The same guy that did Apple's famous ëSwitchû ads featuring users switching from moronic PCs to Macs is doing the same thing, featuring Republicans switching from a murderous moron to Kerry. Check it out.
Re:Sad
lachoy on 2004-08-20T14:15:34
I do quarrel with logic that says, "Stupid people are associated with X, therefore X is stupid." Stupid people are associated with everything.
--Larry WallRe:Sad
chromatic on 2004-08-20T16:35:57
I'm not zaotoichi and I only speak for myself, but I don't think it's stupid.
I think it's poisonous.
I don't really want to associate with the kind of people whose entire raison d'etre seems to be "we aren't _______". That goes for Python fanatics, BSD license zealots, PostgreSQL freaks, and, at least in this election cycle, the "anyone but Bush" folks.
That's not to say that I despise Python, BSD, Postgres, and everyone who prefers someone other than the sitting president. It's just that all four groups have some very annoying advocates who sour me on the whole thing.
Re:Sad
vsergu on 2004-08-20T19:44:34
"Anyone but Bush" has been fading recently. Nowadays the Bush campaign are the ones more likely to be using the "we aren't ____" argument. The Bush website lately has far more pictures of Kerry on the front page than of Bush, while Bush photos are rare on the Kerry front page.Re:Sad
pudge on 2004-08-21T05:19:42
Yes, and it is a good strategy. They've been at it for months. Basically, there are three kinds of voter: those who are for candidate A, those who are for candidate B, and those who are undecided. The first two don't matter. As to the latter group, they already know Bush, and there's frankly little Bush can say good about himself to convince them he is the best candidate. He needs to convince them that Kerry is worse, and he's doing a pretty good job of it.
Re:Sad
rafael on 2004-08-20T19:52:45
Naomi Klein made a good point for the "anybody but Bush" people: basically saying that with any other man in the presidential seat (even with the same ideology), the opposition will less focus on funny bushisms and easy bashing, but on the real problems.Re:Sad
lachoy on 2004-08-20T23:01:57
That was pretty much my point. I entirely agree that it's poisonous -- it's a shameful way to run a political process and it makes me weep for the future. But saying that "I won't vote for A because I don't like these people associated with A." when there are people like this on all sides of a process that's nececessary to participate in (differentiating it from those crazy open source people) is just sticking your head in the sand.Re:Sad
darobin on 2004-08-21T13:01:34
There's a major difference though between techno-zealots and "anything but Bush". Whether you use Python or Perl, BSD or Linux, Pg or MySQL, honestly, at the end of the day, won't make much of a diff to people's lives. Worst case scenario is that a good piece of tech doesn't get enough momentum and dies out. Ok that's sad, and it may be frustrating, but life goes on.
"Anything but Bush" is just like "anything but Kim Chong-il" or "anything but the Talibans". At some point it just stops mattering what the alternative is, it just has to change. And preferably fast.
The difference is between what is up for discussion and what isn't. Whether to use Java or Ruby is something that should be discussed, not zealoted about. One does not however discuss whether wreaking havoc worldwide like a hord of beheaded mutant chickens is the way to go or not. One just says, "it has to stop".
Re:Sad
chromatic on 2004-08-21T16:07:38
"Anything but Bush" is just like "anything but Kim Chong-il" or "anything but the Talibans".Except for the representative electoral process, the fixed term lengths, the massive federal bureaucracy that usually ignores elections, and the stable transfer of power, yes, they're exactly alike.
Re:Sad
darobin on 2004-08-22T14:19:34
There are elections in the US? I thought the idea was that one guy got nominated by a bunch of guys themselves nominated.
Re:Sad
runrig on 2004-08-22T20:41:21
There are elections in the US?Yeah, and sometimes the guy that most of us vote for actually wins
:-)
Re:Provoking me again ;)
darobin on 2004-08-20T14:52:10
Yes of course
:) WRT the murderous there's a difference not only in degree but also in nature between some war atrocities and send people to butchery by starting an entire war based on lies purely for personal profit.
As for Kerry's competence, it simply doesn't matter: no matter how incompetent you just can't be worse than Bush. It's never been seen in any major country before, and, with any hope, won't be seen again in our lifetimes. The Democrats could run a monkey for presidency, I'd still support the monkey -- because he'd still do a better job than Bush.
Re:Provoking me again ;)
Purdy on 2004-08-20T15:38:10
Incompetent is probably not the right word... an incompetent President would have done nothing after 9/11 and allowed for more terrorism of that magnitude to take place.
