sole standard, but the most important one. If most of the world says that what you’re doing is wrong, then what you’re doing is wrong.
Most of the world thought Hussein was wrong, but nothing was done. If all that comes out of America’s foreign policy is words, I’m ok with that.
W didn’t have to. W should have left Saddam Hussein in power where he was serving is purpose as a secular check to theocratic Iran. Saddam Hussein was no real threat to the United States.
But he WAS considering selling his oil in Euros. That wouldn’t have done th USD much good.
But he WAS considering selling his oil in Euros. That wouldn’t have done th USD much good.
Sean: Precisely, Saddam’s suppression of the religious extremists in Iraq and his antagonism toward Iran are why he was regarded as an asset by the Reagan and GHW Bush administrations until his Kuwait fiasco. It’s one of the great ironies that the same war crimes (gassing Kurds) that were brought up as justification for the “regime change” after the WMD excuse feel flat were the same ones that the Reagan administration went out of their way to make sure went unpunished
Jeane Kirkpatrick and George Schultz really had to earn their paychecks keeping the UN off of Iraq back then.
It wasn’t. George Sr. made the right call in insuring a delicate balance of power within the region between fundamentalist Iran and a weakened secular Iraq. George Jr. blundered through and destroyed that balance.
I will attempt to give your question a serious answer. If your definition of a “peace crime” is failure to use one’s power to stop the loss of life, then the closest equivalent would be “negligence.” The nearest real-world case that I can think of is the international community’s failure to intervene in Rwanda, allowing a terrible genocide to occur. Still, while this is a shame, it is not a crime. No one nation is tasked under any law to stop such things. In fact, the doctrine of sovereign nations states that no nation has the right to intervene in the affairs of another; this is why legitimacy is usually sought in a multi-national forum such as NATO or the UN.
I find the conservative movement to find something, anything at all, to try and impeach Barack before he even takes office… pitiful, to say the least. Shameful, really. You’re like squalling infants. Try to at least take your medicine like mature adults.
See, I’m more inclined to think that the negligence involved is in not protecting the country you govern, not so much others. And sovereignty strikes me as meaning anarchy among nations–in other words that whatever the advice of an international body like the UN, one country has every right to do what they can to another.
It’s why George W. Bush’s foreign policy never bothered me; to the contrary I found it refreshing. He was far more concerned with the potentiality of attacks on America than the definite chaos in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Inversely, Obama’s stated policy does bother me, because I think he’s more concerned with general right and wrong than with what’s right for America.
And I trust that you’ve found equally pitiful the liberal movement’s calls for Bush’s impeachment/war crime arrest/non-election-in-the-first-place.
Where you fail is in your assumption that you know Obama’s policy, which is probably because you received your information from the talking heads on Fox News. Here’s a passage directly from his book that I think exemplifies why Obama was the best choice for President:
Osama bin Laden understands that he cannot defeat or even incapacitate the United States in a conventional war. What he and his allies can do is inflict enough pain to provoke a reaction of the sort we’ve seen in Iraq – a botched and ill-advised U.S. military incursion into a Muslim country, which in turn spurs on insurgencies based on religious sentiment and nationalist pride, which in turn necessitates a lengthy and difficult U.S. occupation, which in turn leads to an escalating death toll on the part of U.S. troops and the local civilian population. All of this fans anti-American sentiment among Muslims, increases the pool of potential terrorist recruits, and prompts the American public to question not only the war but also those policies that project us into the Islamic world in the first place.
That’s the plan for winning a war from a cave, and so far, at least, we are playing to the script. To change that script, we’ll need to make sure that any exercise of American military power helps rather than hinders our broader goals: to incapacitate the destructive potential of terrorist networks and win this global battle of ideas.
What does this mean in practical terms? We should start with the premise that the United States, like all sovereign nations, has the unilateral right to defend itself against attack. As such, our campaign to take out Al Qaeda base camps and the Taliban regime that harbored them was entirely justified – and was viewed as legitimate even in most Islamic countries. It may be preferable to have th esupport of our allies in such military campaigns, but our immediate safety can’t be held hostage to the desire for international consensus; if we have to go it alone, then the American people stand ready to pay any price and bear any burden to protect our country.
I would also argue that we have the right to take unilateral military action to eliminate an imminent threat to our security – so long as an imminent threat is understood to be a nation, group, or individual that is actively preparing to strike U.S. targets (or allies with which the United States has mutual defense agreements), and has or will have the means to do so in the immediate future. Al Qaeda qualifies under this standard, and we can and should carry out preemptive strikes agains tthem wherever we can. Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not meet this standard, which is why our invasion was such a strategic blunder. If we are going to act unilaterally, then we had better have the goods on our targets.
See, I look on it exactly the reverse: that Sept. 11, and the attacks that led up to it, and the further campaign against our military actions, provoke American anti-Muslim-ism, which lead to American invasions, which break the spirit of the Arab street.
At the very least, if we adopt the same stance, religious orthodoxy and militarism, as our enemies, then politics should even out and the better country/pseudo-governmental entity should win. (That’s us.)
Wait, are you advocating that the US should take the same stance and religious orthodoxy as extreme Islamic fundamentalists?
No, i think he means Germany 1939.
This is a talking point, but still has some validity because it’s true………….the civillian army that Obama has talked about………does that remind anyone else of the Brown Shirts of Germany?
I think what Obama was talking about was increasing the power and mobilisation of reserve forces. Or rather, he probably completely forgot about the existance of reserve forces and proposed creating them.
Or maybe even the national guard.
I certainly hope that is what he means. I also hope he isn’t thinking of eliminating state forces and replacing them with federal ones. Also, where is he thinking he will get the money for something like that? He was talking about something as well funded as our military.
Hey… Godwin’s Law has been enacted…
Considering how extreme Islamic fundamentalists have been treated by everyone except America, why not? If we took that stance, we might get sympathy for being a different culture. France might respect us and give us no more than a “naughty, naughty” when we engage in violence. Canadians might hold that criticism of America is hate speech.
Or would there be a double standard? Muslims can be devout and violent because they’re poor, or because they’re not a European-descended culture, or because they’re not as materialistic?
