Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Sink the Pink
We're wrapping up a month when the Democrats lost every major
war vote and publicly denounced MoveOn.org, making it all the
weirder when Kathryn Jean Lopez links this
Code Pink ad and says they "own the Dems."
This seems, to me, the exact wrong lesson to draw from the cartoon.
The real lesson: Code Pink is a confederacy of dingbats.* They're
trying to portray how their activism will move "the Democrats" and
they show Joe Lieberman turning into Andy Bacevich when a Pink lady
jumps on his back. That's just fantastically stupid. Lieberman
became, if anything, more hawkish when left-wing and anti-war
activists skunked him in the 2006 Democratic Party and he won
re-election as an independent.
For a number of reasons there's never been a real "anti-war movement" against Operation Iraqi Freedom Etc. There have been some great anti-war journalists and some earnest activists like Adam Kokesh and then there have been all-purpose protesters like Medea Benjamin for whom the Iraq War is more fun to protest than the WTO meetings they used to protest. The lack of influence that these groups have on either political party is predictable, but interesting in a seven-car-pile-up sort of way.
*There's some pushback in the comments about this word. For "dingbats," read "women who wear pink crowns and shout things during committee hearings."
|9.28.07 @ 10:06AM|#
Weigel, how about making a logical argument rather than
mindlessly calling people names. I'm sure you get a good laugh from
the adolescents commenting on this site, but calling ANYONE a
dingbat doesn't impress most anybody, least of all
libertarians.
If I remember correctly you were calling Ron Paul similar names.
Somehow former chairman Alan Greenspan is mainstream even though he
was once an advocate of the gold standard. But Ron Paul could be
laughed at for the same reason.
Stick to logic. You do it somewhat better.
|9.28.07 @ 10:08AM|#
Funny. I found the code pink commercial to be clever, funny, and a slick production. What makes them dingbats? That they oppose the war? That they wear pink?
SIV|9.28.07 @ 10:15AM|#
*There's some pushback in the comments about this word. For
"dingbats," read "women who wear pink crowns and shout things
during committee hearings."
Not to mention women who are old enough to have protested the 'Nam
when LBJ was President demonstrating topless.
|9.28.07 @ 10:24AM|#
For a number of reasons there's never been a real "anti-war
movement" against Operation Iraqi Freedom Etc.
Which explains why the war is so darn popular.
|9.28.07 @ 10:26AM|#
We're wrapping up a month when the Democrats lost every
major war vote
BTW, did they actually lose any or were votes not held due to GOP
filibustering?
Sure, it's hard to win when you need >60% instead of
>50%.
|9.28.07 @ 10:30AM|#
I saw them demonstrating down on 14th Street. They're
dingbats...and they're not all female.
They are wonderfully annoying and spectacularly absurd. They're
like a performance art commentary symbolizing the meta-frustration
of that overwhelming majority of folks who oppose the continuation
of that which Congress insists on continuing.
In other words, dingbats.
|9.28.07 @ 10:31AM|#
No, that explains why the front runners in both parties are not advocating immediate withdrawal or a withdrawal timetable. Any bets that healthcare won't be the #1 issue in the '08 campaign?
Episiarch|9.28.07 @ 10:34AM|#
Sure, it's hard to win when you need >60% instead of
>50%.
Dan, when did you become joe?
|9.28.07 @ 10:39AM|#
Yeah, Dan, curse you with your understanding of how Congress
functions!
What are you, some kind of liberal?
|9.28.07 @ 10:46AM|#
You have to laugh at the Democrats for voting to denounce MoveOn.org. They are so weak! Can you imagine Republicans voting to denounce a right-wing person or group? Me neither. It would never, ever happen.
|9.28.07 @ 10:48AM|#
Yeah, Joe, what you said!
And what the Donks were bitching about two years ago.
Not enough votes to spew their liberal crap into law.
|9.28.07 @ 10:48AM|#
For a number of reasons there's never been a real "anti-war
movement" against Operation Iraqi Freedom Etc.
Before the bombs started flying and the troops advancing. I have
some blurry recollection of millions of Americans turning out in
the streets all across the country for what could reasonably be
described as "anti-war". Perhaps there's some reason that didn't
qualify as a "real movement". Guess we should have put more fiber
in our diet.
James|9.28.07 @ 10:57AM|#
Question is this a libertarian site or a conservative site? Some of the opinions that I read regarding war and social programs make me wonder. I can see why conservatives and liberals might be confused about libertarian thought when I read some of the postings here. I believe Reason is more conservative than libertarian. I read a little of commentary that wouldn't be out of place on a conservative site. I read from conservative, liberal, and libertarian sites. I must say that LewRockwell.com and Mises.com seem to be more representative of libertarianism than reason.
