Sorry I Confused You

In reading the comments to my post yesterday, I see that many of you were confused about my positions. Evidently all of you are brilliant, so I assume the problem is on my end. With your indulgence, allow me to clarify.

1. I am not happy that Hitler killed your relatives.
2. I do not support the killing of Americans
3. I do not support nuclear annihilation of Israel
4. I do not support the stoning of virgins in Iran
5. I believe the holocaust happened

I also don’t argue there’s a moral equivalence between Iran and the United States, or Israel and the Palestinians, or anyone and anyone else. Groups pursue their own perceived self interest. Arguing relative morality is an idiot’s game. Pointing out similarities in policies, and shaking the box, is good clean fun.

Next, I believe that if Iran is in fact helping Iraqi insurgents harm Americans, it’s an act of war, and a legitimate reason for attacking Iran in some fashion. That doesn’t mean it’s in the best interests of the United States to do so, but I would view it as legitimate.

Likewise, if the Iranians really are developing a nuclear weapon with the intent of using it on Israel, and there was some way to confirm that other than suspicious translations of speeches, then attacking Iran makes perfect sense, and I would support it completely. My problem is that I keep seeing patterns:

1. Iraq is helping Al-Qaeda
2. Iraq has weapons of mass destruction
3. Al-Qaeda is operationally non-functional
4. The surge is working
5. Iran is helping Iraqi insurgents kill Americans

I believe there’s a good chance Iran is helping Iraqi insurgents kill Americans, simply because it might be in their perceived best interest to do that. But I’d be an idiot to believe it simply because the government told the media it was true and the media told me. You can only fool me five or six dozen times before I start getting suspicious.

I think Iran would be foolish to let matters in Iraq unfold without trying to influence it. It’s in their best interest to meddle. That doesn’t mean I support it. I prefer they didn’t. But it’s not a realistic option. I presume the dark forces on our side are making sure any Iranian offenses are being met with consequences, and I’m all for that.

I also support Israel’s actions in pursuit of its self-interest. I’d be a hypocrite to do otherwise, since I also support the United States, despite what it did to the Native Americans a few hundred years ago. At some point you have to release on the past and accept the present realities. Israel won. It isn’t going anywhere.

If Israel had an enemy that it could make peace with, then I might feel different. But it doesn’t, so Israel’s best interests dictate keeping the neighbors too economically weak to purchase expensive weapons, and to control as much territory as possible. I don’t begrudge any country that makes rational decisions in support of its own safety. I don’t even begrudge Israel’s influence on American foreign policy. I respect them for how well they do it.

Still, the bulk of my sympathies are with whatever group suffers the most, regardless of how much of the problem is their own damned fault. To feel otherwise would be inhuman. Sometimes it feels as if the Palestinians are only one Gandhi away from fixing their problems. But he’d need to be bulletproof.

Here’s your hypothetical question of the day: If it ever happened that America attacked Iran because of alleged nukes, and later confirmed it had no nuclear weapons program, and we discovered that the administration knew it all along, would it be in the best interest of the citizens of the United States to overthrow their government?

Comments

[Ricardo Dirani]

For Joe and all other commentators who should know better:

Iranians aren't Arabs. Not ethnically, not linguistically. They speak Farsi.

I bet many commentators in this thread have already pointed that out.

But antisemitism doesn't mean persecution of people of Semitic heritage. It means anti - semitism, where semitism is a series of very negative atributes some Europeans in the 19th century attributed to the genetics of Jews. It means persecution of Jews. Since there is no relevant hatred of "people of Semitic heritage" as a whole, there is not even need for a word to describe it. Hitler himself received the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin el Husseini as his guest in Berlin in the 30's where the Mufti was given voice to declare:
"Kill the Jews - kill them with your hands, kill them with your teeth - this is well pleasing to Allah!"

Plus, if you check Semite on the American Heritage Dictionary, you'll see your definition of a Semite in the entry number 1, and the definition of Semite in antisemitism in the entry number 2. A Jew.

And finally, being something has never prevented anyone from hating others who are also that thing. And it doesn't even need to be "self hate". Every anti-semite knows a Jew who is just the opposite of the rest of Jews. It's like the infamous "he is Black, but he is nice". Lots of Latinos, for instance, hate Latinos. They think "ok, I'm a Latino, but I don't behave like Latinos". They understand they have transcended the defects of the group they are part of.

Examples:

Chris Rock:
"Everything white people don't like about black people, black people don't like about black people. It's like our own personal civil war."

Bobby Fischer:
Apparently thought that being a Jew involved some sort of allegiance to the group. Since he repelled his fellow Jews, he considered himself not Jewish despite apparently considering all other people born of Jewish parents Jews.

[Bilkes]

Yes, I totally agree with you. Palestine is only one Gandhi away from solving their problems but he'll need to be bulletproof... mostly from Hamas' Qassams, Hezbollah's Katyushas and the likes from their own camp.

[AlmostInspired2BaCounterTerrorist !]

You are right. Every country has a right to defend itself. Therefore it seems legitimate for an iraqi or a neighboring country like Iran to kill Americans (military) in Iraq or anywhere else for that matter, if the case is clear that their presence is "illegal" (which in fact is the case for Iraq and Afghanistan) and clearly such transgression of international laws are good reasons to fight blood thirsty politically correct murderers from the West. Many Americans I find are really not well-wishers of Iraq or its people, I think they could care less, and therefore the same should be expected when ugly events happen on your turf. The only folks who care about Iraq are the oily-money grubbing politicians and the blind US citizens that support their cause...which is systematically destroy muslim lands, and hope Mr. Anne Coulter gets his conversion wish true.

The fallacy of the logic that countries are "existential" threat and therefore should be attacked seems not only ridiculous, I would say comical, because it warrants every citizen of this world to prepare themselves and attack "Americans" or the self-deprecating "Jews" because otherwise ...well look at Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Japan (?), Cuba, ....there are prolly other propped up govts, but for now this seems a handful.

[John]

So....how exactly would the Left in this country overthrow the US Government without automatics, semi-automatics, and alot of those 'icky' .50 caliber "sniper rifles" and the "militia" training required to use them effectively? After all, the Left has spent 40 years disarming their inner city civilians, demonizing hunters and making automatics or larger weapons (and training) prohibitively expensive to acquire.

The only chance of a Domestic "regime change" occuring via violent means would be via the active military turning on the civilian leadership. But since our military (thanks to Leftists banning ROTC on their campi) is mostly conservative in bent they wouldn't necessarily be 'aghast' at us bombing Iran - them having nukes or not.

So a violent Leftist revolution against "the regime" doesn't stand a chance. Even if the 'violence' was directed against their ideological civilian counterparts, you know, those damn conservatives, they'd still be outgunned, outtrained, and outnumbered.

Which is why...most leftist agenda items are only advanced via courts, not the ballot box - they just don't have the numbers required for electoral or revolutionary victory.

[bob rayburn]

Scott, regarding 'Sorry I Confused You', following the end of WWII a reporter asked Einstein how he felt about the stigma future generations of Germans would be forced to bear due to the crimes committed by the Nazis? Einstein replied without hesitation, "I would assume man's character differs much from one geographical location to another."

