Say Anything Blog

Suppose Bill Clinton had been the subject of the same juxtaposition with Hitler… my bet is he would not have received an award… it’s just a guess though!

Of course, there’s proof.  Lots of it.

I’d point to the fact Bush was assigned to a NG unit in AL for over a year, yet nobody (out of some 800 servicemen) can seem to remember serving with him.  There’s also the fact Bush signed an agreement with the NG to join a NG unit in MA in order to fulfill the remainder of his NG obligation.  He did not.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/08/bush_fell_short_on_duty_at_guard?mode=PF

Seth Yantiss asks the impossible, “yeah? You got proof?”

Seth, there is never any proof for stupid left wing claims.  You’re supposed to swallow the assertion whole even after refuting it fifty times to the same person.  After awhile you’ll realize that the person saying “Bush went AWOL” is simply an unredeemable jackass and move on. Even their party symbol is a jackass so it’s not like they try to hide it. It’s hard though...ignoring the blatent lies takes time at first, but it gets easier once you make it a habit to quickly pass over the couple of moron trolls we have at this site.  Just look at the commentator’s name first, and either read or pass over the drivel where appropiate.  Trust me, you’ll feel better.

yeah?  You got proof?

The comparison fails in one respect: Hitler served in the military and was a decorated soldier in WWI.  Bush went AWOL.

How about having that kid write a well-researched report on this topic, forcing him to analyze and back up his statements, before handing him an award for something that he most likely created based on television news media and his own imagination rather than actual events? I think 5 pages, single spaced, footnotes and bibliography will do it.

How about having that kid write a well-researched report on this topic, forcing him to analyze and back up his statements, before handing him an award for something that he most likely created based on television news media and his own imagination rather than actual events?

It was an art project, not a research project.  His art teacher asked him to express an idea, thought, or opinion in a 3-dimensional way.  We might not agree with his statement, but he followed all of the requirements of the project.

How in the world do you go about comparing Bush’s war policies to Hitler’s war policies without equating Bush to Hitler? Give me a break.

I think that’s pretty obvious.  You could say that Hitler’s charisma was similar to someone such as Al Sharpton.  Just because you point out a similarity, doesn’t make two things equal.

I could see where a Jewish person would be very offended by this artwork. The holocaust is simply too serious a matter to be bandied about like so many political poker chips.

He wasn’t talking about the holocaust.  He was talking about Hitler’s blitzkrieg war policies.  I don’t think many jewish people would be offened.  I’m of Jewish descent, of Jewish-German decesnt I might add, and I take no offense to it.

I don’t agree with the project or the judges, but why stress over it?  The judges thought his project expressed his statement better than anyone else’s.  And for all we know, it did.  Its their duty and right to pick which one they believe is best.  We don’t have to agree with it, but we have to accept it.

Well put, Gluskape.

The purpose of art is to elicit an emotion or a response; sometimes, art provokes.

I’d go for that too.  It’s a shame that they awarded him something for this when he’s not informed about the horrors that Hitler brought to the world.

I’d like to know what the criteria are for the Rhode Island Scholastic Art Awards.  I’d bet they have a lot more to do with ART than with validity of anything that inspired the art.  He was judged and awarded on his 3-D artistic expression of his “thought” and not on the rational for having the thought.

What’s unfair is dismissing a piece of art based solely on its subject matter.  If he had submitted the best piece of art in the whole show and given the worst rating because the judges were Republicans, that would have been plain wrong.

This is yet another example of how Bush and his supporters are trying to be Orwellian Thought Police.  If someone tries to reframe the debate in a way that makes the US appear less than saintly, they are immediately passed off as a phychotic hate-monger.

Oh come on man… We aren’t being Orwellian.  I’d like to see the rest of the entries.  The kid puts some cut outs on a shoe box, glues some toy soldier’s to the box and wins an award.  My point in my first post on this thread was that if he compared Hitler to Gandhi, would he still have won????  If he compared Hitler to JESUS… WOULD HE STILL HAVE WON???  I doubt it VERY VERY much!  If I am right, then it has less to do with the ART than the message!