Who is sympathising with fundamentalists? We sympathise with the moderates for being blamed in the giant generalisation that a significant number of people in our societies have succumbed to believing.
Criticising Muslims is hate speach, criticising fundamentalist muslims is honesty.
I’ve never understood why I should have to respect someone’s imaginary friend.
Because he’ll smite you… or something…
Froofrou? Help me out here!
*clasps hands in front of chest* *Ahem* Because we respect all beliefs and all schools of thought, regardless as to how silly it seems to us. *unclasps hands* Is that what you were looking for?
The flying Spaghetti monster is pleased. Thank you.
How about an imaginary friend called ‘Dave’?
Well that certainly is… backwards.
“See, I’m more inclined to think that the negligence involved is in not protecting the country you govern, not so much others.”
So Bush in terminally negligent for not preventing 9/11, nor stopping the persons responsible?
Yes, and so was Clinton, and H-dub, and Reagan, and Carter. But George W. Bush at least prevented n/mm, which was the Al Qaeda or Iraqi terrorist attack that *didn’t* happen, on a date we don’t know about.
You are very presumptuous that Bush did anything of the sort, and that all those other presidients didn’t do anything of the sort. Where was Reagan’s n/mm?
Carter’s admin more or less created Al Qaida from whole cloth…
One of the reasons I’m no fan of Barack Nyarlathotep Obama is his reliance on Zbigniew Brzezinski
It was Reagan that funded, armed, and trained al-Qaeda, but hey.
Actually no, the whole mess started with Carter. Reagan just continues giving training to illiterate fundamentalists in some god forsaken hill country since the enemy of my enemy is my friend…
The problem was, both Carter and Reagan forgot that when the commone enmy has gone, you’re left with a bestest buddy who you’d not normally have given a broken Swiss Army Knife to, armed to the teeth and with no guarantee that they won’t become your newest enemy.
Bringing down the USSR also brought down the WTC… and ground zero fo that bit of cowboy diplomacy (in the sense of small pox blankets) is Carter’s crony, Zbigniew Brzezinski.
I can think of no better way to endanger our country than by starting pre-emptive wars because we feel threatened but have not been attacked. It puts the US in the position of being like a rabid dog that needs to be put down for everyone’s safety.
Build all the defenses and armies you like, but the first country to use them is the country that is the danger and the problem. In 2003, that was us.
Hussein’s Iraq did the same thing, invading Kuwait with no imminent threat. What should have happened to them? Were you content with the economic sanctions? Or should the regime have been changed?
In other words, is there justice among nations? Does a pre-emptive invasion BY country x warrant a pre-emptive invasion OF country x? If so, then what we did was just. If not, then any attack that would endanger the US would not be justified.
In other other words, either there’s anarchy and the strongest nation wins (us), or there’s justice, and the good countries can remove the bad (us, Iraq respectively). What there never ought to be is Obama-esque “social justice.” where the strong and the good exist to provide for the weak and the poor.
I disagree with you on almost every point.
I strongly believe, and always have believed, that it is the honourable duty of the powerful to care for the weak.
.
I believe coalition did the right thing when in stopping the Gulf War. Kuwait was no longer in danger, the coalition’s job was done, they left. The way it should be.
Well, that’s really the heart of the matter, isn’t it. I think that power is the evidence of proper moral code (“right makes might”). How do you make power into a duty? Obviously not by force, because you don’t have the power. Only way to do it is to get the powerful to agree to your code. But beware their wrath if they disagree.
The biggest companies have the most power, they generally didn’t get there through any moral code.
.
As for power and duty, Uncle Ben said it well:
Nothing can enforce it, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done.
How far do you want to take that “might makes right” bit? Can I beat up your kid because I’m bigger? Can I kick your dog? Can I shoot you in the back from a distance? Then maybe your relatives and friends come after me, then mine go after yours, and there’s a big unnecessary bloodbath all around. That’s where that philopophy gets you.
I also notice that while I mentioned 2003, you chose to address what happened in 1991. That’s a completely different case and does nothing to defend your position.
Without the weak, there is no strong.
And without the week.. there is no weekend.
Holy crap, you’re scary. Are you a sociopath? Do you understand human empathy and emotions, or are all creatures simply objects to you? Did you harm small animals as a child? You are the type of creature society is designed to protect against. Thankfully, collective action by weaker groups can always overcome the strong individual.
–
Right makes might is even scarier than the reverse in some ways. At least the reverse acknowledges the inherent unfairness of the situation, your version attempts to justify all instances of power by claiming that only right actions create power.
–
I would say the opposite is true, that power always comes from incorrect moral actions. Correct actions function without ‘power,’ they work through cooperation rather than force.
–
If you don’t have the power to throw off your oppressors by yourself, act collectively with other oppressed people. No oppressor can stand up to collective action for long.
No, the former (imperfectly), and no, respectively.
And no, it is not the case that only right actions create power. But over time, it is right actions which lead to thriving. What other standard can one have for “right” than that which leads to life and happiness for the most worthy?
And if power always comes from incorrect moral actions, the contrapositive must also be true: right makes impotence. The poor, the weak, the ignorant, are the paragons of virtue by your lights, though not compared to the ultimate standard of good, the least powerful of all: the corpse. All deaths are martyrdoms, and only martyrs can be truly good. I humbly invite you to pursue the aim you state.
Or do you mean to use the word “power” as a synonym for “force” instead of considering force as one subset of power? One might consider the term “soft power” that is bandied about. There is the power of economic sanction, the power of logic, the power of example, the power of words. All of these require a strong character, in a man or in a nation, to achieve. In addition to having the strongest military, the US has the highest economic ability, the premium centers of learning, the most beautifully logical constitution, and the noblest patriotism. All these come from our quality of character. Our military force should not be discounted from that character simply because it is gauche, because it is active instead of dispassionate.
Whosoever wants to show his worth must be prepared to deal with others in various ways. He must be equally prepared to deal with ruffians as with reasonable people. In both, I am proud of my country’s record.
Hmmm yep, I havent done this in a while… but I agree with Seth,
you’re a sociopath.
*psssst* Check his freezer for body parts!
