New Math
By Mitch Berg
The Strib, pro forma, notes:
A much smaller group of counterprotesters held signs and shouted slogans supporting the troops, the war and Bush.
They left out “dominated every argument with calm style”.
And while our numbers were certainly small, I called my friend from Citizens for a Supine “Safer” Minnesota for an estimate.
“You had close to 1000 people there”, she said upon looking at the group picture.
I always feel better about numbers after I talk with her.
March 19th, 2007 at 6:18 am
“You had close to 1000 people there”
Is that the same group that was standing outside It’s Greek To Me?
Regardless, your numbers were small because support for an endless occupation, without a plan to win in Iraq, is dead.
Dead, dead, dead.
March 19th, 2007 at 6:32 am
Is that the same group that was standing outside It’s Greek To Me?
You can be taught!
As to the rest of it? You come perilously close to a couple of truths – none of them palatable to you, as it happens, but truths nonetheless.
We DO need to win. And while nobody knows in advance if a plan is going to win (war is complicated), the surge shows some promise so far.
And the American people DO want to win – as opposed to cutting and running. That’s why most of the Democrats (outside the nutroots) in Congress are trying so hard to avoid having to actually vote up or down on withdrawal – because they know so many people in America are…
…well, like me. People who disapprove of the war because we haven’t fought especially to win for the past year or two.
March 19th, 2007 at 7:07 am
Hmmmm… Perhaps you weren’t listening yesterday.
Yes. The American people do want to win and the American people have figured out that military presence won’t win the war.
Whether or not you can understand it, (i’m guessing not) the debate in the Senate WAS a huge victory for our side.
March 19th, 2007 at 7:21 am
“the debate in the Senate WAS a huge victory for our side.”
Doug – which side would that be, vis-a-vis winning?
March 19th, 2007 at 7:27 am
“military presence won’t win the war” considering our enemy is using guns and poison gasses, are you proposing a new kind of asymmetrical warfare that doesn’t include fighting them?
March 19th, 2007 at 7:30 am
“Thousands” in MSM vs. a thousand in reality — that’s the Million Man March calculator for ya. 🙂
Doug sez: “The American people do want to win and the American people have figured out that military presence won’t win the war.”
How about this poll from the Times of London:
“The poll, the biggest since coalition troops entered Iraq on March 20, 2003, shows that by a majority of two to one, Iraqis prefer the current leadership to Saddam Hussein’s regime, regardless of the security crisis and a lack of public services.
The survey, published today, also reveals that contrary to the views of many western analysts, most Iraqis do not believe they are embroiled in a civil war. ”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530526.ece
And Ms. Hillary stated recently that she supports a stayed presence in Iraq: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/15/clinton.troops/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
V is for victory, not vendetta.
March 19th, 2007 at 7:42 am
“Thousands” in MSM vs. a thousand in reality – another example of using the “million man march” calculator.
Doug sez:
“The American people do want to win and the American people have figured out that military presence won’t win the war.”
Interesting. Hillary supports continued military presence in Iraq:
“http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/15/clinton.troops/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
And Iraqi’s are happier with the current PM over Saddam by over a 2-1 margin according to a poll from the Times in London:
“The poll, the biggest since coalition troops entered Iraq on March 20, 2003, shows that by a majority of two to one, Iraqis prefer the current leadership to Saddam Hussein’s regime, regardless of the security crisis and a lack of public services.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530526.ece
Most Americans believe V is for victory, not vendetta.
March 19th, 2007 at 7:49 am
Doug’s plan: Win by running away! See, that way Osama & every 2 bit murdering terrorist in the world will know the United States lost the war, but Doug & his pals will know that it was really just the republicans that lost the war. A plan like that can’t possibly backfire!
March 19th, 2007 at 8:06 am
Perhaps you weren’t listening yesterday.
To the mob of college kids, plush-bottom yoohoos, loonies and one pervert that surrounded me? I heard them.
