Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

I'd think if Card considers himself a Democrat he has lots of experience being unhappy with his fellow Democrats, given his position on homosexuality.

Posted by Eric J at August 25, 2006 09:34 AM

Few indeed are the Iraqis who wish they had their former government back again.

Hmmm, must have got this information from somewhere else other than the bloggers Squidward mentioned awhile back.

Posted by Mac at August 25, 2006 09:34 AM

After Shadow of the Hegemon, I don't think Orson Scott Card is in any position to lecture others about making sense.

"Few indeed are the Iraqis who wish they had their former government back again."

I guess he received this information in a dream from the Oversoul.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 25, 2006 09:58 AM

Squidward says: I guess he received this information in a dream from the Oversoul.

Now that's funny. However, I'm forced to point out that here's someone with a differing opinion from yours and now you're casting aspersions...Where's the leftist ideal of inclusion? Where's the tower of respectability living in Mass that you aspire to?

Its still funny though, I'll grant that.

Posted by Mac at August 25, 2006 10:46 AM

"However, I'm forced to point out that here's someone with a differing opinion from yours and now you're casting aspersions..."

Yes, on his comments.

"Where's the leftist ideal of inclusion?"

Who says I'm a leftist? I'm a liberal, and I don't see how inclusion means pretending that ridiculous, baseless statements need to be regarded with solemn respect. Card seems to suffer from the same delusion as many with rightward leanings, namely that Fox News is a news channel and has something to do with reality.

He doesn't exhibit the slightest glimmer of situational awareness on the subject, and makes several utterly bizarre and unwarranted claims that can only be explained by a severely limited range of information sources.

"Where's the tower of respectability living in Mass that you aspire to?"

Just because I admire Massachusetts doesn't mean I necessarily aspire to it, and I hardly think they're the pacifists you seem to be implying. They'd say "Aw come on, Cahd, yaw just tawking right out of yaw ass." I don't suffer fools, but I'm the picture of indulgence compared to the Northeastern attitude.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 25, 2006 11:32 AM

So BS, if you can so forcefully declare Card's statement of Iraq not wanting Saddam back to be utterly false then that MUST mean that you have evidence to support that the opposite is true.

So Sir, present your evidence.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at August 25, 2006 12:51 PM

Well, there is the matter of voter participation. Under Saddam Hussein, it was in the high 90's. Nowadays, it's around 80%. While that's a wee bit higher than voter participation in the US, it's a clear sign that they're less happy with the new administration.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at August 25, 2006 01:35 PM

Karl,
under Saddam didn't they demand that people vote, and also demand that they vote for Saddam? That's not turn out, it's coercion.

Posted by Steve at August 25, 2006 02:17 PM

Cecil: "So BS, if you can so forcefully declare Card's statement of Iraq not wanting Saddam back to be utterly false then that MUST mean that you have evidence to support that the opposite is true."

Mmm-hmmm.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-gallup-iraq-findings.htm

Karl: "Well, there is the matter of voter participation. Under Saddam Hussein, it was in the high 90's. Nowadays, it's around 80%. While that's a wee bit higher than voter participation in the US, it's a clear sign that they're less happy with the new administration."

The fact that sectarian militias rove from house to house executing entire city blocks practically on a weekly basis is why they're "less happy." Day-to-day survival is a lot easier under a dictatorship than in the crosshairs of dozens of genocidal Road Warrior militias.

Which isn't to say they necessarily want Saddam back personally, but they remember when danger wore uniforms and let them live if they stayed out of its way. Now it comes out of the woodwork, at random, in faceless groups of strangers avenging their own suffering against people who had nothing to do with it. There were ways to avoid danger before, and now there are none, simple as that.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 25, 2006 02:38 PM

A differnt newer poll...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/12_12_05_iraq_data.pdf

One gets a real mixed feeling from reading this...

Paul

Posted by Paul Breed at August 25, 2006 03:58 PM

BS: "The fact that sectarian militias rove from house to house executing entire city blocks"

That isn't a fact; that is an exaggeration in the extreme. Or as you would put it: a "ridiculous, baseless statement".

Now taking the poll you referenced (did you even read it?) I would make the claim that the most important question in said poll was this:

"Are you and your family much better off, somewhat better off, somewhat worse off or much worse off than before the US invasion?"