Dibs on the ribs!
They’re pork ribs. Got them at Costco. Want some?
Seriously, if you insist on calling my position sociopathy, then I could just as easily say that everyone else has individipathy. Which is far worse in my opinion, since individuals have more worth than social structures.
He’s certainly read Von Clauswitz.
And as to being a sociopath, sociopaths play ‘normal’ better than that. It’s the mask slips that give the game away.
Look for people who give out the middle American, wholesome shtick, with little slips that people forgive cos they’re just so damn NICE the rest of the time, and I’ll show you someone with a collection of cat skulls from their pre-teen years
In thew 19th Century, this guy’s view would be regarded as modernism, now it’s psychopathic, since he doesn’t try to cover it up.
Maybe the problem lies in the idea that a position can change from right to wrong over the course of a single century. The basic values don’t change. If I was modern then, I’m not psychopathic now. It’s the world that’s gone mad.
Well, Nietzsche thought that he was pretty calm and rational too. “I do not point to the evil and the pain of existence with the finger of reproach, but rather entertain the hope that life may one day become more evil and more full of suffering than it has ever been.”
I hate to get all diagnosey from a long distance, and having hardly met steroid at all and all… but sociopath sounds like it covers all bases.
Values have changed significantly over the last 100-200 years.
.
100 years ago, homosexuality was considered a mental disease.
Now, it is seen a natural part of humanity and nobody should be vilified for it.
200 years ago, a petty thief in Britain was deported to Australia. That is, unless he stole more than a nickel’s worth, then execution was standard.
Now, most developed countries have abolished capital punishment and none deport their own citizens.
I don’t consider patriotism to be noble. It isn’t ignoble either, but that isn’t quite the point.
You like your constitution, but I’m sure many people in other countries like thiers more.
A lot of what makes the US powerful, is its history. A case of right place, right time. You had the resources and space, plenty of people (but not too many such that it hinders progress like it did in India and China), and this all happened when becoming powerful was easiest (although not without hard work by the people), the industrial revolution.
Actually India’s biggest problem was the invasion of the Murghals, which slung the country back to the early bronze age for a while (the usual impact of the Abrahamic cults being introduced by force, in this case Islam, but Christianity would have had the same effect)
China was a pernicious form of introspective conservatism that meant it’s massive explorations of the world prior to 1380 were ceased, and the boats burned, along with almost all the records.
In some respects 14th Century China is like 21st Century America. Theres a wrld out there, but really, there’s not much it actually needs from it, at least from the POV of it’s average citizen (that is, someone who probably lives no more than 50 miles from where they were born, and hasn’t bothered to get a passport since they’re not leaving the country).
Cart, get behind that horse. We had the space because we immigrated here! As the saying goes, the cowards never left and the weak died along the way. America had the best stock of people. And we had just as much contribution to the industrial revolution as Britain.
Look, if you believe that the fate of nations is determined by chance, then hope you get lucky. I believe that both nations and individuals are their own masters, and I don’t intend to let any outside factor affect my decisions, including my political choices.
Pretty close there… Of course, you may have to do some digging, but your country has been attacked in a pre-emptive move. Certainly, the Imperial command at the time felt threatened and did exactly as some people above are advocating. The fallout from that piece of pre-emptive strike was not pretty.
Best comment ever!
Seriously?
I think it’s saracsm. Torture, Under-use, peace crimes make it sound a bit like it…
I feel a little bit better about everything with Obama’s choice for Chief of Staff, he’s a little more moderate than Obama is and seems a bit tougher. I’m curious to see how much influence he will have.
It sounds like you’re feeling better than I did in 2004, and that’s a good thing, indeed! I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised at how well the new administration will do. Truly, I believe you will be better off in four years.
I sure “hope” so!
(I has a hope)
Besides that, Chief of Staff is a hawtteh! *smurx*
I’m glad to know it isn’t just me that thinks so.
I am strangely looking forward to his press conferences….
Interesting – you see Rahm as more moderate? I’m just wondering because so much of the GOP is hollering that he is way too partisan. And while moderate and partisan are not opposites, they don’t usually go together. If you like him, that’s good, but I don’t now much about him (yet) – what is it about him that makes you see him as more moderate than Obama?
Frankly, I don’t think Obama is anywhere near as liberal as he’s been painted, and I think the more liberal Democrats are in for a bit of a disappoinment. I think he’s far more pragmatic than ideological, and that will start to show in short order.
Well, I mean is he is known to be tough and he is pro Israel so I am assuming he would be tough on terrorism. Also heard on some news program this morning that he will be able to keep Pelosi and Reed at bay somewhat because of his ties with Congress, he had a hand in getting many of them elected… I don’t know how anyone can say Obama is not liberal, give me anything he stands for that is not liberal? I know he won’t be able to keep everyone happy.
I think you’re right about Pelosi, considering the photo that’s up for captioning. She definitely looks to be in Rahm’s, uh, “camp.” I think Obama is going to try to unite parties, and I think Rahm is going to be the toughy that every administration needs. Many on the far left have faulted Obama for moving to the center, so maybe he won’t be as liberal as you think. How else could he have drawn criticism, yes? Of course you’re right about keeping everyone happy–that’s impossible!
I’ll take pragmatism anyway. Ideals are nice until it’s time to actually get some work done. People are so fickel (sp?) that if Obama doesn’t make some changes that improve everyday lives they’ll be pissed next election.
You’re right, of course. He’s got a tough row to hoe. I’m worried that some of the damage won’t be so easily undone, then he’ll be blamed for “not fixing the popped soap bubble.”
Someone explain to me again why Israel’s well-being is our responsibility?
Well the way I see it, the more democracies in the world, and especially in the middle east, the better it is for the world since democracies are not known to attack each other. They are an ally and are being SERIOUSLY threatened.
Yes, but they are big enough and old enough to look after themselves.
Also, democratic government is no guarantee of non-hostility. HAMAS was chosen democratically by the palestinians, the government of Israel was chosen democratically, and they fight like hell. India and Pakistan are constantly fighting each other.
