TCS Daily


By William S. Smith - October 19, 2007 12:00 AM

OSLO (SATIRENEWSERVICE) -- Responding to overwhelming pressure from every civilized person on earth with any semblance of intelligence, the Nobel Peace Prize Committee today announced that it had voted to terminate its charter. Just prior to the unanimous vote, the Committee voted to rescind numerous past prizes - including the 2007 prize to itinerant comedian and performance artist Albert Gore of the United States - and award those prizes and all future prizes to the United States military.

"This about face by the Nobel Peace Committee," stated former Committee Chairman and former leader of the Norwegian Labor Party, Trygve Andreesen, "came after hundreds of millions of civilized people sent e-mails, letters, telegrams, text messages, voicemails and carrier pigeon messages demanding that we stop giving awards to Islamic martyrdom supporters like Jimmy Carter, frauds like Rigoberto Menchu and corrupt mass-murderers like Yassir Arafat."

"We got the message," said Ola Oppigardem, Committee Secretary and former leader of the Norwegian Labor Party. "The Gore prize was what did it. We acknowledge that the warming of the Earth's surface is an important issue that deserves careful scientific study, but we didn't realize that Gore was an egocentric Luddite who specializes in creating hysteria and false science. Because we closely follow the consensus media for our news, those facts were simply not available to us. This outpouring of information from concerned people everywhere caused us to reappraise our entire reason for being. We discovered we had none."

Norway's King Harald, whose influence pushed the Nobel Committee to act, defended the Committee saying, "I truly don't believe they realized how frivolous and absurd they had become, how ridiculous, vapid, self-centered and dim-witted they appeared to intelligent people all over the world, how silly, provincial and uninformed they made the people of Norway look, how bizarre, counter-productive and downright dangerous some of their choices had been and how hackneyed and self-righteous their announcements sounded."

At the Gala reception honoring the termination and re-awarding of the prizes, Committee Spokesperson, Karim Bekkemellem, former leader of the Norwegian Labor Party, said of the new awards: "The decision regarding the U.S. military will come as no shock to any sentient person who has given any thought at all to the matter. After a careful review of the facts, the Committee has determined that the Nobel Peace Prize awards for 56 of the past 67 years should have been presented to the United States military rather than their original recipients."

The years for which the U.S. Military will be awarded the retroactivepeace prizes include 1942 through 1991 for its work in combating, containing and defeating communist, fascist, authoritarian, Islamic and generally racist and Manichean militarism throughout the world; in 1998 for its work in protecting Muslims in the Balkans from European facilitated genocide; and from 2000-2003 and 2005-2007 for its work protecting the civilized world from aggressive Islamo-Fascism. The Award for 2004 has been re-awarded to the Australian and U.S. Navies for their work in actually delivering real and timely aid to the victims of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami - "as opposed to simply making promises like most organizations and countries did," stated the press materials announcing the award.

The Committee also stated that it had awarded posthumously the 1936 through 1941 Nobel Peace Prizes to the late Sir Winston Churchill of the United Kingdom. The 1986-91 prizes will be shared by the U.S. military and the late U.S. President Ronald W. Reagan.

The United States military was unable to attend the lavish banquet due to previous, long-standing commitments and obligations elsewhere such as protecting civilization from genocidal madmen with mountains of oil money and an end-of-the-earth ideology. Two representatives accepted the Prizes on behalf of the U.S. military - former Senator Robert Dole (R-KS) and Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI).

"Well, we never really expected any sincere gratitude from these Europeans," said Senator Dole, who was wounded in Europe during World War II fighting Nazis. "It's kinda nice and Elizabeth and I, we're really, almost sort of honored to be here to accept the award for people who actually do real work for peace."

Added Senator Inouye who was also wounded defending Europe in World War II, "I always thought the peace prize was a bunch of crap given to whiney, self-aggrandizing, busybodies by a bunch of self-important, narcissistic gullible, retired, left-wing, Norwegian, gasbag politicos. These awards may cause me to consider thinking about possibly reassessing my opinion."