51% (that is a majority by the way) answered "somewhat to much better" off. Another 25% answered about the same and only 25% answered worse off.

Given that the majority of Iraqis feel that they are now better off the poll that you sited provides proof of Card’s claim that "Few indeed are the Iraqis who wish they had their former government back again."

So I say again, present your evidence.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at August 25, 2006 05:49 PM

BS wrote, "Day-to-day survival is a lot easier under a dictatorship than in the crosshairs of dozens of genocidal Road Warrior militias."

As long as you weren't the one fed into a wood chipper, the imprisoned child, the entire families tortured and murdered for insufficient loyalty to Saddam, the brides raped on their wedding days by his sons.

Sure, tough luck for them, but BS doesn't mind.

The more I hear from persons like BS, the more I'm convinced voting Democratic for most of my life was the biggest mistake I ever made.

Posted by Jim C. at August 25, 2006 11:53 PM

We haven't even made it past Labor Day, and the Democrats are making every effort to once again lose an election. They are attacking their own party members for disloyalty. One of the problems with Bush's war in Iraq was a failure to build a strong coalition, but on the political front; Democrats are making reality of the rhetoric, "You're either with us or against us." So much for building the base...

Then we get an example of the mindset from HuffPo's Russell Shaw. In many words, he is essentially hoping that terrorist are successful in changing the political landscape. Further, he believes if it happens, the result would be a more liberal society.

If this keeps up, I suspect the Republicans will gain more seats in Congress this November.

Posted by at August 26, 2006 04:46 AM

"George Bush, about whom there are a great deal of things worthy of criticism (if so, I certainly share it)"

You say this off and on, but from reading your blog, it is apparent that you hardly ever criticise Bush for anything. You are primarily concerned with the nuttier fringe of Bush's opposition and what they say. The end result is that although you claim that there is a lot to criticise about Bush, you never say what it is, nor spend much time on it.

What you don't seem to acknowledge on your blog is that significant portions of the anti-Bush population is _not_ the nutcase moonbat fringe, but people who supported the president but changed their minds because of things that they found they did not like. But you seem to clearly divide the country into "us" and "them" and the only "them" that you acknowledge is the nutters.

A lot of people supported Bush up to the middle of last year, when several things happened. For one, it became clear that Iraq was not getting any better and Bush's pronouncements about it seemed to indicate that he was the only person who did not recognize this. Then there was the Harriet Miers Supreme Court choice, which convinced a lot of conservatives that Bush was more interested in helping friends than in making decisions based upon sound conservative (and intellectual) core values. And then there was hurricane Katrina and the aftermath, where the entire response seemed muddled and confused. For me, I could substitute "terrorist bomb" for Katrina and conclude that this administration would do as bad a job responding to a terrorist attack as it did responding to a predictable hurricane. That caused me to lose all faith in the president. (And the continuing deterioration in Iraq has not helped change my mind.)

Sure, there are a lot of crazies saying crazy things about Bush. But a) they are not the majority of his non-supporters, and b) they are not the ones who hold political power in this country. So why be so concerned about them, when the problems are with the people in charge?

Posted by Dave Renholder at August 26, 2006 06:13 AM

From the poll...

23. Thinking about any hardships you might have suffered since the US/British invasion, do you personally think that ousting Saddam Hussein was worth it or not?

Total Baghdad Shi’ite areas Sunni areas Kurdish areas
Worth it 61 57 74 28 97
Not worth it 28 38 17 52 *

Sums it up pretty nicely. Worth it.

Posted by Mac at August 26, 2006 06:49 AM

Dave Renholder, why now (since I have never seen your name post on here before) do you come out to attack Rand for not attacking Bush on a piece like this. The problem with Democrats is exactly what they are doing to Orson Scott Card, and what they did to Joe Lieberman. The problem with Democrats has nothing to do with Rand not criticizing Bush. The irony is lefties, like yourself (Dave Renholder), think the best tact to win elections is to split your own party and attack anyone who points out the flaw in the strategy.

For me, I could substitute "terrorist bomb" for Katrina and conclude that this administration would do as bad a job responding to a terrorist attack as it did responding to a predictable hurricane. That caused me to lose all faith in the president.

