I thought UBL was dead, apparently not. Something was lost in the translation though, I found him to be rather boring. His presentation came across like Ben Steins character in Ferris Buellers Day Off. I suppose that once you've memorized the Koran your brain becomes sufficiently numb to make guys like that interesting. We may have discovered the real reason for suicide bombing, it provides a mechanism for escape from any more interminable sermons by pious idiots.

It's sad when one's mind is so warped by endless searching of double and triple meaning for anything... by the paranoid feeling of 'OK, is this really what it seems? This seems real, is it *really*? What emotion/reaction is supposed to cause in me, and what will that emotion will make me do?'. I wouldn't like to be a voter, next tuesday.

The moment I saw the video, I couldn't help but recall an image in the latest Eminem (!!!) video, which shows a cardboard Osama, falling away with its' background, revealing a few familiar characters in the back, sipping coffee.

quote:

---

I'm trying to understand what goes on in someone's mind when his country asks him to serve and he runs away from that obligation.

---

I'm assuming of course what you meant to say was that you're trying to understand what goes on in someone's mind when they obey a higher moral obligation and leave their home, job and loved one's behind to avoid disobeying their conscience.

quote:

---

So there is a middle ground between total privacy and no privacy.

---

Fair enough. And were someone running for public office, their voting record would be fair game. I think Mr. Gibson has voluntarily offered up a great deal of his privacy in this regard in his most recent blog entries. Frankly, I think it's in bad taste to ask for more, and besides, a person's past voting record is not necessarily a good indicator of their present thinking.

quote:

---

I want to know why a non-participant ...suddenly comes alive now when there have arguably been much more dangerous wars and crisises abroad and much worse economic situations at home?

---

The situation now, as Mr. Gibson so succinctly puts it, is one that may eventually threaten democracy itself, at least in America:

quote:

---

This is an election in which to vote for *the greater likelihood of there being more elections in the future*.

---

Many folks, myself included, have argued that our present situation may be qualitatively different than even the dire threats of MAD and the Depression in that even at our nation's worst moments, few people have questioned the survival of our democratic institutions themselves. This is a contentious position, I admit, and not everyone shares this pessimistic view. But enough smart folks, folks in a position to see the long view, do that it gives me pause.

quote:

---

Why doesn't Gibson just admit that he's a liberal?

---

to the rest of the world, liberal = centrist.

also, just because somebody isn't right-wing, doesn't mean they are left-wing. that is just a false black/white world view. there are more than two directions.

hear, hear kawayama! Why should there be only one order of freedom in the political spectrum ? One dimensional thinking never gets me anywhere.

Heh, I've said it before: what the hell is it with Americans and 'admitting' you're a liberal? You make it sound like it's 'admitting' you're a paedophile. I'm a liberal, proudly so - I don't admit it, I proclaim it.

Small 'l' liberal means believing in society and in caring for others less privileged and fortunate. In that sense, I think it's more shameful to have to admit you're *not* a liberal.

Though I can't say that BC politics is in any way normal. wacky lotuslanders!

Snif. I love lotusland.

/me initiates a group hug, but in fairly typical fashion it rapidly degenerates into a combination group grope and rugby scrum...

Yikes. I hate to ruin this touchy feely moment. This account of Rummy's warwas just too fascinating and to the point to not post.

quote:

---

For instance, instead of demonizing Bush, why doesn't he state the case for Kerry?

---

There's something frightful about having a man in power that inspires the kind of demagogue ranting that you've just exhibited.

Would you please shut off the repeat-mode? I'm sure everyone here has gotten your point, and since this isn't middle America, we are neither impressed nor convinced by repetitive slander.

You might care to adress some of the issues? Does it not strike you as somehow at odds with the statement that Bush is tough on terror, that Osama bin Laden is working on improving his tv-presence, while Iraq has been turned into a terrorist training camp?