Syloson of Samos|9.28.07 @ 10:59AM|#
The real lesson: Code Pink is a confederacy of
dingbats.
Perhaps. From what I understand of their activities they are part
of a long and important tradition in Western liberty.
|9.28.07 @ 11:01AM|#
Yes wearing all pink makes you a target for ad hominen attacks.
However, I've been reading "Reason" for years, I wear brooks
brothers suits with shiny black shoes every day and I talk to
energy traders all over the country in quite reasonable tones as we
talk objectively about the fudnamentals in teh oil and gas market
and my family has benefited accordingly. I'm making good money
working as a consultant to oil and gas companies.
I am MIT educated and marreid toa PHD economist, I am not a
unreasonable person.
If one of my two sons or little brother was fooled into joining the
military and then got killed in the mid-east fighting a war that
the American people were fruadulently led into...I'd probably be
getting attacked by Un-American facists such as yourself. The truth
is that many of these code pink ladies have relatives in combat or
getting killed...even if your living through the same thing and are
handling it in a different way, it by no means justifies you
throwing out baseless propaganda attacks on these people....After
their son got his brains blown out they probably stopped caring if
they annoyed you in your walk down 14th street...on behalf of them
I will apologize for disturbing your usually pleaseant stroll down
to starbucks while you contemplate your next pro-war propaganda.
When you stop high-fiving your friends over at the national review
us longtime libertarians will take you more seriously.
|9.28.07 @ 11:04AM|#
No amount of ideological agreement can force one to countenance obnoxious douchbaggery in fellow-travelers. You can respect a point of view and mock the messenger at the same time.
|9.28.07 @ 11:12AM|#
joe, when did you become Dan?
You ever notice that you never see Joe AND Dan in a public place
together at the same time?
Peter Parker AND Spiderman?
Clark AND Superman?
Hilary Clinton AND Galactus?
Just pointing it out. Draw your own conclusions.
Rhywun|9.28.07 @ 11:16AM|#
I have some blurry recollection of millions of Americans
turning out in the streets all across the country for what could
reasonably be described as "anti-war".
And then Bennifer and Brangelina took their minds of the war for
good. Seriously, the American public only seems to be against the
war when pressed. Otherwise they don't give a fuck. The main
reasons are (a) the war ain't here and (b) we don't have a
draft.
|9.28.07 @ 11:19AM|#
Seriously who assigns you to write the pro-war propaganda and
quelsh dissension on the outrages being done to our liberties? Does
reason just search for neo-cons to write for them, do they kinda
let it be known that you can't be too hard ont he mainstream
politicians? do they have a meeting and say, hey can one of you
guys write a article kinda poking fun at the anti-establishment
movement in this country? I noticed the WSj is writing
quasi-pro-Hillary op-eds in the paper this morning...how long
before you guys point out the "silver lining" in a Hillary
presidency?
There seem to be a couple of writers on staff that truly try to not
write in favor of the neo-con agenda, are they ostracized
internally?
I hate to attack Reason because you do truly help inform the public
about the libertarian line of thought on some important topics, but
this type of unreasonable needless attack on middle aged,lowerclass
women, simply does not make you look good to even the most
emotionally baren type of small government fan(such as myself). I
mean these are powerles people with little education, little money
and who have proably suffered the loss of a loved one. I'm sure
they are not libertarian by any stretch but they do realize that
Cheney and Bush lied to them and that the democrats are not going
to change course at all...they are desperate to get their voice
heard in aworld where the power has gotten more and more
centralized away from small communities...as libertarians we should
understand that the fall of states rights and the continued
centralization of federal power has led to more and more people
feeling totally disenfranchised....even if the people who are
disenfranchised happen to be a little more socialist than us.
Ostracizing these people does not help the libertarian
movement...it is extremely damaging and Fox News or CNN is more
than happy to do that? shouldn' we be focused elsewhere? Am I alone
here?
|9.28.07 @ 11:38AM|#
And then Bennifer and Brangelina took their minds of the war
for good. Seriously, the American public only seems to be against
the war when pressed.
So who is it that decides to put more Bennifer and Brangelina
coverage on the TV and newspapers instead of war coverage? Does the
American public have editorial control? Does the American decide
what the news stations are going to run with?
It's very difficult to take the citizenry to task when the press,
that is supposed to keep the citizenry informed, decides it isn't
going to ask the hard questions of it's government or question the
rationales for war or view the "Evidence" for war with any kind of
skeptical eye.