Damn... Did you miss 9/11? You don't have to substitute "terrorist bomb", as that was a terrorist attack. If you want to compare Katrina, try crossing the border into Mississippi. The difference is one state is run by a conservative/religious/right wing zealot, and the other is one by a Democrat. Mississippi is recovering, and Louisiana is still blaming the federal government. Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas were all hit by hurricanes last year, but they seem to have recovered with far less money from the federal government than what New Orleans received.

Then there was the Harriet Miers Supreme Court choice

Great job pointing out one of the topics in which Rand disagreed with Bush: here, and here, and recorded here after being unambigiously stated here.

Maybe instead of getting on Rand for not criticizing Bush, you, Dave Renholder, might try actually doing a little research before exposing your ignorance.

Posted by Leland at August 26, 2006 07:46 AM

Cecil: "That isn't a fact; that is an exaggeration in the extreme."

No, it's a fact. Each side's militias massacre dozens to hundreds of people very week, not including terrorist bombings.

"51% (that is a majority by the way)"

No, it isn't. The margin of error is 2%.

"answered "somewhat to much better" off. Another 25% answered about the same and only 25% answered worse off."

In other words, half the country is the same or worse off since the invasion. And, of course, you ignored the results that didn't appear to support your position, such as: 56% saying Iraq was the same or worse since the invasion, and 62% saying the invasion either did more harm than good or accomplished nothing. Those are pretty stark numbers given how many people have been killed for George W. Bush's delusions of grandeur.

"Given that the majority of Iraqis feel that they are now better off the poll that you sited provides proof of Card’s claim that "Few indeed are the Iraqis who wish they had their former government back again.""

Even if your statement wasn't demonstrably inaccurate, a slim majority does not support a claim like "Few indeed are the Iraqis..." Card seems to be under the impression that discontent is limited to a tiny fringe minority, and that doesn't speak very well to his understanding of the subject.

Jim C: "As long as you weren't the one fed into a wood chipper, the imprisoned child, the entire families tortured..."

I knew my comment would incite this kind of absurd anecdotal reasoning, but it's just not relevant. Living in America is preferable to living in Zimbabwe "as long as you aren't the one run over by a Dodge Ram." If people didn't feel safer under dictatorships than in the crossfire of rampaging factions, a lot of history's dictators could never have come to power. That's why free republics depend on rule of law, and why libertarianism is such a joke.

"The more I hear from persons like BS, the more I'm convinced voting Democratic for most of my life was the biggest mistake I ever made."

If hearing what you want to hear is more important than the truth, then the GOP is where you belong. And you're welcome to goosestep off a cliff with the lot of them.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 26, 2006 09:55 AM

That's why free republics depend on rule of law, and why libertarianism is such a joke.

No, what's a joke (in addition to most of what you write) is your hilariously stupid ignorance of the difference between libertarianism and anarchy.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 26, 2006 09:59 AM

"No, what's a joke (in addition to most of what you write) is your hilariously stupid ignorance of the difference between libertarianism and anarchy."

On the contrary, it's the inability of libertarians to grasp the difference between liberty and anarchy that makes their ideology ridiculous. They fetishize the distinction between public and private, treating the absence of government involvement as the unique and sufficient definition of freedom.

An economy run by corrupt, illegal cartels wouldn't raise the ire of a libertarian half as much as a 1% increase in capital gains taxes. But I respect their core values, even though their logic is catastrophically warped.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 26, 2006 10:32 AM

"But I respect their core values, even though their logic is catastrophically warped."

Sooo Tempting......Sooo Tempting......Irony too much.......gonna let this one pass.....

Posted by Mike Puckett at August 26, 2006 06:00 PM

BS: “No, it's a fact. Each side's militias massacre dozens to hundreds of people very week, not including terrorist bombings.”
Your statement was “militias rove from house to house executing entire city blocks practically on a weekly basis” and that is not a fact it is simply and quite clearly a lie. Quote sources for militias going house to house and executing everyone on an entire city block. You can’t, as it never happened and you are a liar when you state that it did happen once much less on a weekly basis.
And given that you are a liar there is no need for me to even bother to disprove the rest of the garbage you authored above.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at August 26, 2006 06:37 PM

Post a comment