# Bricker: Got A Second? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 23, 2004, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343 "2004-11-23T20:15:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 22
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2004, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343/421 "2004-12-13T17:01:22Z")
> [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > In the post directly after that OP, **Scylla** writes:Don’t you think using **Scylla’s** open and heartfelt account of his early confusion regarding matters of race against him – and purposefully misrepresenting them as well – is hitting a little bit below the belt? Ah, that one is an oldie but a goodie. Always a favorite of mine. I would ask you **Mr. S** to reread the piece and see if **Desmo** did actually misrepresent **Scylla**. I don’t know if I would necessarily have brought it up here in this context, but I do think about it whenever I see something from Scylla. It did color my impression of him pretty profoundly. The story actually is about how poor young Scylla was tricked into thinking negatively about his grandfather by the PC apparatchik. However, because his grandfather engaged in heroism, he is able to see clearly again how those who dislike him for his overt racism are beneath disdain. Condemnation of racism, understanding the degrading effects of poor socioeconomic conditions is “happy crap.” But if a person is heroic, then there is nothing wrong with racist attitudes. Nothing. The portion quoted by Desmo is not misrepresentative at all. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2004, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343/422 "2004-12-13T17:08:13Z")
> [@duffer](#): > > In the US we have a volunteer military. Some join to serve the US, some join for job training, some join for tuition to college. > > Whatever the reason for joining, they joined. There is first and foremost, no matter how much you hate it, the obligation that you do what is asked of you in time of peace or in time of war. > [@Airplane!](#): > > They bought their tickets. They knew what they were getting into. I say, “Let 'em crash!” So, in essence, your sentiment is “Hey, there are no free lunches, pal?” Damn. A bit tangential, but how do you feel about this guy: [http://www.marionstar.com/news/stories/20041211/localnews/1731211.html](http://www.marionstar.com/news/stories/20041211/localnews/1731211.html) > [@](#): > > Retired Army colonel, 70, sent to Afghanistan > > Dr. John Caulfield thought it had to be a mistake when the Army asked him to return to active duty. After all, he’s 70 years old and had already retired - twice. He left the Army in 1980 and private practice two years ago. > > “My first reaction was disbelief,” Caulfield said. “It never occurred to me that they would call a 70-year-old.” ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2004, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343/423 "2004-12-13T17:25:06Z")
You’re way off base, **Hentor**. It would be easy to dismiss racists as folks who are unmitigatedly evil. Too easy, in fact, for this dismissal to accurately reflect reality. What makes racism so hard to stamp out is that these attitudes can be held by people who are otherwise decent and goodhearted. That was especially the case in the past. **Scylla’s** thread reflects this problem, and does so far more eloquently than I could have managed. He accurately points out that most racists are not evil, they are just badly mistaken. You seem to want to ignore this distinction, and paint **Scylla** as a racist. I don’t think that accusation holds water at all. ---
**Author:** ![duffer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duffer/32/1026_2.png) [@duffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duffer)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2004, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343/424 "2004-12-13T17:26:36Z")
> [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > So, in essence, your sentiment is “Hey, there are no free lunches, pal?” Damn. > > A bit tangential, but how do you feel about this guy: > > [http://www.marionstar.com/news/stories/20041211/localnews/1731211.html](http://www.marionstar.com/news/stories/20041211/localnews/1731211.html) I couldn’t figure out which companies they were with. Give me some bases, and I will, literally in minutes, call each base and see what is happening there. Care to back that up? Give me a base for at least one of them. I’ll call. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2004, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343/425 "2004-12-13T17:34:00Z")
In case it’s not clear, I think **Desmo’s** response to **Scylla’s** story is unconscionable. Given what this thread was originally about, way back in the golden years, I figure I oughtta say that :). Daniel ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2004, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343/426 "2004-12-13T17:35:30Z")