I don’t mistake them for “America”,though.
March 19th, 2007 at 8:07 am
Doug extrapolates the crowd of nutjobs, moonbats and angry Doug-types that came out yesterday as a majority of Americans. Wrong. In truth the majority had better things to do with their time.
March 19th, 2007 at 8:29 am
In truth the majority had better things to do with their time.
As, indeed, did I. But I had a lot of fun anyway.
March 19th, 2007 at 8:46 am
I’m just drinking in deeply the awesomeness of Doug not being there, despite saying he would be, and then doubting Mitch’s account of the events Mitch himself witnessed.
*sigh* Good times. *sigh*
March 19th, 2007 at 9:05 am
You get extra credit, Mitch. Too bad you can’t find a way take a tax deduction. Hmmmm…..
March 19th, 2007 at 9:19 am
Doug ran away! He bravely ran away!
March 19th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
“Thousands” in MSM eyes vs. a thousand in reality – another example of using the “million man march” calculator.
Doug sez:
“The American people do want to win and the American people have figured out that military presence won’t win the war.”
Interesting. Hillary supports continued military presence in Iraq:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/15/clinton.troops/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
And Iraqi’s are happier with the current PM over Saddam by over a 2-1 margin according to a poll from the Times in London:
“The poll, the biggest since coalition troops entered Iraq on March 20, 2003, shows that by a majority of two to one, Iraqis prefer the current leadership to Saddam Hussein’s regime, regardless of the security crisis and a lack of public services.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530526.ece
Most Americans believe V is for victory, not vendetta.
March 19th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Friend from CSM? Heather or Judy?
March 19th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Nope. Sorry Paul. I was in Cambridge for work. Just like I was doing yesterday in North Branch which is why I couldn’t join Mitch and the other 5 defenders of American freedoms at Falafel King.
I never said I would be there. Here’s what I said,
http://www.shotinthedark.info/wp/index.php/index.php/2007/03/17/act-locally-part-ii/#comment-7334
It says, “I’ll try to be there” but Since reading comprehension seems to be a real challenge for so many people here, I don’t expect anyone to grasp what I said.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Friend from CSM? Heather or Judy?
Whichever one it is that exaggerates CSM’s numbers, impact and influence.
Or would that be both?
March 19th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Here’s what I said… Since reading comprehension seems to be a real challenge for so many people
Including, apparently, you; I already noted this on your behalf earlier.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Did you “try” extra hard, Doug? Because, you know, that makes ALL the difference.
Perhaps you tried super dooper extra hard?
Hey, I “tried” to earn a million dollars yesterday. I “tried” to cure world hunger Saturday afternoon. Man, oh man, did I try and try and try. I can’t believe my tryer isn’t plum worn out after all my intense trying.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
We could “try” to win a war without a military presence. That way no one would get hurt! That’s IT! Let’s declare victory (not Mission Accomplished, we know you can’t differentiate between the two).
What if they gave a war and nobody came? (Cue “One Tin Soldier”.)
March 19th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Mitch said,
“Including, apparently, you; I already noted this on your behalf earlier. “
Really? Where? Show me. I’ll have to go cache that page for posterity sake.
Yossarian, is that all you got? Seriously?
March 19th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
I’ve always believed that the sole reason people demonstrate in the streets rather than writing their Congressman is because of their total inability to put an intelligent thought into a coherent English sentence. I could be wrong, perhaps it is just that they have no desire to express their point of view in a civil discussion. Somehow, it comes out the same. Making loud, stupid sounds and disrupting people’s daily affairs isn’t persuasive, it’s counterproductive. Keep it up.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
(yoda)
do or do not there is no try
(/yoda)
March 19th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Oh, please, Doug.
Do you seriously want me to take you down as the overly self-important, borderline compulsive, pseudo-intellectual elitist gomer you repeatedly show yourself to be, thread after thread after thread?
Because, if you want me to, I can certainly gin up and “try” to accommodate.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Doug,
Really? Where? Show me.