MattXIV|9.28.07 @ 11:48AM|#
BTW, did they actually lose any or were votes not held due to GOP filibustering?
Sure, it's hard to win when you need >60% instead of >50%.
Don't the Dems have the option to simply not pass any funding bill
whatsoever unless it has a time table and force either a time-table
or withdrawl that way?
|9.28.07 @ 11:52AM|#
Why is there a NAZI helmut wearing silhouette in that cheering crowd at the end of the clip?
|9.28.07 @ 12:01PM|#
I love the sudden aversion about ad hominem attacks on a comments page that regularly includes all kinds of juvenile slurs on fundamentalist Christians and other unpopular sorts. I guess, under the logic being thrown around here, that the comments page is a haven for socialists.
|9.28.07 @ 12:10PM|#
I'm with Weigel on this one. I hate dingbats and other crazies
with their goofy ideas.
Anyway, vote for Ron Paul and let's return to the Gold Standard,
abolish the IRS, and withdrawl from the United Nations!
|9.28.07 @ 12:16PM|#
point taken Chris...I due throw out slurs at people on here. I
still don't see the benefit to libertarians of picking on these
people.
I think that there are many "non-dingbat" looking people who
believe that the people in congress deserve worse treatment than
anything code pink moms are throwing at them.
When you see a old white man who has helped perpetuate the lies to
the american people banging his gavel in frustration that people
are pissed off at him; doesn't that make you fell good. Would I
personally ever wear a pink tutu as part of a war protest? no. Do I
think it is a good idea to wear a pink tiara and yell randomly at
congressmen? no
But does it bother me that others choose to do so? no. All kinds of
wierd people have a really legitimate reason to be pissed off. In
fact, I'd be happier if I knew every senator and every congresmen
was being heckled 24 hours a day by all sorts of deranged loosers
of society. Those very same politicians will try to tell the
"dingbats" of society that the real reasons for their setbacks are
because people like my family make good money and the answer is to
tax us more...the fact that they are instead attacking the
politicians is relieveing. People are recognizing more of he
lies...that is a good thing.
|9.28.07 @ 12:17PM|#
it's not their goofy ideas, it's their goofy way of expressing them. If a guy tried protest the war on drugs by peeing on my leg, I wouldn't cheer for him, even though I agree with him.
|9.28.07 @ 12:18PM|#
If Mr Weigel has this much of a hatred for moms who lost their
kids in the war then maybe he could sign up for the police force
and start tasering the old ladies. It seems like that would fit his
personality quite well.
Do you really think the ridiculous hearings these congresmmen are
being interrupted in are anything more than a complete waste of
taxpayer money?
Dave Weigel|9.28.07 @ 12:23PM|#
If Mr Weigel has this much of a hatred for moms who lost
their kids in the war...
Medea Benjamin hasn't lost any kids in the war. I can distinguish
between the credible activists like Tina Richards and the lifestyle
activists like Benjamin, so why can't you?
|9.28.07 @ 12:25PM|#
In what ways are you protesting? whatever it is it doesn't seem
to annoy the congressmen on c-span as much as what these broads are
doing.
You know that what they do does have an element of danger to
it...they could be beaten and tasered under false pretenses of
"resisting" at anytime...wearing pink tiaras does help protect them
from this in a psychological way by empasizing their feminity and
if they should get beaten by black clad stormtrooper types the
notable contrast will make it more apparent to the masses that
things are not as they should be in this country.
It wouldn't be my strategy either, but I still don't understand the
ostracization I'm seeing here. Encouraging libertarians to pile on
to these women doesn't help the larger libertarian goals of a
decentralized and lessened federal power.
|9.28.07 @ 12:28PM|#
this would make a really good followup title to PJ ORourke's
Parliament of Whores:
"Confederacy of Dingbats"
Episiarch|9.28.07 @ 12:37PM|#
Holy shit, Gabe, take a Valium or something. Code Pink is a
bunch of nutjobs who make actual, credible anti-war activists look
bad. Attacking Weigel* for mocking fat older nutcases in pink
bodysuits is stupid. You seem very personally offended by this;
what, is your mom in Code Pink?
* standard Weigel does not need me to defend him disclaimer
|9.28.07 @ 12:45PM|#
"It's very difficult to take the citizenry to task when the
press, that is supposed to keep the citizenry informed, decides it
isn't going to ask the hard questions of it's government or
question the rationales for war or view the "Evidence" for war with
any kind of skeptical eye."