With regard to the future awards, the Committee issued the following statement: "In light of the Chinese, Russian, Iranian and North Korean threats, the threats of Islamic terrorists and their state-sponsors, and potential breakdown of states into warring tribal factions, the Nobel Peace Prize Committee believes that the U.S. Military will likely be the recipient of every Nobel Peace Prize for the next thirty to forty years. For that reason, the Committee has disbanded and placed its considerable financial resources into the hands of "the only institution capable of maintaining and enhancing the peace of the world."

In its final statement, the Committee stated that it specifically wished to rescind the Prizes of four political entrepreneurs: the 1972 prize awarded to Le Duc Tho, a leader in the "reeducation, prison-camp and refugee creation" business; the 1994 prize given to the late Yassir Arafat, a leader in the "corruption and violent mass murder" business; the Prize of 2002 awarded to James Earl Carter, a leader in the "egocentric dilettante serving the Saudi Arabian and other Arab regimes" business; and the 2007 prize awarded to Mr. Gore. The Committee stated that it specifically regretted these errors.



Dream on

Wishing is not enough
As has been demonstrated over and over and over and over again, the only way to maintain peace is to be stronger than those who do not want peace.
Those that are stronger must then also be limited by rule of law and morality.
Freedom is not free and neither is peace.

Leftists view peace as capitulation
How else could a education camp founder get a "peace" prize. The entire thing is absurd beyond comment.

Peace prize
Great article. I know they say Germans don't have a sense of humour, but I just can't figure out why this story is supposed to be satire. Another thing they could have mentioned was the the nobel committee felt so ashamed of nominating Chamberlain and Hitler in 1939. Sure, they didn't get it, but they were seriously nominated. As if Hitler was an altar boy till 1939.

Does TCS have a weekly prize?
Ok. This is getting ridiculous.

So, it's Friday and TCS sends up the mother of all fight-fest articles. Do the authors get paid by the number of obnoxious posts they're able to generate under the comment section?

Normally, any article that makes the most gentle mention of Global Warming, gets 50+ posts. All of them the back-and-forth, repeating-the-same-thing that you-just-said to-the-same-guy, but with more ugly mother jokes and capital letters thrown in. TCS gets a similar effect with articles about Iraq or Media Bias or nature vs. nurture.

But, this one is *really* over the top:
The US Military;
Al Gore;
The Nobel Prize;
Hindsight Bias;
Leftist View of Peace vs Rightist View of War;
Churchill AND Regan;
Media Echo Chambers;
Ad Hominem Attacks against a Strawman;
And even some ***** vs Saddam/AQI

What you couldn't throw something in about how liberals are secretly in love with their mothers?

Come on. You guys are having a laugh aren't you? You've got a pool on Lem, Roy, Paul and that dbt nut-job, and there's a lot of money at stake. Isn't there?

Well, I'm not biting. You just want to see how many angry posts you can generate. This is a huge troller of a weekend article, and it does nothing to advance TCS ideas.

How are we supposed to act as critical-listeners for each other when you've got everyone's blood in their ears?
You guys really need some adult supervision.

War is peace
A basic quality of the discourse around here is that to have peace, we must make war on the rest of the world so vehemently that no one even thinks of striking back at us.

This, of course, ignores ten thousand years of experience, in which war is invariably met with the determination of the people warred upon to even the score. And give back more war.

So I will humbly suggest that for so long as we continue acting out this odd philosophy, wars will always be with us. And that their character will be that of acts of terror and insurgency. It has been noted, and wisely, that war is the terror the strong inflict upon the weak... while terror is the war the weak wage against the strong.

My suggestion would be that the Peace Prize be reserved for individuals who find better ways to address the old issues of poverty, want, joblessness and resource destitution around the world. Only when people can feed their families and exist above the level of desperation, will they be too busy pulling down a salary to wage any more wars.

A highly enjoyable comment
Thanks, Quickie, for a breath of fresh air.