In the thread where I prove you’re a fascist. Jeez, do I have to do your research as well as your thinking?
Yossarian,
Do you seriously want…
You had me at “do”. Go for it.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Yossarian said,
“Do you seriously want me to take you down as the overly self-important, borderline compulsive, pseudo-intellectual elitist gomer you repeatedly show yourself to be, thread after thread after thread?
Because, if you want me to, I can certainly gin up and “try” to accommodate.”
What I want you to do is at least try to be clever or humorous with your jabs. Although Kermit continuously falls short, at least he “tries” hard and manages to make me giggle on occasion. Your bit was just, well weak.
I bet you can do better than that…
March 19th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Mitch said,
“In the thread where I prove you’re a fascist.”
Oh that thread! I was gonna get back to that one!
Thanks for sticking up for me big guy.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
I’ve always believed that the sole reason people demonstrate in the streets rather than writing their Congressman is because of their total inability to put an intelligent thought into a coherent English sentence.
Nah, I’m pretty sure you’re wrong on that.
Its a pep rally.
A frustration I’ve always had when I’ve participated in such things (didn’t in this one, left a long comment on why in one of the other threads), is that so many people there think that by being there, they’re doing their part.
All that is is getting a bunch of energy up so you can keep working something which often can feel like a losing battle. Frankly though, I think they were better at it in the sixties. The chants get really frustrating after a bit because they make you sound so dumb but people like yelling and its hard to get a long thing going.
The one time I “wrote” something to yell for a civil disobedience demonstration I was involved in, I wrote a song with a repeated refrain, an easy melody and seeded the audience with photocopies of it. Probably only got 1/3 of the crowd going with it, but I thought it was a lot cooler. Besides, if you’re going to be cuffed and taken away, it is more pleasant to do it listening to people sing a song you wrote.
Seriously, the demonstrators of today could learn a lot from the civil rights movement and even a bit from the vietnam anti war movement when it comes to the pep rallies.
Although, at least a lot more of our generation seem to get that a combat veteran is someone to be treated with kindness, compassion, decency, and respect. That’s worth quite a bit of good music.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
On behalf of the younger generation can I just say that watching all you old baby boomers re-fight the war protests of your youth, only this time without the cool soundtrack and hot women, is really boring.
March 19th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
The point is not to amuse you, Doug. The point is to amuse me. I don’t post snark on blogs so I can hear the thunderous applause of a thousand keyboards all clicking their acceptance and approval of me. I post snark on blogs because I get a kick out of posting snark.
But I’ll tell you what; perhaps I can do you a favor and point out why you have trouble finding the humor in much of the snark aimed your way. We’ll use my “try” snark to help illustrate.
See, I think you know, in your little heart of hearts, weaseling out of your absence at the anti-war march by saying “I didn’t say I was GOING to go, I said I was going to TRY,” is a hysterically pathetic attempt at backpedaling. Exactly how does somebody “try” and “fail” to attend a protest? Was the wind too strong, pushing you back into your house, despite your best efforts? That’s right, you had to work, in Cambridge no less. But, you pretty much suspected you’d have to work, didn’t you? So, saying you were going to “try” was pretty much the most empty thing you could have said. It was laugh-out-loud idiocy, and you know it, so having me point it out just didn’t seem that funny to you, what with the red face of embarrassment and all.
Others in this thread recognized the idiocy of your “try” wiggle, quoting Yoda and such; so, while I can only no-heartedly apologize that you didn’t get a gut-rumbling chuckle out of my snark, I feel I must point out that your lack of humor really isn’t my responsibility.
March 19th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
I don’t fall short, and I really don’t try all that hard. You do most of the work for us, Doug.
March 19th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
You know Yosarrian, I wonder if you could be just spin just a bit more.
Don’t put quotes around words I didn’t say. That would be dishonest.