This is yet another example of how Bush and his supporters are trying to be Orwellian Thought Police.

Oh give me a break.  The Bush administration had absolutely nothing to do with this art award.  The fact that I, as a Bush supporter, think that comparing the President to a genocidal dictator is facile has nothing to do with me being the “thought police.”

I didn’t say he couldn’t or shouldn’t have created the art, I just think its dumb and not worthy of being awarded.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

The purpose of art is to elicit an emotion or a response; sometimes, art provokes.

Well, right.  Art should be provoking.  But sometimes even provoking art is pretty stupid, especially when the point behind is as vapid as the point behind this hunk of crap.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Gluskape said, “I’d like to know what the criteria are for the Rhode Island Scholastic Art Awards. I’d bet they have a lot more to do with ART than with validity of anything that inspired the art. He was judged and awarded on his 3-D artistic expression of his ‘thought’ and not on the rational for having the thought.”

Right...yeahwhatever.  Say...have you seen this diarrhea? err..diorama?  It’s not good art.  I’d go so far as to say it’s a pretty damn pathetic attempt at “art” from a 17 year old, regardless of the vacuous message.  If I would have put up something similar back in high school (minus the vacuous message), it would have most likely earned me a grade D.  My former high school art teacher had standards that required art above the intellect and skill of a six year old.

This is yet another example of how Bush and his supporters are trying to be Orwellian Thought Police.

Egh...you have a lot of nerve saying that on this board.  By the way, since you brought him up, what has Bush said about this?

If someone tries to reframe the debate in a way that makes the US appear less than saintly, they are immediately passed off as a phychotic hate-monger.

“Less than saintly”?  Casting the net kind of wide there, aren’t you?  I think you’re projecting what you want here in order to make your point.

Egh…you have a lot of nerve saying that on this board.

I hadn’t even thought of that, but likwid’s got a point.  I take a lot of criticism (and abuse) from commenters here, yet I’ve never deleted a comment (aside from a few blatantly racist and/or hateful comments).  To suggest that I’m part of some sort of “thought police” is just plain insulting.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I think that drawing a comparison between ANYONE and Hitler is repugnant and wrong.

Do keep in mind this is a PUBLIC school and they likely had only two entries into the contest.  So one got the Gold Key and one got the Silver Key.

So that means that it is very likely this Bush-Hitler “art” was in LAST place, and being a bunch of self-esteem raising liberals, the judges just HAD to award the Silver Key rather than say “sorry your work wasn’t good enough”.

In any case the real problem here is the twisted and demented thinking of the officials that made the award.

Gluskape says, “Well now, there have been many postings and comments (mostly comments, I’ll give you that) on this board that have demonized people for either pointing out the truth or trying to get people to think about the truth. Professors Fontan and Churchill come immediately to mind.”

Sorry, but you’ve already lost me.  Maybe you can point out the “truth” that Professor Churchill is trying to get people to think about.  I believe he has gotten people to think about the truth, just not Churchill’s version of the “truth”.

When issues are brought up in our country that go counter to Bush’s often twisted version of reality, thinking people are painted as unpatriotic, unAmerican, supporters of terrorism, and other obsurdities, simply to clog the ears of anyone who might potentially be open to real discussion on the state of our world.

So you say.

Just because there is some kind of hatred among conservatives for anything and everything progressive does not mean that everything said against the status quo is somehow invalid or unworthy of consideration much less a vaild response.

You mean regressive.  As for the status quo comment, it seems like the left is for keeping and strenghtening the status quo.  In effect, they’ve become the conservatives and we’ve (Rob, Seth, me and others) become the liberals.

When people make statements against the way our country is being run — even if its something as stupid as comparing Bush to Hitler, it would be much more effective for conservatist causes to make arguments to the contrary and win support through reason.

Did you read what Rob had wrote? Granted, he didn’t go in depth about the subject, but he did make an argument to the contrary. I’d also add that sometimes - an idiot is an idiot and no amount of reason will convince.