Readers often wonder why the editors so frequently throw fresh meat to the wolves. Some think it's to liven up the display so that greater crowds attend. And the site can charge more for its advertising.

Others lament the fact that TCS runs so many articles on the Dismal Science (Things are Looking Up in Forgettistan). Can't they see that these discourses on deeply boring financial trends generate no comment at all?

But my theory is that this site is secretly run by the Peace and Reconciliation Committee, as a boffer.

A boffer? You remember those. Psychoanalysts in the last century used to use these great styrofoam bats, for their patients with unresolved issues. In group sessions they could all get out their aggressions by batting one another upside the head. It defused tension, and no one got hurt.

So the Committee runs articles on all these divisive issues precisely because people will get furious... and take out their aggressions in harmless prose.

If they didn't, eventually we would have civil war in this country, with the peaceniks and urban elites revolting against the ditto heads and libertarians. Many would be injured in the resulting strife.

So actually, when you think about it, maybe TCS itself should get the next Peace Prize.

I appreciate the compliment. Since I have never commented to you I have no idea what posts you are pointing to.

Enlighten me.

Roy, since i am apparently a nut job please pre-disregard my comments.

However, nobody is advocating war. I have never advocated war. The advocation is the preparation for war so that is necessary, we can fight to win.

There is a difference. Iran for example will eventually strike out. Do we simply ignore this, as did France and the UK in 1939, or do we react to prevent a huge escalation? Had France and the UK stood up to Hitler when he entered the Sudeten WW2 might have been partially avoided, at least in Europe.

"advance TCS ideas."
Serious postings from all sides allow everyone to "see" what people are thinking.

It is not too difficult to discern the socialists and the classical liberals and those that are confused.

And it is not difficult to pick out those who do not understand the concept of debate.

QJ must think that the only reason why sites like this exist, is so that we can post here
The idea that the authors of these pieces might have ideas that they want to push is totally alien to self declared experts such as QJ and his cheering section roy.

liberals believe that they already know everything
so the idea of an area where people can discuss such things is incomprehensible to them.

liberals and intolerance
to a liberal, it's impossible that you disagree with them because you think their ideas are dumb. It's always because you are evil.

If you disagree about the wisdom of affirmative action, it's because you're a racist.

If you disagree about the wisdom of any "welfare" program (even one that includes families with income 400% over the poverty line) it's because you want children to starve.

If you disagree with a liberal about how to make peace, it's because you are in love with war, or because you seek to make money from it.

Liberals have so convinced themselves of their intelligence and self-righteousness, that they deny to everyone, the right to disagree with them.

You've forgotten a very importan trait
The underlying basis of contemporary or neo-liberalism is self-worhip. This is in contrast to the liberalism of Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy. These men were real heros, not the phony narcissist hucksters who call themselves "liberal" today.

And Now A Word From Our Former Publisher
"I never acknowledged that the warming of the Earth's surface was an important issue that deserves careful scientific study, Because we closely follow our sponsors media for our news, those facts were simply not available to us. "

"I truly don't believe I realized how frivolous and absurd TCS had become, how ridiculous,vapid, self-centered and dim-witted it appeared to intelligent people all over the world, how silly, provincial and uninformed they made us look, how bizarre, counter-productive and downright dangerous some of its choices had been and how hackneyed and self-righteous its announcements sounded.

So soon as I did, I sold it to the new management."

Invariable outcome of war?
Roy said:

"This, of course, ignores ten thousand years of experience, in which war is invariably met with the determination of the people warred upon to even the score. And give back more war."

I don't think that is "invariably" or even "usually" true. My reading of history persuades me that usually the victors are able to impose their will so totally that the losers have no more will or ability to fight.

That is, the outcome of most wars is not like the outcome of WWI, but of WWII.

Those defeated are now allies: German and Japan
And former allies are now enemies: Russia and China.

Paton and MacArthur were right.

Many would be injured in the resulting strife ...
and I'm willing to wager much that it would be the peaceniks and urban elites who would end up hurting the most.