And just on the side… we don’t have any business imposing a form of government on -anybody.- Usually when we do that, the new democratically chosen government is hostile to us. Unless we install a puppet, in which case it isn’t a democracy, is it?
I think the idea is to do what is best for the world as far as keeping the peace and world economies working well instead of everyone starving as we all devolve into war with each other… We can’t just seal ourselves up from our allies in the world, especially if the enemies they have may end up being our enemies later. I don’t see anything wrong with an alliance with Israel. I question how Democratic Hamas and Pakistan truly are…
Pakistan is fairly obviously democratic. Everyone hated Musharraf, and as soon as free elections were engineered, he was out. Now a new government is in place and basically telling us to go screw ourselves. That’s pretty fair proof of true democracy, I think. As for the Palestinians, they’re pretty well divided, but as soon as Arafat died, his PLO was doomed.
The lesson to take away from all this is that if the people of a nation hate us, then setting up a government that embodies the will of the people will result in us getting the bird from that nation as of the first free/fair election.
Most of the people in the middle east hate us because we time and time again back their mortal enemy, Israel. Backing Israel and setting up democracies among those who hate us seems about as wise as playing Russian roulette with a semi-automatic.
Well, you have to add in the Islam factor, they will always hate us. They hate us because we back Israel, they want them gone but I wouldn’t feel comfortable with them being wiped off the face of the earth, would you? I don’t know what the answer should be but I don’t think we can desert them.
It’s not really about religion; that’s a smokescreen everybody hides behind. At one time, Islam partnered up with Christianity to combat the evil Jews, then Islam partnered with the Jews to stymie the crusading inquisitive Christians, and now the Christians are helping protect the Jews from the vile Islam..
Truth is, it’s about land and resources. Always has been. Always will. God is used as smoke and mirrors.
herb, I’m with you. Ever read Jeffrey Sachs? In The End of Poverty he overlays a map of the world showing the most environmentally trashed countries on a map of the world showing the most politically unstable countries. They coincidence is pretty compelling.
Yes, I agree with you herb, they are using a perverted and violent form of Islam to gain power.
Ummm… sorry, years ago that was true and was held up as the reason to promote democracies, that they didn’t declare war on other countries for little or no reason. Unfortunately, Bush put that theory in the toilet when he decided to declare war on Iraq based on made-up evidence of some future threat. Democracies can no longer be held up as governments that go to war reluctantly and only when necessary. And we did that…
No, the theory is that democracies don’t go to war with other democracies, Iraq was not a democracy.
And the excuse for lying to everyone about why the US attacked?
It wasn’t WMD
It wasn’t Al Qaida
Why did the US invade Iraq?
Ema dodges the issue repeatedly here…
Also, we were on the “team” that established Israel in the first place.
tie, sorry
So? If we were gonna go that route, Germany should have to bankroll them and protect them. That dog won’t hunt.
I don’t think we need to bankroll them and protect them, but we have a vested interest in them being safe and successful.
That may or may not be the case, but at what point does that interest become outweighed by them being a freakin’ albatross around our neck, internationally? The only international support Israel gets is from us and whatever nations owe us a favor at the moment.
Now I’m not saying Israel shouldn’t completely whoop the arse of anyone who f’s with them, I’m just saying we shouldn’t have to own whatever actions they take.
I don’t think they are an albatross around our neck, we should let them protect themselves true. I guess we are trying to keep the peace over there but may be over doing it.
The Israeli government has an abysmal record on human rights, doesn’t even seem to understand the concept of the rule of law, and is far less a democracy than a theocracy. They are our friend only to the point that it benefits them. We don’t need friends like that. As long as we continue to support them and encourage them to be the bullies they are in the region, we do neither them nor us any lasting benefit.
And as others have pointed out, they are more than capable of defending themselves.
Oh, and before I am accused of being a Palestinian terrorist sympathizer (anyone care to bet that won’t happen?) let me say this: personally, I think every governing body in the middle east is composed of jerks.
Thank you. And saying that Israel, as a nation, has made some bad decisions (even possibly illegal ones) at times, does not make a person anti-Semitic.
sure doesn’t and yes they have, every government does at one time and another.
I just want it said that Israel does more to protect itself than any other nation. It’s not like they’re doing nothing to defend themselves, expecting us to step in. Pound-for-pound, Israel has the best trained military force in the world.
And considering that the beat Russia, I’m not sure I’d screw with them in the first place.
-
Having said that…….
-
That’s another of the Pascal’s Wagers in my book. Let’s not piss off God by not helping take care of His Chosen. Let’s do everything we can to keep them safe, so that we can be held as their allies in the end. And if God doesn’t exist and the defense of Israel didn’t mean anything, at least we have (as ema said) one more democracy on our side.
One more democracy yes, but perhaps at the expense of
many other allies (or at least, potential non-enemies) that follow the idea of ‘the friend of my enemy is my enemy’.
I wish we somehow gravitate towards a middle ground, while honoring our commitments to Israel. It’s a tightrope walk, but wouldn’t it be excellent to have leveler heads prevailing in the Powder Keg?
What ‘commitments’?
Holocaust guilt? The ramblings of a book that tells you to wear tassels and not eat shellfish?
God’s teeth!
My wang smells a Godwin.
The would be FrouFrou…
I don’t understand what I’ve done to piss you off. Want to enlighten me?
If it were a matter of protecting a fledgling, greatly outnumbered and hated democracy, Israel would be long gone. I think the Allies’ role in establishing Israel, U.S. Jewish and Christian ties to the Holy Land idea, and the usefulness of a geographic and political inroad all come into play here.
Well, bringing in Pascal’s wager puts paid to any credibility you may have had. Of all the discredited, intellectually indefensible, and simply abysmally stupid defenses for pursuing any given course, that is one of the worst.
When was Pascal discredited?
“Behave as though there is a Great Reward, because even if there isn’t, you’ve then led a good life?” Where’s the fallacy?
I might argue with froo about who God’s favored is — in the Qu’ran He says i’s the descendants of Ishmael, and unlike the Bible, the Qu’ran is the direct, first-person God speaking
(You see why I lean towards given all parties the benfit and wrking towards amelioration versus annihilation?)