I take this moment to agree with **Moto** , after which I will take several moments to press a damp cloth to my forehead, and then perhaps a nap. Raised in Texas during the era of segregation, I had any number of rock-solid racists for relatives. They were not evil, but profoundly wrong, which is often enough. Once they came to understand the error of their ways, they repented, to the extent they could. Not wrong on race. Stone cold wrong on just about everything else, but not racist. ---
**Author:** ![duffer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duffer/32/1026_2.png) [@duffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duffer)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2004, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343/427 "2004-12-13T17:37:18Z")
> [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > So, in essence, your sentiment is “Hey, there are no free lunches, pal?” Damn. > > A bit tangential, but how do you feel about this guy: > > [http://www.marionstar.com/news/stories/20041211/localnews/1731211.html](http://www.marionstar.com/news/stories/20041211/localnews/1731211.html) BTW, thanks for responding once to two different Dopers, and putting onto me whatever shit you were trying to sling. **Hentor** , I now have a new view of you. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2004, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343/428 "2004-12-13T17:42:04Z")
> [@duffer](#): > > BTW, thanks for responding once to two different Dopers, and putting onto me whatever shit you were trying to sling. Hee. Unless [Leslie Nielsen](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080339/) has joined the boards recently, I believe you misunderstood. In a _really_ funny way. And **duffer** takes the lead! Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2004, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343/429 "2004-12-13T17:46:37Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > You’re way off base, **Hentor**. > > It would be easy to dismiss racists as folks who are unmitigatedly evil. Too easy, in fact, for this dismissal to accurately reflect reality. > > What makes racism so hard to stamp out is that these attitudes can be held by people who are otherwise decent and goodhearted. That was especially the case in the past. > > **Scylla’s** thread reflects this problem, and does so far more eloquently than I could have managed. He accurately points out that most racists are not evil, they are just badly mistaken. You seem to want to ignore this distinction, and paint **Scylla** as a racist. I don’t think that accusation holds water at all. I take **Left Hand of Dorkness’** point that this is not the thread or the time to have this discussion. With that in mind, I’ll say only that I agree with you, **Mr. Moto** that the bottom line should be that racism is a complicated attitude demonstrated by many who are otherwise good and decent. I offer my grandmother as a case in point. Scylla’s story, rather than saying what you suggest, which I would agree with, actually absolves his grandfather for his racism because of his heroism. “There was nothing in this man to look down upon. Nothing.” Whereas you would apparently say that, yes, we should value this man for his heroism and for other good qualities he possesses, but should in fact look down upon his racism, Scylla says that those who do are contemptable. It does not recognize the complexity that you do, but rather engages in the black and white thinking that you appear to disagree with. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2004, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343/430 "2004-12-13T17:57:44Z")
**Diogenes** : A thousand pardons. I misread, and meant to write **Desmo**. ---
**Author:** ![duffer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duffer/32/1026_2.png) [@duffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duffer)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2004, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343/431 "2004-12-13T17:58:16Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > And **duffer** takes the lead! You simple, simple man. I’m _always_ in the lead! (Off to read the thread as I have no idea what aI just responded to) :smack: :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2004, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343/432 "2004-12-13T19:13:21Z")
**duffer** : > [@](#): > > _No, nothing in “your world” can match anything said here. Since I don’t own an SUV your argument is debunked. Flat out. I’m also laid off, a Bush voter and a GOP contributor. \_ ? I was responding to **Scylla**. I have been given to believe he owns an SUV. > [@](#): > > _ **Mr. Svinlesha** , you asked for someone to put his ass on the line?