Maybe it's time to refresh the Tree of Liberty. What say you, rb?

Like this is my life.
Yeah, he called me a nutjob so I guess I walked in his mud puddle once? They seem to think that this is our hobby. Being self employed I spend this as a little break during the day to change my thoughts.

It would be only too poetic! Too reasonable! Too real! Too responsible!


Well, if you're self-employed,
you're wicked and vile.

Just ask the Democrats.

Ah, if only we had generals like that back,
and allowed the military, instead of civilians, to run wars.

How Quaint...and Inadequate

No. Not Really.
I just read several of your posts by doing a quick Google of your nickname within the TCSdaily domain. It doesn't go back that far, but I got a good sample of your views.

Having read several, I don't think you're a nut-job. I had you confused with somebody else.

Now, Mark the Great? That guy's a nut-job.

Funny, there are lots that would think I am. However, I poke fun a lot at people which ultimately gets taken seriously and causes all sorts of animosity.

I think Mark does the same. Like poking a beehive with a stick.


Yes, I am wicked and vile. It does not seem to stop them from taking my money though.

Wrong response
If you haven't noticed, the comments are strung in outline form-- that is, the last comment is one indent from the one it's responding to.

So if you look up one comment from mine, you find it is one indent from QuickJason's comment, "Does TCS have a weekly prize?

If you read his first and then read mine, you can see one answers the other. Apparently the TCS notification program is having some problems. I see below there's a similar confusion between you and QJ.

Our need to strike first
All the messages are mixed up in this thread. I didn't, and don't, think you are a nut job. Maybe that was someone else.

You may think I'm one after I say the following, though.

Americans have never, ever thought they were for war. In their minds they're always the good guys. And so naturally, they're for peace. And when we march off to foreign lands to kill people, it's always because we're for peace. And it's those evil people over there-- they're for war. Those Vietnamese, for instance. They were bothering us.

That's why we went into Iraq, even though Saddam had neither the intention nor the capability of ever starting any trouble with us. He did, of course, remember how badly his armies crumpled the last time.

If we had stayed out there would have been no war. But we went in.

The result has been that as many Iraqis have died violent deaths in the past 4-1/2 years as died violent deaths during the entire 25 years Saddam was in power. In the name of "fighting Saddam", what we did in fact was to ruin a country of 25 million people-- all but one of them NOT Saddam.

But we're not the bad guys. We're not at fault. HE started it-- even though he actually did nothing to provoke us.

The same with Iran. Owing to the national insanity, you firmly believe that Iran is getting ready to start a war with us. So it follows that we must strike them first.

Naturally, Iran is watching all this and thinking that maybe they should better prepare themselves for the onslaught. And once we see them making preparations we'll be saying "See? SEE? Proof positive that they're making plans for a war."

The world would really be a whole lot better off without us, when we get like that. And eventually what's going to happen is that so many countries realize it that they'll start feeling like they have to band together to destroy us. So all this "pre-emptive" bellicosity is in fact very counter productive.

BTW Munich (the only historic lesson, apparently, many people have ever learned) had very little to do with the outbreak of WW Two. What made it happen was the Hitler-Stalin Pact. With an agreement in place to divvy up eastern Europe between the two powers, all of a sudden Germany only had one front to fight on-- the western one. Check the timing of events, back in August, 1939.

I am perfectly aware of the Anti-agresion pact. Regardless, if the western powers had made a move early on the war could have been averted. Remember, there will be peace in our time.

I also understand you isolationist position. Vietnam was part of the containment policy and the french were there for decades. I have to wonder though, maybe they would have been far better off if we had won? We didn't lose Vietnam because of the military battles. We lost because of the press. We can argue this all day.

As to Iran, they are going to cause problems regardless of what we do. They are nuts and I for one do not see a nuclear Iran as comforting of something to ignore. I can read his statements and I also think war could be avoided is the rest of the world cared but they would rather ignore this fact.

Feeding the shark hopeing it will eat them last?