Not Pascal, just his wager. It sets up a long series of false dichotomies leading to an erroneous conclusion.
The version you stated is quite different from the original, by the way. Pascal’s original wager was that one should believe in god in order to go to heaven, and if you were wrong, you haven’t lost anything.
The most obvious problem with the wager is the one you touch on – which god, and which religion? Pascal assumed the right one was his, of course, but that’s one of the false dichotomies right there. Why not Shiva, or Zeus, or Thor?
The obvious flaw with the second half of his argument is that if you pick a religion, and it makes you miserable or even just prevents you from being as happy as you would otherwise have been, and there is no god, then you have indeed lost something – you have wasted the only life you will ever have.
Then there is the whole question of whether a person can choose to believe or not. If you can only believe what you believe, and can’t force yourself to believe otherwise, then how is it a choice at all?
That’s only the tip of the iceberg, by the way. There are tons of problems with Pascal’s wager, I have mentioned only a few.
by the way, argueing against Pascal and Descartes is one of my favorite passtimes in philosophy. Especially with the religous individuals that went into an ethics class without the concept of an open mind.
Honestly it’s cool if you’re religous, but please don’t come to a philosophy class and expect people to tiptoe around your particular god.
Has to be one of the best ‘Why people who use pascal’s wagers are arses’ rant I’ve seen in an age!
Bravo!
Old Blaise did have his moments though
Blaise Pascal
“Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.”
There you go. The history of Europe from AD400 to present in one sentence.
You’re not bitter at ALL. Oh no. Not. At. All.
Wow, frou, that’s quite a low blow there. Argue against his points, please.
And heh, PK rocks for all the intelligent debate that goes on here
Nope, bitter is for losers. We won.
Oh, and FaileV? Do NOT get me started on Descartes….
@ anon: This dipstick has previously called me a dumba$$, a min-numbed drone, and a retard. While I have the verbal and mental skills to debate him on a level to which he only dreams of, he wouldn’t understand what I’m saying, so I have to break it down for him. I have no reason to give him what he wants.
So Descartes walks into a bar. The bartender says “Hey, can I get you a beer?” Descartes frowns and says, “I think not.” And promptly disappears.
@Froufrou – still smarting I see…
Question, why does my opinion of you as a blow hard who couldn’t find her own arse allowed the use of both hands bother you so?
I’m really beneath contempt.
It bother me that you’ve fixated on me when there are so many other idiots here who actually deserve your hatred and vitreol. What have I done that makes you hate me so much? Honestly? Is it that I’m opinionated? That I disagree with you? That I can hold an intelligent conversation without resorting to name-calling in order to prove my point? That I actually back up the things I say? That I try to be understanding to all points of view, even those that are wildly different than my own?
-
Just wondering.
Ema thats tip-toeing on disrespect to other religions and flirts with
the “Sorry, if you WERE important, you’d have more people who
think like you.”
Im not saying that some other religions are out there, and also
arent mainstream… but Buddhism, Taoism, The Norse etc. have
NOT gone across the world under the “Convert or Die” banner
like Christianity. If throughout all its history, Christianity had held
true to the gospel and let people come of their own free will, then
I wouldnt have anything to say. But some people DIDNT choose
Christianity…. Christianity chose them, and didnt offer a choice.
I didn’t mean in general… it was the Pascal’s wager thing. But there is nothing keeping people from leaving Christianity, or Islam or Judaism which all believe in the God of Abraham. That is a popular God for some reason so if you were going to pick one *not* to piss off that might be a good choice. Not real sure what you were saying up there so I hope I answered you!
It might have been too long since I read the thread to really
remember what was being debated… but what you said just
kinda struck me as flirting with disaster, just watching your back
before the liberals let slip the hounds of war.
Since I’m not a liberal, I just dislike loud, repeated, squirming stupidity
The likelihood of any ‘God’ being real is based on popularity? Oh boy…
What I meant was that he seems to be practical first and liberal second. I don’t think he’s going to do what Bush did and follow his own agenda, leaving widespread wreckage in his wake but still confident that he did the right thing. I think Obama will check himself, check his actions, and if they aren’t working, change them. He’ll catch flack for that, too.
Yes, but please enumerate the positions he is taking that are not liberal. There may be some I just don’t know what they are…
and what’s wrong with liberal? You seem to use the word as a pejorative.
That’s not the point. LifeAndCausality said he was not liberal and I am saying he is completely liberal, no one said anything was wrong with that.
I hope this is just my sarcasm meter being broken…
No illegal wire taps = good
No stupid wars = good
No constitution bending off shore torture base = good.
I’m good with all that
Oh. My. god.
(And yes, the grammar ignorance was worth it to watch you squirm).
two months left to start world war three…
taking bets now.
I’ll take that bet *toothy smile with axe in hand*
…
“Bring yer pretty face to my axe…” -Gimli, Pete Jackson’s butchered version of a classic masterpiece
Heh. Tolkien FTW, Jackson FTL.
Whatever! I’m not saying Jackson is teh awesum, but Tolkein has to have some of the driest prose known to man. Tom Bombadil? Srsly? WTF purpose did THAT serve? No one else could make elves, dwarves, and a fight to save mankind feel like you’re reading a driver’s ed manual. *awaits the tar and feathers*
Um…Tom Bombadil was fun. Sorta like a walking shroom trip.
Can’t *quite* agree with you there, Jane.
[selects bonbon, munches]
[pushes heart shaped box of bonbons across table because sharing is nice]
Tolkien tends to be the kind of author whose fans really REALLY REALLY!!! like him and don’t take kindly to ANY kind of criticism.
[puts on tar and feather resistant cape]
I’m not a hardcore fan, but I don’t think I’d describe his writing style as “dry”. Purple prose, maybe. Verging on self-parody, maybe. Desperately in need of some merciless editing, maybe. But it’s the sort of corny, old-fashioned “tale” that makes you root wholeheartedly for the good guys. Oddly enough, the other books that I feel this way about are the Stephen King ones with the brave kids in peril (which is almost all of them).
LOTR trilogy isn’t my absolute favorite, but there’s nothing better to read in the middle of winter.
[settles happily into chair with stack of library books nearby]
I love me some books!
