Kind of strange cartoon from someone who’s last cartoon promoted fear.
Sorry to keep coming back to my old theme, but all of this FEAR stuff drives me crazy.
Americans are not cowards, no one is going to scare us into surrendering.
America is made up of several million people, there are only a few thousands terrorist in the world, why let them win because one stupid person gets on a plane – I know the that is important to the people on the plane, but they showed that they didn’t need government to protect them, they, as with the Shoe Bomber, took care of the situation.
On 9/11 over 3,000 American died, but over 10,000 didn’t. They were in the Towers, or went into the towers to save people, they didn’t panic and run screaming down the stairs, they went in orderly fashion, often stopping to help others. Americans on a plane they realized was going to be used to kill people, took over and prevent that, even thought them knew it was going to mean death for them.
Have faith in America and Americans, don’t let “FEAR” drive us. The Media and Political Parties love fear, the media uses it to win rating, and Political Parties use it to win elections.
Remind them that we are not afraid, angry, but not afraid.
I dont think people are all that afraid, but the media sure as hell tries to get people scared, and that is the problem. It was once said that people have a right to live in freedom from fear, but it appears like all which has been attempted to be sown is more fear as to separate us from our humanity.
How is one going to get people to let themselves be robbed to pay for wars of aggression abroad, which, not so incidentally, puts that money in the pockets of armaments makers, their lobbyists, and their employees, the members of the Congress, if one doesn’t, to quote Harry S Truman, «scare the hell out of them», as he did in 1947 ? Hermann Göring put it this way : «Natürlich, das einfache Volk will keinen Krieg […] Aber schließlich sind es die Führer eines Landes, die die Politik bestimmen, und es ist immer leicht, das Volk zum Mitmachen zu bringen, ob es sich nun um eine Demokratie, eine faschistische Diktatur, um ein Parlament oder eine kommunistische Diktatur handelt. […] Das ist ganz einfach. Man braucht nichts zu tun, als dem Volk zu sagen, es würde angegriffen, und den Pazifisten ihren Mangel an Patriotismus vorzuwerfen und zu behaupten, sie brächten das Land in Gefahr. Diese Methode funktioniert in jedem Land.» (If you don’t know German, Google Translate is your friend….)
“Naturally, the simple people want there to be no war […] however, in the end it is the leaders of a country who determine the politics, and it is always easy to bring the people around whether they are in a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, a parliament or a communist dictatorship. […] This is entirely simple. One needs to do nothing but say to the people they would be attacked, and to reproach and to maintain the pacifist his lack of patriotism, because they would put the country in danger. This method functions in every country.” More or less. I tweaked the more literal translation.
I had this stashed away for comparison to how Rove and Cheney sold us Bush’s war, but it’s still very relevant today; you see people like Scott using it all the time:
“Naturally, the common people don’t want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliment, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and DENOUNCE THE PACIFISTS FOR LACK OF PATRIOTISM and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.” – Hermann Goering, Hitler’s Reich-Marshall at the Nuremberg Trials after WWII.
^ Yes, I was aware of Goering & Caesar’s speeches which is why I am a little anti-patriotism or completely anti-blind-patriotism. (I just took Henri’s challenge to test my German).
I do not give any nation or national of any nation any particular attributes like heroism or cowardliness or stinginess just because of the nationality or place of birth. All peoples can be Brave, or cowardly, or adventurous or ingenious or stingy.
I refuse, absolutely refuse, to sing any national anthem. I might stand up when one is sung but never, ever ask me to sing one. Just the way I was brought up.
(ahem, this could present a problem should I ever wish to take on British citizenship ;-) Bloody silly ceremonies)
As individuals, I’ve seen great courage, and compassion from the majority of Americans. This is what “foreigners” observe and admire as well. As a collective however, FEAR and a sense of overwhelming hubris are the odd mix we present, and our government represents, to those same “foreigners”. It distresses them, because so many have “been there, done that” and recognize the flaw.