As to Iraq, well I have often stated that there is more to this than we know but I have felt it was a mistake to go in. Regardless, we are there and not commited. I am not one for repeating the killing fields, something the left in this nation has never acknowledge guilt for.

Can one argue S. Korea is worse off for our intervention? I suspect you would have opposed it also.

As to Iraq

Perhaps one way to spread equality of resources is to help topple the corrupt governments that trample people?

How about Chavez?

It is interesting to note that those of us who consider ourselves conservative favor small government. Small government means less meddling both here and abroad.

See the result of a huge state? Mindless power controlled by no one.

How is Universal Health Care going to be any different?

You want people to move up? The solution is economic opportunity called capitalism.

invariable outcomes
Yes, otterman and here's some more examples; the Romans occupied Britain and France for hundreds of years and those conquered people never evened the score. The Caraginians never even the score either. The Germans and Japs never evened the score either. The Zulus didn't either after being beaten by the Brits, nor did the Sudanese after Lord Kitchener wiped out the Mahdi. When the Moghuls conquered India, the natives there didn't even any scores, and when the Brits in turn coquered them, nor did they. Nor the australian aboriginies, nor the Greeks after the fall of Constantinople. No more room for all the other examples.

Why doesn't the USA plan to attack Jordan or Egypt or Dubai or UAE or Qtar or the many other nations in the middle east and the world that can somehow get along with the USA and other free nations?

Adult supervision
"You guys really need some adult supervision."

That describes the Nobel Peace Prize committee pretty well. Sort of like the faculty member who keeps the high school clubs from doing anything *too* stupid.

Not a boffer, Roy. A clue-by-four.

It's interesting that you consider rational argument to be pathological in this age of demonstrations in the street, emotive displays, drama-queen scenes and the fabrication of fact to fit the narrative.

Might want to think that over. Slowly, Roy. Take it nice and slow. It takes time to get the hang of it.

And shewing his laurel, cry'd "Sic evitabile fulmen, you know"

"This, of course, ignores ten thousand years of experience, in which war is invariably met with the determination of the people warred upon to even the score. And give back more war."

Interesting. I haven't seen any armies besieging Strasbourg lately, nor have I read of any U-boat attacks on Scapa flow. For that matter, the question of Scottish Secession seems to be confined to the halls of the legislatures, rather than to the fields of war.

Invariable? I think not.

The Blind Sheik didn't mastermind a plot to blow up New York City's vital bridges and tunnels because he was out of a job. The Taliban are not busy destroying world cultural monuments and blowing up churches because they can't feed their families. And if resource destitution were the only thing that mattered, Japan would still be at war with everyone in sight.

No Subject
Putting the generals in charge would be a bad idea.

We need civilian government worthy of the best our military can be, and a military worthy of the best principles we hope to stand for.

Yes but Roy ignores these facts.
Living in the shadow of Vietnam, defeat is the only option.

Tired tactics
You may be missing some of the music, if you think what we're seeing here involves a lot of rational argument.

What I notice is that replies to my comments don't even address my point. They go off on some tangent or tirade that has nothing to do with it. I spend most of my time just trying to get my interlocutors to stay on the same page. Unsuccessfully, I will add.

The whole thing is that the usual sorts can't admit that I even have a point. If they acknowledged it, they'd have to either demolish it or end up agreeing with it. And, unable or unwilling to do either, they shift the subject.

As a debating technique, this leaves a lot to be desired.

I'll pass, thank you
I prefer the boffers. Too much blood has been shed already, in defense of property and privilege.


Sad but true. "Cluebats for moonbats" is a great temptation.

Of course, I don't often think your point stands up to examination ... but you deserve the courtesy of being fairly refuted on real evidence. I'll try to observe that courtesy (grin).

Historic events
The reason we lost Vietnam is that we were in the wrong.

The Viet Minh were in sole possession of the country at the close of WW Two. And in fact had been working against the Japanese in accord with our OSS. They were on our side, and admired our freedoms and democratic values as much as they did the ideals of French socialism.