Name-calling and demonizing make moderates like me wonder even more about what’s really behind these kinds of issues.

What are you “moderate” about?  Moderately socialist?  Take this story for example.  Some 17 year old kid closely compares Bush to Hitler, conservatives point out the ludicrousness of that, and you say that, “This is yet another example of how Bush and his supporters are trying to be Orwellian Thought Police.”?  What a “moderate” you are!

Clouding up your true motives leaves people to fill in these blanks with their own ideas. Why would you want that?

I have no idea what the hell you’re talking about here.  But I know if I question or criticize your statements, I’m the “Orwellian Thought Police” so I’ll just leave it at that.

Egh…you have a lot of nerve saying that on this board.

Well now, there have been many postings and comments (mostly comments, I’ll give you that) on this board that have demonized people for either pointing out the truth or trying to get people to think about the truth.  Professors Fontan and Churchill come immediately to mind.  When issues are brought up in our country that go counter to Bush’s often twisted version of reality, thinking people are painted as unpatriotic, unAmerican, supporters of terrorism, and other obsurdities, simply to clog the ears of anyone who might potentially be open to real discussion on the state of our world. 

Just because there is some kind of hatred among conservatives for anything and everything progressive does not mean that everything said against the status quo is somehow invalid or unworthy of consideration much less a vaild response.  When people make statements against the way our country is being run—even if its something as stupid as comparing Bush to Hitler, it would be much more effective for conservatist causes to make arguments to the contrary and win support through reason.  Name-calling and demonizing make moderates like me wonder even more about what’s really behind these kinds of issues.  Clouding up your true motives leaves people to fill in these blanks with their own ideas.  Why would you want that?

As for the status quo comment, it seems like the left is for keeping and strenghtening the status quo. In effect, they’ve become the conservatives and we’ve (Rob, Seth, me and others) become the liberals.

You’d better explain this.  How in the world can you guys claim to be liberals on American foreign policy?  Bush’s folks want to place all the blame for our troubles on people who hate us because we’re so sexy and have freedom and cool jeans.  This kind of status quo thinking that needs to be reexamined in a BIG way.

Some 17 year old kid closely compares Bush to Hitler, conservatives point out the ludicrousness of that, and you say that, “This is yet another example of how Bush and his supporters are trying to be Orwellian Thought Police.�? What a “moderate� you are!

Pointing out the ludicrousness of comparing Bush to Hitler is one thing.  And I happen to agree with you on that.  If you want to tell the kid he better do more research before he makes any further ignorant statements, that’s fine too. But don’t define what makes good art based on its subject matter.  And don’t just assume that it got an award simply because the judges must have been communist.

I am a moderate because I am open to what most anyone has to say.  I’m honest in admitting that I don’t know everything and that maybe there are people out there with points of view I had not previously considered.  I’m not attached to a specific ideology or party or whatever whose deficiencies I have to constantly explain.  I admit when the guy I support one day does something stupid the next day and feel no need to cover it up or spin the facts or divert attention by throwing mud at the opposition.  I agree with a lot of what our president says, but I disagree with a lot of what he does.  And I’m proud to vote mixed tickets most of the time.

Gluskape says, “But don’t define what makes good art based on its subject matter.”

I’d agree. Don’t know why you felt the need to repeat yourself though.  You’ve already said this.

And don’t just assume that it got an award simply because the judges must have been communist.

Hmm.. I hadn’t thought of that.  Thanks for pointing it out.  His award makes sense in this light.

You’d better explain this. How in the world can you guys claim to be liberals on American foreign policy?

Huh?! Liberal.  “Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress”.  Clear?

Bush’s folks want to place all the blame for our troubles on people who hate us because we’re so sexy and have freedom and cool jeans. This kind of status quo thinking that needs to be reexamined in a BIG way.

You’d better explain this.