_ No. I suggested that before **Scylla** can claim to be a part of the ”we” who are ”clearing the mountain,” he needed to put his ass on the line. Although I would also suggest that before you can claim to be a member of ”we,” you would need to do the same. > [@](#): > > _OK, but give me a line first._ Sure. Go join the Army. > [@](#): > > _In the US we have a volunteer military._ No, really? Thanks for clearing that up for me. > [@](#): > > _Some join to serve the US, some join for job training, some join for tuition to college._ Yeah. I joined to pay off my college debts. > [@](#): > > _I would love to get my pharmacist degree for free, but I’m too old to join the services._ Dude, I hear they’re taking virtually anybody these days. Go down to the local recruiter’s office and check it out. > [@](#): > > - So I will add to my $20 grand debt getting the training needed. > > Free from being shot at barring a terrorist attack. > > This is what I plan to do. Now maybe a soldier can tell you what he feels about all this.\* Speaking as an ex-soldier, maybe I can just tell myself. Look, you’re free to do as you wish. I’m not judging you. I’m simply stating that, as a matter of actual fact, if you aren’t physically out there ”clearing the mountain,” you cannot claim membership in that group who are actually doing the clearing. **Hentor** : > [@](#): > > _Ah, that one is an oldie but a goodie. Always a favorite of mine. I would ask you **Mr. S** to reread the piece and see if **Desmo** did actually misrepresent **Scylla**. I don’t know if I would necessarily have brought it up here in this context, but I do think about it whenever I see something from Scylla. It did color my impression of him pretty profoundly._ Well, the quote, taken out of context, would make **Scylla** appear openly racist. Yet **Scylla** categorically condemns his grandfather’s racism in his next post. While I disagree profoundly with **Scylla** on many issues, I’ve never yet seen him display even the slightest hint of racism. Now, I concede that there could be an unconscious racist dimension in **Scylla’s** politics. I read through the entire thread and thought you made some very insightful points regarding **Scylla’s** story. But **Scylla** isn’t the only person here who grew up in a profoundly racist environment. And I would like to claim some small insight myself into what that can imply. Coming out of such an environment one may learn that racism is wrong, and unacceptable, and consciously reject it, yet still suffer from the traces such an upbringing left behind. Personally I see very profound parallels between **Scylla’s** early environment and his current politics, after reading that thread, but I’m more moved to compassion. Maybe that’s just me. Anyway, I’m open to having my mind changed if you can connect the quoted passage with other examples of racism on **Scylla’s** part. > [@](#): > > _The story actually is about how poor young Scylla was tricked into thinking negatively about his grandfather by the PC apparatchik. However, because his grandfather engaged in heroism, he is able to see clearly again how those who dislike him for his overt racism are beneath disdain. Condemnation of racism, understanding the degrading effects of poor socioeconomic conditions is “happy crap.” But if a person is heroic, then there is nothing wrong with racist attitudes. Nothing._ Yes, I can see how you read his story that way. But, as we say in Sweden, perhaps you read **Scylla’s** story like the Devil reads the Bible? > [@](#): > > _Scylla’s story, rather than saying what you suggest, which I would agree with, actually absolves his grandfather for his racism because of his heroism. “There was nothing in this man to look down upon. Nothing.”_ Yes. But couldn’t his redemption of his grandfather involve deeper issues? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2004, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343/433 "2004-12-13T19:44:53Z")
> [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > Anyway, I’m open to having my mind changed if you can connect the quoted passage with other examples of racism on **Scylla’s** part. I have no particular need to do so. I don’t know, nor concern myself greatly, as to whether or not he is racist. As I said, I agree that there is only a tenuous connection, at best, between that thread and this one, and wouldn’t have brought it up here. But I do believe that **Desmo** is not wrong about his interpretation of that story. I cannot track the narrator’s development in the story to find the ultimate condemnation of racism - quite the opposite. I think the moral of that story is “Love the sinner. Absolve the sin. Despise those who don’t.” > [@](#): > > Yes, I can see how you read his story that way. But, as we say in Sweden, perhaps you read **Scylla’s** story like the Devil reads the Bible? I like the turn of phrase! And the charge is correct to a point - I certainly am biased towards seeing racism. On the other hand, I presume the Devil has an agenda to be served by combatting the positive elements of religion. I hope that I am not locked in an existential struggle with **Scylla**. I have bigger fish to fry! > [@](#): > > Yes. But couldn’t his redemption of his grandfather involve deeper issues? Absolutely. If I were to tell you a story of my grandmother, it would be biased towards redemption. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2004, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343/434 "2004-12-13T19:47:51Z")