Wow. That's completely ignoring the fact that this whole thing wasn't started by Bush, but by the terrorists from 9/11. Even John Kerry believes we did the right thing, by going to war with Afghanistan and Iraq (though he wanted a different approach). Maybe if he showed up at the intelligence committee meetings, his approach would be considered and his ideas validated. Now that I would label as incompetent....starting an entire war based on lies purely for personal profit.
Peace,
JasonRe:Provoking me again ;)
darobin on 2004-08-20T15:58:12
Afghanistan was the right thing to do. Or rather, it would have been the right thing to do right. It has been left mostly to its own devices, and large tracts of the taliban movement and al-Qaeda are still operating there because of that. Iraq had no link whatsoever to terrorism. Now it's become the most convenient way to attack american interests, and therefore a terrorist hotbed.
Small things can be indicative. For instance, there may be reasons why after 9/11 98% of Europeans said they were extremely supportive of the US. Two years later, 78% of the same ranked the US as the most important threat to peace and security worldwide, in front of such friendly entities as terrorists or North Korea. Terrorism is an international plague. If you think more terrorism of that magnitude hasn't taken place, don't you think you're forgetting 3/11? Madrid? Rings a bell? There were fewer losses thankfully, but that's only because the ten bombs set off a touch too early and failed to bring the roof of the station to fall, as the plan was. A bit as if the towers had been hit but hadn't crumbled. If you think Bush eradicated more terrorism than he created, go argue your points to a Madrilene.
The war on Iraq wasn't started by the terrorists, it was started unilaterally by the current Republican administration, and I have trouble understanding how one can not see that today, with lesser media blitz and the largest pro-war newspapers accumulating mea-culpas for having been blind and biased. The terrorists suffered zilch from the war in Iraq, but some people got their hands on strategic oil. I don't see how 9/11 justifies Iraq -- just because someone punches you in the face doesn't mean you can go hit on some random other guy. Everyone knows that that administration had plans to invade Iraq and only needed an excuse -- the neo-cons had been saying it for two years before election already.
Re:Provoking me again ;)
pudge on 2004-08-21T05:37:47
If you think Bush eradicated more terrorism than he created, go argue your points to a Madrilene.
Sorry darobin, there is not a jot of evidence that Bush's actions contributed to 3/11. You actually believe what they say? Talk about "moron." Bin Laden said he attacked on 9/11 because of U.S. support of Israel, which is something he never mentioned years before when he was attacking the U.S. They change their reasons to whatever they think will garner them the most support. Don't buy into the foolishness.
The terrorists suffered zilch from the war in Iraq
Nonsense. We have killed a great many of them, and continue to.
but some people got their hands on strategic oil.
Who?
I don't see how 9/11 justifies Iraq -- just because someone punches you in the face doesn't mean you can go hit on some random other guy.
9/11 showed us that we have an enemy out there, and that if we wait for them to come to us, we have already lost. The decision was made to help transform the Middle East, to remove some of the trouble spots. Iraq was the biggest and easiest and most obvious target, because of its ties to terrorism, because of its existing sanctioned regime, because we wanted him gone anyway.
In the end, it is about regional stability. Seen Syria on a map lately? Anti-war people like to say how we should attack Syria instead, because they are the most active in supporting terrorism. But one of the primary ways they exported their terrorists was through Iraq. Now how will they get out? Through Turkey, Israel, Jordan? We are working to transform Syria and Iran by putting pressure on them through the transformation of Iraq.
It should be telling that the governments of Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc. were all in favor of the war in Iraq. They knew something needed to be done to remove the threat to regional stability.
Will it work? Dunno. But if you wish to debate it, fine. But if all you wish to do is pretend this was some simple-minded effort to kill people for oil, then you clearly don't wish to have a reasonable debate.
Re:Provoking me again ;)
vek on 2004-08-20T18:54:03
Wow. That's completely ignoring the fact that this whole thing wasn't started by Bush, but by the terrorists from 9/11
Just out of curiosity, what has that got to do with the war in Iraq? You know, seeing as Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.Re:Provoking me again ;)
pudge on 2004-08-21T05:24:08
WRT the murderous there's a difference not only in degree but also in nature between some war atrocities and send people to butchery by starting an entire war based on lies purely for personal profit.