Oh, yes. I’ve been thinking of that quotation since early in the Bush Administration…incidentally, I can’t take credit for the translation; I just plugged it into freetranslation.com and tweaked the output.
But “simple folk” might be better still. As in the non-noble folk.
When 60% of the media is owned by the military industrial complex there should be no debate why we see fear mongering and propaganda on the talking head channels and even our local news.
we have more to fear than ever…we have a government that tries to write laws that can’t be undone….we lose our franchise….for those of you who love the dems beware of the precident…..the other guys will eventually get in again…..I vote no to all the above!!
One of the Republicans (Gingrich? I can’t remember) has already said that as soon as they’re in power, they’ll repeal whatever healthcare law gets passed, removing insurance from millions and returning huge profits to the insurance companies.
^What the dems want to do is make a provision that states that any changes made to the health care law (assuming it gets passed) would require a 2/3 majority vote. This way the health care law doesn’t have a Medicare part D added when the cons take over.
Anthony, can you provide a source for that purported quote from our old friend Gaius Julius Caesar ? It sounds rather suspect to me, not least the use of the term «Caesar» as a title meaning «Emperor», which eponym (Caesars family name) was not employed until after Caesar’s death. Thus «I am Caesar», aside from being a manner of speaking rather uncharacteristic of this very artful politician, is either a tautology (like John Doe saying «I am Doe») or simply wrong - Caesar was never a Roman emperor, as the institution dates from Augustus, nor did the title exist….
Church, are you no longer able to access http://www.gocomics.com/donwright/2010/01/03/ ?
Just in case, here’s the reply I gave you there:
“Show me where you learned that “most of our laws come from the judiciary”.”
Law school.
“Are you a lawyer?”
I was for a year, but didn’t like it, and abandoned it.
“Did you pass the bar?”
Yes.
Go to a law library. Ask to be shown the sections pertaining to “black letter law” (law statutes passed by legislatures). Note the size of that section.
Then ask to be shown the administrative and regulatory laws section (laws enacted by the executive branches).
Then ask to be shown the sections dealing with court case decisions by appeal courts on up (laws made by the judiciary). Note the amount of space devoted to this section.
Want to guess which is FAR bigger?
(Here’s another exercise for you: During the Bush years, we fell way behind in stem cell research because it was against the law for federally-funded scientists to use any new embryonic stem cell lines. Which legislative body made that law, Church?)
It was not against the law to use “stem cells”. Bush’ administration actually increased funding for adult stem cell research; which has actually had successful results (and which has since been cancelled by the Obama Administration; I imagine because it competes with his Culture of Death Agenda). The government was restricted from allocating public funds for research done with new lines of embryonic stem cells (some embryonic cell lines already in use were allowed to continue to be used). Anthony lies again.
Go on, Blazin…explain how stem cell research expanded in Europe, but stagnated in the U.S.A., during the Bush years.
Do tell us how Bush “increased funding”, and how this was “cancelled by the Obama Administration”.
And don’t forget to tell us about this mythical “Culture of Death Agenda”…and I’ll give you a hint…if your answer involves Sarah Palin and her Death Panels fantasy, well, expect to lose credibility.
Also tell us how stem cell research does so well when they’re “restricted from allocating public funds for research done with new lines of embryonic stem cells”.
You really are uninformed aren’t you, Anthony? Or are you being intentionally distracting? I would think someone in your purported line of work would be more informed about medical research…
Correction: In Bush’s executive order embryonic stem cells funded by public monies were allowed to be used if they were already in use. Embryonic and all stem cells have been “legal” all the time for use in privately funded research and medical therapies.
Your correction is noted, and I went back and altered the post in question to make it more accurate. Moot point, since it was being used merely as an example of laws made by the executive branch, but since it seemed important to you, it’s done.
First link: Interesting to have an intelligent design proponent call someone else “anti-science”.