> [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > Regarding ”containment” and ”deterrence”: > > First off, I don’t think one should dismiss **Scylla’s** assertion that the situation in Iraq was ”unstable” so lightly. Depends a bit on what one intends with the word ”unstable,” but relations between the US and Iraq certainly weren’t happy. Unhappy they certainly were, but unstable? Those are entirely different things. Neither you nor **Scylla** have supported a contention that the situation was deteriorating against the US/UK and, yes, UN containment of Saddam’s military power. The essential lack of same found on the ground in this war supports just the opposite conclusion. > [@](#): > > Clinton’s clumsy efforts at containing and deterring al-Qaeda during the 90s provides useful historical context. He retaliated against bin-Laden by first bombing an aspirin factory (launching a unilateral, unprovoked attack against a neutral country, the Sudan), and followed that up – if a remember correctly – with cruise missiles over Afghanistan, wherein very expensive military hardware was employed to destroy about 40 dollars worth canvas tents. Neither of those actions had the slightest deterrent effect on al-Qaeda, however, as 9/11 demonstrated with horrifying clarity. The cruise missile attack was the result of some hot intelligence that Osama was there, along with his top leadership. Clinton had turned down other opportunities based on an unacceptable level of “collateral damage” expected. Later intel determined that Osama had left the site just hours before. No deterrent effect resulted from the raids because the goal wasn’t deterrence but extermination. A comment about racism: That ain’t it when examining an attitude that “enemy” civilian deaths can be shrugged off as part of the cost of war. The attitude that their lives are insignificant isn’t due to the fact that they’re brownskinned or heathen or anything else other than “the enemy”. What we’re seeing is the same dehumanization that occurs whenever a populace (or substantial segment of it) is convinced that a war is necessary and justified. It helps break down the military personnel’s inhibitions against killing them, and the populace’s inhibitions against supporting those efforts. That attitude is arguably even necessary to a degree when the war’s purpose is one of conquest. Unfortunately the overarching purpose that the populace supports in Iraq isn’t its conquest but liberation, democratization, and creation of, if not gratitude, at least support of our claimed strategic objectives by those very people. The process of dehumanization of them that starts by use of the word “enemy” itself is directly in opposition to those goals. On the subject of grasp of reality: > [@Scylla](#): > > I think Al Qaeda and terrorism are very relevant to Iraq. Saddam is our declared enemy and it would be foolish to attempt to operate in the region with him a free threat. Saddam=enemy, AQ=enemy, ergo Saddam=friend of AQ? Is that it? Another **scyllogism**. Saddam and Osama mistrusted and even hated _each other_ as well. Saddam was not behind or involved with AQ or 9/11. Surely you know that. Even the Administration has acknowledged it. “Free threat”, you say, btw? Neither word is derived from fact. > [@](#): > > He gave money to suicide bombers’ families and applauded 9/11, so he was clearly aiding terrorists. Therefore so was/is the bulk of the Arab world. Are they all our enemies too? Well, to you, perhaps so. But that’s hardly a constructive attitude. > [@](#): > > He has in the past proven that he’s willing to take a gambit and invade an ally of ours if he thinks he can get away with it. So? In the world of reality, he couldn’t. That also says nothing about his alleged (by you) connection to terrorism. > [@](#): > > His denouement was long overdue, IMO Also not related to terrorism. Now try actually answering the point. > [@](#): > > and I think it is foolish and stupid to allow such enemies to continue to exist if you have an option. And look at what that option has turned out to be. You were concerned that Iraq had become “unstable” and a growing menace before, but look at it now. No, friend, what is “foolish and stupid” is to pick an even worse option - the one you’ve already been shown was the _worst-case hypothetical_ scenario under the previous strategy. What is even more “foolish and stupid” than that is to insist that the choice was correct no matter that the evidence all says the opposite. How’s that assessment of the status of your cherished Big Dog strategy coming? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2004, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343/435 "2004-12-13T19:59:59Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > They can’t succeed once if they don’t exist any more. Then let’s go get 'em. They’re in Afghanistan and Pakistan, right? So let’s go to Iraq, the light’s better. