« site news | Main | Bitchslap Ted Rall Day is Back! »

Worth Defending

Allah pointed me to this post over at Blogcritics by Mike Larkin. I'm not sure whether to thank him or curse him. I'll just quote the entire post here, as it's relatively short:
The society the GOP wants to create is not a society worth defending against terrorism. Since Bush will probably get re-elected, this means that the United States will shortly become a society not worth defending against terrorism. Under Bush II, we will witness savage tax increases and spending cuts to stanch the deficit. Privatized Social Security will impoverish the lower classes. The military will continue to grow beyond society's ability to pay for it. Religious extremists will reign. The impoverished bottom fifth of the population will be left to fend for itself while elites continue to loot the state. Republicans, in solid control of all three branches of government, will be free to impose their secretive agenda without regard to public opposition. The republic will essentially be liquidated. And so I say that on November 3, 2004, the United States will most likely cease to be a society worth defending against terrorism. On that day, for me, it's going to be pencils down.
Please, allow me to respond. Dear Mike, Are you implying that, if Bush should win the election, we should just pull back, dismantle every cabinet and organization devoted to stopping terrorism and wait for the bombs to fall and biochemical warfare to begin? Perhaps your brain is clouded by bad judgment and you are not seeing the future clearly. While another four years of Bush may not be your ideal world, it is certainly far from the gloom, doom and apocalyptic scenario you set before us. The world will not end. However, if more people had the same attitude as you, the world probably would end. If everyone just gave up and decided to the let the terrorists do what they want, it would be the beginning of the demise of civilization. Billions would perish because your tin foil hat was screwed on too tight. Not worth defending? Are you really that self-centered and egotistical that you think we should shut down our defenses because you don't like Republicans? This country is certainly worth defending and to say anything different is repugnant. Even people I know who are so far left they make Chomsky look like Ann Coulter would never say a thing like that. Hate the country, hate the president, hate the laws. But to say that everything in the United States is not worth the fight is ignorant, foolhardy and must come from the mind of a petty, bitter, selfish man. So, when November 3rd comes around and your choice doesn't get the nod, are you going to openly support the terrorists? Or are you just going to drink the rest of that Kool-Aid and keel over? Go ahead, drink it. You're a complete disgrace to humanity, anyhow. I'll keep on supporting the war on terror even if it means protecting your thankless ass. [After I wrote this I saw that Mike had replied in the comments on Blogcritics] bq. Glum? I'm living large, baby. If I'm not living in Canada by November 3, 2004, I'll be kicking back, knowing I don't have to lift a finger to support the war on terror. Free at last, free at last... To which I replied: Why wait til November, Mike? Why don't you go now? Write me in a bit and let me know how that socialized medicine thing is working out for you, k? He doesn't want to support the war on terror, but the jackass doesn't realize that even in Candada, he is being kept safe by that same war.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Worth Defending:

» 110% News and News Byproducts! from Who Tends the Fires
Curmudgeonly & Skeptical notes a few odd incidents in When 'Progressives' are in charge ... [Link via Spoons By the way: Spoons is getting married - congrats, Spoons.] Interesting. Michele on "A society not worth defending" as defined by some... [Read More]


What Mikey fails to realize, if he goes to Canada, who does he think will protect his free little ass if the USA falls to terrorism?

Hope he is practicing bowing to Mecca five times a day...

Mike suffers from Bush Derangement Syndrome, coined by Charles Krauthammer.

From the premise of "Bush is criminal and/or stupid," all else follows. They buy into that premise with such depth of hatred, they can rationalize anything from that starting point.

O/T -- Michele, the error is STARKSY, instead of STARSKY!

Mikey is a sad little man. I'm assuming that he'll take his promise to leave the country about as seriously as did Alec Baldwin and Robert Altman. too bad, we'd be better off without them.

Mike synopsized: "BUSH blah blah blah MY ENTITLEMENTS blah blah blah RELIGIOUS FUNDIES AWK!AWK!AWK! blah blah blah..."

Yawn. A sphincter said what?

I was going to say "Move to Canada", but Mike himself already beat me to it.

I've always wondered why more people don't move to Canada. I think a few thousand do each year, but it's mostly the other way around by a large margin. This is not an intolerant love-it-or-leave-it thing, I'm actually curious. If there was a reasonably prosperous liberterian country just a few hundred miles away I'd have packed up years ago. So if America is so horrible and frustrating why stay when you have options?

As for Mike, he won't move. He'll just stay here and bitch after November.

"The sky is falling...The sky is falling" Chicken Little

"George W. Bush, Osama bin Laden, meh, what's the difference?" Asshat.

