freecounterpoint: Nice touch

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Nice touch

I think the uberslut is a nice touch for a background although I think I demonstrated convincingly that she is at her best when eating a banana.

26 comments:

Tecumseh said...: Pretty good, pretty good, but Isn't this background a bit too busy (and distracting)? How about something more subdued -- not pitch black as before, yet more suave, and conducing to elevated discourse, instead of suggestion of inter ibidem?; 9/12/2006 9:51 PM
Mr roT said...: Thank you, PLP and AI. Paris is just for today for AI's reasons. Bugs my old eyes. The explication is here and also in my little Banksy-Paris tiff with PLP.; 9/12/2006 9:55 PM
Mr roT said...: "Inter ibidem"? Among those same ones?; 9/12/2006 10:02 PM
Tecumseh said...: OK, I posted a comment there.

Who is Banksy? What's PLP? Hey, man, this kind of jargon is killing me. Speak English!!; 9/12/2006 10:03 PM
Tecumseh said...: "Inter ibidem"? Among those same ones?

I was refering to discourse, of course. Too deep for you, JJ, or all you can think of are peeled bananas?; 9/12/2006 10:05 PM
Mr roT said...: Here is a magnum opus of Banksy's. PLP= Pepe Le Pew who is a fan of Banksy's.; 9/12/2006 10:06 PM
Tecumseh said...: Thanks, JJ, now I get it. Banksy=some random Lefty "artist", who made that collage (with the napalmed Vietnamese girl & Disney characters -- oh what a subtle put-down of Amerikkka) that PLP proudly displays. Lovely.; 9/12/2006 10:24 PM
The Darkroom said...: yeh what was i thinking ? that little bitch deserved all the napalm she got...; 9/12/2006 10:31 PM
Mr roT said...: ...and Banksy is showing a lot of respect for her plight.; 9/12/2006 11:03 PM
The Darkroom said...: so the bad guys in this story aren't those indiscriminately bombing the children, it is the cartoonist commenting on it ? pretty twisted logic here if you ask me.; 9/13/2006 10:40 AM
The Darkroom said...: I can practically hear the girls plea: "Leave these bombers alone, they were just doing their jobs ! But that cartoon, that's what hurt me most".; 9/13/2006 10:43 AM
Tecumseh said...: Those "bombers" were American pilots fighting a brutal aggression from the Communist North Vietnamese Army, in cahoots with their Victor Charlie South Vietnamese stooges. In war, collateral damage happens -- it's an axiom. The alternative -- tirelessly propagated by the Lefty useful idiots, is to lay down and surrender to whomever attacks Western Civilization. To that effect, they tirelessly point out instances of collateral damage done by our side, glossing over atrocities on an inimaginable scale done by whoever is on the other side, trying to destroy us. Socialism as the ultimate Kool Aid suicide pact for the West, yes?; 9/13/2006 11:35 AM
Mr roT said...: Here is what happened to that girl. She got out of Viet Nam as soon as she could. She was fortunate to have become an icon for the confused moralists of the Left because about a million montagnards and boat people didn't get her chance to get out of Ho Chih Minh's Sorbonne-inspired Hell. Why doesn't Banksy have a couple artworks devoted to Mao's or Pol Pot's victims? Were there too few for his refined tastes?; 9/13/2006 12:52 PM
The Darkroom said...: Well if, the premise is that the US is the good guy no matter what, damage done to the US amounts to terrorism and damage done by the US is understandable collateral damage, there isn't much to argue over, is there ?; 9/13/2006 1:35 PM
The Darkroom said...: Why doesn't Banksy have a couple artworks devoted to Mao's or Pol Pot's victims?

I don't get it: denouncing one villain puts you under some sort of obligation to denounce them all ?; 9/13/2006 2:16 PM
My Frontier Thesis said...: Self-reflexivity is much different than the polemics that Chomsky Inc. fires against the United States and Isreal.