What's just as amazing is how America's educational system has outdone Hitler's propaganda machine by orders of magnitude, in that the vast majority of Americans believe the Nazis re-defined pure evil following the end of WWII. Try putting your mind around the fact that the Nazis actually came in a distant second, no where near the absence of empathy ehibited by the Americans during the 12 years we knew about the Nazi death and concentration camps and never lifted so much as a finger to prevent or stop what was going on inside.

Thus we find the American dream femains mostly a dream. And while Americans have been dreaming our republic will one day be the success we all take for granted, we failed to notice the reality that our republic failed long ago, and mostly unaware it was doomed from moment our Founding Fathers described the definitive evidence of failure; should society ever becomne a capitalist society.

How about that? Bob

[Janos]

Posted by: Dietrich | September 27, 2007 at 10:29 PM

Thought experiment. Let's say I shoot you in the head (I am not gonna, but let's pretend). Here comes the interesting part.

Your children and friends will claim that the murderer (me) used a handgun with a muzzle velocity of 6000 ft/s. Somebody will point out that the kind of handgun I have used has a muzzle velocity of 2500 ft/s. Neither of you will have proof to support your statements.

Will this in any way alter the fact that your Nazi ass was murdered?

If you get the correlation between your post and mine, good. If you don't (this would be my assumption), then you may carry on.

[Dietrich]

He was right the first time, as the "holocaust" was established by legal fiat rather than scientific rigor. This isn't merely my opinion. It's an objective fact that scientific rigor specifically requires the freedom to study and debate the issue from any side. However, one can not argue the side opposite of The Lobby in many countries, including yours soon enough. This is "history by judge."

Amazing! We can interpret the American Revolutionary war from the standpoint that Washington was a terrorist, but we can't ask how two crematoria turned 3000 Jews to pure ash (even the modern steel-constructed ones leave bone fragments) in only one location per day!

Lies can not stand the test of time. The jailed will be vindicated, and history will judge the liars.

[ohio]

"Free William | September 24, 2007 at 09:32 PM
Hi Scotty,

Thanks for clearing up your "sarcasm" rant.
Your musings are still vile and infantile."............etc.
///////////////////////////////////////////////

You want vile?

All personal vows we are likely to make, all personal oaths and pledges we are likely to take between this Yom Kippur and the next Yom Kippur, we publicly renounce. Let them all be relinquished and abandoned, null and void, neither firm nor established. Let our personal vows, pledges and oaths be considered neither vows nor pledges nor oaths.
Kol Nidre

yada, yada

[Janos]

Hey Scott,

If the US Gov't wasn't overthrown for lying about the reasons for invading Iraq, why would/should it be overthrown for invading Iran and lying about the reasons for doing so?

Also, this phenomenon of a certain kind of people not getting sarcasm and launching flamewars is truly international. Let me share a story with you.

Our PM made a controversial speech last year in a closed session (admitting that prior to the elections, his party lied (surprise, surprise!)). The speech leaked, riots ensued. A year later, a fairly balanced and well-known internet news portal, whose editors have a twisted sense of humor sometimes, posted an article, with the header: "comments of independent intellectuals on the leaked speech". All of the "independent intellectuals" had well-known ties to the left-wing government. All comments were praising the PM for speaking/admitting the truth. What do you think, how many commenters understood the sarcasm of calling these people independent, and how many started yelling "commie-liberal-pinko-redski-bolshevik" at the newsportal?

We also have a saying for the kinds of Chomsky "so smart he forgets to look down to avoid stepping into dogsh*t". I know it doesn't translate well, but maybe some of you can relate.

[Charlie]

First the President tries to prevent an investigation of 9/11 and then he appoints Henry Kissinger knowing that Osama Bin Laden was a client of Kissinger Associates, and Henry Kissinger was on the bank’s international advisory board. The 9/11 families get Kissinger to step down from his position on the commission and then find out that new executive director, Phillip Zelikow, actually wrote the preemptive war strategy for Iraq among other things. Zelikow refuses to step down and then the President further cripples the investigation by preventing the majority of the commission from actually seeing the documents they need to investigate. Totally ridiculous obfuscation of justice.

"I mean, I'm a member of the commission. The President has said only a minority of the commission can see a minority of the documents and then they have to clear what they are going to say to the rest of the commission with the White House." Sen. Max Cleland, 9/11 Commissioner

9/11 Press for Truth ( http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3979568779414136481 )

How to Create an Angry American
( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgfzqulvhlQ )

The Secret Government: The Constitution in Crisis - History of the Iran-Contra arms and drug-running operation and its contemporary relevance
( http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3505348655137118430 )

[Fred]

Boskolives,

Canada's waiting for you buddy. Come join us for cold beer...colder winters and socialized medicine. You'll soon join me on my twice a year trips to the US for medical work. Hospitals up here suck

[Fred]

This is to Stephen the big Chomsky supporter. Here's an idea that Chomsky never talks about. How about letting Scott think and reason for himself. He doesn't need to become a verse quoting sycophant of a minor intellectual figure who has found a niche with wannabe intellectuals who are willing to be bullies on the internet.

Any "thinking" man who can write this line "crimes of the Roosevelt administration, which assisted terrorist partisans attacking peaceful and sovereign Vichy France in 1940-41, and had thus declared war on Germany even before Pearl Harbor." is at best a minor intellectual or at worst a fraud of the nth degree.

The Vichy Government was sovereign on in the fact that they were hand picked by the Germans to take over the government, nor were they peaceful for they were shipping off Jews, Gypsies and anyone else on the Nazi hate list to concentration camps. And to call the Resistance Fighters terrorists is ignorance of a frightening proportion. I bet Chomsky was a big fan of Quisling as well. So Scott speak your mind, figure out what you want and need to say and say it. Don't just be like Stephen and show your intelligence or lack of by just saying "Chomsky, Chomsky, Chomsky"

[Ray]

"Not that I care, not that anyone cares, but some of your post attributions have gotten mixed up, going to the wrong people.

Posted by: F. Bernadotte | September 25, 2007 at 05:54 PM"

Sorry to say, the only mixing up here is in your head.

[mbot]

Your post on the 22nd was awesome. You shouldn't have to make excuses for it just because some people don't understand it.

[Joe]

Great posts Scott. Those who are offended should take a deep breath and let more oxygen in -- that what you read may disturb you is good because the words will stay with you long after you walk away from the keyboard. Regardless of what you think about some of the questions he ducked, Ahmadinejad is a good speaker. And for those assholes that don't know better, Arabs are a semitic people too.

[Todd]

> My problem is that I keep seeing patterns:

Oh, do you SEE them, Mr. Adams? Do you SEE these patterns for yourself, or is it what happens to be on the news? For christ sake, after SEEING one utterly disastrous invasion and destruction of an entire country by the US, you think you SEE the reason for another illegal, pre-emptive invasion. I'm utterly disgusted by your willingness to engage in the rhetoric that lays groundwork for war. War is indiscriminant destruction. Nothing more. And you, for engaging in this kind of speculative garbage, are its messenger and advocate, concocting lists of reasons for bombing the hell out of people, as long as it's not near you.

And after re-reading and thinking about this comment, I would whole-heartedly say this to your face before spitting on the ground before you. Your willingness to advocate for more violence as the ethos of US foreign policy puts you squarely in the jackass category.

[F. Bernadotte]

Not that I care, not that anyone cares, but some of your post attributions have gotten mixed up, going to the wrong people.

[Lickspittle]

I'm beginning to think the answer to the world's problems is to not spend so much time on the internet.