What's with this second-termitis? What would fundamentally change that would make America any less worthwhile on November 3 than it is now should Bush be re-elected? He's already president, ya know.

Some people have clearly grown pretty deranged in the last three years. And they wonder why I seem to have moved rightward relative to them.

Send that fella over to Little Green Footballs to post that stuff and watch them rip him to shreds!
He should just get out now, please!

Michele, forgive me. I flushed and I flushed, but Larkin just wouldn't go down.

From what I've been told, it's extremely difficult to move to Canada. You have to have a job when you go, and they don't really like letting Americans in. That comes from a girl from Vancouver I went to school with.

As far as mike's assertions, I'm a bit puzzled by this one:
Privatized Social Security will impoverish the lower classes.
Unless I missed something, the "lower classes" are already impoverished, else they wouldn't be lower classes. And I'm not sure exactly how privatized social security would achieve that objective, anyway.

Seems if you really wanted to impoverish the lower classes, you would take away any government spending for education, job retraining, etc., etc.

Oh, wait. Bush has increased spending on education!

Selfish Canadians. They want to keep all that ice and snow to themselves.

"Unless I missed something, the "lower classes" are already impoverished, else they wouldn't be lower classes."

Damn. Just once I want to be the first to think of a line like that.

I agree that another Bush term will bring a whole lot of additional bad things, likely including more unjustified wars that will surely make our allies hate us more and probably more threats to our civil liberties from him and his far-right buddies -- none of it curbed by the need to get re-elected later. But that doesn't mean that it's not worth it to keep our borders tightly guarded and defend our territory.

Hell, he's practically throwing in the towel already -- if you don't want this awful vision of America to possibly become reality, then why not donate to the Kerry campaign, or organize a protest, or something? Don't just complain like it's a foregone conclusion.

Oh, Canada held a vote. I was designated a spokesman for all 30 million of us to deliver this message to Mike,

Dear Mike

We don't want you anywhere near the border let alone inside our country. We learned our lesson after taking all of the Vietnam draft-dodgers. They all became professors in Canadian universities. Consequently, our children are now dreadfully soft-headed.

Should you approach a Canada Customs border point, you shall be shot on sight. Perhaps you should look into Mexico.

We apologize for any inconvenience,

The People of Canada

Okay, lemme get this right...this Mike character? He's an adult? Collecting a paycheck? Or is he some strain of trust fund baby? Because he is obviously removed from reality on the primary level.

I'm one of those dreading another four years of Bush, but I have a little more faith in this country than Mike. As much as I dislike the current administrations policies I like to think that we, as a people, have a little more substance than Mike is giving us credit for.

It's going to take more than eight years to dismantle better than two hundred years of tradition and law. It ain't gonna be pretty, but we'll survive and who knows, the world may get a little safer somewhere along the line.

Myself, I think we'd all be a better off if both sides of the aisle dropped the hyperbole and rhetoric and allowed the system to work. We're pretty good at separating the wheat from the chaff if given half a chance.

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned the "we will witness savage tax increases and spending cuts to stanch the deficit" part. So that makes us "a society not worth defending against terrorism"? WTF? (Plus, I think he forgot to mention how Bush will set off nukes in the US to impose martial law and cancel elections and declare himself Emperor and spend billions on a giant space station.)

Dorkafork, I was going to mention that -- except I would have said "we will witness savage tax cuts and spending increases to leading to a deficit that will eventually plunge us into a depression rivaling that of Hoover's," -- but that's just me.


Back in Hoover's day, there was a recession. In fear of deficits, Hoover raised taxes.

The economy got worse. Today we call it The Great Depression.

Moral: tax cuts don't make the economy worse, and tax hikes don't make it better.

(Dang, if the Dembos are preaching Hooverism (in the guise of avoiding Hooverism, no less!), this election is already over and Dubya might as well hold his Inaugural this Thursday.)

Kerry's probably going to win. So we'll get to keep Mike in the country after all. Which I'm sure we're all relieved to hear.

If I'm not living in Canada by November 3, 2004, I'll be kicking back, knowing I don't have to lift a finger to support the war on terror. Free at last, free at last...

It's amazing how far the "it's cool to be completely disloyal to your own people" thing has gotten.

The absoluteness of the disloyalty reminds me of a woman who went to Iraq to be a human shield. When she was asked what she thought about Saddam's oppression of his own people she replied that that sort of thing didn't bother her. In other words she had no moral scruples at all, she just wanted to be maximally disloyal...