If you want to know what effect Bush’s policies had, why not look at articles from the time, like this one from 2004:
“there is no question that the current policy is substantially retarding progress in stem cell research.”
Your second link has an interesting idea behind it, but I think you’ll find that whichever type of stem cell research gives the most promising results will be the same, no matter where the federal dollars go. If adult stem cells turn out to be superior, then those are the ones that will get the efforts. All the private companies who’ve been working without federal funding aren’t going to back an inferior method.
Your last link, containing lines like “The magical cure-all of embryonic stem cell research is a nefarious plan to legalize all abortions” is not even worthy of comment.
Although it does suggest that I’m wasting my time trying to discuss a science-based topic with you…especially since the discussion you co-opted was about law.
Uhh, okay, legal-beagle. I’m very scientific, thank you for not noticing. But that has nothing to do with the freedom in the private sector to do research on whatever stem cells you may want to; whether adult or embryonic, during the Bush administration.
First illogical premise: fundie Christians are unscientific. I would expect no more from a son of leisure unaware of where his world views come from. You claim to have served in Vietnam? I would expect a military man to have more sense.
It takes a certain avoidance of basic science to be a fundie christian.
Son of leisure? How so?
Vietnam? No.
I’m starting to get the feeling you’re confusing me with someone else, especially since I don’t recall conversing with you previously, yet you popped in here full of preconceived notions about my “true natue” and what-not.
Wait a second…am I wasting time with Puppy under yet another ID? That would explain why you didn’t answer any of the questions I asked you above, something Puppy is well known for.
I’d remind you how irritating it is when you keep changing IDs, but I imagine that’s why you do it.
(Speaking of illogical premises, I don’t think there is a higher degree of “sense” among military men than the general population.)
I popped in here because it’s a free forum; if you don’t like it you can flag me or get a private “room” with your correspondent somewhere else on the web.
All of us are “sons of leisure” compared to the intellectual and ethical giants who have gone before. Some of us aren’t so full of hubris to think otherwise. For the secular-humanists, though, history started with Darwin, Freud, and Hefner.
I’m pretty sure Anthony claimed to be a Vet; I took note of it because it did not fit my previous profile of you. But , if I’m wrong…so be it.
4.Puppy? Don’t feign ignorance…ohh, I’m sorry. Never mind.
Should have tipped me off when I found myself pointing out that you avoided answering questions, since that’s a common practice with you. Although later you said you were “very scientific”, which threw me a bit, as you obviously aren’t.
kennethcwarren64 over 14 years ago
Kind of strange cartoon from someone who’s last cartoon promoted fear.
Sorry to keep coming back to my old theme, but all of this FEAR stuff drives me crazy.
Americans are not cowards, no one is going to scare us into surrendering.
America is made up of several million people, there are only a few thousands terrorist in the world, why let them win because one stupid person gets on a plane – I know the that is important to the people on the plane, but they showed that they didn’t need government to protect them, they, as with the Shoe Bomber, took care of the situation.
On 9/11 over 3,000 American died, but over 10,000 didn’t. They were in the Towers, or went into the towers to save people, they didn’t panic and run screaming down the stairs, they went in orderly fashion, often stopping to help others. Americans on a plane they realized was going to be used to kill people, took over and prevent that, even thought them knew it was going to mean death for them.
Have faith in America and Americans, don’t let “FEAR” drive us. The Media and Political Parties love fear, the media uses it to win rating, and Political Parties use it to win elections.
Remind them that we are not afraid, angry, but not afraid.
riley05 over 14 years ago
Excellent post, Ken.
How about we stop calling them “terrorists”?
I vote for “pansies”.