It was America who treacherously allowed the French to reinvade-- and that after FDR had given Ho assurances that we would honor their struggle for independence . The reasons had nothing to do with the Vietnamese fight for self rule. By then they were just considered to be a geopolitical thorn in our side, according to the new doctrine that made them, in the minds of Truman and Acheson, Communists first and nationalists second.

This was just one instance, out of many after the close of WW Two, where the wishes of the people to enjoy self determination were thwarted by a combination of American and Soviet geopolitics.

The pattern was to be repeated in a dozen countries, like Iran, Guatemala, Indonesia and so forth. We were on the way toward global co-domination with the USSR, much as Hitler had been a generation before. And the troubles we are reaping now were sown then, back in the 1950s.

Korea I'm less upset over. There the Communists were the liberating army, much as they were in Greece and even, after a fashion, in France and Italy where they formed the resistance. But Kim looked to Stalin for assistance, and as soon as he had it he invaded the south. So, even though the south was being run at the time by hoodlums and thugs (the people we backed, like Syngman Rhee)Kim would have been even worse. And in fact that particular conflict did look a lot like a Soviet takeover.

This kind of thing may hold up for a century. But it will never hold indefinitely. To hold a country against the wishes of its people requires constant force. After a while the resulting hemorrhage of gold and blood drains the occupier and they lose out to history.

Tell me... how is the British Empire doing now?

We could instead have taken the role of an older brother. And when a young nation was trying to be born we could have assisted them. But in fact we decided long ago that the United States would be the only nation to enjoy self determination. Everyone else would have to be directed by us, so as to not get unmanagably difficult to control.

What is happening now is that we're our own worst enemy. Our belligerence has done nothing but alienate both Russia and China-- nations we would be much better off making friends with. Unsurprisingly, they are now making common cause with Iran. That's the way alliances work-- we are the greater enemy, and the more we menace them the more they must band together.

If Pakistan topples, we're going to be on the short end of the stick. Don't think for a minute I'm happy about all this. I wish we'd been that shining beacon on a hill that for a while the world thought we really were.

Author Response
Thanks to one and all, pro and con.

It seems that a few commenters miss the point, which was to critique the Nobel Peace Prize Committee (which has nothing to do with the Nobel Committee for the other prizes). In recent decades, the Committee, sadly for those of us who want western institutions to mean something positive, seems to have turned into an anti-American propaganda factory. If anyone can produce evidence to the contrary, I will happily retract this essay and apologize to the Committee forthwith.

One other point: while I am saddened by those who seem to think that satire is off limits -- I am happy and encouraged that even those who disagree can see the humor.

Bill Smith

Cartesian work out
Just giving your hyperbole a Cartesian work out, i.e. taking it to its logical conclusion. If wallowing in sloppy hyperbole offered for its emotional appeal is boffing, then the boffer is your favorite tool, rb.

"Anti-American propaganda factory?"
That is absolutely hilarious! Awarding the prize to a former American Vice Presdient who got more votes than anyone else in the 2000 Presidential election is an anti-American gesture??? That is just so wild! Or wait, I get it -- you're trying to tell us that any American not a conservative right wing true believer is anti-American. That at least one-third of the country is anti-AMerian, and the only real Americans are the Bush loyalists. Wow! You wannabe politial humorists, you really come up with some off the wall stuff!!! And the funniest thing is you can find some no-think Limbaugh dittoheads who think this is actually a penetrating poltiical comment instead of a silly partisan drop-your-pants audience moon.

Look to thy own house
You needn't look far, if you want to find examples of empty puffery, bloated sentences, circuitous reasoning and vapid bombast. If I could, I'd give you a copy of Strunk's Elements of Style. With your prose stripped of its superfluous, unenlightening adjectives and pointless dependent clauses, we might be able to see whether or not there is an actual core to your beliefs. And we could read you in a fraction of the time.