And since you’re so hung up on my use of the word “try”, and you’re “trying” desperately to tag some devious intent behind my use of those words, here’s why I said that…
And try to keep this in the front of you little mind. As a liberal, I love protests. They’re fun and I’ve been a part of quite a few. Get it smart guy? Now hold that thought…
Every 4 weeks, I carry the pager for work. This weekend it was my turn. On Saturday, we had an inipi ceremony at our house and my job is to start the fire in the morning and do the rocks. I won’t explain it in too much detail because that’s not important. What is important though is that it is an all day commitment. On Saturday night, one of my clients in St. Paul ran away from the group home she lives in and got drunk, stoned and returned to the home with her face bloodied and I had to arrange to get her into detox. On Sunday, I spent the better part of the day writing incident reports and waiting for my client to get processed. I also had the pleasure of going to North Branch to have a little come to Jesus meeting with another client who thinks it’s ok to put holes in walls with his fist.
I said I would “try” to get to the protests because that’s exactly what I meant.
Don’t be an idiot.
March 19th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Don’t be an idiot.
Well, I can’t make any promises, but I can certainly TRY.
March 19th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
Obviously you need to manage your time better, Doug.
March 19th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Shit. This is a most uncomfortable position for me to be in. While I have found Doug’s general positions to be, well, really really wrong, and the overall presentation totally mockable (in a very convenient fashion), I am declaring myself arrested by this latest disclosure.
I don’t know nothin’ about no inipi ceremony, nor do I really care. Being there to take care of the wounded, lost and damaged is a whole different thing, in my book. God put us here for many reasons. One of the primary ones is to protect, defend and help those less fortunate than ourselves. The weak, the damaged, the lost.
Doug, this was honorable. I salute you. And I’ve been there.
Mitch, you better bookmark this, it may never happen again.
March 19th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Thanks Kermit. Really. I appreciate that
March 20th, 2007 at 12:19 am
Doug,
Where you were and what you did on Saturday into Sunday are more important than showing up for a protest. Lots of people can protest and counter-protest; not everybody is in position or has the knowledge or expertise to help clients such as yours. Like Kermit, I salute your service to those in need.
This is a side of you that you unfortunately don’t let us here at SITD see too often. I hope we will see more of such commentary in the future.
March 20th, 2007 at 5:33 am
Mitch: that would, in fact, be both.
March 20th, 2007 at 6:23 am
we had an inipi ceremony at our house and my job is to start the fire in the morning and do the rocks. I won’t explain it in too much detail because that’s not important. What is important though is that it is an all day commitment. On Saturday night, one of my clients in St. Paul ran away from the group home she lives in and got drunk, stoned and returned to the home with her face bloodied and I had to arrange to get her into detox. On Sunday, I spent the better part of the day writing incident reports and waiting for my client to get processed.
Funny that NONE of the news reports I saw mentioned anything remotely similar to the ceremony you describe and in fact, none of the footage I’ve seen shows any of “your clients’ going anywhere.
I’ll concede the fact that I wasn’t there and can neither confirm or deny your claims so I will have to take your word for it even though I find it highly dubious – not that what I believe makes a lick of difference.
It’s also entirely plausible that, based on your description of your alleged “day” that a “client” with a bloody face and booze and drug habit needed to have paperwork done all day.
Again, I wasn’t there so I can’t really speak to the legitimacy of your claim but the idea that some strange obsessive blog commenter went out and helped someone sounds like a complete fabrication but again, being the humble sort that I am, I’m willing to admit that I am wrong and for whatever reason, acknowledge that middle-aged obsessive blog commenters with a frequently-dubious sense of fact can do good things for other people.
March 20th, 2007 at 6:24 am
I mean, kudos to you and all. But that’s how it’s done – right? If I didn’t see it and it doesn’t fit my own preconceptions, it didn’t happen?
Just saying.
March 20th, 2007 at 6:39 am
Hey let’s let it go. I’m cool with Doug on this. After all the grief we gave him on criticizing and evaluating an event he didn’t attend, we have no standing to do it to him.
