Go Doonesbury! (via tchrist)
--Nat
Yesterday, as I was sliming out of bed, I received a call from a close friend telling me I had to buy the local paper, just so I could get Doonesbury. She was right. Now I'm thinking about having it framed
I saw the strip yesterday. I don't speak French, and all I got out of it was that Trudeau himself is an unpatriotic French-lover, which I already knew.
Re:So what?
rafael on 2003-05-05T20:50:59
There's a translation available (but it's well hidden, that's why I'm posting the link here).For some reason, that French sounds Canadian. Is Trudeau from Quebec ? Or from Louisiane ?
Re:So what?
vsergu on 2003-05-06T02:14:45
Apparently his ancestry is Canadian.
Speaking of Louisiana, the single stupidest example of France bashing recently was the decision by Congressman Billy Tauzin of Louisiana to take down the Cajun French version of his web site. Congressman Ney's renaming of French fries was just silly, but Tauzin has moved beyond silliness to actively insulting not only his own Cajun heritage but, more insanely, many of his constituents as well.
Re:So what?
pdcawley on 2003-05-06T05:05:25
Weren't the Arcadians/Cajuns refugees?Re:So what?
vsergu on 2003-05-06T12:30:25
But they still speak French. Taking down the site (which was in Cajun French anyway) is a move against the French language, and anyone who speaks it, not against the French government. And those constituents who were served by the site are no longer being served."We are all Americans today"
jdavidb on 2003-05-06T20:03:11
Hmm, interesting question he poses.
Thanks for the translation. And I hope you found my poor attempt at humor funny, rather than offensive.
;) Humor
rafael on 2003-05-07T07:57:24
That's how I understood it. (BTW I remember that headline. In big, bold characters.)
Forgetting our stalwart, friends and allies, the French.
Re:Yes, shame on us.
jhi on 2003-05-08T10:48:52
I don't know how this is much different from our friends the Americans, with their many projects:-) Re:Yes, shame on us.
Fletch on 2003-05-08T14:52:25
Of course "mistakes were made", it'd be disingenious to say otherwise.
But I'd definately say there's a difference between backing possibly questionable horses against enemies (neither of said opponents had stellar records at the time either, for that matter) versus providing aid to a known bad apple behind the back of your purported allies. Any outrage at such perfidy is, if not justafiable, at least understandable.
Re:Yes, shame on us.
hfb on 2003-05-08T18:42:21
Well, aside from the fact that the US is 0 for 2 in waging a military offensive for the capture of OBL and Saddam though both remain at large, there are a lot of questions yet unanswered about how 9/11 came about; you either have to believe that the employees of every agency involved are bumbling idiots who couldn't find their ass with both hands and a flashlight or you have to start thinking that maybe this wasn't entirely accidental. The truth is somewhere in the middle most likely but I suppose it's easier to ignore the real problems at home and instead keep believing the american dream while blaming the French and eating freedom fries. Why aren't the people of the US outraged at the things happening in Washington?
Re:Yes, shame on us.
Fletch on 2003-05-08T20:38:58
Funny, I heard we were waging military offensives to remove regimes that supported terrorism from power (then again the Socialists^WDemocrats keep trying to spin a failure using those terms . .
.). Wasn't a 100% win, but then again one would have to count the side effects of fewer todlers in prison and fewer people being tossed in plastic-chippers as positives. As for the `unanswered questions' site, I forgot my roll of tin foil at home today. In regard to beleiving in the `American dream', yes you have to have some faith that the system can work. Well, that or become a bitter, disillusioned ex-pat
:). Do I approve of everything coming out of the Beltway? Nope. Then again I'm of libertarian bent so that's hardly surprising (which would also explain finding it credible that government agencies could be majorly inept). But that's why we've got a judiciary (and gadflies like the ACLU et al) to correct the excesses of the other branches. At any rate, my original point was that the comic seems to be trying to claim that the criticisms of France were baseless. Sure a paper may have claimed `We are all Americans' but actions speak louder than words, and recent actions sure seem counter to whatever spirit that was expressed in.
Re:Yes, shame on us.
hfb on 2003-05-08T21:29:27
Tinfoil hat aside, the US probably wouldn't know what to do if they found the administration even remotely responsible for what happened. Conspiracy theories or not, there are a lot of unanswered questions and a government quickly acting to make more documents classified and unavailable for FOIA.
I don't know about France, but the news over here had some reports of Rice being in Moscow and unsubstantiated reports that Saddam was taken there and given amnesty by the US which is about as plausible as anything else on the news these days, including French passports.
The criticisms of France seem as petty and as idiotic as the US criticising Canada for decriminalising pot. It's starting to seem like the US is a religion taking it on the road door-to-door with an army down the street to make sure you buy that damn bible. The US isn't any more altruistic than any other country, just more self-righteous. It's very distressing. I don't see much of the expected checks and balances working these days and though I don't have to care anymore I wish I had a shred of trust that it will at some point. The administration is utterly corrupt and millions of people trusting that 'something' will happen while they blithely poke at France and others who dare defy the superpower is not a good sign that regime change will come in 2004.
Re:Yes, shame on us.
TorgoX on 2003-05-10T01:17:37
What you mean "we", Kimosabe?