*selects a bonbon from the box*
Oh don’t get me wrong, I read them and I enjoyed them. I actually think I like the Hobbit better. It a more streamlined story, probably because the target audience is for kids. I admit I was being a little harsh (for reaction sake). My main problem with Tolkein is that some parts (and usually the ones you don’t want to read) are so overly descriptive you’re like, “what, did her really spend five pages and two songs describing the forest?!” Then other parts (usually some of the action parts) get rushed through so quick you’re like, “wait a minute, what just happened? How did they get THERE?!”
I certainly give Tolkein credit for being on of the founding fathers of modern fantasy. Although, my father and I will argue about this, but I think L. Frank Baum’s Wizard of Oz books (all 14) is an obvious precurser to the sword and sorcery brand of fantasy you see today. He created a world, gave us a map, strange new human like creatures, magic, and so on.
*LOVES a good book discussion*
“he” not “her” This is what happens when I type too fast.
*feels inadequate for not reading much fiction* *eyes bonbons longingly*
*pushes bonbons over to ema* You don’t need to get in on the book talk to enjoy the bonbons, they’re a girl thing.
*grabs a bon bon, and makes off with the Sunday funnies*
Yay! *grabs a bonbon* Mmmmmm.
[Kang and Kodos voice]
BONBONS FOR ALL!!!
*noms bonbon* Thanks!
It’s okay I still don’t understand why people love LOTR books so much…
You know I did read those in high school and remember liking them, I also saw the movies, dissappointed in all but the the last one. Movies are never as good as the books though. Except for The Shining, that was the only movie that was equal to the book IMHO.
Ever read the books for the original Star Wars Trilogy? I have never sena more true translation from book to movie. I have to agree with you about The Shining tho.
That’s because the books were novelizations of the films. The movies came first.
Which in the case of the last one (episode three – movie six) was a VAST improvement! I read the novelization of that movie and thought “OH! That makes sense!”
Even so, Ive seen novelizations that went far afield from the original mvie
theses tho were true to the moviess.
You wanna see a movie butcher a great book’s storyline…
Read any Michael Crichton novel, then watch the movied based
on it. You’ll be wondering if the screenwriters even READ anymore
of the book then the synopsis on the back cover.
You’re supposed to read the book?
My favorite laughable translation form book to film was the Urgals In Eragon. They were supposed to be a race of monsters with big ram horns and snouts or whatever, but in the movie they were fat guys painted blue, wearing furs and horny helmets. Not so scary anymore.
If there is one thing that I can say about Crichton and his books,
he does his research before writing one. And he does a VERY good
job of explaining it thoroughly without seeming too wordy, or dumbing
it down too much. Not to mention you add in the mind blowing
situations he able to create and his writing just kind of draws
you in. Congo, Jurassic Park, Andromeda Strain, Sphere, 13th
Warrior(Eaters of the Dead) all great books, but the movies butchered the original story. Im waiting to see them massacre Airframe, Terminal Man,
and State of Fear.
They needed editing.
i posted my first reponse to yours before bon bons were offered.
*takes bonbon* – so not a girl thing
i also like the hobbit more. in fact, i liked it so much more i went through 3 copies as a kid.
omg, you’re the only other person outside of my family who new there was more than one OZ book, i read all the original Baum ones as a kid (the ones written after him suck something major). have you ever given gregory macguire’s “wicked” a shot? he manages to combine baum’s mythology with the 30′s musical aesthetics to write a treatise on the nature of evil. this is actually the book that made me think of bush as less than calculatedly evil and more just arrogant and ignorant, and possilby self-delusional. he sequel “son of a witch” was less on the philsopical side and more on the story side, but still managed to raise interesting questions, as does the third in the series (which just came out and i finished like 2 days after buying it) “a lion among men” which delves into cowardliness and motivation.
Yeah, I had the whole 14 book set as a kid, when I was an adult my mom bought me the set in hardcover every birthday and Christmas until I had them all. They’re a really good version, with the original artwork and a lot of information on Baum and the individual books. I haven’t read Wicked yet, it’s still on my “to read” shelf. I swear the shelf gets bigger and bigger! I started it and got distracted. I haven’t yet figured out if it was my mood at the time or if the book just didn’t click with me. I keep thinking I’m going to go back and give it a chance.
ooh…you totally should. and let me know what you think if/when you do!
I read “Wicked” and was not that impressed. I think I was expecting something else. What, I can’t quite say.
I really liked the most recent book in our club – The True Story of Hansel and Gretel by Lousie Murphy. I thought she did a good job of knitting the fairy tale to a different story. It is graphic and kinda brutal so Caveat Reader.
Oh, I’ve never heard of that! I must go find!
Very well written, but much too sad.
Problem with ‘arrogant and ignorant’ is the upshot is indistinguishable form evil
I think the biggest problem with LOTR books is that Tolkein spent WAAAAAAAAAAAY too much time on them. I think 30 years is quite enough, thank you very much! He kept rereading them and being dissatisfied, and then redoing them. Now, the creating a whole new language is pretty cool, but when your main readers gloss over the battle scenes because they are just too much, then you have a problem. I agree with you, Jane. The Hobbit was a MUCH easier read.
Gotta agree with that. As someone who was easily distracted by shiny things as a youth (before the days of ADHD diagnoses), LOTR was literally painful for me to read. I tried and tried, but it hurt too much.
Four sentences to describe a battle and six paragraphs to describe a hill?
At the risk of being contrary, and as a card carrying member of the pre-ADHD crowd (back then we were known either as all-boy or a pain in the ass) the lor trilogy captivated me from the 8th grade through college, with several re-readings (although i skipped the poems — never did like poetry, all rhyme–y and everything). :p
I didn’t read LotR until fairly recently — about the time I heard they were releasing the films. In 8th grade I was reading all the early horror novels that were little more than sublimated Victorian sex.
I read it the first time in the fall of 1968, but then again, I was into sci-fi/fantasy at an early age.
Ah, back in ’68… Can’t say I remember much, as I was still 11 years in the planning.