[phaser]

I must admit, it took until the last paragraph before I was sure of the sarcastic nature of yesterday's post. Having said that, I am sure there were a number of people who were seeing too much red by then to pick that up.

While I agree with some and disagree with other parts of what you said, I think the major points are these:

1. These problems are immensely complex, and we get nowhere by trying to simplify them so people who don't want to make an effort can understand them.
2. We also get nowhere by insulting our enemies (or friends) or by demonizing them. That only breeds contempt on both sides. While I applaud Columbia U for letting Ahmadinejad speak, the president of Columbia U created an attitude of resentment by insulting him at the outset. When that happens, almost everybody quit listening to everybody else.

We will never change the attitudes or beliefs of others by beating them with a stick. It is only through open dialogue thatwe begin to understand, and eventually respect, each other's views.

[dkm]

Under the topic of "Israel’s actions in pursuit of its self-interest," do you include leaving cluster bombs all over farmers' fields in southern Lebanon to remind people forever that you are inhumane monsters? Do you include taking people's land and possessions at gunpoint? Do you include blatant attacks on civilians? Do you include arbitrary arrests, laws forbidding Palestinians from driving in their own country, laws forbidding visits to family, behavior that goes beyond anything in the Jim Crow laws? When has military force ever beaten a society into total submission? The Afrikaaners couldn't do it to the locals. The Serbs couldn't do it to the Kosovars. The Chinese haven't been able to do it to the Tibetans. We certainly haven't done it to the Iraqis. The soviets never were able to do it to anyone. Why do you think that the Israelis can do it to the Palestinians?

[I respectfully excuse myself from defending your hallucination of my opinion. -- Scott]

[Chris]

When ever our political leaders operate outside the law (like starting an undeclared war), illegally tap our phones, allow us to be brutalized by law enforcement, monitor what we read on the net, monitor what we read at the libraries, detain us without giving reason or representation and spend our tax money foolishly, we have every right to change our government.

By force, if we deem necessary

[Sabrina]

"If it ever happened that America attacked Iran because of alleged nukes, and later confirmed it had no nuclear weapons program, and we discovered that the administration knew it all along, would it be in the best interest of the citizens of the United States to overthrow their government?"
Yes. Just like we should be doing now in the equivalent situation.

[Marco]

>>>
I believe that if Iran is in fact helping Iraqi insurgents harm Americans, it’s an act of war, and a legitimate reason for attacking Iran in some fashion.
<<<

PLEASE clarify Scott:
Do you also believe that the US helping (by suppling money, weapons) Israel harm Palestinans is an act of war, and that this is a legitimate reason for the Palestinians to attack the US?
(Seems like an almost perfect analogy)

[chuck]

More deep thought. Do you think that the US or the Axis suffered more as a result of WWII? Would you thus have sided with the Axis --- to be human?

Asshole^2

[GLK]

Holy crap. After not reading for a few days I return and suddenly it's Blogageddon! I presume you needed more hits to placate your advertisers.

[Read Chomsky Now]

Scott, Scott, Scott....
Where to start?

The short version is "Read Chomsky" - or watch a speech or two. Are there any actions you wouldn't support "in pursuit of its[Israel's] self-interest"? How do you feel about the rule of law? How do you feel about politicide - the killing of an entire national identity? Something to support so long as it is in the self-interest of Israel?

As for Israel not having an enemy it can make peace with - your "feeling I'm being had" should be kicking in pretty strongly at that point.

At the risk of repeating myself - Chomsky, Chomsky Chomsky.

You could make a difference Scott, you could help bring the end of the brutal, illegal occupation closer. Are you brave enough? I think you are.

CHECK YOUR FACTS.

Respect
Stephen.

P.S. I love your work.

[ezra]

The weapons of mass destruction thing has become a wildcard for Mr. George Bush to declare war on any developed countries.

Well, I think US have weapons of mass destruction too.. Who the heck made the US the valid judge of who can have the toys and who cant? Who is going to tell the US to destroy those weapons? Why do they have them? Why do they have the right to have them and others dont?

You may see clear reasons why US should have them and other countries wont, but believe me, that reasoning is wrong too.

---

About declaring war, allow me Mr. Scott Adams to remind you that the same approach was taken against Iraq, and the fanatics of Al Qaeda has grown exponentially ever since. What do you think would come out from a war with Iran?

Violence only cause violence, and war only cause death and hatred and new wounds to last for decades.

Humanity, and specially such a developed country as USA should know better.

DONT YOU THINK SO?

[ASM826]

Be more clear. Overthrow the government? Want a different Congressman, President, or Senator? We get to do that every 2, 4, and 6 years. Or are you suggesting overthrowing the Constitution and having another revolution? Do you really think, people being what they are, that we could do any better than what we have?

You have made a living showing how stupid American workers, bosses, and business systems are. What possible reason would you have for thinking a new government built from scratch by the current generation would work any better than Dilbert's office?

[The Atheist Jew]

David Duke and Rense will not publish this post:) And I'm sure you upset a few radical Muslims who loved your previous post.

[Jason Dumler]

It's in the best interest of the citizens if what they replace the current government with is better and it can happen quickly enough to prevent small scale social unrest and problems. For instance, if I become unemployed because my employer could no longer exist, then my children can no longer go to college and we become a family of vagrants, then it's certainly not in my best interest.

First you call us stupid, then you egg us on in a revolution against the government, and you'd probably laugh at us when we're vagrants. Nice job! On an internet forum too!

[Joe Blow]

Like many I thought your blog yesterday was one of the best. I also wondered if you'd (have to) back paddle. You did. (Too bad.)

My 2 cents
JB

[AnArmyMajor]

We have the opportunity to overthrow the government every two years in elections, but most people are too self-absorbed to vote. It seems we all believe that every politician is a corrupt scumbag, except ours. THIS is why incumbents enjoy a 90%+ re-election rate. If you want revolution, throw the clowns out!!

[brian]

'Israel won. It isn’t going anywhere'

well, not quite, Scott....That battle is still ongoing. the palestinians and arab israelis are still there, still defending what remains of their country and inheritance, in spite of all efforts to evict them. The situation bears some resemblance to the jews in nazi germany, in the 1930s.

Since US is an invader, Iraqis have every right to drive them out, even if that means killing US soldiers. Is iran aiding the resistance? Who knows.
But its ironic that your critics should condemn Iran for aiding iraq, when US aided israel in something much worse than defence: the invasion of Lebanon.

[Free William]

Well done Scott not only are the monkeys dancing they are throwing their shit. (I seem to recall you covering an article on this a few months back, you couldn't resist the challenge could you)

[huh?]

Hi Scotty,

Thanks for clearing up your "sarcasm" rant.
Your musings are still vile and infantile.

You must love the positive affirmation from the comments
of the kool-aid drinking echo chamber, where it's a warm
and snugly cocoon and you can pretend there is no evil in
the world (except of course for EVIL AmeriKKKa and its
Israel masters, yadda yadda yadda).

Enjoy!

(I wouldn't be too smug though, since a disturbingly
high percentage of them credit you with smart original
thoughts - they mustn't get out much).

PS: Hat tip for dragging the poor American Indians into this travesty

[Stella]

I enjoy you blog, Scott, sacasm, tongue in cheek stuff an' all. There are few people about who are interested in the merits of the argument, and not pounding a position. I find it refreshing. I do find some of your readers comments difficult to take though, and don't understand why people think it's OK to make personal attacks. Hang in there.