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > I don’t think the statement that our reaction to 9/11 created Bali and Madrid. Terrorism has existed for quite some time. Our reaction to 9/11 didn’t create Bali and Madrid, your man Bush’s deliberate inattention to the problem that even you acknowledge has existed for quite some time may well have contributed to the problem and certainly didn’t help eliminate it. That was the point, if you’ll notice. > [@](#): > > Those aren’t facts, Elvis, they’re your opinion, your asessment of the situation. It’s one I think is pretty obviously wrong. Which of the things I listed do you consider to be “obviously” wrong, and on what basis? Do you, in fact, have a “reality-based” argument left at all? ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2004, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343/436 "2004-12-13T20:07:28Z")
I’d wager OBL had a pretty good idea of how Bush would respond. Dance puppet dance! ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2004, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343/437 "2004-12-14T01:14:01Z")
In response to my thesis that many liberals like to attack conservatives personally rather than address their ideas, and that this is indicative that their ideas can’t compete **Xenophon** has called me a “turdmonger” or some such and reiterated his claim that I am genocidal. **Demostylus** has repeated his claim that I am a racist, **Hentor the Barbarian** has seconded him. **Mr. Svinlesha** opines that my conservatism is a necessary consequence of a domineering father, and I find myself defended by **elucidator** **Diogenes** and unless I’m mistaken, even **Elvislives!** Anyway. Svin: I did include the WMDs in the metaphor. That was the oven. I don’t really think Clinton is a nurturer, nor Bush the martinet, according to your thesis you are supposed to be a conservative, and you haven’t bothered to ask me about my Mom and Dad before you’ve decided to critique their performance as parents. They don’t fit your model either, but like how and when I choose to say “we,” it’s none of your business. Frankly, I have a lot of respect for you, and I’m surprised that you’ve taken the personal tact. I hope and ask that you’ll reconsider. Demostylus: I’m proud of that piece. Thank you for giving it more circulation. I think it’s aged well in the three years you’ve been trolling after me with it. You’ve also done a great job of proving my main thesis here about stupid and cowardly people choose personal attacks. If you’re smart and informed, you argue ideas and facts. If you’re stupid and ignorant you are left with attacking personalities as your sole source of contributions. Hentor: You too, seem to be following me around with that thing making accusations of racism. This time I see, you have done me the service of making an argument to back up and justify that accusation. You claim that at the end when I say words to the effect that “There was nothing in this man to look down upon. Nothing.” that this contradicts my denouncement of his racism. Of course, literature is free to interpretation, and you are free to interpret it that way. I wrote it. It must stand on its own. Few have chosen to interpret that as you have, but you have the right to make of it what you will. However, after two? three? years of making the accusation it occurs to me that maybe you could have simply asked me what I meant. There could be a crystal clear reason. In fact, there is one. It’s there in the story, but I would be happy to explain it to you if you ask. The fact that you haven’t suggests to me that you really don’t care. You just want to call me a racist. Maybe I have it all wrong though. Maybe it is just a misunderstanding. Maybe if I tell you you will change your mind. Maybe you will decide you misjudged me and apologize for saying I am a racist, and we can be cordial in friendly in the future. So, in that spirit, here is what I meant: “There is nothing to look down upon in the man. Nothing.” The orderlies look down upon him. They scorn him as if he is nothing, as if he is a worm, beneath them. As if he was small and dismissable. He may be worthy of hatred, but not contempt, not dismissal. You look down on someone because they are small, and inconsequential. He is neither of those things, even now. To me, the ones that look down on him with smug smiles are the ones that seem small and inconsequential. They don’t measure up to either his greatness, or his terribleness. There is nothing in the man to be dismissed, laughed at, or scorned. There is much in him to hate. You see, at the beginning of the story I look up to him. In the middle I look down upon him. The epiphany occurs at the beach when he shows his full measure, and I understand that while his failings are great so are his virtues, and that few people measure up in either respect. They are nothing, they do nothing. They feed their validation not by their own actions or beliefs but by how they regard others. It’s what makes them small and inconsequential. Kind of like what you are doing here. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2004, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343/438 "2004-12-14T02:15:26Z")
