The Accidental Dentist

[Guest]

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759

"?and will surely lose both" is how I always heard it conclude.

[Dr. Empirical]

How about THIS quote:

"...the land of the free and the home of the brave"

America is throwing away its freedom because it is afraid.

I'm ashamed for all of us.

[Greg Stephens]

Except that there is no declared war.

Neither was there during Korea or Vietnam. Given that the aforementioned inalienable rights are life, liberty, and property, we had no due process protection before 9/11.

Can you elaborate on this, please, because I'm not sure what your point is. My initial response would be to point out that injustices in the past are not an excuse for more injustices in the present, but I'm not sure if that's addressing your argument.

The head of FEMA says so. Or a DEA agent decides you're running drugs. Or you're Kevin Mitnick. There are a number of unelected, unconstitutional executive agencies that hold the power to take life, liberty, and property with impunity, should they decide it expedient.

There is, however, fundamental differences between a state of emergency (what FEMA is for), criminal activities and investigations (drugs, computer hacking) and this current "war on terror." A state of emergency is very limited in scope and time; Crimes have specific perpetrators (and I don't think anybody expects criminals to have the same rights as a lawful citizen); but some of the policies proposed and enacted by the current administration are inclusive of all citizens and are proposed as permenant measures, not limited by time.

Agreed. But you miss my intented meaning. This is not a Soviet Union we are talking about. Escalation, arms race, SDI, detente, hell war are all useless in this situation. These aren't even guerilla fighters in the jungle. They are people that have no compunction against walking into a building and blowing themselves and every civilian they can get access to, to kingdom come.

Yes, and this is the place for the quote that's been quoted may times- even in this thread- about trading liberty for safety and losing both. But as true as I think that quote is and as nice as it is to refer to the founding fathers, I think the larger issue is that there will always be nutballs who are willing to sacrifice their own lives because they believe in something strongly enough to commit acts of terrorism and there is nothing that can be done to stop them, so restricting rights and civil liberties of law-abiding citizens for an unspecified length of time because it seems expedient is shooting wide of the target. If, no matter what measures are taken, terrorism will still be a problem, then why restrict the rights of the general population? There is either another solution that can be taken or there is another problem they are attempting to solve with the given action, but not discussing.

Sitting back and pissing on Bush isn't going to help the problem. It may make people feel better about themselves, but it doesn't do anything useful. Why not discuss real solutions?

Actually, pointing out where an administration goes wrong and why it's wrong is helpful. I think this also ties into the root causes of terrorism, in that if you have a government that is behaving in an arrogant, belligerant manner (as this administration is), then you're going to anger and upset people and give them more reason to hate you an find cause in their lives to attack you. Easing anger and hate isn't a simple matter and it's not something that happens quickly. It take a lot more work to create a peace than to wage a war (unless your idea of peace is conquering. I did read on some internet forum someone's post expressing the thought that the U.S.A. could take over the world if it wanted to, but doesn't because it's just such a nice, friendly place. The premise that we could do such a thing is clearly ridiculous, but that there are people who don't think it isn't is frightening).

And, finally (before I go away for a long winter's vacation- I'll be checking up on the forum, but not posting so much), if we can't take pot-shots at a president who's as much of a doofus as G.W.B., then what fun is there left in life? Nixon was a crook, JFK was a playboy, Reagan was out to lunch, Clinton was a fast-food lovin' womanizer and Bush Jr. is a cowboy who can't string two coherent sentences together.

[Guest]

"Americans seem to have a weak grasp on the concept of an opposition party. They are continually surprised that the opposition actually opposes things."

Mark Rosenfelder

[MotherInferior]

"Soft power" policies--e.g., peer reviewed intelligence, non-proliferation treaties, trade and commerce, jobs programs, educational exchanges, language training, crossing borders through inter-cultural and inter-religious dialogue, and building up organizations of civil society --cost less than war but have more potential to counter the threat of terror attacks.

Kathy, it sounds good. Especially at a dinner party.

America is throwing away its freedom because it is afraid.

I'm ashamed for all of us.

Really? I'm not ashamed. Nor am I throwing away my freedom.

Except that there is no declared war.

Neither was there during Korea or Vietnam. Given that the aforementioned inalienable rights are life, liberty, and property, we had no due process protection before 9/11.