I will certainly admit to multiple commissions of wretched, nay odious, verbal excess on my own part. I'm just in here to commit acts of fun, and to offer vital information to the dodos that's been missing from their education. But I suspect you of taking yourself seriously.

I think he means that even though they're anti-american, at least they're left wing. Apparently Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, and Al Franken and Jane Fonda are also up for nominations in the near future. It will have to wait till they figure out how to give one to Che Guevara first.

The TCS Prize?
One of the TCS prizes after all goes to Ken Adelman, one of the cheerleaders of the war in Iraq (who has at least come to realize that this was a terrible error), who beknighted the current administration with the dubious distinction of having (I'm paraphrasing here) "the most incompetent foreign policy team" for so massively screwing up the Iraq war (amongst so many other things).

Also note, that this site no longer has a specific issue heading of "Military". I have a few friends on the general staff in the Army who are deeply worried about the readiness of our troops and the severely depleted condition of thier equipment (much of which is well worn out and in desparate need of overhaul, and will take years and many billions to get back into good shape).

Hence, since the ground-pounders are the ones who supposedly would be the peace-keepers in this fantasy Peace Prize, this is a very sick joke, which frankly isn't funny.

Anyone who reads the foreign press knows that the overwhelming international opinion (whether friend or foe) of the incumbant administration and our national resources can be summed up with one word: incompetence. Yet there are still bastions of folks that support these people and thier continued bumbling of our national/international affairs.

I can see it coming: President Hillary.

Great. Just great. And THAT will be funny!

Even better, I can hardly wait to see all the whining about how great things were during this current administration.


What a skeptic
"Of course, I don't often think your point stands up to examination"

What? You don't think TCS does mankind a valuable service, by keeping dangerous lunatics off the streets and glued to their magic screens? To me this is a valuable addition to the cause of world peace. What sorts of hob might they be up to, were they not so harmlessly employed?

BTW I accuse you of just making up a word. "Cluebat" is not a term I'm familiar with. Boffers, on the other hand, are a concept the world has been familiar with for many years. Here's a quick synopsis:

And here's the manual for their use:

Democracy in action
Your comment on "the faculty member who keeps the high school clubs from doing anything *too* stupid" reminded me of an incident back in the 1950s, when a high school civics teacher galvanized his class into believing that they lived in a participatory democracy, and that their actions (or inactions) would make a real, tangible difference in the quality of their lives.

Committed to this belief, members ran for and gained office in the Student Council. Once in power, they determined to use their powers to affect positive change in their student society.

So they approved a proposal that a student smoking area be created at the far corner of the school (high schools back then did not have designated smoking areas). And sent it on to the principal for approval.

Nuh uh. The Hidden Hand struck it down, ofering no explanation. Teaching the kids a valuable civics lesson about the real nature of their sham democracy. You can either work within the system, get co-opted by it and accomplish nothing. Or you can opt to work outside it, and be ignored or crushed. That is, if your idea is considered "too" stupid by the Powers That Be.

Wash your mouth out... we're winning!
Absolutely! Let's posit that there might be positive goals at stake in picking a fight with Islamist extremists. Can't anyone then allow himself to comment on the disastrous course this crusade has taken?

First, we alienate everyone in the Arab world, the Islamic world and the developing world by breaking the place up good and leaving it worse off than we found it-- in fact now a near-hopeless basket case with millions fleeing the shambles. Is it immaterial that we've offered the world a close up view of what happens when the United States forcibly "develops" a society and an economy? Iraq is our showplace for democracy.

Then next, we strategically destabilize a country so the swing vote goes to Shiite religionists, funded by Iran. It makes you realize that the USA is not the place where chess was invented.

For a sweetener, we bankrupt the next generation by putting the most expensive war in history on the tab... so the kids will have to start paying it down at the same moment when the Social Security and Medicare tabs are coming due.

And all this is being done to avenge the dastardly acts of nineteen radicals, now deceased. It makes so much sense as a national priority.

No wonder they've taken down the comments section for "The War".

TCS Daily Archives