[Neechee]

You rock bro!

[garytheyoung]

"Sometimes it feels as if the Palestinians are only one Gandhi away from fixing their problems."

More satire, right?

[Bill]

sad. I used to like reading Dilbert. Drop me a line if you ever make it back to the real world, Scott.

[Grungemunky]

Many here are talking about elections as an alternative to overthrow, which is a viable option when used correctly, but aren't elections how we got here to begin with? The American people, as a majority: do not care, are misinformed about candidates, or, oh yah, just don't care. I have several friends who are extremely intelligent, but are completely apathetic. Why? Like so many people, they doesn't keep up with what is going on in the world and are just apathetic. People (again, generalization) are too busy watching "reality" television shows and completely ignoring their own reality. Also, we are taught from a very young age to avoid confrontation and to be complacent when confronted by authority (whom WE put into place). We could put in a new president in a few years, but will it make a difference? Probably very little if Congress is opposed to the president. We could replace Congress, but we have the Judicial branch that doesn't adhere to the Constitution either. Oh, and we have a population who can't even name the three branches of government. Voters only see Republican and Democrat on election day, and vote for the party that they supposedly identify with (meaning, whichever party their parents are/were). Yes, if things continue on as they are now, overthrow may become necessary. There is so much to say on this topic, and much to debate, but I will part with a quote from Thomas Jefferson:

"... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

Thomas Jefferson

[Grungemunky]

Many here are talking about elections as an alternative to overthrow, which is a viable option when used correctly, but aren't elections how we got here to begin with? The American people, as a majority: do not care, are misinformed about candidates, or, oh yah, just don't care. I have several friends who are extremely intelligent, but are completely apathetic. Why? Like so many people, they doesn't keep up with what is going on in the world and are just apathetic. People (again, generalization) are too busy watching "reality" television shows and completely ignoring their own reality. Also, we are taught from a very young age to avoid confrontation and to be complacent when confronted by authority (whom WE put into place). We could put in a new president in a few years, but will it make a difference? Probably very little if Congress is opposed to the president. We could replace Congress, but we have the Judicial branch that doesn't adhere to the Constitution either. Oh, and we have a population who can't even name the three branches of government. Voters only see Republican and Democrat on election day, and vote for the party that they supposedly identify with (meaning, whichever party their parents are/were). Yes, if things continue on as they are now, overthrow may become necessary. There is so much to say on this topic, and much to debate, but I will part with a quote from Thomas Jefferson:

"... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

Thomas Jefferson

[F. Bernadotte]

Words to warm the heart of any zionist: "At some point you have to release on the past and accept the present realities. Israel won. It isn’t going anywhere."

And:

"If Israel had an enemy that it could make peace with, then I might feel different. But it doesn’t, so Israel’s best interests dictate keeping the neighbors too economically weak to purchase expensive weapons, and to control as much territory as possible."

I guess all those horrid negative comments got to you, that right Scott? A pity. For a moment there, I was applauding your courage. Now I pity your fearfulness. I do understand very well, though, why you felt a need to express contrition. However, it wasn't because you confused anyone, Scott. I think everyone, zionists above all, understood your comments very accurately.

And here's some more comments for you.

I was happy to hear that Israel won't allow Palestinians to return to the homes they were forced out of in '48 and '67. And very happy that the U.S. is rescinding the offer to be 'honest' peace brokers between them and Israel. If you let people like that complain about human rights, before long the entire world will want to have international law!

I hate Arabs for all the same reasons you do. For one thing, it's clear they want to "push Israel into the sea". Scholars tell us that in fact both Palestinians and Arab states have made repeated peace overtures to Israel, only to be rejected. What ass-munchers!

Palestinians are always whining about why they have to pay the price for the holocaust, which they had nothing to do with. I say, why can't they just be quiet and accept the present realities? Fuck them, I hate them. Israel wants their land, and they're economically weak. God-damned fuckers.

The worst of it is that Palestinians are arrogantly resisting Israel efforts to demolish their homes, destroy their olive trees, and take their land! I just know that if any foreign nation did that to us, I think we'd agree that the best course of action is to just bend over and accept it. Not that we have that many olive trees. Might is right! (Right?)

If Palestinians think they can be our friends, just by making moral arguments on their behalf, they underestimate our ability to ignore morality, when it's in our best interest. I hate them.

[Mike]

Interesting that you managed to both offend the Jews and thrill the neo-nazis. Seems a lot of people are just "confused".

We're all looking forward to more interesting patterns you can connect between American foreign policy and various ethnic groups. Maybe something special for MLK day or Cinco de Mayo?

Greg Easterbrook, another public figure whose work I enjoyed, came out with something similarly offhandedly antisemitic. The big diff - he thought about what he said, apologized, and moved forward with his life.

This mealy-mouthed tripe about people misunderstanding you doesn't help any.

Enjoy the new fans, Scott. This is certainly one you'll enjoy telling your grandkids.

[Jay]

Would it be in our best interest to overthrow the government?
Since you've stated they knew the reason why they attacked
Iran was not true I would infer they lied. Lying isn't
necessarily bad. It depends on what their real motives were.
If they lied because they had to in pursuit of what they
thought were everyone's best interests then they're not
evil. Perhaps a bit misguided. I already know they lie
to us all the time anyway, so I don't think proof of it
changes anything.

[insignis]

It's curious to me that yesterday's post received overwhelmingly negative comments, but today's are more positive (or at least less...vehement). I gather that people either miserably fail to understand satire, or most of them weren't regular readers and didn't get how obviously different the tone of that post was.

Dunno why, but this caught my eye skimming:

"I don't understand the people who feel the need to tell you (us) that they'll never read you again. Just quit reading dumba**es. We don't need to know where you went and anyone who reads this blog should know Scott isn't going to change his views because of people like you making 'threats.'" -- Lynne

A boycott serves no purpose if the boycotted doesn't know they're being boycotted. Also, the way these are worded make them a promise, not a threat. It is, IMHO, a dumb reason to quit being a Dilbert fan, but if enough people swear off Dilbert for a blog post, even Scott might have to take notice.

[angry reader]

nice try. still antisemitic claptrap.

[Gabriel]

All reasonably reasonable, but the thing is everyone read exactly what you wrote.

Best case scenario: You smoked a shedload of crack, then you wrote a whole lot of crap. It's not your fault, you weren't yourself. After the shakes went away you rubbed your eyes and logge on to read the comments on your post. The indignant responses from former fans, you can deal with, but the plaudits from right-wing extremists...yep, definitely a bad move. Best stick to booze in future. So you make a new post explaining youself in as plausible terms as possible, which "scholars" translate as broadly this.

"When I wrote an ironic post dealing with Ahmadinejab's invitation to Columbia, I was really talking about the way neo-cons are trying to goad us into war with Iran. All that wildy irrelevant stuff abot Israel it just... umm ... sort of slipped out. I'm cool with Jews, honest; seriously, my publisher's crawling with them. I'm a relatively apolitical sort of liberal in reality, not some nutter."

Then the urges kicked in, you lit a few more rocks and typed some gibberish about overthrowing the U.S. government before hitting the "post" button.

Middle case scenario: Same, but minus the crack. Essentially: you're a jerk, you pushed things too far, now you're trying to cover it up and you're failing. Laughably so.