Yeah Tom because clearly the media is a propaganda machine for the
War. They never report a negative story, only positive ones.
For once Weigel is right, Code Pink are dingbats and there isn't a
anti-war movement to speak of. Jesus, on September 15th, all ANSWER
could come up with in Washington was the same few thousand bums who
go to every protest; compare that to the 1960s when there really
was an anti-war movement. The whole thing is pathetic.
The bottom-line is that if the American public felt that strongly
about ending the war, Hillary Clinton, someone who won't commit to
withdrawing from Iraq by 2013 let alone when and if she takes
office, wouldn't be the runaway frontrunner in the Democratic
nomination and someone in the Republican field besides Ron Paul and
his truther brigade would be arguing for immediate
withdrawal.
Reason parades out poll after poll that says the American public
doesn't support the war, yet none of the Presidential candidates
seem to fall in line. One of two things is going on here; either
the candidates are just stupid and acting against their own
interest or those polls are not telling the whole story. My guess
is that it is the latter and the candidates, who have access to
much better and more honest polling know it.
|9.28.07 @ 12:51PM|#
Oh, so the secret, super-honest polls say everyone is for the war? Try harder next time, John.
|9.28.07 @ 12:55PM|#
"Oh, so the secret, super-honest polls say everyone is for the
war? Try harder next time, John."
Not secret polls dumb ass but meaningful polls that ask people
questions beyond "do you support world peace?" and "wouldn't the
world be better if the war were over?" The bottomline is that
policians continue to support the war and refuse to commit
themselves to ending it. Either they are the bravest most
principled politicians in history or they know something about the
public mood that the media is not reporting.
|9.28.07 @ 12:58PM|#
It's very difficult to take the citizenry to task when the
press, that is supposed to keep the citizenry informed, decides it
isn't going to ask the hard questions of it's government or
question the rationales for war or view the "Evidence" for war with
any kind of skeptical eye.
Hooey! The public has been given both sides of the issue since GWB
started gearing up for this dumbass war. We get the media coverage
we want/deserve. I don't know the exact number of news publications
in this country, but it's huge. If you want to publish an All
War, All The Time newspaper go ahead. I won't be investing in
your startup, though.
|9.28.07 @ 1:04PM|#
Don't the Dems have the option to simply not pass any
funding bill whatsoever unless it has a time table and force either
a time-table or withdrawl that way?
A majority of them support that option - just not 80%, which is
what they would need to fillibuster a spending bill.
We've got well nigh on 100% of Democrats who would vote for a bill
forcing an end to the war, but the Republicans won't let it be
voted on.
And we've got, ballpark, 2/3 of Democrats who would cut off
funding, but can't stop the bills from passing.
GILMORE|9.28.07 @ 1:06PM|#
no, dingbats is probably the kindest word you could use
Calling them "women who wear pink crowns and shout things
during committee hearings." is shameful, if true
|9.28.07 @ 1:10PM|#
"We've got well nigh on 100% of Democrats who would vote for a
bill forcing an end to the war, but the Republicans won't let it be
voted on."
They only voted knowing that the bill wasn't going to be passed and
there vote didn't really end the war. There is nothing stopping hte
Democrats from just not passing additional funding and ending the
war that way. It would be drastic but it could be done. Further, I
seriously doubt these guys are going to go against a Democratic
President in 2009, if there is one, and all of them are saying they
will not withdraw. The Democrats feed people like you what you want
to hear, but they have no intention of following through with any
of it.
GILMORE|9.28.07 @ 1:10PM|#
I wear brooks brothers suits with shiny black shoes every
day and I talk to energy traders all over the country in quite
reasonable tones as we talk objectively about the fudnamentals in
teh oil and gas market and my family has benefited accordingly. I'm
making good money working as a consultant to oil and gas
companies.
I am MIT educated and marreid toa PHD economist, I am not a
unreasonable person
Or, in other words, like the Code Pink dingbats, you are someone
who thinks that Identity Politics matters, and who-you-are
justifies or adds credibility to what-you-think
The code pinkers are shitheads because their 'protests' are more
about narcissistic posturing than actual strategic thinking about
how our country can achieve the best results with the shithole
we're in. "getting the troops out" is more complicated than a
fucking cartoon.
GILMORE|9.28.07 @ 1:15PM|#
this type of unreasonable needless attack on middle
aged,lowerclass women, simply does not make you look
good
Because 'looking good' is more important than sensible policy,
natch
Would I personally ever wear a pink tutu as part of a war
protest? no. Do I think it is a good idea to wear a pink tiara and
yell randomly at congressmen? no
But does it bother me that others choose to do so? no.