Your definition of liberal is accurate.  At least we agree on terminology.  I’d really like to know how you and our president favor proposals for reform and are open to new ideas for progress when it comes to American foreign relations.  To me this would mean rethinking why we continue support Israel so much, getting our priorities straight when it comes to making money on oil at the cost of human life and dignity, and stop making arrogant statements calling the leaders of other countries “evil tyrants” and then wondering why they continue to build up nuclear arsonals. 
I’m sure Bush is thinking about these things.  He’s a smart guy.  But nothing he has said or done, has shown to me that he really cares about fixing the problems we have caused ourselves.  None of his “they hate us because ____” statements point to the real heart of the matter--that we did something at some point to cause them grief and suffering.  “They” being Muslims, Arabs, Palestinians, Iranians, North Koreans, the French, or whoever else fits the statement.

What I find interesting is the comment from Paul Lewis who said “It’s offensive to meâ€?  Have we really fallen so low that we begin to use the tools of censorship employed by the left?  The “I’m offended!” routine is nothing less than an attempt to silence a point of view the person protesting disagrees with.  Now they may have valid reasons for disagreement, but if so those reasons should be stated and the case judged on its merits.  Trying to cow someone into silence lest they hurt your feelings is the ploy of a coward and a hypocrite.  A non-hypocrite would state their case.  Only someone who knows the facts don’t support their stance resorts to emotional appeals.

The burden of living in a free society is that you will see and hear things you don’t like, things that you are vehemently against, things that anger you and shock you and make you question the mental health of the person they originate from.  Freedom and liberty require sacrifice.  Having freedom of speech means sacrificing any claim to a right not to be offended.  You can either have the right to free speech, or the right not to be offended.  You can’t have both.

What really gets me is how many people just don’t understand this.  I’ve had to explain this to more than a few people, some of whom got upset because they didn’t agree with me.  What it boiled down to is that they truly believed that freedom of speech meant that one was free to express anything that didn’t upset anyone.  All I can say is that it is a statistical reality that 50% of the population is of below average intelligence, and these people offered anecdotal evidence to that. 

This students little art project may be without merit, but don’t start in on how it is offensive.  That argument just doesn’t hold water because it is an entirely subjective evaluation.  Anyone can claim to be offended by anything at all and proving them a liar is difficult at best.  If you can’t discredit someone based on the facts, then either you don’t know enough about the facts to even have an informed opinion, or you’re just plain wrong. 

Obviously in this case the attempt to draw similarities between Bush and Hitler is a dishonest one at best.  Bush is a decent, honest, and sane man who is working to protect his people and lead those oppressed by Hussein and the taliban to freedom.  Hitler was an evil and disturbed man who led his people into a war of conquest and oversaw the mass murder of millions of innocent people.  Comparing one to the other for any purpose other than describing how they are fundamentally different is dishonest if not proof that the speaker is profoundly deluded.  A much better man to compare Hitler to is Stalin, one time hero of the new left, whose death camps murdered even more people, even more jews, than Hitler’s did.  Many of those who didn’t die in the camps starved because there was nothing to eat.  Food production had been destroyed in the name of insane ideology.  Stalin made the soviet union into hell on earth, and I’m sure there is a special place in the real hell just for him. 

George W Bush’s place in history is still uncertain.  But even at his worst he is still a fundamentally honest and decent man, something that Hitler and Stalin never even came anywhere close to being.  Bush may not be an angel, but Stalin and Hitler were most certainly devils in human form, if such a thing is possible.

Gluskape says, “I’d really like to know how you and our president favor proposals for reform and are open to new ideas for progress when it comes to American foreign relations.”

Check out the restructuring of power in the Middle East for starters.

...getting our priorities straight when it comes to making money on oil at the cost of human life and dignity...

Explain this comment.

...and stop making arrogant statements calling the leaders of other countries “evil tyrants� and then wondering why they continue to build up nuclear arsonals.

Shall we call these evil tyrants little princesses instead?

But nothing he has said or done, has shown to me that he really cares about fixing the problems we have caused ourselves.

You should probably explain what you mean here as well.

None of his “they hate us because ____� statements point to the real heart of the matter–that we did something at some point to cause them grief and suffering. “They� being Muslims, Arabs, Palestinians, Iranians, North Koreans, the French, or whoever else fits the statement.