Worst case scenario: You're conistent postion is actually that of your first post, but after taking some crack your cognitive abilities became that of an average deranged addict, equivalent to an IQ jump of 17.5. Stoned as hell, you read the ironic piece thought "Damn, Scott, that's some messsed up s**t" and quickly wrote this out to exonerate yourself. The last paragaph is the drugs wearing off and soon you'll be back to, ahem, normal.

[suefletch]

Scott: I am an American citizen, a non-Jew and yet even I can somewhat stumble thru the facts staring me in the face. Thank God for your right to rant and rave; a right gained by soldiers dying in battle.

Supporting the underdog simply because they're the underdog shows a lack of facts and logical thinking.

I don't believe the Israelis are guiltless when atrocities against the Palestinians are admitted as evidence, however, that said, let's not forget the main point, the atrocities from the Palestinian/Arab front never cease.

What did Israeli athletes ever do to hinder peace when they were executed by Arabs during the 1972 Olympic games?

What do bombing and killing innocent Israeli civilians achieve? It never stops. Mad Arab Mullahs and their dictators rant and rave about wiping Israel off the map. Not exactly a recipe for a peaceful coexistence.

I honestly don't know how Israelis sleep at night. I would be scared sick, and stupid.

My point; if the Palestinian/Arab terrorists are going to keep picking a fight, then standby for consequences.

Unfortunately, they're too gutless to face a soldier when wiping people out is their main objective.

[Craig "Fuzzy" Conner]

>> Still, the bulk of my sympathies are
>> with whatever group suffers the most,
>> regardless of how much of the problem
>> is their own damned fault.

...this program of the liberal media has been brought to you by the liberal media for the liberal media.

Seriously, who can define "the most" in that context? As your other points say, that's all relative anyway and it's always our/their/everyone's own damn fault.

>> Here’s your hypothetical question of
>> the day:

>> would it be in the best interest of
>> the citizens of the United States to
>> overthrow their government?

It would be in the best interest of the citizens of the United States to do so at the ballot box. Of course we'd have then the same problem we have now: When we broke it, we bought it. We'd do well to elect people who can fix it. (i.e. anyone who can do better than our current Congress which continues to shamelessly waste their opportunities.)

[SlowMovingTarget]

No.

It would be in the best interests of the American people to speak with their vote. That's what it's for; making revolutions unnecessary.

The trouble will be finding candidates with the capacity of George Washington or Abraham Lincoln. These men did the right thing because it was the right thing, believing America to be a nation designed and constructed to do what is righteous even if it is difficult or unpleasant. (Granted, we've been working with tremendous energy lately to remove our ability to determine what is good and bad, right and wrong.) But more than that, such men as these, such men as James Madison and Benjamin Franklin persuaded others to their cause on moral and rational grounds.

If you would have a revolution, what would take the place of rule of law and representative government, this republic of ours?

If you really want change, the revolution must happen in the schools. Teach children about what America ought to be, and they will build to this vision. Fire the minds of our youth, and we will stumble upon George Washington or Abraham Lincoln. It must not be our current hallucination of "seek not to offend" but it must be rooted in granting freedom to all citizens. Resist the calls to tribalism offered by so-called multiculturalism. Raise our children to partake of and contribute to the culture of freedom built upon the pillars of Western civilization; the birthright of all Americans regardless of genealogy, and the earned right of immigrants who make us better.

Or we can simply continue down the childish path of popularity contests played out in the media, separating ourselves by the clothes on our back and the playlist in our iPod.

/rant

Rhetoric can be fun.

[Ken in Irvine]

Oh Scott, I was with you right up to this line:

"...we discovered that the administration knew it all along..."

[olie]

[Scott: "hypothetical question of the day: If it ever happened that America attacked Iran because of alleged nukes, and later confirmed it had no nuclear weapons program, and we discovered that the administration knew it all along, would it be in the best interest of the citizens of the United States to overthrow their government?"]

With the minor nit that the question should be "...would it /still/ be in the best interest of the citizens...": sure.

There's been a long build-up -- a LONG long build-up, starting back before whoever your favorite president in recent history is -- of the US government getting out of hand. I'd love to see a coup that ended in restoration of a government of, by and for the people.

It might be too late for that, though :\

[Mark Z.]

I knew you were damn funny, but now I know you're also on the right path (not that you weren't before). Too often Americans forget to hold themselves to their own values, and apply them selectively to the enemy of the month as decided by our Administration. I hate the way people refuse to even consider alternate ideas and open their minds, as if doing so would cause them to instantaneously explode, or at least corrupt their minds forever. The intelligent ones can at least see the irony of forcing democracy on a nation. Thanks for sticking your neck out.

[levi civita]

Impeach Scotty. The fucktard actually uses logic to explain himself. The gall of the idiot, rip it out.

[Josh Scholar]

"Grats on your marriage, Scott. Yes, I realize my congratulations is 1 year, 2 months and 1 day late.
Posted by: Animastryfe | September 23, 2007 at 08:43 PM"

Am I the only one who found it creepy that "Animastryfe" has been counting the days? Sounds like the sort of fan who would shave a love letter into your cat's fur.

[Gene]

We don't need Monica in Dubya's office. Just get Linda Tripp to record a few calls with Condi and we'll be all set.

[Gregorya]

Why didn't you just post this yesterday, instead of the poorly written "sarcasm," or whatever you were attempting to do?

The fact that you have bought into the "lie" meme indicates that you have drunk the idiotarian Kool-Aid to some extent, and that you have not followed up with the many excellent writers who are on the ground in Iraq covering the surge. You should be reading Michael Yon and Bill Roggio, if you want the truth.

These people declared war on US 30 years ago. When are you twits gonna wake up to that fact?

[John]

And yet another wealthy entertainer, drunk with their on narcissism and feelings of moral superiority, has decided to wander beyond their realm of competency and relevance to spread their insipid insight. Yawn.

[mac]

(I realize that, with all these posts, my little comment will be buried, but here goes anyway:)

Mr Adams, in this and your previous post, you are once again making me realize how almost scarily original your thinking is on these and other issues.

Thought-provoking doesn't even start to encompass it.

Thanks!

mac mccarthy

[Brian]

You wussed out Scott.

[Aditya Simha]

Ahh.... if the people actually fall for another lie like the Iraq one, that will really be amazing, but then who am I to say anything? Democracy has the annoying habit of encouraging dynasties in any case; people crave to see someone familiar in charge anyway! It's the universal human problem: bounded rationality!

BTW, I would've thought that Virgins who strayed from the chosen path were the ones stoned in Iran and not otherwise.... ha ha

[azw88]

If they knew it all along, yeah, time to change government..... but NOT through overthrow in the revolutionary sense, but in the Constitutional sense: IMPEACHMENT.

[Abe]

Scott--since many insist on stating that you have lost them readers (good riddance), I want you to know that I rarely read Dilbert before and never before your blog, but your satirical piece has won my admiration and respect, and a new reader. I will forward your first piece to many and if all who enjoyed it do the same, you will hopefully gain more readers than you have lost, and a more sophisticated, less bigoted bunch at that. Kudos.

[Greg Scott]

Civics lesson: We don't need to overthrow the Government. There's something called elections every two years for congress and every 4 years for executive. If a person you disagree with gets elected, then you wait for the next go round. You don’t turn Jacobin and start a Terror to murder your way to power.