Right.
Well, some might find it annoying because they DO want to change
the course of direction in Iraq, but the most strident and vocal
"opposition" makes such asshats of themselves (e.g. "betrayus")
that the status quo is all that easier to maintain.
If you want to change policy, you have to make sure to shut up the
retards who agree with you, or else be responsible fo them. I think
the code pinkers fuck themselves in the name of posturing, working
against the very cause they have draped themselves in. Until the
left learns this, they will remain impotent and self satisfied
|9.28.07 @ 1:18PM|#
Episiarch,
I am personally offended. My mom is not code pink she is the
daughter of a West Point graduate Colonel who wrote speeches for
Mcarthur during WW2. She married a ROTC officer(my dad) at the end
of the Vietnam war and she talked to us kids about ideas such as
LBJ's "great society" and Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman's thoughful
criticisms as a 10- year old in the early 80's.
I am personally offended because I do know what it feels like to
have a close relative die a violent senseless death(my younger
brother). The death didn't have anything to do with the war, but I
do know that it affected my 57 year old mom pretty badly and
because of a thing called empathy I don't derive a great joy from
berated elderly women who are anti-war.
Are these politically sophisticated people who drink cocktails at
the 18th street lounge with guys from the national review, IHS and
CATO and FEE? no and they don't share your political instincts
either. they are worreid about makign your yuppy asses "look bad"
they see the ineffective "anit-war movement" and they are
desperately trying to bring publicity to it....if one of them
should get tasered by a steroid abusing jackbooted thug and get 30
million hits on youtube it could very well make a significant
impact on the anti-war movement...do you think that would be good?
or are you just a pro-war yuppy. I have every personal financial
reason to be on board with the present madness in this
country...$120 oil will make me a millionaire...another 5 years of
the dollar falling will make me a multi millionaire...so if you
want to nuke Iran then go ahead. I admit I am too chickenshit about
my children's future to take time off from work to go march in a
protest in DC that probably won't change anything...but I certainly
don't think it is good for the libertarian movement to publicly
denounce those who are pissed and are trying to do something.
SIV|9.28.07 @ 1:20PM|#
Encouraging libertarians to pile on to these women doesn't
help the larger libertarian goals of a decentralized and lessened
federal power
Now that you mention it Gabe ......
Yes it does in a small way. Code Pink supports the gamut of
Lefty Socialist causes
and their "anti-war" position includes sending troops to
Darfur.
Minion of URKOBOLD|9.28.07 @ 1:23PM|#
SEE, EPISIARCH, NOW GABE IS PERSONALLY OFFENDED.
WHY HE IS "PERSONALLY OFFENDED" AND NOT JUST "OFFENDED" SHOWS THE
DEGREE OF REDUNDANT OFFENSE HE IS TAKING.
YOUR PUNISHMENT IS TO GET SATISFIED BY YOUR CHOICE OF THE LOVELY
MAIDENS THAT WILL BE BEAMED TO A COMFORTABLE PLACE OF YOUR
CHOOSING.
AND GABE VIOLATED THE RHETORICAL "GROUP OF THREE" BY NOT BEGINNING
THE THIRD PARAGRAPH WITH "I AM PERSONALLY OFFENDED".
THAT PERSONALLY OFFENDS THIS PERSON AT THE PERSONAL LEVEL, NOT TO
TAKE IT TOO PERSONALLY, MYSELF.
Syloson of Samos|9.28.07 @ 1:27PM|#
Gilmore,
Identity politics do in fact matter. Indeed much of how people are
motivated to vote, etc. depend on it.
|9.28.07 @ 1:33PM|#
GILMORE,
you criticize me for telling you that berating old women doesn't
make you "look good"....yet at the same time you tell me that
pretty in pink doesn't make anti-war people "look good".....pretty
circular.
you say that part of being anti-war is to shut-up other anti war
folks who you don't agree with on tactics(code pink).
I respectfully disagree. I beleive that is how they defeat you...if
they split up the anti-war movement so that we all are trying to
"shut up" the factions we disagree with then they have won half the
battle...all of our resources should focused on attacking the
pro-war camp.
otherwise the strategy of the mainstream pro-war folks is obvious,
target each of our anti-war factions one at a time"libertarians are
pro-prostitution dingbats"....code pink is "fat old ladies who are
annoying"...ex-generals are "disgruntled ex-employess who were
incompetent whiners"....people who want a in depth pat tillman
investigation are "conspiracy theorists". people who have studied
the history of flase-flag attacks are "truthers"...nevermind ex CIA
employees and FBI whistleblowers.