Anyone got a better name?
a.c.d over 14 years ago
I dont think people are all that afraid, but the media sure as hell tries to get people scared, and that is the problem. It was once said that people have a right to live in freedom from fear, but it appears like all which has been attempted to be sown is more fear as to separate us from our humanity.
mhenriday over 14 years ago
How is one going to get people to let themselves be robbed to pay for wars of aggression abroad, which, not so incidentally, puts that money in the pockets of armaments makers, their lobbyists, and their employees, the members of the Congress, if one doesn’t, to quote Harry S Truman, «scare the hell out of them», as he did in 1947 ? Hermann Göring put it this way : «Natürlich, das einfache Volk will keinen Krieg […] Aber schließlich sind es die Führer eines Landes, die die Politik bestimmen, und es ist immer leicht, das Volk zum Mitmachen zu bringen, ob es sich nun um eine Demokratie, eine faschistische Diktatur, um ein Parlament oder eine kommunistische Diktatur handelt. […] Das ist ganz einfach. Man braucht nichts zu tun, als dem Volk zu sagen, es würde angegriffen, und den Pazifisten ihren Mangel an Patriotismus vorzuwerfen und zu behaupten, sie brächten das Land in Gefahr. Diese Methode funktioniert in jedem Land.» (If you don’t know German, Google Translate is your friend….)
Henri
Motivemagus over 14 years ago
“Naturally, the simple people want there to be no war […] however, in the end it is the leaders of a country who determine the politics, and it is always easy to bring the people around whether they are in a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, a parliament or a communist dictatorship. […] This is entirely simple. One needs to do nothing but say to the people they would be attacked, and to reproach and to maintain the pacifist his lack of patriotism, because they would put the country in danger. This method functions in every country.” More or less. I tweaked the more literal translation.
CorosiveFrog Premium Member over 14 years ago
Day; Ubersetzen, bitte?
OmqR-IV.0 over 14 years ago
“common people” probably be a better translation than “simple people”
and perhaps “accuse” the pacifists of lack of patriotism
whew…had to use “Leo” too often! I think you did a better job than I would have, MM. My wife isn’t with me to double-check this :p
riley05 over 14 years ago
I had this stashed away for comparison to how Rove and Cheney sold us Bush’s war, but it’s still very relevant today; you see people like Scott using it all the time:
“Naturally, the common people don’t want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliment, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and DENOUNCE THE PACIFISTS FOR LACK OF PATRIOTISM and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.” – Hermann Goering, Hitler’s Reich-Marshall at the Nuremberg Trials after WWII.
OmqR-IV.0 over 14 years ago
^ Yes, I was aware of Goering & Caesar’s speeches which is why I am a little anti-patriotism or completely anti-blind-patriotism. (I just took Henri’s challenge to test my German). I do not give any nation or national of any nation any particular attributes like heroism or cowardliness or stinginess just because of the nationality or place of birth. All peoples can be Brave, or cowardly, or adventurous or ingenious or stingy.
I refuse, absolutely refuse, to sing any national anthem. I might stand up when one is sung but never, ever ask me to sing one. Just the way I was brought up.
(ahem, this could present a problem should I ever wish to take on British citizenship ;-) Bloody silly ceremonies)
Dtroutma over 14 years ago
As individuals, I’ve seen great courage, and compassion from the majority of Americans. This is what “foreigners” observe and admire as well. As a collective however, FEAR and a sense of overwhelming hubris are the odd mix we present, and our government represents, to those same “foreigners”. It distresses them, because so many have “been there, done that” and recognize the flaw.
believecommonsense over 14 years ago
Henri, motive, omQR and anthony, thanks for the quotations. Quite relevant today, aren’t they?
Motivemagus over 14 years ago
Oh, yes. I’ve been thinking of that quotation since early in the Bush Administration…incidentally, I can’t take credit for the translation; I just plugged it into freetranslation.com and tweaked the output. But “simple folk” might be better still. As in the non-noble folk.
d_legendary1 over 14 years ago
When 60% of the media is owned by the military industrial complex there should be no debate why we see fear mongering and propaganda on the talking head channels and even our local news.
http://tinyurl.com/ck4duu
Scary story below:
http://tiny.cc/If6EZ
riley05 over 14 years ago
I never understand this concept.