I still find that whole 8th grade bit odd: I was into Ray Bradbury, the aforementioned early horror, and playing D&D, yet somehow managed to dodge Tolkien until it became apparent I was living a great lie in not having read him. Kind of like how I *still* haven’t seen Monty Python’s
Inquisition sketch. (I was of the group that instead memorized Mel Brook’s HotW “Inquisition” number)
Yeah, read bradbury, too. I was more into sweeping adventures (like the leatherstocking tales — seems I managed to forget the boring parts of the overdescriptive, hard to read stories).
I think ‘overdescriptive’ is the nicest thing you can say about the Leatherstocking stuff. Is it possible to choke on prose?
I can agree with you that he’s dry. He was more of a linguist than an author, and it shows in his writing. Still he did do a lot in the way of world building and pulling fantasy together, and I don’t wish the PJ fate on any author.
I think Tolkein did better when he was writting to a younger audience and not so wrapped up in the language. Have you ever read the Father Chrismas Letters? Those are adorable! I may, however, be slightly biased as I’m an elementary education major and LOVE children’s literature.
I haven’t, I can see what you mean though. I know when i read the books I loved the hobbit, and the more linguistic stuff just bore me to tears, even now I can’t handle much tolkien.
I’d much rather read old mythology and folktales.
He was trying to create a mythology for England actually, as he felt it had been lost bu the subsequent invasions of the Romans, Saxons and later, Christianity.
BTW, since we’re talking literature, is your name a Jordan reference?
I am a very large fan of King. His Dark Tower series was easily the most enjoyable thing I’ve ever read
I have yet to read the series, but most of my friends have, they say Im
scarily like Eddie… minus the heroine habit.
O…and if you’re looking for good, funny entertainment…Diskworld. Just trust me on this one.
I’ve read some of Pratchett’s work, he is pretty funny, I love Death the most. I’m a bit more partial to Neil Gaimen though, have you read any of his stuff? And, of course, he and Terry Pratchett wrote Good Omens together, very, very, funny book.
Neil Gaiman <3 most people give me odd looks when I rant about his stuff but I absolutely adore his take on mythology and his work with old folktale legends about faeries and things.
Besides he’s the only author who’s accent fits my mental dialouge voice.
Yeah, American Gods was a genius concept, although I was not as thrilled with Ananzi Boys, mainly because I felt Gaimen did it better the first time around and I was really hoping for something new. He’s been doing a lot of short stories and kids books lately, I can’t wait for him to come out with another full length novel. Not that I don’t like his short stories, I do, but something like AG or Neverwhere or even Stardust and I’ll be happy.
Have you ever read any of his graphic novels? They’re quite enjoyable.
The movie version of MirrorMask came out too. It’s a blast.
The sheer breadth of Sandman fills me with a great sense of inadequacy at wanting to consider myself a writer.
It is why I haven’t bravely started my writing career yet.
I liked ananzi boys better than american gods, but ananzi and brer rabbit were my thing when i was growing up and it’s just, personal taste over how he dealt with the characters, no real reason.
I want him to do a new novel as well, but i do love the movies. Mirrormask was awesome, and coraline looks like it’s going to be fun.
American Gods rules! It was the first Gaiman book I’d ever read, and to me, it was like one of those songs that, before you’ve even heard it all the way through once, you feel as though you’ve known it all your life. Stardust was good, too (didn’t see the movie). Anansi Boys I thought was uneven.
Psssst Discworld
Also Vimes and Nobby FTW
Amen to that!
Pratchett is just sheer class – quite possibly the best ever mix of LOL jokes and tooth-rattlingly vicious commentary on society, loosely held together by a fantasy world. Last couple of books were savage as well as hilarious. Monstrous Regiment …
and my love for jane grows to newer heights….
seriously, i quit reading the trilogy during two towers, it felt like you would get 20 pages of landscape details with 2 lines of dialouge hidden in there somewhere….
And the songs, dear God the songs!
lol, look up….
We were reading these books to our daughter (at bedtime) and quit at her request once we got to the part where the Orcs were catapulting severed heads over the ramparts. Gee, what could possibly be wrong with reading that at bedtime?
My husband’s critique of Tolkein is that he had fifty pages of walking and three pages of fighting. He wanted more fighting!! Ah, well a different era…
Traditional fairy tales have plenty of gross-outs, cruelty, etc. Have you read, “THe Uses of Enchantment”? He makes some interesting points about why these tales have survived for so long in so many cultures, and how the pretend violence helps kids deal with their own “bad” feelings.
Yeah, when I was in college I had to take a Children’s Literature class as part of my major. Nothing is funnier then having a tiny lady with a scottish accent tell you that the Little Mermaid is an allegory for a woman’s sexual awakening and that the Wolf was raping Little Red Riding Hood. I guess when they say he ate Grandma he really… well you get the idea.
Of course, you don’t have to read too much into them. The Little Matchstick Girl (or something like that) which I think was a Hans Christian Anderson fairytale ends with the girl DYING at the end, how depressing is that! These were more folktales, I think, than fairytales and not necessarily made for children in mind, although they would have been shared with children too.
I always found it funny that older literature can be so incredibly violent. Mostly because i have met people that go on about videogames causing violence. Most violent games i have are halo, fable, smash bros…that kinda deal. The books on my shelf at the moment Crime and Punishment, Frankenstien, works of doyle, shakespeare, and Poe.
hell even Dahl’s stuff was kinda dark >.>
Video games are not what will cause me to be violent.
My dad (the aforementioned over-educated college professor, lol) was reading LOTR (the ENTIRE trillogy), the Narnian Tales, and a few other C.S. Lewis books (That Hiddeous Strength is the one I remember) to my sister and I when we were 5 years old. We would get a chapter a night until we were done with the book. This was from the ages of 5 until we went off to college, believe it or not. I attribute my grasp of vocabulary (and the fact that I tested off the charts in vocab and comprehension before college) to my dad reading us books that were so far over our heads th we had no clue what they were about. We loved the time with him, though, and it eventually sank in
My parents have collected a vast expanse of literature, I suppose their concept of censorship was if I can read it and understand it then I’m fine. I would get into the books, ended up reading the works of Doyle and Poe in third grade…it all went whoosh. I read them now and it’s amusing the stuff i totally missed.