If your busy jumping on the Bill Oreilly bandwagon denouncing all
these groups then your left with about 10% of the population who is
actually anti-war and it is the most unmotivated group of anti-war
people you'll find.
SIV|9.28.07 @ 1:33PM|#
$50 says the Code Pink broads get a whole lot quieter when and if the Dems are running the War.
SIV|9.28.07 @ 1:38PM|#
all of our resources should focused on attacking the pro-war
camp
Commenters here are pretty focused on attacking pro-war
libertarians.
wingnutx|9.28.07 @ 1:40PM|#
Medea laughs and
It's raining all day
She loves to be one of the girls
She lives in the place
In the side of our lives
Where nothing is
Ever put straight
|9.28.07 @ 1:49PM|#
I was just mentioning what I wear because you seem focused on how bad they make you look and how no reasonable looking person could possibly sympathize with them. I disagree and was poitning out that I look a lot different than them and have sympathy for them...you say they back all sorts of wacky socialist ideas, but the truth is that plenty of "wacky socialist" ideas are being put in place by mainstream republicans and democrats...they don't really need code pink help. so again discrediting code-pinks anti-war message doesn't help the libertarian movement at all.
URKOBOLD\'s SEAMSTRESS|9.28.07 @ 1:54PM|#
YOU FORGOT THE SEQUINED SATIN THONG YOU SPORT AND THAT YOU WEAR A JOCK ON THE OUTSIDE OF YOUR BROOKS BROTHERS.
|9.28.07 @ 1:55PM|#
Most anti-war protests I have seen have had one or two anti-war signs at most. Any anti-war message they are trying to make is drowned out by the anti-Israel, anti-Bush, anti-capitalism, anti-corporation, anti-WTO, anti-pesticide, anti-Haliburton, etc., signs. They have no moral opposition to the war, only an ideological opposition to anything not from the Left. Modern protests are all about meeting other ultra-leftists to mate with.
|9.28.07 @ 1:57PM|#
SIV,
I was trying to convince anti-war libertarians that attacking code
pink was not productive. If your a "pro-war" libertarian I'd love
to know what candidate your supporting.....because the neo-con
/Bill Oreilly/ Hillary Clinton/Rudy Giuliani crowd is all for big
governemnt in every non-military facet of our life as well...if you
believe that you can follow along with any of these guys and
actually move towards anything resembling a smaller government then
you have serious analytical problems...even a pro-war
libertarian(as conflicted as you might be) has got to realize that
any of the CFR candidates is for big big governemnt and higher and
higher taxes forever after. You can go to the CFR website and read
the overwhelming agreement in all of their position papers.
|9.28.07 @ 1:58PM|#
...preparing for the obligatory "conspiracy theorist" ad hominem for the mere mention of CFR.
|9.28.07 @ 2:02PM|#
I admit that wearing a sequin thong under my black wool pants would be a continous turn-on, especially here at work...but does that really discredit the other things I've said?
URKOBOLDIAN AD HOMINEM|9.28.07 @ 2:02PM|#
YOU WILL NOT GET AD HOMINEMED.
SO THERE.
INSTEAD, WE SHALL INSULT THE "LGF" CROWD.
HAY LGF CROWD - YOU SUCK!
URKOBOLD\'s SEAMSTRESS|9.28.07 @ 2:03PM|#
NO DISCREDIT, EITHER.
JUST REMEMBER TO TAKE TIME FOR YOURSELF FOR BATIN.
dhex|9.28.07 @ 2:08PM|#
seriously if you're going to play street theatre, you have to
accept the consequences.
(i.e. being utterly ineffectual and turned into a stick by which
your more serious counterparts can have their cause attacked.)
|9.28.07 @ 2:20PM|#
Thankyou for you civility Urkobold,
But do you still disagree that the possibility is out there that
one of these pink code ladies might get beaten up by a over eager
representative of the state at some point and the youtube video
could be quite popular and help convince millions more that the
government is not really "protecting us" that well. Kinda like Kent
State etc...forgive me for being so cold harded and cynical, but in
the same way that all the CFR guys were sittign around wishing fro
a "pearl Harbor event in 2000...so that they could go tow ork with
their plan....and if you think they weren't criminals for such
mindset...then isn't it just as logical to wish for our "Boston
Massacre " event? Now I'm not personally courageoues enough to
volunteer for martyrdom(first off everyone would see my sequin
thong after I was shot)...but if these ladies are courageous enough
to do it then I look up to them as heros...I'll admit it.