It was quite unfortunate that the little girl was part of the suffering of war, and were any of us there, we would've done everything on the personal level to help. This is akin to a neighbor, a retired Army Ranger who served two tours in Afghanistan. He doesn't believe every Muslim wants nor will answer the true calling of Jihad and the House of War, the meeting point between the Infidel's domain (that's us) and the Islamic Empire. He befriended many Afghans who want to build families and the like. It's ridiculous to think of Afghanistan (and Iraq) in strictly black and white terms, and this Army Ranger knew that through and through (I think a lot more soldiers realize this than the media gives credit, but then again, the media is interested in creating controversy as it moves newspaper).

I personally believe we have to keep chugging along, and that means we can't simply abandon Mesopotamia or the 'stans, or any other part of the world.

Pepe: do you really think America and the West should "get out of Iraq"? Or is this just the usual political polarization that is predictable just before elections?; 9/13/2006 3:13 PM
The Darkroom said...: >>were any of us there, we would've done everything on the personal level to help

really ? I hear more excuses than contrition for My Lai and other Abu Ghraibs...

Pepe: do you really think America and the West should "get out of Iraq"? Or is this just the usual political polarization that is predictable just before elections?
Well, most of the rest of the West is already out. But yes, absolutely.
And that for four interrelated reasons:
1. Iraq has little to nothing to do with terrorism.
2. Even if it did, terror is a sporadic, small scale problem.
3. The best way to handle it, IMO is by good police/special ops work - not an all out war that is achieving little more than destabilizing a Middle East already prone to extremism.
4. The incompetence of this administration is such that, even if the war were warranted, it would be unable to fight it successfully.; 9/13/2006 4:36 PM
My Frontier Thesis said...: Pepe said: really ? I hear more excuses than contrition for My Lai and other Abu Ghraibs...

Well, if you look in the Right places, you'll find all the evidence you need to support your claims Pepe. But that's what absolutist worldviews leads to: bad humanities scholarship (ex., Ward Churchill).

Pepe's Quadravictory Kreigspeil:

1. Iraq has little to nothing to do with terrorism.
2. Even if it did, terror is a sporadic, small scale problem.
3. The best way to handle it, IMO is by good police/special ops work - not an all out war that is achieving little more than destabilizing a Middle East already prone to extremism.
4. The incompetence of this administration is such that, even if the war were warranted, it would be unable to fight it successfully.

Answer one is a bit of a fallacy in that the U.S. and the Pentagon doesn't view Iraq as a terrorist. Christopher Hitchens has also made this point in more ways than a dozen. Your second answer trumps the first in that, if terrorism is sporadic, then there is going to be terrorists in every country (this includes within the geopolitical borders of Iraq). As we know, the cellphones of certain parlimentary members of Iraq had some numbers of dubious characters. What do you think about that? To answer question three, that is already happening: Military MPs and Navy SEALs and Delta are all working to better Afghanistan, and Iraq. They, in turn, are training the militaries of the host countries (Iraq and Afghanistan), but realize Pepe, this isn't an overnight process. I understand why you posited question four the way you did, and that an election is on the way, and if only we could get someone with Socialist leanings in there, we could achieve Utopia. But that's a bunch of mythical, 19th-century bullshit positivistic thinking, Pepe. It's unrealistic.

You don't have to like Bush, but you're wrong if you think, or even suggest, the American soldier doesn't know what they are doing over in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Then again, you're probably a trickle-down political thinker, believing that whatever happens at the top levels of government will make it's way down to the American Private. That's all very Regeanomic of you Pepe, but there's more to it than that.; 9/13/2006 5:03 PM
The Darkroom said...: Answer one is a bit of a fallacy in that the U.S. and the Pentagon doesn't view Iraq as a terrorist.
Do you mean to state that the administration hasn't suggested all along that there was a connection ? Up to 2 days ago when the 9/11 anniversary was again used as a pretext to justify the war ?