Can you elaborate on this, please, because I'm not sure what your point is. My initial response would be to point out that injustices in the past are not an excuse for more injustices in the present, but I'm not sure if that's addressing your argument.

Somewhat, but not really. My point in saying that was this: we are fighting quite the noble battle against the Bush tyranny, but it's window dressing. Wankery. Even if everyone got their wish and Bush was impeached tomorrow, along with his entire administration, the Patriot Act was repealed, and the government was filled with flower-power peaceniks like Kathy Guthrie, we'd still live under the tyranny of federal mandate.

The head of FEMA says so....

There is, however, fundamental differences between a state of emergency (what FEMA is for), criminal activities and investigations (drugs, computer hacking) and this current "war on terror."

Such as? All of the examples I mentioned above involve Federal agencies acting without Constitutional authority against citizens of the US. All involve denying Constitutionally protected liberties. None of them have an enforced time limit.

A state of emergency is very limited in scope and time

How long is that? Until FEMA says it's ok to come out of the prison camps?

Crimes have specific perpetrators (and I don't think anybody expects criminals to have the same rights as a lawful citizen)

Funny, no one is responding to this. Convicted criminals don't have the same rights as normal citizens. Kevin Mitnick was not even charged with a crime, much less convicted. I hope that you aren't condoning the actions of the Federal government against him. Or against the compound in Waco. Or Ruby Ridge. Or at Kent State.

but some of the policies proposed and enacted by the current administration are inclusive of all citizens and are proposed as permanent measures, not limited by time.

FEMA affects all of us. The DEA, same.

I think the larger issue is that there will always be nutballs who are willing to sacrifice their own lives because they believe in something strongly enough to commit acts of terrorism and there is nothing that can be done to stop them

Interesting. Do you believe that strongly enough to commit acts of terrorism?

If there's nothing that can be done to stop them, what are we talking about? bU5h sUx!!!111

There is something that can be done to stop them. You find out where they are, and you kill them. Or you imprison them. That stops them fairly well. How you find out where they are and how you catch them is what is under discussion.

I think this also ties into the root causes of terrorism, in that if you have a government that is behaving in an arrogant, belligerant manner (as this administration is), then you're going to anger and upset people and give them more reason to hate you an find cause in their lives to attack you. Easing anger and hate isn't a simple matter and it's not something that happens quickly. It take a lot more work to create a peace than to wage a war

I personally think that if we just love everyone enough, they'll like us. It's important that people like us. I think that should be the sum total of our foreign policy. I call it the "Sally Fields" method. If those poor misunderstood Taliban militia men think we are bad people, then we should sit down with them and talk about it. Let's have an empowerment session. I'll bring the brie. First item of business is to discuss the merits of appeasement.

Sorry, I just don't give a blue damn whether or not anybody else is "angry" with my country. Let them be as angry as they like. Let them burn my flag, drag my captured dead soldiers naked through the streets for the CNN cameras. Fine. That's their business. Once they decide to attack my people, my countrymen, my civilian countrymen with 747's and off-market weapons-grade plutonium bombs, then they better damn well be ready to face what wrath I can muster.

If we are wrong in what we do, then it is our business to fix it. We are not beholden to some psycho in Pakistan to atone for our mistakes. We have as a nation committed sins against others, yes, but so what? How does that deny us the right to defend ourselves against foreign powers? Or does it? Perhaps some might think so.

The world loves a strong horse.

[Guest]

I hate to butt in, but I think that by now this is no longer a discussion of Scott McCloud's online comic strip "The Accidental Dentist". This is a discussion of American politics. Perhaps the title should be changed. There are those among us who wish to discuss the strip on its merits as a comic strip instead of as a thin cover used over a political discussion.

Well, I think there are people other than me like that, right?

[MotherInferior]

instead of as a thin cover used over a political discussion.

Nope, there's not even a thin cover. I'm done, though. I'm sure there's other folks that might want to say something, but as far as I'm concerned, I'm out. I think I've said far more than is good, anyhoo.

[null]

I think most people who own a car would let their teeth rot out of their head before they gave up their car

Take a look on Cuba. There are many very old cars (50's -60's... really) in very good state. I think Scott's statement about letting things go is not very acurate.