I know sometimes the peasantry (as my leftist acquaintances like to call us) sometimes disappoint. But I like to think we do it to deliberately to annoy our betters.

[Nomi]

Coming to this post late, can't read comments and don't want to answer question of the yesterday.

But I think dismissing moral relativity is also an idiot's game. (The terminology is confusing here -- people use the term "moral relativist" to mean one believes that another's morals are just as valid as mine -- sort of the everything's subjective, there is no absolute morality argument. But when you spoke of moral relativity, you meant just the opposite -- that one nation's morality might be considered better, purer, than another's. You feel that is is fool's game. I feel to dismiss it is also a fool's game.)

[El Oaxuco]

Wow! Looks like the Ziocons and their minions are out in full force. We have to remember a few things:

1) The US and Israel have nuclear weapons, amond others. The US has actually used them, incinerating over 200 thousand civilians in Japan. Who are We to dictate who can and can't have nuclear weapons??!!?

2) The US is responsible for so much loss of life. 1.2 Million Iraqi civillians, not to mention the millions of Vietnamese. It is the US, not Iran, that is the bigggest threat to world peace.

Those that fan the flames for war with Iran are guilty of vast hypocrisy or just plain stupid warmongers.

[Shawn F]

Scott and All -

http://www.google.com/trends/hottrends?q=mahmoud+ahmadinejad&date=2007-9-24&sa=X

Interesting that since you have posted this, these are in the top 20 searches on Google...

-Shawn F

[Tom]

"...would it be in the best interest of the citizens of the United States to overthrow their government?"

No Scott, it would never be in our best interests to overthrow our government. Americans have never, EVER, overthrown their government. Once upon a time we overthrew the British Government who claimed us as their own. And once upon a time half of us tried to disconnect from the Government and withdraw from the Union. But Americans have never endorsed overthrowing our government.

Now, it would certainly be in our best interests to vote out the current administration; the current head of the government to be sure, but a small fraction of the "government" en totale.

Only if the administration abused their power in such a way as to take away OUR legislative power to remove them, would overthrowing the government become acceptable. But of course at that point, those leaders would have ceased being "our government" and became something else. Something well deserving of being destroyed.

[fairleft]

Scott,

You are both a hero and very funny. Of course, naked emperor stuff is prime comedy material.

[fifi]

Scott, you should be flattered that so many zio-shills are trolling your board.....as annoying as they are. It's because you have a big following and they have to send in their little army of cyber-bots to scream "holocaust" to divert attention away from the truth of the evil zionazi agenda.

They do this on so many boards it's pathetic, not to mention very transparent. The more they do this, the more real American's are starting to see it.

Fight the good fight my friend. Men of good conscience speak the truth!!

[Gary Parker]

You wrote in part, "Likewise, if the Iranians really are developing a nuclear weapon with the intent of using it on Israel, and there was some way to confirm that other than suspicious translations of speeches, then attacking Iran makes perfect sense, and I would support it completely."

I hope you meant, "Israel attacking Iran makes sense", and not the United States doing so. They have lots of American built weapons and don't need any more help from us. Not to mention their 200+ locally built nuclear weapons.

[Pickle]

I notice you conveniently left out your absurd allegation that Israel somehow gets a "free pass" because it's supposedly a stateful of holocaust survivors. A ridiculous lie, of course, especially in light of the vast number of lopsided UN resolutions passed against it, so I guess it figures you would try to sweep it under the rug.

[Jok]

M. Adams, you have won a reader.

[Elisson]

"Still, the bulk of my sympathies are with whatever group suffers the most, regardless of how much of the problem is their own damned fault. To feel otherwise would be inhuman."

Sorry, Scott. I don't buy it. Using this logic, the bulk of your sympathies would have to lie with the convicted murderer who is facing a death sentence. His problem is his own damned fault, too.

My sympathies are with the people who would make peace with their neighbors if only those neighbors would make peace with them...who do not send people on suicide missions to murder as many civilians as possible...who sit there and watch their sworn enemies lob missiles at them every day with impunity...who have the only democratic government in the entire region...who allow freedom of religion in their country. And yours should be, too...but apparently, they are not.

[Arthur]

Yeah, we call it an "election year."

[bubba]

No, because "overthrowing the government" is a bad precedent. Better to just vote the bastards out. 2-4 years just isn't that long to wait. The chaos of overthrowing the government would be much longer, and more disruptive than invading a third world country.

[Steve]

"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies." -- Carrol Quigley, Tragedy and Hope.

There will be no change because the parties are both controlled by the same forces now. You might get some change around the edges, but the basic thrust is till the same - still exporting prosperity, importing poverty, destroying the middle class, open borders and perpetual war for perpetual peace.

[Rocky]

Overthrowing a government is quite a bit of work, and frankly I am swamped with my menial job, debt reconciliation, and X-box. Perhaps next time.

[eclecticdog]

Yes, but we should of overthrown it after the 2000 election. F*****g Republicans. I'd become a Democrat if I didn't hate them too.

[Real Live Girl]

Yes, seeking recalls and impeachment first. But if the system became so corrupt that it would be impossible to remove elected officials through legitimate or peaceful means, then I'd be ok with a move to overthrow. American Revolution, the sequel.

[E]

Scott,

Wow. I read your "Iranian point of view" thing this morning and I have to admit it was troubling - but not the way I think you intended it to be.

Thank you for the second post... I'm not the sharpest crayon in the box, but I'm not a complete duffer either... my first time through, I was thinking, "wtf?"

I mean, I hear what you're saying about free speech, etc...

But there is a big difference between saying, "Yes I believe in free speech and I don't believe in censorship except in extreme cases." and "I'm going to let the head poobah of the KKK speak at my commencement."

I'm not convinced that free speech means anyone with any view gets equal time or consideration. As an example, arguments for child porn or genocide would fall outside of "fair game for free speech" for me.

If I were Columbia, I wouldn't want him speaking on my stage either.

The thing is that he is the president of a country, and he has a platform to speak from. He can call a press conference pretty much at will, either here or in Iran and someone will show up.

With my liberal arts degree, I'm probably way too willing to "see the other point of view"... but the "wipe them off the map" statement that may or may not being saying something about destroying Israeli people was made at an "anti-Zion conference." Literally. At that point, I'm not interested in content anymore, or slicing accuracy in translation. I know everything I need to know.

If he really didn't mean it as it sounds to the rest of the earth, he could make a more accurate statement. That he has not done that has meaning.

I just don't have a lot of slack or sympathy for this kind of thing.

And like Bush or hate him, he isn't attending anti-Muslim conferences as a featured speaker and talking about genocide on a worldwide platform.

In at least some of the cases responding heatedly to this, it isn't that we just don't get it. We got enough of it to strongly disagree... some louder than others, but still.

[SR]

Dear Mr. Adams:

I have read Dilbert since grad school in the early 90s. I thank you for the many chuckles, and the occasional genuinely funny strip, but after your recent "satirical" post and today's non-apology, you have lost a reader.

S.R.

[Rich T.]

"If it ever happened that America attacked Iran because of alleged nukes, and later confirmed it had no nuclear weapons program, and we discovered that the administration knew it all along, would it be in the best interest of the citizens of the United States to overthrow their government?"

If it happens when Hillary is president, you'll find an excuse to dissuade people from overthrowing the government. The war in Iraq, and in Iran if it comes to it, is just an excuse for the Left spewing against the Right, which has deeper-seated reasons than a foreign war.