Too the word "traitor" is obsolete now that disloyalty is considered an absolute virtue.

I meant to write too bad the word "traitor" is obsolete...

I'm a libby myself, but you know, this sort of loyalty (in theory anyway) is about protecting the lives of your loved ones...

However it's obvious that Mikey had never protected anyone from anything (so there's no loss), and who would be surprised if he had no loved ones?

"a society not worth defending against terrorism"

good grief. I can't even wrap my head around this guy's sentiment.

even if the economy goes to hell, even if by some bizarre circumstance the Patriot Act is extended further, there's still worth defending. (and NO, I do not agree with what the moonbat is saying, I'm reluctantly in favor of Bush because I think the other two options [if Nader is an option at all] are worse).

I think this guy has no grasp at all on reality. If he thinks America is so bad, he's welcome to go to France, or North Korea, or one of the many fine banana republics found 'round the world, and look at how the citizenry is treated there.

Perhaps that's the ticket for moonbats: compulsory world travel to the armpits of the globe. Those that realize the error of their ways will come back, thankful, to the country they dissed. Those that don't, well, they're welcome to stay whereever will take them.

Those that realize the error of their ways

In my experience, this would be a small percentage. Most people aren't very good at interpreting their observation. Most people who travel just become even more smug, having convinced themselves that they've confirmed all of their preconceptions.

Free at last, Mikey?

Mikey doesn't seem understand that when the US becomes the Emperor George's imperial domain, that he'd be wanting to expand his empire. The Canadian military is so weak that they're closing bases. We could be sitting in their major cities in two weeks.

I suggest he emigrate to France. He'd be happy there.

Imperial Keeper

Some people think "religious extremism" means saying "Bless you" after a sneeze instead of gehzunteit (sp).

Ohhh, make our allies more angry at us.

The only thing 9/11 did was show how deep it was.

The only difference is now it's out in the open and w/the internet, and some Americans in spirit, we can read in English what they've been saying and writing for decades.

Someone once wrote that it was the frogs who coined the word "Americanization" after the Civil War. Haven't checked out the origin of the word myself, but it wouldn't surprise me.

There are lots of things on which to comment in Mike's writings. I thought I'd tackle one that hasn't received a lot of comment, and is a favorite of mine: the charge that the Republicans are in thrall to a group of "religious extremists"; closely allied is the charge frequently made by some Senators that the Republicans want to appoint judges, etc., who are "out of the mainstream."

The Republicans ARE the mainstream. Twenty-eight state governors are Republicans, including the governors of California, Texas, New York, and Florida (in order, the four most populous states). Republicans hold a 225 - 208 majority (one seat is vacant and one held by an independent, I think) in the House of Representatives, and have held a majority for ten years come the end of this term. Come the end of this term, Republicans will have held a majority in the Senate for eight of the past ten years; Democrats held a majority in 2001 and 2002 because a) Paul Coverdell died, and was replaced by appointed Democrat Zell Miller, and b) Jim Jeffords switched parties. Come January, Republicans will have occupied the White House for sixteen of the past twenty-four years. If the President is re-elected, it will be twenty years out of twenty-eight, barring some catastrophe.

Tell me you disagree with the President and his party if you like, but "extremists" and parties "out of the mainstream" don't continue winning elections like that. It's almost a matter of definition.

Jim: Ah, but you're using "mainstream" in some sort of sensible way related to the beliefs and attitudes of Americans as a whole.

The correct use of "mainstream" is "whatever the Right People in LA, SF, and NYC" think, roughly. All makes sense now, doesn't it?


Sure does. Don't know how I forgot, given that I'm sitting thirty-five miles from SF as I type this.

Oddly, the partial privatisation of social secrity would do much to lift the underclass. Let's look at it. Who dies youngest? Men in the underclass. Who lives longest? Middle and upper class women.
What happens to the money that the men paid into the system when they die young? It's kept by the SS system to give to those long lived folks.
What would happen to the money those younger men paid into the system when they die young if Social Security were partially or fully privatised? Their heirs would get it. They could buy homes. Their kids could go to college. They would have that lump sum, to lift themselves out of poverty or they could blow it. At the least, the poor would have options. According to Mikey, that's a bad thing.
Mikey wants desperately to give the money of poor folks to already wealthy folks. He'll never admit it though.
I don't care what the Dems SAY. I watch what they do. What they do isn't a damned bit different than when the KKK was one of the Dem's most important voting blocs.
Generations of Dems have come and gone. The one thing that is unchanged is their desire to keep poor folks poor and angry. They have to. They have nothing else.