Asharak|9.28.07 @ 2:24PM|#
I find Gabe's thoughtless, poorly-spelled accusations
("neo-con", "friends over at the National Review", "pro-war yuppy",
"facist") particularly amusing considering that the liberventionist
GOP butt-kissers and the LGF trolls who have posted here have
slammed Weigel and others for being anti-war. Now the anti-war side
at Reason are called warmongers just because they dislike
Code Pink.
And has he ever actually read what Jonah Goldberg says about
libertarians on the NRO blog?
|9.28.07 @ 2:26PM|#
dhex,
this doesn't strike me as a good reason for us libertarians to use
them as a stick to beat up the anti-war movement. I guess I just
understimated the number of pro-war folks that are reason readers.
I'll stop wasting my time now.
Asharak|9.28.07 @ 2:29PM|#
Question is this a libertarian site or a conservative site?
Some of the opinions that I read regarding war and social programs
make me wonder. I can see why conservatives and liberals might be
confused about libertarian thought when I read some of the postings
here. I believe Reason is more conservative than libertarian. I
read a little of commentary that wouldn't be out of place on a
conservative site. I read from conservative, liberal, and
libertarian sites. I must say that LewRockwell.com and Mises.com
seem to be more representative of libertarianism than
reason.
That's funny. If anything, Reason regularly gets heat for
supposedly being the epitome of low-tax liberal, Beltway big-L
libertarianism.
MattXIV|9.28.07 @ 2:31PM|#
A majority of them support that option - just not 80%, which is what they would need to fillibuster a spending bill.
We've got well nigh on 100% of Democrats who would vote for a bill forcing an end to the war, but the Republicans won't let it be voted on.
And we've got, ballpark, 2/3 of Democrats who would cut off funding, but can't stop the bills from passing.
And that, not the fillibuster, is why the timetableless
appropriation keeps getting passed. The Dems ultimately can't
deliver a majority that is willing to kill the bill rather than
pass it w/out timetables, while Republicans have approximately the
same number of votes willing to stop the bill via a fillibuster if
it has a firm timetable in it, knowing that a slice of Dems would
rather pass a bill without timetables than kill the bill
altogether. The fillibuster doesn't even really matter since the
same choice (no appropriation or appropriation without timetables)
could be forced by a presidential veto, which requires 6 more votes
to override in the Senate as well as a 2/3 vote in the house and is
probably what would occur if the Dems did have the 60 votes.
|9.28.07 @ 2:32PM|#
dude, no one you've reacted to is pro-war except for (possibly?) SIV. We're just level headed and don't like people acting like retards in the service of a cause we believe in.
dhex|9.28.07 @ 2:35PM|#
this doesn't strike me as a good reason for us libertarians
to use them as a stick to beat up the anti-war movement. I guess I
just understimated the number of pro-war folks that are reason
readers. I'll stop wasting my time now.
so we shouldn't criticize high times even though their perpetuation
of the stoner cliche and the whole smoke-in thing does absolutely
nothing to keep people out of jail?
hey if you like to do street theatre, that's great - just don't
pretend it matters or that it helps anything or convinces anyone of
anything. it's an emotional exercise, like screaming or
masturbating.
Syloson of Samos|9.28.07 @ 2:41PM|#
dhex,
The lord preserve us (heh) from always doing things which are of
some immediate, etc. utility.
|9.28.07 @ 2:57PM|#
$50 says the Code Pink broads get a whole lot quieter when
and if the Dems are running the War.
And another $50 says that if a Dem is elected in 2008, dissent will
suddenly not be quite so patriotic anymore.
While reading the news about Burma the last few days, I was
recalling the protestors at the Republican convention in NYC, the
ones who got rounded up, arrested, fed sandwiches and released a
couple hours later - they were chanting "This is what a
totalitarian government looks like" as they were gently led off by
the NYPD.
Think any of them have been watching the news and thinking, "Hey,
maybe that's what a totalitarian government really looks
like"?
Me neither.
|9.28.07 @ 3:26PM|#
$50 says the Code Pink broads get a whole lot quieter when
and if the Dems are running the War.
Uh, yeah, remember that polite reception Albright and Cohen got
when they made the case for Operation Desert Fox at that
university?
|9.28.07 @ 3:28PM|#
Wow, John, after reading you explain my problems, I almost
didn't notice that you completely whiffed on my arguments.
As usual.
|9.28.07 @ 3:32PM|#
Well put, Matt XIV.
John, you keep telling me that the Democrats haven't changed
anything. Well, they certainly have changed your mind.
Two years ago, you were telling us that all the Democrats wanted to
do was cut and run, surrender, and let terrorists come here and
kill our grannies.