I think that people in general tend to romanticize “the good old days”, whatever those are in relation to the time they live in, and forget that a few hundred years ago, a family whose kids were going to starve to death a la Hansel and Gretel was not unheard of (btw, not to be insensitive; I’m aware that kids starve to death every day, including right here in the USA), or that plenty of little match girls actually did freeze to death during the charming Victorian Christmases pictured on cards and giftwrap. Ordinary people in the days of the Grimm Bros. may not have had actual witches and giants, but they sure had plagues and wars and disasters. It stands to reason that the kind of stories that would keep people’s attention and interest them enough to be told and retold and retold (since writing was a rarity) would be something two-fisted, with a lot of blood and guts and swordfights (some of Shakespeare’s plays fall into this category as well).
People didn’t used to be so prudish about what kids are exposed to. Fairy tles and the like were the kind of violence and plague, etc that people dealt with throughout their lives. They used to see public hangings as entertainment, remember, and some people at least took kids to see it as it was ll a big party to see the bad men suffer for their crimes. I’m not suggesting that we go back to that, but the idea of kids being exposed to violence comes from video games? Not so much, if you look at historical literature and life over the centuries.
This is sort of a catch all reply to both Tessie and minerva. The difference, as I see it, between video games and old stories is not the level of violence but the way they are presented. There were serious real consequences in some of the old stories but I feel that the video game culture does a lot to desensitize our kids and erodes their empathy.
Maybe to some extent I can agree, particularly to young children who can’t necessarily discern what is real and what isn’t. Also I’ve sen studies though, that people’s brains react to fight/flight situations in video games the same as they would if people were really in the situation. There is a visceral and emotional response. It’s hardwired, in our genetics. We no longer have to hunt, etc, or fight for our survival in reality, but our brains and bodies are still inclined to do so. In the video game we have an outlet for these tendencies that might otherwise get spent in more harmful ways. Then it can be set aside and rejoin modern society. What we really need is better parenting, to monitor what the kids see in at least as much as learning what is and is not reality.
“Gee, what could possibly be wrong with reading that at bedtime?”
there are parts of the bible like that.
I think one of the defining features of my childhood was the bible I had illustrated by Gustave Dore
Look him up sometime… There’s a reason I’m no fan of Christianity, and it started there
Ok, here I’m on my home ground. The “point” of the Bombadil story arc was to set up the escapade with the barrow-wights and provide backstory for the blade that would slay the chief of the ring-wraiths. And also to provide a glimpse into magical forces disassociated from the Valar and their war with Morgoth and Sauron. Bombadil was similar to Beorn, sort of a neutral outsider.
I could geek out on Tolkien all day, but it’s PK, not TK.
Yeah, Charlie is a huge LOTR fan too, it’s hard to critique the books in his hearing without him getting all pissy about it. Most of his explainations for things that are confusing are because he’s read the appendix, which to me I feel a good story should stand on it’s own. If it’s not really clear to your readers why you put certain things in then you need to streamline your writing. However, I get that Tolkein wasn’t really writing with publication in mind (at least not at first) and with his background in linguistics it accounts for some of the dryness and wordiness. However, I feel that we should be honest about it, so many fans put it up on a pedestal and can’t really see that Tolkein is not the greatest writer evah! No offense n8, since usually I agree with you!
Tolkien has his flaws, certainly, but I love his stuff. I rather like “The Silmarillion”
Hit [Add comment] too soon — teething-baby scream *sigh*.
I meant to include a bit about little myths and short, digestible pieces. Give it a whirl, Jane. You could read a few pages during your planning periods or something.
It does read rather like a bible with all the “begats” in the beginning. The stories thereafter are pretty good if you like the writing style. I do, though I understand why some don’t. I’m a huge mythology and fantasy nerd though.
I actually was HUGE into Greek mythology around 6th or 7th grade. I tried to make the jump to Norse mythology and didn’t enjoy it quite as much, too depressing! As to reading during my planning periods, that’s when I grade! I’m so overwhelmed right now there is no way I’m reading ANYTHING sadly.
If you’ll notice Jane, All religious stories… whether it be Christianity,
Greek Mythology, Norse Mythology, all of them are depressing if you
really read into whats happening. I could give examples, but they’re
all right there.
How very Campbell of you
(
Oh, I definitely agree about Tolkien’s wordy style. I happen to enjoy it, but I can see how it would grate on some people. I wouldn’t call Tolkien the greatest writer ever, but he certainly constructed one of the best alternate realities ever!
Mythopoeia win?
I have to agree about presentation. If the story requires an appendix, then your presentation is lacking. I am not saying you shouldn’t make up a brand new reality but it should present itself in a way that is understood within the story.
I understand that a lot of references won’t resonate with people as books have an audience, however, a book or a movie for that matter (Looking at you Cloverfield) should not be a homework assignment. I should get enlightment or entertainment from a book, not drudgery.
Also — speaking of Cloverfield and also the Blair Witch Project — when the hapless character gets caught and/or eaten by the monster, my response when watching should be, “oh, no!” If, instead, it is “FINALLY!”, the filmmakers haz epic failed in creating a likable character.
Tis okay, Tolkien bores and annoys me as a gamer and rp nut.
Don’t bother, Dubya – BHO will just put them back and expand them.
FC, I give it six.
You can count on it.
My, my, my… a little prickly, aren’t we? Seriously, please don’t tell me that you actually believed all of the GOP campaign hype… you did, didn’t you? My goodness, will you never learn?
they say it because they know there’s enough suckers out there that’ll buy it.
Who do you think hits all those pop ups, thus keeping the concept around to annoy us?
The only thing they have to fear is *lack of* fear, itself.
Ha! Apparently. LOL
I didn’t believe ANYONE’s campaign hype. The Republicans were in the back seat for so long they forgot how to drive. Then they began taking lessons from the Democrats, which is why they lost thier a$$es. Why vote for a fake Democrat when you can have a real one?
I’m interested to know how you came to these conclusions.
ooh…damn…this may be one of the greatest commend threads ever on PK…Tolkien discussion, religion, existentialism…good night all.