Does it not seem strange at all, in your view, that a so-called Conservative is dragging the US into an abyss of debt?

Isn't it puzzling that this compassionate Conservative has created the greatest divide in US politics since the 1930's, and the greatest contempt for the US in the rest of the world ever?

I'm not trying to bait you into some hoax. I'm genuinely interested in how this works.

quote:

---

I just think that gloating remarks about the Bin Laden video and 9/11 are distasteful and turn a lot of people off to the Democrats.

---

According to my dictionary gloat means "to feel, express, or observe with great, often malicious pleasure or self-satisfaction." I can see (without agreeing with) how maybe Gibson's recent blogs could be described as gloating, but my own reading of them is of a person disappointed with the current fact of a figurehood for antiAmerican ideology inserting last minute doubt into the minds of easily impressionable voters. Gibson seems to be to be more concerned with getting Bush out of office rather than getting Kerry in, this really has nothing to do with Democrats vs. Republicans. In other words, this election is not so much about partisan politics as it is about large numbers of people concerned that Bush is simply inept and causing more long term damage in pursuit of his short term goals.

Regarding the polls, I question collection methods that rely only on phones, but rather than focusing on how the data was gathered, let's just assume for the moment it is fairly accurate, and think about what the numbers mean. They also show that the majority of people are about evenly split on whether the most important issue is Iraq or the economy, with the overall War on Terror right behind those two issues. When asked about the economy most voters have felt Kerry would lead better. So I guess it really boils down to how you as an individual weigh all these factors. My personal opinion is that the economy is more important because without the money to fund it a War on Terror is just a bunch of hot mouthed bullshit. I also think calling 52% of people a majority is misleading. What it really says to me is half the people I talk to will be for Bush and half of them won't. I've already seen pretty compelling evidence that slightly more than half of Bush supporters don't really know much about Bush or his position on a large number of wide ranging topics. This part of the current election is pretty complex, it seems to me most people are responding more to Bush the icon than to Bush as a leader.

I think Bush succeeds in a fabulous manner as an icon. As does Osama bin Laden. I think that is really what Gibson is talking about in his latest blog entries, even if he doesn't paint it in that light. It is my opinion based on years of observation that Americans (myself included) are trained from birth to respond to iconic symbols by the superabundance of advertising in our mass media (this is also happening more and more on a global scale.) Not that it's anything new, or even possessing of a moral quality like badness or evilness, but it simply is. The problem with icons is they invite you to put your own belief system onto them once they catch your interest. Reality may have nothing to do with your decision making process. That is exactly what is so dangerous about this election. More people who could be turned on to the facts are voting for imaginary people than ever before. I think Bush's people understand this and even encourage it, and I find it morally reprehensible.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny Appleseed:
Knowing the polling data, do you think you help Democrats attract voters to Kerry by saying things like this:

quote:

---

OBL today is probably a very satisfied, very optimistic man, and if he can skew the last-minute dynamic of the election in Bush's favor, he'll have cause to be all the more satisfied.

And that's the danger, that some crucial percentage of our dimmer, more reactive voters will flash back to 9-11 and the Bush of the bullhorn, the Bush buffeted with the heartbroken grit of Ground Zero, and vote for that -- childishly imagining that such a vote runs counter to the wishes and the needs of OBL...

---

By Gibson's definition the 52 to 40 percent of Americans who think Bush is a better leader on the War on Terror are childish reactive, mouthbreathing, fools.

---

I don't know why you keep trying to change the words "some crucial percentage of our dimmer, more reactive voters" to "everyone who is thinking about voting for Bush." He's saying a small group of people will see the video, think of 9-11, and decide to vote for Bush, which is probably what Bin Laden wants. The vast majority of the 52% thinking of voting for Bush already decided to do that long ago, and nothing WG or anyone else says is going to change their minds.

I also don't see why you characterize this as "gloating".