[r_gosal]

"Arguing relative morality is an idiot’s game." -- About sums it up for me ...

[P.Tane]

How far down do I have to scroll before I get to the cartoon?

[V the K]

Taking into consideration our government's policy of declaring anyone who would be stupid enough to say out loud that they oppose the methods of our glorious leader to be an enemy combatant,

So, the government is locking up the KOS diarists and the Move-On-dot-org people where exactly?

Last I saw, Bush-Bashing was a sure ticket to book deals, not Guantanamo.

[Neo]

i think that if the US gov decided to invade iran, i'd be all for it. at the moment, it seems like a pretty good idea, except for the fact that war just screws our economy over at a time when we're already in tons of debt as a country. but whatever. why has nobody suggested that we pull out of iraq and invade canada? it seems like a logical decision. they have resources we need, and then we would own all of north america.hmmm

[Nostok]

I've enjoyed the last two posts and have to agree with this comment:

"It gets tiresome watching the monkeys dance when they never learn any new steps."

It is so odd how people get worked up over anything and how their general misunderstanding of a situation or inability to read between the lines lets them fire up both barrels in a "fuck you Scott" tirade.

I didn't really like the first post, mainly because I knew it would provoke the type of response it did. Secondly because your unsubtle piss taking took me half a page of reading before I released you were taking the piss; then I felt stupid (a monkey dancing) for thinking you'd got all aggravated over the Iranian President's visit.

My favourite comment for this post is people comparing a revolution with an election, do they not realise that most of the civil servants do not change? This means that the long running agenda of country's governmental practice generally stays the same.

My second favourite thing is the thought that some Americans think they are not paying extra tax dollars to pay for the wars.... um but have you noticed how your dollar is now worth less than a can of coke elsewhere in the world and that your national debt has sky rocketed just like the other idiot countries who took Bush's shilling - My own being one of them.

[frisnit]

Why the hypothetical question? America provoked the attack on Iraq when Iraq had no nukes, and the U.S. Government is still there. Surely the fact that a country has a nuclear program is a moot point, as I imagine most countries do. It's the ability to progress it to creating actual nuclear weapons and the will to use them that matters. In that respect, surely Iran is already much more dangerous than Iraq was (and possibly would ever have been)!

[Alex]

yes

[Lynne]

I don't understand the people who feel the need to tell you (us) that they'll never read you again. Just quit reading dumba**es. We don't need to know where you went and anyone who reads this blog should know Scott isn't going to change his views because of people like you making "threats."
Answer: Yes, we need a non-violent revolution in this country and NOW.

[HALiverpool]

If, by overthrow, you mean vote for something better then, yes. In fact I keep doing that, but not enough people vote with me. Too many people keep voting for liars who make impossible promises and people who share their views on matters that have nothing to do with governing.

-HAL

[Ivan]

NO. You must not overthrow your government nor idolize any moron that ever tried to do that. Everything has a cost. Sometimes the cost is you have to stand a government with some idiots and liers. But your constitution forbids them to govern more that 8 years. We, who live in countries that idolize "coup de etat" plotters now are enduring more that 8 years with the same moron and no sight of getting rid of him. We feel like living in a new Titanic. Half the population dancing thanks to the high prices of oil that keep the goverment in place, and the other half trying to build their life boats with whatever they can get because they now that sometime in the near future all the country is going to sink.
VOTE! For whatever is sacred to you. If there is not anyone else, then Elect your own idiot. It helps counterbalance the idiot that gets elected by the other side.

[Arellias]

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. -Declaration of Independence.

If our government acts in a way that can and will destroy our way of life, it is our responsibility to remedy the problem.
Solution:
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyer -Henry VI

[Fornicate Under the Consent of the King]

Somebody said something about ahmedinajad's 'Apocalyptic beiliefs'? Does anyone know the beliefs that set the foundation of the state of Israel? Anyone heard about the lies of 'the chosen people' and 'a land without people for people without a land'? gimme a break!

[Neo]

bwahhahahahahahaahhaahahhaaaahhahaahahahaah

[trevor]

Why wait?

Overthrow it next year: Ron Paul 2008.

[Shawn F]

To Scott and Everyone:

Really, the most important part of this blog and commentary, is the fact the we can have this blog and commentary. The first of these posts was a blatant Freedom of Speech blog, brilliantly worded...kind of sounded like the ignorant masses had finally had their 15 minutes of fame. The second one was for all of nay-sayers, as I am sure that Scott had not intended to get so many people in an uproar, really about a first amendment post. Scott has feelings like the rest of us, and in self-interest, has clarified his thoughts. There is no evil here; there is open discussion. Anger is a feeling that predicates itself on your own thoughts and feelings. Scott did not make you angry, you made your self angry. I see this more as a Freedom of Speech adjustment. Needed to happen, and what we have found is that there is a lot of anger and resentment still out there. At least Scott is allowing a healthy discourse of this type of political conversation. I haven't seen it anywhere quite like this!

And the best part about it, (Freedom of Speech, that is), is we also have the Freedom to Not Read it! Yeah! go ahead and stop reading! That's ok. As for me, I will continue to read, because it is my freedom to do so, and to see that it is still ok for everyone else to do as well.

My hat is off to you Scott, for even taking this on, and to continue the dialog in a human way. Keep the Freedom!

-Shawn

P.S. As for your hypothetical question, If things don't change soon, there is a good chance we may see a revolution...not for the reason's you posted, but for disparities sake! (Social, Economic and Racial) Rich are richer, poor are poorer. It happens with more frequency historically then most realize...

[Steven McDaniel]

"I may be guilty of stereotyping, but here goes..."
gordon_goosemonster

That kind of brain-dead crap will get more Republicans elected than Democrats. However, you forgot to mention that university students better study hard or they'll get 'stuk in irak.'

[Jon]

I just read the the past two blog posts.

Scott, you are proof that men have menstrual cycles.

.

[rita mae]

Monday. Back to work. Wow! Missed two big posts for Sat & Sun. Couple comments.

Thanks, "QwkDrw". Never thought of someone stealing my tag line as "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery."

Last line in your Sat post. "Fucking idiot. I hate him."
Ditto.

These two posts are so DEEP. I had to think when I read them. Let's get back to penis. You are so astonishingly brilliant, and I can only think with the ex-marine's Johnson (when he says I can -- women's lib hasn't hit our house).

Can you only post during the week from now on? I am SOOOO behind in my work.

Scott, still love you, but still too old to stalk you.

Rita Mae

[Matthew]

You are clearly delusional over the past few days... are you running a fever? I don't think your exercise is going as planned.

[James]

Yes, it would absolutely be a good idea. Remamber the first part of the Declaration of Independence? We broke off from England because we were saddled with taxes we didn't want to pay, which were supposed to pay for wars we didn't want to fight, all of which was enacted by a Parliament we didn't elect. I suspect the major reasons there isn't a revolution right now are

1) Most people are too lazy

2) We aren't paying extra taxes over the war

3) No one has convinced the populace that it would have anything to gain by replacing our government, however dysfunctional it may be, with another one (that, let's face it, could be even more dysfunctional--remember the Articles of Confederation?)

[poikilotherm]

OOps.

That's what you get when you start treating things like nuclear holocaust and genocide as good clean fun and interesting "patterns": you sound like a butthead to the people who ummmm....have relatives threatened with nuclear holocaust and genocide.