On one hand it’s obvious that pretty much all the major media is owned and run by huge corporations, the pets of right-wingers.
On the other hand, those same right-wingers constantly tell us that their media puppets are far-left-wing.
How’s that work?
riley05 over 14 years ago
Excellent politician answer, NeoconMan!
d_legendary1 over 14 years ago
<=========War gets me hard.
Magnaut over 14 years ago
we have more to fear than ever…we have a government that tries to write laws that can’t be undone….we lose our franchise….for those of you who love the dems beware of the precident…..the other guys will eventually get in again…..I vote no to all the above!!
riley05 over 14 years ago
How do you figure “can’t be undone”, Magnaut?
One of the Republicans (Gingrich? I can’t remember) has already said that as soon as they’re in power, they’ll repeal whatever healthcare law gets passed, removing insurance from millions and returning huge profits to the insurance companies.
Magnaut over 14 years ago
the wording in the senate healthcare bill says that it can’t be reintroduced on the floor of either house…I’ll get you the exact quote
riley05 over 14 years ago
Thanks, Magnaut…I’ll check back every now and then.
d_legendary1 over 14 years ago
^What the dems want to do is make a provision that states that any changes made to the health care law (assuming it gets passed) would require a 2/3 majority vote. This way the health care law doesn’t have a Medicare part D added when the cons take over.
riley05 over 14 years ago
It may just be ignorance on my part, but I don’t see how an individual law can trump the established procedures of the Congress.
Gladius over 14 years ago
It can’t. Clauses like the one Magnaut mentioned usually are intended to force a bill to start back at the beginning of the process.
mhenriday over 14 years ago
Anthony, can you provide a source for that purported quote from our old friend Gaius Julius Caesar ? It sounds rather suspect to me, not least the use of the term «Caesar» as a title meaning «Emperor», which eponym (Caesars family name) was not employed until after Caesar’s death. Thus «I am Caesar», aside from being a manner of speaking rather uncharacteristic of this very artful politician, is either a tautology (like John Doe saying «I am Doe») or simply wrong - Caesar was never a Roman emperor, as the institution dates from Augustus, nor did the title exist….
Henri
riley05 over 14 years ago
Sorry, no, Henri. It was something I picked up off another discussion forum many years ago.
“It was on the internet, so it must be true…”
riley05 over 14 years ago
Henri, just did a Google search on the quote, and it indeed sounds like a fraud, so I’ve deleted it.
Thanks for calling my attention to it.
riley05 over 14 years ago
Church, are you no longer able to access http://www.gocomics.com/donwright/2010/01/03/ ?
Just in case, here’s the reply I gave you there:
“Show me where you learned that “most of our laws come from the judiciary”.”
Law school.
“Are you a lawyer?”
I was for a year, but didn’t like it, and abandoned it.
“Did you pass the bar?”
Yes.
Go to a law library. Ask to be shown the sections pertaining to “black letter law” (law statutes passed by legislatures). Note the size of that section.
Then ask to be shown the administrative and regulatory laws section (laws enacted by the executive branches).
Then ask to be shown the sections dealing with court case decisions by appeal courts on up (laws made by the judiciary). Note the amount of space devoted to this section.
Want to guess which is FAR bigger?
(Here’s another exercise for you: During the Bush years, we fell way behind in stem cell research because it was against the law for federally-funded scientists to use any new embryonic stem cell lines. Which legislative body made that law, Church?)
riley05 over 14 years ago
See you there, Church.
NoFearPup over 14 years ago
It was not against the law to use “stem cells”. Bush’ administration actually increased funding for adult stem cell research; which has actually had successful results (and which has since been cancelled by the Obama Administration; I imagine because it competes with his Culture of Death Agenda). The government was restricted from allocating public funds for research done with new lines of embryonic stem cells (some embryonic cell lines already in use were allowed to continue to be used). Anthony lies again.
riley05 over 14 years ago
Go on, Blazin…explain how stem cell research expanded in Europe, but stagnated in the U.S.A., during the Bush years.