[Kris Lachowski]

I think most people who own a car would let their teeth rot out of their head before they gave up their car

Take a look on Cuba. There are many very old cars (50's -60's... really) in very good state. I think Scott's statement about letting things go is not very acurate.

It's not really Scott's statement as much as it is a few people having small talk.

[Christopher Lundgren]

Ha! Somehow I never expected the dentist to bump into George when he fell. I guess he'll have a nice, shiny new smile when he gets up off the floor. (Well, depending on how good a dentist the dude is.)

[A]

Funny, no one is responding to this. Convicted criminals don't have the same rights as normal citizens. Kevin Mitnick was not even charged with a crime, much less convicted.

Huh? Then what was he in jail for?

There is something that can be done to stop them. You find out where they are, and you kill them. Or you imprison them. That stops them fairly well. How you find out where they are and how you catch them is what is under discussion.

Incomplete. That only solves part of the problem. You're not, however, preventing more people from becoming terrorists, or discouraging them. (And killing does nothing to discourage those who have no stake in the outcome.)

The US doesn't need everybody to love them. Root-causes work isn't about spreading love. It's about managing hate. There's a difference.

[Guest]

People don't understand the purpose of the electoral college. It gives rural areas and less populous states a fair role in choosing the President. Without it, Montana and Alaska would be powerless, dominated by California and the East Coast.

Actually, I belong to a rarer breed than Rip Tanion. I am a rural democrat, and let me tell you, my views in the last election could not have been MORE pointless. several friends of mind didn't vote to protest the fact that this state is functionally uncontested. North Dakota has gone roughly 60% republican basically since FDR, which makes my lone voice/opinion practically irrelevant.

Why is the political opinion of a retiree in Florida more relevant than mine? Because it's a swing state where there is a big contest. How many major candidates campaign here in North Dakota?

At least without the electoral college I would feel like I had SOME voice.

SOrry to address this so much later. I only read it now for the first time.

[Rip Tanion]

STOP! Who authorized this?!

Scott, in the words of my boyhood hero, Ronald Reagan, "Well, there you go again."

Actually, I belong to a rarer breed than Rip Tanion

Impossible. There can be no rarer than mine.

[MotherInferior]

Funny....

Huh? Then what was he in jail for?

Tag. You're it.

There is something...

Incomplete. That only solves part of the problem. You're not, however, preventing more people from becoming terrorists, or discouraging them. (And killing does nothing to discourage those who have no stake in the outcome.)

Either you're purposefully ignoring what I was talking about, or Chewbacca was a wookie. I can't decide.

The US doesn't need everybody to love them. Root-causes work isn't about spreading love. It's about managing hate. There's a difference.

I hate you. Now, manage me.

[IronSpike]

AHAHAHA!

Oh, this is gettin' GOOD. Can't wait to see the "back-up comic!"

[MotherInferior]

Is that supposed to be Ashcroft, or Ted Koppel? Either way, it's funny as hell.

[Rip Tanion]

Nah, Ted Koppel has much bigger ears, and is far more liberal.

[xxxtatic2000]

Nah, Ted Koppel has much bigger ears, and is far more liberal.

Torquemada was more liberal than Ashcroft...

Chris B.

[Rip Tanion]

Last I heard, John Ashcroft wasn't torturing people into religious conversion. I'm sure if he was, Ted Koppel would report it.

Ha, Scott, you look pretty funny when you're getting the life choked out of you.

[MotherInferior]

Torquemada was more liberal than Ashcroft...

Chris B.

Hmmmm... Ashcroft hates Jews? Does he also sacrifice children? Perhaps he strangles kittens? Perhaps you should kick his a55. Y'know, with your 1337 5ki11z, and kewl eye-zappy powerz n s7uff.

I'd pay to watch.

[Cyborg Caveman]

I must have turned two pages at once or something, but damned if this topic doesn't seemed to have jumped not just the shark but the whole friggin' aquarium.

Anyway, the comic itself was funny as hell.

[Guest]

Tag. You're it.

What a freakin' idiot.

[Greg Stephens]

This thread has been pretty heated but, please, no flaming simply for the sake of flaming.

[Fat Head]

I wish the secret service would have killed that dentist. I hate dentists.