March 20th, 2007 at 6:45 am
Bill,
That was my point – only backwards.
March 20th, 2007 at 7:24 am
hcitM, uoy knaht
March 20th, 2007 at 8:40 am
Rick,
old baby boomers re-fight the war protests of your youth,
Um, Rick? I put up with a lot of things on this blog.
But two things nobody calls me are “liar” and “baby boomer”.
My parents were 9 and 5, respectively, on VJ day. Ergo, demographically, I am not a baby boomer.
You have until noon to apologize.
( 🙂 )
March 20th, 2007 at 9:29 am
Hey, since we’re playing “overly detailed account of my activities on Sunday” I may as well take part.
On Sunday, I awoke at 6 a.m. to the sound of sirens blaring across the street. Apparently, the neighbor’s house caught fire, and all 12 inhabitants suffered cardiac arrests. Amazingly, the first responders had no clue how to respond to such a calamity, so I calmly administered CPR to all 12 people and, once their conditions were stable, I peed on the house fire until it was extinguished (thankfully, I had a full bladder from the previous night’s slumber).
Suddenly, a one-legged dog tried to make its way across the street, apparently unaware a 40 ton SUV driven by a cowboy-hat-wearing neanderthal was bearing down on it. So, I deftly–and selflessly I may add–dove in front of the SUV and rescued the one-legged dog, which I later named “Perseverance” and gave to an orphan who just happened by.
Well, as unbelievable as it may sound, moments later a jetliner had to make an emergency landing on my street, but because of my cat-like reflexes and finely-tuned training, I was aboard that plane giving First Aid to those who needed it before the plane had even touched ground. I also noted an unattended infant wailing in its seat and, quick as a wink, I had my shirt off and was breastfeeding that child, because I’ve been undergoing estrogen treatments and complicated surgical procedures specifically so I can breastfeed children in exactly these kinds of scenarios.
The rest of the day, by comparison, was pretty routine. I only rescued four other dogs, and two cats, plus an incident with an autistic Canada goose, which really isn’t worth going into right now, because blah, blah, blah, who wants to hear about little ole’ me?
At around 11 p.m., exhausted though I was, I managed to visit, roughly, 150 blogs and comment voluminously about all manner of topics, ranging from autistic Canada geese to Alberto Gonzales’s impending resignation.
Pretty standard Sunday, all things considered.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:47 am
“My parents were 9 and 5, respectively, on VJ day. Ergo, demographically, I am not a baby boomer.”
Not to point out the obvious, but whether x is part of the “baby boom” depends on when x is born, not when x’s parents were born.
From wikipedia, “There is little agreement as to the exact beginning and end dates of the baby boom, but it is commonly identified as starting in 1946 and ending in 1964.” So, if you were 38 on 9/11 2001, you were born at the tail end of the baby boom. Hate to break it to you.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:11 am
Ah. If Wikipedia says it, that must be that.
Rubbish, Rick. The “baby boom” was the children of World War II veterans and people of that age. I am not.
I’d hate to ban you and expunge all record of your existence from this blog over this. But DO NOT call me a baby boomer.
😉 <----picture this as a "smiling like Joe Pesci in Goodfellas” kinda thing.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:22 am
As a baby boomer who protested the Vietnam War, I need to inform Rick that we did not have a live or recorded band playing at them, just us dirty hippies really looking for some easy sex.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:59 am
Yossarian said,
“Hey, since we’re playing “overly detailed account of my activities on Sunday””
We’re not. You insinuated that I was lying when I said I would try to get to the protests. I was giving you the reasons I wasn’t able to go and, in your last post, I get the distinct impression that you’re insinuating that I am lying about what I was doing this weekend.
As for the tale you tell, I’m pertty sure you made some if not most of it up because I know for a fact that the streets in your trailer park aren’t wide enough for an airliner to land.
You’ll have to try harder.