Blame America.  Nice scapegoating.  Let’s run through your list.

Muslims - very large contingent of radical believers who want your head on a platter.  They brought their problems upon themselves.

Arabs - I don’t know why you brought up a race of people.

Palestinians - very large contingent of radical people who want your head on a platter.  They brought their problems upon themselves.  They are largely driven by people who don’t want a “Palestinian state” sitting side by side peacefully with Israel, but would rather see Israel driven into the sea.

Iranians - government run by a very large contingent of radical people who want your head on a platter.  If you don’t think the Iranian government is part of the axis of evil, then I suggest you lack some fundamental morals.

North Korea - run by a maniac dictator who wants your head on a platter.  His hard line communist ways have impoverished his country and he is a serious threat to all of his neighbors.  His country is the reason for the most heavily fortified area in the world.

The French - they’re just impotent jackasses.  They make a lot of noise and jump up and down like spoiled children.  Even then it’s maybe half of the population we’re talking about.

I’d work on that assumption that America “did something at some point to cause them grief and suffering”.

Listen, you think I’m trying to make America out to be the “bad guys”? I’m certainly not.  I also don’t deny that the leaders of Iran and North Korea and the former leader of Iraq are terrible, horrible, people.

The point I’m trying to make here, is that politics is politics.  Although we never INTEND to hurt anyone, there are always people who lose out in one way or another when we take action or make statments.  Those who do lose out, sometimes get pretty ticked off and decide they want our “heads on a platter.” I don’t know why you refuse to acknowledge this.

Muslims/Arabs - (These groups are often refered to collectively by the jihadists themselves who hav claimed the US is at war with “all Arabs” and/or “all Muslims.")
1) We participated in the foundation and, more importantly, continue to support and stand behind the state of Israel, which they view as anti-Muslim; 2) We put our nose in their business (as they see it) during the Iran-Iraq war; 3) We convinced the Afganis to go to war with the USSR for their independance and then did very little to help them out; 4) The Iran hostage crisis didn’t make them love us either.
Result:  They hate us and “want our heads on a platter.”

Palestinians - They may have created much of the mess themselves through hatred and terrorism, yes.  But, when the Israeli military gets over-excessive in their retaliations and performs their own versions of terrorism, the US has often said little about it.  We want to remain friends with Israel and can’t be to harsh with them.  This, to many, can be seen as a double standard.

Iran and North Korea - Yes, absolutely, sickening.  Tyranical leaders. I couldn’t agree more.  They already don’t want to be our buddies because we have a history of unseating such leaders. We had a war on Communism a while back and have been on a crusade to spread democracy throughout the world, which those leaders DONT WANT. 
And then president Bush made his bold statement including them on an Axis of Evil hit-list (which again I don’t have too many problems with).  But, how do you think they were supposed to react?  “Oh, gosh, nice of you to notice....?” NO.  They hate us even more now and really “want our heads on a platter.”

French - I can’t argue with you again as to why many Americans don’t like them.  I was personally treated very poorly myself while visiting their country.  But, you know, most of them know English and can read and hear what we say about them.  Do you think they appreciate it?

I think some REAL “liberal” ideas for progress and peace in the world would include coming to terms with the list above and at least admitting, “Oops, we didn’t mean for that to happen.  What can we do to make amends?” before things get even more out of hand.  Ignoring the unintendend spillover of our doings or telling those who got hurt to quit being babies is not the way to make friends in this world of ours.

All in all good points Gluskape.  I do take issue with one point however.

I think some REAL “liberal� ideas for progress and peace in the world would include coming to terms with the list above and at least admitting, “Oops, we didn’t mean for that to happen. What can we do to make amends?�

We’re doing this right now.  We turned our backs on Saddam for a long time.  We’ve corrected that oversight.  We had become complacent in what happened in the Middle East.  We’ve corrected that oversight and are now forcing the hands of some of the evil nations there.  (And note that when I say evil nations; I’m largely talking about the dictorial regimes that reign supreme there, not the general populace.)

something to think about…