> [@](#): > > from **World Eater** : > > I’d wager OBL had a pretty good idea of how Bush would respond. > > Dance puppet dance! I first have to preface this by saying this is a bipartisan attack. I never loved or even liked Clinton, from the POV of his character. I thought he was amazingly good on economic matters, and still think so. On foreign policy, he was a mixed bag of extraordinarily good sometimes, and unbelievably stupid and expedient in other cases. Unfortunately, as it turns out, one of those other cases was OBL. Bush did no better, which is as strong an indictment of his leadership and competence as there is. From _Imperial Hubris_, written by a man ([Michael Scheuer](http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/multipage/documents/03949394.asp)) who at least had a lot more knowledge in this area than any of us, I’ll quote the following, and say that while I don’t have enough expertise to judge how much of it is true, it definitely has the ring of truth to it, and I’ll explain why after I quote it: > [@](#): > > Given these attacks, their increasing lethality, and the fact bin Laden and al Qaeda had been based in Afghanistan since May 1996, one would have expected the U.S. government to have had its military - if not since the 1998 East Africa attacks, then surely since the Aden strike - ready to respond immediately to the next al Qaeda attack, which anyone listening to bin Laden knew was a sure bet. Even if the Clinton administration’s sordid blend of moral cowardice and political calculation prevented America’s defense in late 2000, U.S. citizens and and al Qaeda’s leaders had to believe the worlds’ greatest military power would not let another anti-U.S. attack go quietly by the boards… > While the 11 September attack was a human-economic calamity, Washington’s failure to have its military ready for a crippling, next-day attack on al Qaeda turned it into a catastrophe. It cost America its best - perhaps only - chance to deliver what is called a “decapitation” operation, one with a chance to kill at a stroke many al Qaeda and Taleban leaders… > The best that could be done was Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld asking his planners for “credible military options” on 12 September - a stark underscoring of the bare cupboard - and getting a response on 21 September. Rumsfeld sent it back on 1 October for more detailed “target sets and force requirements,” and the plan did not get President Bush’s okay until 2 October. As a result, US military action was delayed a month. **“Only in America,” Professor R.K. Betts has written, "could the nation’s armed forces think of direct defense of national territory as a distraction."** Why do I find the above credible? From Cooperative Research, [this entry](http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=atlantic+city%2C+new+jersey&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=+Go+), on the 9/11 attacks, points out that my hometown paper had a very large bone to pick with the readiness of the US military on that day: > [@](#): > > \*\*(8:34 a.m.) Complete 911 Timeline \*\* > > Around this time, Boston flight control attempts to contact an Atlantic City, New Jersey air base, to send fighters after Flight 11. **For decades, the air base had two fighters on 24-hour alert status, but this changed in 1998 due to budget cutbacks.** The flight controllers don’t realize this, and apparently try in vain to reach anyone. It is known that at the time Flight 11 hits the WTC and possibly at this time, two F-16s from this base are practicing bombing runs over an empty stretch of the Pine Barrens near Atlantic City. They are only eight minutes away from New York City, but they aren’t alerted to the emerging crisis. Shortly after the second WTC crash at 9:03, the two F-16s are ordered to land and are refitted with air-to-air missiles, then sent aloft. But they relaunch over an hour after the second crash. They’re apparently sent to Washington and don’t reach it until almost 11:00 (see 10:42 a.m.). \*\*After 9/11, one newspaper questions why NORAD “left what seems to be a yawning gap in the midsection of its air defenses on the East Coast-a gap with New York City at the center.” [Bergen Record, 12/5/03, Independent Commission Report, 6/17/04] \*\* Had these two fighters been notified at 8:37 or before, they could have reached New York City before Flight 11. The point being, the military was still so wrapped up in its imperial overreach mode, and still is to this day, that defense of the lives and property of the actual citizens and actual territory of the U.S. is still demonstrably a second-order priority. If it were their first priority, Iraq would never have been invaded. If it were their first priority, no general would have stood for having U.S. forces, both military and intelligence, stripped from Afghanistan and Pakistan to be