Your second answer trumps the first in that, if terrorism is sporadic, then there is going to be terrorists in every country (this includes within the geopolitical borders of Iraq). As we know, the cellphones of certain parlimentary members of Iraq had some numbers of dubious characters. What do you think about that?
agreed - but it doesn't amount to much (I can made the "mafia on steroids" analogy again), or, imo, not enough to justify an all out war.

To answer question three, that is already happening
Well yes, but my point is that this is the solution (war isn't).

I understand why you posited question four the way you did, and that an election is on the way, and if only we could get someone with Socialist leanings in there, we could achieve Utopia
Whatever gave you the idea that I want to establish socialism in the US ? I am a business owner (and not a masochist) ! I assure you that my lack of support for the war has nothing to do with the upcoming election. I was actually a scientist working for the Naval Research Lab until the war broke out and resigned because I wanted no part of it. This isn't political opportunism.

you're wrong if you think, or even suggest, the American soldier doesn't know what they are doing over in Afghanistan and Iraq
I'll take it that this statement is little more than PC rhetoric (of the "our- troops-are-doing-a-great-job" variety). So the administration is doing a fine job, the troops are awesome but the result on the ground is a huge disaster. go figure.; 9/13/2006 6:49 PM
Tecumseh said...: MFT: Valiant try, but basically hopeless. My own take, after a long experiece with Lefty thought processes, is that this is simply an extortion racket -- they play on the West's guilt to try and win over what they can't by playing fair and square.

That's how the Commies "won" in Vietnam -- by having their useful idiots (a la Kerry, Jane Fonda, etc, etc) beating the drums of Western guilt, till America folded. This has been their signaturte "victory", and now they are trying to replay it, have us fold in the face of terrorists. No matter what you say, however logical or well argued, will dent their will to make the West commit suicide. Better have a stone cold IPA and enjoy life...; 9/13/2006 6:54 PM
The Darkroom said...: Ai - but you are not arguing - you are just stating what your premise is: lefties traitors/rooting for america to be defeated/all wrong.

The contention that the left dreams about the destruction of america is pretty much the mirror image of the lefty statement that the war is all about siphoning tax dollars to Halliburton.; 9/13/2006 7:32 PM
The Darkroom said...: This has been their signaturte "victory", and now they are trying to replay it, have us fold in the face of terrorists

ai - with the occupation triggering civil war, terrorism is now a secondary concern in iraq as most of the killings are carried out by government employees.

Besides, what exactly is the plan to defeat terrorism ? I mean, you got zarky - did the situation improve ? With Al Maliki kissing up to Ahmadinejad (see my post), civil war ("civil unrest") and the country breaking up three ways, is this one of the most ineffective campaign of all times ? I actually find it hard to imagine how the situation could be worse than it is today.

So this is no time to have a "we will NEVER surrender to the ugly villain" moment. It is instead time to fold simply because the war is making the situation in iraq and the rest of the middle east considerably worse than it was 4 years ago.; 9/13/2006 7:43 PM
My Frontier Thesis said...: MFT on Whining:

Pepe: The contention that the left dreams about the destruction of america is pretty much the mirror image of the lefty statement that the war is all about siphoning tax dollars to Halliburton.

The left desires chaos so they can shout "SEE!!!" in the same vein that Bill O'Reilly and Michael Moore construct some type of post-WWII pre-Vietnam "Gilded Age" in America. O'Reilly harkens family values while Moore says, "If it wasn't for these huge corporate takeovers..." I don't endorse any of this romantic bullshit just the same way I don't endorse that a "yeoman ideal" ever existed. Life is really fucking hard, and there are few moments when it's good. Utopians have a hard time understanding that, and while I disagree with their idealism, I applaud their good-intentions.

Do you mean to state that the administration hasn't suggested all along that there was a connection ? Up to 2 days ago when the 9/11 anniversary was again used as a pretext to justify the war ?

Do you mean to state that the Saddam regime of pre-Gulf War II and the current post-Gulf War II Parliament of Iraq now are the same governments?