The problem is that the latter never happened. First, even if you believe the WMD was a lie, that doesn't mean the entire war was based on lies. We know many justifications for the war were absolutely true, including Iraq's noncompliance with UN resolutions which threatened force, including that Iraq aided terrorists (not al Qaeda, but many others), including that Iraq was a despotic regime destroying its own people and continuing to pose a threat to its neighbors in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia... the list does go on.
Further, there is not a jot of credible evidence that Bush profitted (or will profit) from the war at all, let alone that it was a motivation.
Please don't be so blinded to the facts by your hatred. It's unbecoming of normally intelligent person.
Re:Provoking me again ;)
vek on 2004-08-22T04:38:58
We know many justifications for the war were absolutely true, including Iraq's noncompliance with UN resolutions...
But to be honest, the war wasn't "sold" to the American public based on noncompliance with UN resolutions was it? We were told that Iraq was a imminent threat to the US. We were told that they had WMD and were just itching to use them.
Further, there is not a jot of credible evidence that Bush profitted (or will profit) from the war at all, let alone that it was a motivation.
Bush or Bushco? I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next bloke but you have to admit those nice no-bid Haliburton contracts make you think don't they?Re:Provoking me again ;)
pudge on 2004-08-22T05:25:16
But to be honest, the war wasn't "sold" to the American public based on noncompliance with UN resolutions was it?
It absolutely was. The administration made reference to "material breach" of Resolution 1441 early and often.
I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next bloke but you have to admit those nice no-bid Haliburton contracts make you think don't they?
Eh, not really, when you consider all of the factors: the shift in recent years to hiring one contractor to do all the work, the fact that very few companies can handle that kind of a contract, the fact that most people believe Haliburton is the best out there to do the job, the fact that Haliburton was already handling much of the work we'd need done, and the fact that the timing was such that having an open bidding process would have taken too long and would have damaged our attempts to work with the UN Security Council to get a second resolution (which ultimately failed anyway).
Superficially, it looks bad, but I don't think it actually is that bad. Some people say, isn't it funny that the company doing this used to have the VP as its CEO? But really, Haliburton is the best, so they are going to have the best as their CEO: someone with a great deal of experience at Middle Eastern relations, someone with government contacts (foreign and domestic), etc. Cheney never thought he would hold public office again. This wasn't calculated.
Re:Provoking me again ;)
dug on 2004-08-20T15:33:32
That was an O'Neill quote, which is different than fact. One should hesitate to take something O'Neill says during an election cycle while he's trying to promote a political book as fact.
Steve Gardner is the one of twelve people who served on a swift boat that Kerry commanded who have come out against him. And Steve Gardner might not be the most reliable source.
-- Douglas HunterRe:Provoking me again ;)
dug on 2004-08-20T18:48:13
Steve Gardner is the one of twelve people who served on a swift boat that Kerry commanded who have come out against him. And Steve Gardner might not be the most reliable source.
should have read...
Steve Gardner is the one person of twelve people who served on a swift boat that Kerry commanded who has come out against hime.
Hmm, I should proofread {grin}Re:Provoking me again ;)
dug on 2004-08-20T18:49:42
against hime
I give up.
The same guy that did Apple's famous «Switch» ads featuring users switching from moronic PCs to Macs is doing the same thing, featuring Republicans switching from a murderous moron to Kerry.
What you fail to draw attention to is that "same guy" is Errol Morris, the highly-regarded documentary filmmaker that won an Oscar last year for The Fog of War, about Robert McNamara and his role as, among other things, Secretary of Defense during the Vietnam War.
Among Morris's other notable accomplishments are the documentary for Steven Hawking's A Brief History of Time and, err, ads for cheap American pisswater beer.
This is fascinating -- I had known that Morris does ads (documentaries don't usually pay the bills, Fahrenheit 9/11 notwithstanding), but I had no idea that he did the Switch ads for Apple.
I guess, aside from he Miller Lite thing, he is always on the site of truth & light
...murderous moron... I'd say there's a slight distinction between "murderous" and "warmongering" (with maybe a "maniacal" thrown in). Though the moron part I agree with completely. IMHO, of course
:-)
Re:murderous
darobin on 2004-08-21T12:51:02
Oh, I don't claim to have exhausted the possible vocabulary here
;) But I intentionally picked murderous over warmongering. The latter is someone that's actively pro-war which can, on some occasions, be a good thing (eg when deciding to go fight for freedom in WWII). In this case we're talking about someone that has no regrets giving death for personal profit -- I opt murderous, perhaps with a "raving" or a "drooling" thrown in somewhere in the sentence :)