sent to Iraq. But it’s not their first priority. It isn’t, because the generals and those who aspire to become generals know that your career isn’t advanced by saving Manhattan island by doing something as silly as pointing out that you don’t leave the largest and richest city in the country unprotected by ending patrols over the city from the nearest base to it. Your career is, instead, advanced by attacking some godforsaken country on the other side of the planet with a decrepit military and a whacked-out dictator, easy pickings for a glory hound to advance up the military career ladder. We still haven’t advanced beyond this idiotic approach. As long as we let the generals and the commander-in-chief get away with this stupidity by defending the indefensible - invading Iraq - we never will. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2004, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343/439 "2004-12-14T08:17:24Z")
**Scylla** : You ignorant slut. > [@](#): > > _ **Mr. Svinlesha** opines that my conservatism is a necessary consequence of a domineering father, and I find myself defended by **elucidator** **Diogenes** and unless I’m mistaken, even **Elvislives!** _ **First:** I never opined that your ”conservatism is a necessary consequence of a domineering father.” In fact, I’ve specifically rejected the idea that one’s early family experiences directly determine one’s politics, except, as I wrote, possibly in some ”global” sense. **Second:** I also defended you against the charges of racism; in fact, I was the first person to reject **Desmo’s** characterization. Doesn’t that count? **Third:** I count one cheap shot against you, from which you were defended by four – four! – lefties. (And let us not forget, you and **elucidator** aren’t exactly best friends.) Of your own brothers in arms, only two, **Bricker** and **duffer** , rose to your defense. Even **Hentor** , after originally defending **Desmo** , conceded that he might have been reading too much into your story. I challenge you to find a single instance on these boards of four conservatives defending a leftie from an insult issued to him by another leftie. If your thesis is that lefties don’t have arguments in their favor, and thus tend to resort to personal insults, I would say that this instance pretty much falsifies your assertion. > [@](#): > > _I did include the WMDs in the metaphor. That was the oven._ You mean that in your analogy, when they went to renovate the kitchen they discovered the oven – the absolute central reason behind the renovation – wasn’t there? > [@](#): > > _I don’t really think Clinton is a nurturer, nor Bush the martinet…_ Well, I was just playing around a bit. I don’t want to stuff square pegs into round holes, but I saw some parallels there. > [@](#): > > _…according to your thesis you are supposed to be a conservative…_ Nope. > [@](#): > > _…and you haven’t bothered to ask me about my Mom and Dad before you’ve decided to critique their performance as parents._ I haven’t critiqued their performance as parents, god forbid! I know nothing of them! > [@](#): > > _They don’t fit your model either, but like how and when I choose to say “we,” it’s none of your business._ I concur, with regard to your parents. I think you must have misunderstood something I wrote. > [@](#): > > _Frankly, I have a lot of respect for you, and I’m surprised that you’ve taken the personal tact. I hope and ask that you’ll reconsider._ I’ve plenty of respect for you as well, but no respect for many of the boneheaded policies you promote. To repeat, _”Let me know when you’ve personally put your ass on the line **for these policies you seem to believe in** and I might actually develop at least a little respect for **your convictions.** ”_ Actually, I’m a bit disappointed. I thought my analysis of your ”metaphor” was one of my better attempts here. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2004, 8:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343/440 "2004-12-14T08:47:22Z")
Again, **Svin** , you’re swinging the bat, but missing the target. These demands from the pubbies that those on the left must defend the pubbies from (in my opinion, quite accurate) charges of racism, lying, bigotry, etc, coming from others on the left, are ridiculous. “We won’t take you seriously until you denounce Michael Moore!”, etc. You know full well that the pubbies won’t take you seriously, that it’s a never ending bait and switch. It ends with “We won’t take you seriously until you agree with everything we say!”. For instance, did it not occur to you that **Scylla** ’s thesis: > [@Scylla](#): > > In response to my thesis that many liberals like to attack conservatives personally rather than address their ideas, and that this is indicative that their ideas can’t compete…" has no legitimacy, by virtue of **Scylla** having preceded his thesis by calling those who disagree with him cowardly and stupid? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343.md?page=21) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343.md?page=23)