Personally, I wonder why so many people in the US feel President Bush is doing such a good job. Afghanistan actually seemed to go relatively well, except for the failing to capture Bin Laden part, but Iraq? Does anyone actually feel safer now?

Johnny Appleseed wrote:
> I simply take issue with Gibson when he insists
>that he's a moderate and then compares Bush to Milosevic

Concerning Sterling's reference comparing Bush to Milosevic, I understood, from the email quote, the reference to be in comparison to Milosevic' staunch denial of circumstances, such as during his re-election bid. I did not see this as any other comparison.

I do find it important to retrieve the relevant aspects of history to understand the present through our past. There are times when it is important to compare tactics, strategies, and decisions to those of our history's worst villains. The context must be preserved, lest the understanding be lost.

For example, I find many people have a strong aversion to speaking about Hitler. Most seem to simply wave it off as an historical aberration. Few people realize how little support Hitler received when he first appeared on the scene, or the methods he used to shroud his agenda in words the public best responded to. From his diaries, he clearly had a devotion to his country and his people and had a strong vision of Germany's future. From Hitler, we understand that one of the most powerful ways to motivate is to maneuver your allies into a position such that their most obvious choice of resolution is to follow through with your agenda. Napoleon used the same strategy. Such is the case with Iraq. Whether one believes the war was right or not, we can't leave. We are forced to resolve the situation, or we risk an even greater threat than before we invaded. This was a well known possibility, but not one that seemed to be included in the national debate. If we go, there is no turning back.

Another comparison is that many historians believe that there were certain circumstances that allowed Hitler to rise to power so quickly; one of these was national trauma. Germany was traumatized that it was once the most powerful nation in Europe, a worthy industrial challenge to England, and it lost World War I. Further, the structure of their society was being disintegrated and rewritten by foreigners. Reeling from tragedy and economic uncertainty, the German people sought out blame and a national identity far removed from their own responsibility of their condition. Further, Hitler, along with many Germans during his rise, felt that Hitler's emergence at such a critical time was destiny. Sound familiar? Many historians argue that without national trauma, Hitler would have never been given an opportunity. History tells us, look out for that industrial country that suffers a national trauma, and be wary of those that profit from it.

Am I comparing Bush with Hitler? Yes. Do I think Bush is another Hitler? No. Do I think it's fair to compare these two leaders? Yes. Is the national trauma that the German people experienced similar to the trauma the American people experienced? Yes. Should I be concerned? Yes.

*invokes Godwin's Law*

Johnny Appleseed wrote:
>the counter-argument is that the sight of
>caskets arriving would sap the will
>of the civilian population and decrease
>support for the war

I'm aware of the counter arguments, but protecting the privacy of the families is about keeping the media from funerals and shoving cameras into their grieving faces, which I wholeheartedly agree with, but not necessarily about paying tribute to the anonymous caskets returning to American soil. Carter, Reagan, and Clinton showed caskets of American servicemen returning from combat areas to show their respect for their service and sacrifice. H.W. Bush stopped this in 1991. Clinton relaxed it in 1992 and payed respect whether it affected his public image or not. W. Bush fully banned any coverage of caskets in March 2003, even though no polls of military families show support to this practice. When a cargo worker attempted to illustrate the care and devotion given to remains while in transport to the U.S., she was summarily fired, because she took a picture of caskets on a plane. This practice is clearly about managing public relations. No wonder why we find future generations not realizing the sacrifices of their former generations. Contrast this with our allies who pay tribute to their fallen heroes.

Those remote regions are uninhabited. No one to vote for poppenkopf there. These are not the droids you are looking for. Move along.

Hello? Wisconsin?

*Sheesh* Now I have to wait to find out.

Just a commentary. Although Le Monde Diplomatique translation is certainly creative, and reorganizes the whole article (and change many minor details), the basic idea, and the quote included are the same. Surprisingly it appears more mellow in the original, and more critical of those who do not make the effort of understanding either West Virginia or Bush tactics.

José