Everybody's Got One

New at Reason: Peter Bagge surveys the range of current American opinions, and finds they all stink.

Comments

[Eric Deamer]

Having looked at the nuanced political humour in your cartoon I'm forced to wonder what exactly is the difference between this magazine and those awful left-wing mags you deride in the "About" page? Or was there some mix up in tech support and you accidentally ran a cartoon from the Nation by mistake or something?

[Anonymous]

Wow! I always wondered what Michael Moore would be like if you eliminated his one talent - an occasional gift for humor.
Now I know.

[Peter Bagge]

Public opinion in the UK towards the Iraq war was always below 50%, but spiked over that line just before and during the war itself (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/polls/story/0,11030,916494,00.html), just as it did here, strongly suggesting that that spike represented moral support for the troops more than for the war itself.

However, when asked: "should we go to war with Iraq without a UN resolution?" in late Febuary, a whopping 90% of the Brits asked said no (http://news.bbc.co.uk?2/hi/uk_news/2751471.stm). Seeing how there was no UN resolution, it's hard to fathom how anyone could argue that the British public "supported" the Iraq war.

Do I have my facts straight now? Or am I still just an un-funny version of Michael Moore?

[Anonymous]

maybe the US might move "more post-retroactively against" the war when they hear about how much waging the peace is gonna cost (and, ironically, when the treasury gets its printing presses rolling, it'll be the rest of the world financing it):

---
Your Tax Dollars at Work

Administration officials have declined to publicly forecast how long U.S. troops will remain in Iraq or how much it will cost to stabilize the country and set up a new government. The U.S. is currently spending an estimated $3 billion per month to maintain its forces in Iraq.

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. senators from both major parties said on Monday American soldiers may need to remain in Iraq for at least five years.

Actually, when Wolfowitz and one of his pet generals appeared before the House Armed Services Committee last week, there was some talk the U.S. military presence in Iraq might last a decade -- which apparently neither of them bothered to deny. But we'll stick with the "conservative" (pun intended) 5-year forecast. Let's see, that would be:

$3 billion per month x 12 months = $36 billion
$36 billion x 5 years = $180 billion

(And that's just to pay for the troops. Since it appears Iraq's oil revenues won't even cover the country's basic needs, and since Proconsul Bremer already has promised to steer at least some of those revenues directly to the Iraqi people in the form of dividend checks -- a la Alaska's Permanent Fund -- we probably should add something to the U.S. tab for Iraq's reconstruction. So let's call it an even $5 billion a month, which equals $60 billion a year, which equals $300 billion over five years...

[Anonymous]

yes, more amptoons! please me 😀

[Geotech]

What I had always liked about Reason was the way it avoided sounding elitist. It seems more and more that it's losing that admirable quality.

[Sven]

Oh - I get it. This thread is a demonstration of Bagge's joke.

Tee hee.

[Warren]

Even when I agree with his thesis, (as I do this week) I find Bagge's material witless and uninsightful. His attempts to make the opposition look foolish by gross simplification and misrepresentation are IMHO, juvenile. His work lowers the intelligence bar for the Reason staff. Perhaps he appeals to the 'dumb and dumber' crowd, so much of what passes for humor these days strikes me as just vulgar stupidity (those damn kids today). I vote to dump him.

[Anonymous]

Bagge really does suck - I mean I'm seconding Warren who I consider a Nazi (tee hee)

[Jim]

The British public was not overwhelmingly against the war, in fact the majority grew increasingly in favour. Get your facts right.

[Mike]

Well, if it hurts your feelings that someone would dare criticize this war and question our patriotic and "honest" administration, you always have the National Review and the Wall Street Journal editioral page to find plenty of rationalization for the stupid things we do...hey, if the GOP is behind it, its ordained by God, right?

[omnibus bill]

Yeah Mike, that's right. In fact, they are so busy reading the bible that it's a wonder they have any time to oppress the shit out of us.

[D Anghelone]

Odd how so many libertarians believe in the beneficence of markets in all but the marketplace of ideas.

[Anonymous]

what a waste of space - hope Reason's not paying to publish that amateur crap. Funny? No. Unique or insightful? No. Banal? Yup.

[Anonymous Coward]

At least Pete signs his stuff.

[Anonymous]

the graffiti in the john down the hall is all signed too. though i doubt they're getting paid.

[Anonymous]

The British public was not overwhelmingly against the war, in fact the majority grew increasingly in favour. Get your facts right.

Yeah, but it does look as if they are coming out more post-retroactively against it:

The Prime Minister's popularity has taken a nosedive since the end of the war in Iraq, according to a new opinion poll.

An ICM poll commissioned by the Guardian gives him a personal rating of minus 13, compared to plus 8 during the hostilities.

The failure to provide evidence of Iraq's weapons, the controversial Cabinet reshuffle and the recent row over taxes are all given as factors.

Blair has given the US the veneer of international legitimacy. If he goes down, who will stand with the US? Without Mexico and Canada, especially I think, the US looks naked. Poland and the Philippines, perhaps?

[Anonymous]

The British public was not overwhelmingly against the war, in fact the majority grew increasingly in favour. Get your facts right.

Yeah, but it does look as if they are coming out more post-retroactively against it:

The Prime Minister's popularity has taken a nosedive since the end of the war in Iraq, according to a new opinion poll.

An ICM poll commissioned by the Guardian gives him a personal rating of minus 13, compared to plus 8 during the hostilities.

The failure to provide evidence of Iraq's weapons, the controversial Cabinet reshuffle and the recent row over taxes are all given as factors.

Blair has given the US the veneer of international legitimacy. If he goes down, who will stand with the US? Without Mexico and Canada, especially I think, the US looks naked. Poland and the Philippines, perhaps?

[Cas]

Peter Bagge always cracks me up! IMO, he cuts to the bone, be it left or right. Look back at the archive of his comics in Reason, if you think he leans too far one way or the other.

[fyodor]

Hey, it's easy to criticize...and fun too, if you're a cartoonist!

Not Bagge's very best work, but I still liked the way he drew the guy in the last frame!!

[Anonymous]

Hey if you dig Bagge's banalities, knock yourself out.
As for me, I'll stick with R.Crumb.

[Anonymous]

with counterkultur-ism going out of style and having pounded the last nail into the coffin of hipster-ism, bagge -- a "cartoonist" -- is having a hard time finding a new "niche." web comix on reason is about as underground as it's going to get.

maybe going back to black & white and working on his fuckeduptitude would help? 😀 cuz he's no artbabe!

[Jim]

"Or am I still just an un-funny version of Michael Moore?"

The sources you took the data from...well...The BBC has such an anti-war bias that the royal navy boycotted it. As for The Guardian- well, samizdata.net don't call it "The Wanker" for nothing, you know.

So yes, I guess you're an un-funny version of Michael Moore.