GILMORE|9.28.07 @ 4:09PM|#
the possibility is out there that one of these pink code
ladies might get beaten up by a over eager representative of the
state at some point and the youtube video could be quite popular
and help convince millions more that the government is not really
"protecting us"
It would convince millions that their fantasies of beating up self
righteous liberals could potentially be realized
The anti war protest types are ineffective retards. The most
effective anti-war people tend to be current and former servicemen
who understand costs and consequences.
|9.28.07 @ 4:50PM|#
David Weigel wrote:
The real lesson: Code Pink is a confederacy of dingbats. ...
There's some pushback in the comments about this word.
Hey, you commenters, stop all that pushing! Weigel is a professional journalist. If he says they're "dingbats," that makes it a fact -- take it to the bank.
SIV|9.28.07 @ 5:05PM|#
And another $50 says that if a Dem is elected in 2008,
dissent will suddenly not be quite so patriotic anymore.
Dissent? Back in the early/mid 90s they called it "Anti-Government
Hate Speech"
MattXIV|9.28.07 @ 5:33PM|#
That's funny. If anything, Reason regularly gets heat for supposedly being the epitome of low-tax liberal, Beltway big-L libertarianism.
And Rockwell and co are normally cited as a more "conservative"
take because they're more paleo-con friendly.
A proclivity for using military force doesn't tie strongly with
liberal or conservative beliefs in general. The strongest
correlation is conservatives will oppose wars started by Democratic
presidents and liberals will oppose those started by Republican
ones. There are some factions with both groups that are more fixed
in their alignment - the hardcore foreign policy left will oppose
American intervention anywhere, everywhere because they view
America as the origin of pretty much all evil in the world,
paleocons are broadly isolationist, and neocons are reliably
hawkish, but it largely descends to the level of a culture war
issue since most people know fuck-all about foreign policy anyway
but they know that they don't like Reps/Dems.
The main reason I think the current anti-war movement is crappy is
because the tone and direction was largely set by the people who
had already been organizing against going into Afghanistan, who had
the practical advantage of already having their groups up and
running when the issue was raised. And don't think having nuts
speak in support of your cause helps. As dhex observed, it hasn't
exactly produced great results for fighting the War on Drugs.
|9.28.07 @ 6:08PM|#
"I must say that LewRockwell.com and Mises.com seem to be more
representative of libertarianism than reason."
Good thing it's almost four-thirty.
Waiter!
|9.28.07 @ 6:13PM|#
Question for Gabe Harris, and other anti-war people supporting*
Code Pink: Do you believe their actions will help, in any way, to
bring about a quicker end to the war than would otherwise
happen?
*libertarian boilerplate #2 - free speech, 1st amendment, etc.
|9.29.07 @ 1:16AM|#
Oh, and David, although the song title did perfectly match the article, AC/DC sucked by that point.
GILMORE|9.29.07 @ 1:00PM|#
Gabe Harris | September 28, 2007, 1:33pm | #
GILMORE,
you criticize me for telling you that berating old women doesn't
make you "look good"....yet at the same time you tell me that
pretty in pink doesn't make anti-war people "look good".....pretty
circular.
Er. Yawn.
Making fun of shitheads is OK. Even when they are shitheads whose
objectives may be similar to your own. The point is that just
because they are anti-war doesnt mean they should be tolerated, for
the simple and obvious fact that they undermine the very cause you
ostensibly claim to support. This isnt circular. It's simple
tactical thinking. If you want to sell 'anti war' to the public,
get a FUCKING SOLIDER to do it, because they have infinitely more
credibility, and are far harder to dismiss as posturing idiots a la
Code Pink
Ta
Edward|9.30.07 @ 10:12AM|#
*There's some pushback in the comments about this word. For
"dingbats," read "women who wear pink crowns and shout things
during committee hearings."
Right. Dingbats are actually genderless, and they're currently all
Ron Paul supporters. Paul also has a majority backing from nutbars,
goofballs, and blathering morons.
|10.1.07 @ 2:09PM|#
BakedPenguin ,
Only if one of them(code pink) gets mercilessly tasered on video
and the the video gets put up on youtube. Face it we are going to
be bombing Iran soon so a few more frustrated souls will be moving
over to the anti-war ant-government as the IRan bombing will
coincide with the fact that Hilalry is by far the leading candidate
to be next POTUS.
The anti-war folks will be looking for alternatives...IF, IF they
turn to Ron Paul then we have a chance of the war ending..otherwise
no...code pink won't change anything.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245