...my point is that this [Navy SEALs and the like] is the solution (war isn't).

You said you did research for the Navy, so you understand that Navy SEALs aren't there to tickle the terrorists. Could you define what you mean by "war"? Do you mean "war" proper shouldn't be declared, and we should send in -- oh my! -- snipers and Delta squads to whack dictators?

I'll take it that this statement is little more than PC rhetoric (of the "our- troops-are-doing-a-great-job" variety).

Again Pepe, you're going to find the evidence that supports your worldview and ignore the rest. I've a bro-in-law who was the Police Action (an MP) in Iraq immediately following the invasion force in Gulf War II. He was disappointed with what happened at Abu Ghraib, but he said we have to keep on doing our best. He learned from his soldiers that wives and girlfriends were divorcing their husbands and breaking up with their soldier boyfriends, and while disheartening, he continued to want to make a positive difference. My neighbor (as I mentioned before) is the ex-Army Ranger, and he was the first to say, "Not all Afghanis are bad... in fact, it's a few that fuck it up for the rest." So no, I'm not spouting PC rhetoric, whatever the hell that means (to use the phrase "PC rhetoric" is in itself PC rhetoric).

I get sick and tired of the fucking bitching. I could never hang around politicans or political friends (Right or Left) for very long precisely for that reason. They tend to have all the Right (yes, or Left) ideas, and they tend to be skeptical about anything and everything unless they implement it. And if it goes wrong, it's always someone elses fault. Always. If stranded in the woods, the only good people like this would provide would be emotional, to fuel my anger and thus my will to search for food, shelter, and make fire. Incessent bitchers are pussies.

I'd still buy you a beer Pepe.; 9/13/2006 8:05 PM
The Darkroom said...: Do you mean to state that the Saddam regime of pre-Gulf War II and the current post-Gulf War II Parliament of Iraq now are the same governments?

Of course not. But that govt is only a small slice of the iraqi reality. And as it is unable to shield its people from civil war, it is failing in its primary duty to protect its population. As it stands, combined with a "constitution" that ratifies theocracy, it is doing little more than providing the illusion of democracy.

The larger question is whether the iraqis are better off in today's iraq than that of saddam - not whether the US's idea of what iraq will be tomorrow will be better than baathist iraq. I say pretty much anything is better than civil war. And civil war is what the US has been able to bring to iraq.

So what we have today is what the US can do for the iraqis. It's time to leave.; 9/13/2006 9:21 PM
The Darkroom said...: Do you mean "war" proper shouldn't be declared, and we should send in -- oh my! -- snipers and Delta squads to whack dictators?

yes: send in Jack Bauer, goddamit. I don't see how that could result in a worse outcome than what we have today.; 9/13/2006 9:23 PM
Tecumseh said...: And if it goes wrong, it's always someone elses fault. Always.

You hit upon something here, MFT. Yes, whining is a good diagnostic for what motivates much of present-day pinko-lefty limousine-liberals. Arrested adolescence. Etc, etc -- you know the psycho babble. That also explains in great part why they love the Nanny State.

But seriously, even though this explains mich of the superficial whining and sniping and belly aching and navel-gazing on the part of the Bierkenstock set, it does not come close to explain eveything that motivates the Left, especially the Hard Left. I think there is much more to it, and more serious than that. But it's too long a story for the current thread, let's leave it for another day.

If stranded in the woods, the only good people like this would provide would be emotional, to fuel my anger and thus my will to search for food, shelter, and make fire. Incessent bitchers are pussies.

Again, I know what you mean. It's one of those crosses one has to bear through life. Just look at it that way: even if this bad and annoying, it can of course get much worse -- think Golgotha, or Norilsk, or Dachau. So let's count our blessings -- if the only disturbances we had to contend in life were some whining and griping from Doonesbury types, oh well, I'd say we'd be a rather lucky lot, won't you?; 9/14/2006 2:09 AM