Sometimes its biting satire. And sometimes you miss the mark. Patterns, you say? Have you ever noticed that violent criminals and little children writhe in pain when their bowels are infarcting? That they both die with foam coming out their mouths and nostrils when their hearts give out and their lungs fill up with fluid? Its all just patterns, no?

Not terribly funny though. Oh well.

[wernman]

We overthrow our gov't every 4 years. They're called "elections", you might've heard of them? Oh, that's right, you're too cynical to vote...

[eD]

It gets tiresome watching the monkeys dance when they never learn any new steps.

[Elizabeth]

wow- miss a day and you miss alot around here. another great post. I wish I could dig deep enough to write something enlightening here. All I've come up with is that I am American in exile. Bush & Co scare me. My "government" is filled with terrorists and we should have overthrown them long long long ago. Vote?! Ha- we need more than that. We need someone else to liberate us.

[Chad]

Frank, you beat me to my line. Goodbye Scott. This will be the last time I read your blog or anything you ever publish.

[Angela Johnston]

I have two more interesting hypothetical situations for everyone.

What if Iran said they were happy to give up their nuclear programme if Israel signed an agreement to not attack their neighbours? Maybe Iran would not feel such a strong need for nuclear power if that was the case. (although, of course, they're just using it for energy!!)

What if another country, say France, invaded and took California and we surrendered it to them because they were stronger than us. Then France won't compensate the Californians for their losses. They restrict travel around California, take over the best bits. The UN mandates that the land still belongs to the U.S. Most Americans don't want to annihilate France, they just want France to leave California. But there are quite a few American terrorists who spring up around France and bomb civilians. The situation in California continues to deteriorate. The French, in negotiations talk about giving back the land but while the talks are going on, continue building large developments on the best Californian property. A clear economic divide emerges. Californians doubt that they'll ever have their land back. The French control the economy. The French military frequently mounts attacks on terrorists who happen to be out in civilian-dense areas. They destroy many homes and businesses and refuse to give compensation. Peace protesters come from Germany and Canada and the French military even shoots a few of them and offers no explanation. Many Californians suspected of terrorism are imprisoned without charge for indefinite periods. Mexicans, sympathetic to the plight of the Californians, abduct a couple of French soldiers and make unreasonable demands for their safe return. France attacks Mexico to strike at the anti-French terrorists and kills over a thousand Mexican civilians as well as few UN workers. They claim that the civilian deaths were accidental but the Mexicans, having observed the precision of their military operations in California, do not believe them. France begins to get nervous because Canada, a friend of Mexico and outspoken supporter of Californians, has been developing nuclear power. When Canada's dodgy elections produce a military hardliner who speaks of reducing France to rubble, there is worldwide uproar and all sorts of economic and even stronger threats are directed at the new Canadian president to bring him into line. Meanwhile there is little sympathy for the Californians because everyone is so concerned for the French who have been killed by Californian terrorists. Plus most people around the world don't like Americans anyway.

What should America do? What if France let them have the desert parts of California back and the ghetto areas of Los Angeles? They could build a wall and then no one would get confused about which area they were meant to be in.

[DF]

Absolutely! But do you think Bush really has the balls to attack a third country with no just cause? I suppose if he is leaving office soon, he might throw caution to the wind.

I think if the USA attacks Iran and sends a bunch more troops there, that the defenses of the homeland will be so weakened that even Canada would be able to walk in and take over. I'm not saying they would, but they could...

[Zach]

Ummm, I'm gonna go with "Yes"

[Fafnir]

You might be interested in this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/weekinreview/11bronner.html?ex=1307678400&en=efa2bd266224e880&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Looks like your concerns about translation were fairly well-grounded...

[Joemer]

A good rule of thumb to keep in mind is that Iran and Iraq are of the Shiite line of Islamic belief while AlQaeda related terrorists are of the Sunni line. The news media that disseminate populist propaganda tend to obscure lines of demarcation such as these. There is more to this whole situation than appears on the surface. The war with Iran btw has allready begun in a covert fashion.

[Homo Engineerus]

Margrette Thatcher had the Falkland Islands, Bush had 9/11 and Blair had IRAQ (to an extent), this shows that the people like to watch a good fight or any fight we win. If you did try and overthrow your goverment they will just find another Granada, get the masses whipped up with "your with us or your unamerican" and they would be back. The Problem is with masses is that it has a gold fish memory and likes a short term burst of excitment. Do we the masses learn anything from history "The Great War", "War to end all wars" etc yes we know we do not want another war. But as long as there is profit and media they will all be forgotten it is because the masses has no say in war just the profiteers.

[SpongeJim]

[I also support Israel’s actions in pursuit of its self-interest. I’d be a hypocrite to do otherwise, since I also support the United States, despite what it did to the Native Americans a few hundred years ago. At some point you have to release on the past and accept the present realities. Israel won. It isn’t going anywhere.]

This might be the most enlightened comment you've ever made on this blog. Good job.

Personally I understand and support the plight of the Palestinian people, but the reality is that Israel isn't going anywhere. At the very least there should be some attempt made to get to the 1967 land partition. The problem is that both sides have their die-hards, and I can't imagine it being any different unless one side does "win".

[Frank]

goodbye.

[rougy]

"If it ever happened that America attacked Iran because of alleged nukes, and later confirmed it had no nuclear weapons program, and we discovered that the administration knew it all along, would it be in the best interest of the citizens of the United States to overthrow their government?"

Yes.

[Shmoogy]

I can't imagine getting up and saying what you mean even though you know that five million people will tear you apart regardless. Whether or not I agree with your views is irrelevant. We need people like you.

[Lurchi]

Talking about the Palestinean problem is sometimes quite strange. Of course they should be able to set up their own stable state so they and the Israelis could agree on stuff like lots of other nations. But actually they don't need a 'Gandhi' for this. They need some democratic stability and support. But when they vote for the 'wrong' party, literally everybody does literally everything to put their democratic decision down. Now this is just another bad example of how forcing people to the 'right' side just doesn't work out at all.
Read my lips: DOESN'T WORK OUT AT ALL. NEVER HAS. NEVER WILL.

[Leonel]

Uh... "Sir Kazum"?!... No, never met him.

Overthrow the government? Fuck yeah! I'm all for it! It's about time they stop spending my precious tax dollars in stupid war games in places I don't even know how to spell! I'll watch it on CNN though, 'cause I'll be sitting on my couch eating pizza and drinking beer. These babies don't digest by themselves, you know...

(Thank god I'm a non American atheist...)

[Alan]

Hey Walt:
"remember that US govt. is a set of people elected by US citizens. and it is taking the decisions on Iran based on a lot of facts the US citizens are completely unaware of"

That's what Bush, Cheney, etc. want you to believe - they have secret information we don't so just trust them and amply demonstrated multiple times that they are taking decisions based on their own speculation, wishes and beliefs. That's the secret information they want US citizens to be completely unaware of.

[Enough Wealth]

Of course it would be in the best interests of the US citizens to overthrow their (the Iranians') government in such a situation ;)

Regards
http://enoughwealth.com

Answer to the hypothetical question: overthrowing the government will happen in Nov 2008, regardless of whether we attack Iran or not.

On thing that those in charge of the administration has never understood, is that its "individuals", not governments, who do the bulk of the evil things. The government may know about it, and choose to look the other w