Do tell us how Bush “increased funding”, and how this was “cancelled by the Obama Administration”.
And don’t forget to tell us about this mythical “Culture of Death Agenda”…and I’ll give you a hint…if your answer involves Sarah Palin and her Death Panels fantasy, well, expect to lose credibility.
Also tell us how stem cell research does so well when they’re “restricted from allocating public funds for research done with new lines of embryonic stem cells”.
NoFearPup over 14 years ago
You really are uninformed aren’t you, Anthony? Or are you being intentionally distracting? I would think someone in your purported line of work would be more informed about medical research…
riley05 over 14 years ago
Hmm…not one answer to any of my questions.
NoFearPup over 14 years ago
I prefer to let you show your true nature, Anthony. I imagine it is instructive for anyone looking over our shoulders…
http://www.lifenews.com/bio2786.html
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/142090.php
http://aspatula.blogspot.com/2009/03/today-i-am-embarrassed-to-be-democrat.html
NoFearPup over 14 years ago
Correction: In Bush’s executive order embryonic stem cells funded by public monies were allowed to be used if they were already in use. Embryonic and all stem cells have been “legal” all the time for use in privately funded research and medical therapies.
riley05 over 14 years ago
Your correction is noted, and I went back and altered the post in question to make it more accurate. Moot point, since it was being used merely as an example of laws made by the executive branch, but since it seemed important to you, it’s done.
First link: Interesting to have an intelligent design proponent call someone else “anti-science”.
If you want to know what effect Bush’s policies had, why not look at articles from the time, like this one from 2004:
“there is no question that the current policy is substantially retarding progress in stem cell research.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25071-2004Aug22.html
Your second link has an interesting idea behind it, but I think you’ll find that whichever type of stem cell research gives the most promising results will be the same, no matter where the federal dollars go. If adult stem cells turn out to be superior, then those are the ones that will get the efforts. All the private companies who’ve been working without federal funding aren’t going to back an inferior method.
Your last link, containing lines like “The magical cure-all of embryonic stem cell research is a nefarious plan to legalize all abortions” is not even worthy of comment.
Although it does suggest that I’m wasting my time trying to discuss a science-based topic with you…especially since the discussion you co-opted was about law.
NoFearPup over 14 years ago
Uhh, okay, legal-beagle. I’m very scientific, thank you for not noticing. But that has nothing to do with the freedom in the private sector to do research on whatever stem cells you may want to; whether adult or embryonic, during the Bush administration.
riley05 over 14 years ago
Agreed with the latter.
Had I been discussing stem cell research, and not executive orders, I would have made sure my example was more accurate.
Sorry for not noticing how scientific you are…must have gotten hidden behind your use of fundie christian links.
NoFearPup over 14 years ago
First illogical premise: fundie Christians are unscientific. I would expect no more from a son of leisure unaware of where his world views come from. You claim to have served in Vietnam? I would expect a military man to have more sense.
riley05 over 14 years ago
It takes a certain avoidance of basic science to be a fundie christian.
Son of leisure? How so?
Vietnam? No.
I’m starting to get the feeling you’re confusing me with someone else, especially since I don’t recall conversing with you previously, yet you popped in here full of preconceived notions about my “true natue” and what-not.
Wait a second…am I wasting time with Puppy under yet another ID? That would explain why you didn’t answer any of the questions I asked you above, something Puppy is well known for.
I’d remind you how irritating it is when you keep changing IDs, but I imagine that’s why you do it.
(Speaking of illogical premises, I don’t think there is a higher degree of “sense” among military men than the general population.)
NoFearPup over 14 years ago
riley05 over 14 years ago
Should have tipped me off when I found myself pointing out that you avoided answering questions, since that’s a common practice with you. Although later you said you were “very scientific”, which threw me a bit, as you obviously aren’t.
Vet, yes. Vietnam, no.