Lots of people complained that throwing shoes at the president was an act of violence, and therefore beyond the pale of what should be allowed. I think they’re wrong, that it’s a harmless expression of naked contempt, and that there ought to be more contempt expressed towards this president, but let’s compromise. No throwing shoes. How about politely handing them to him?
The Rude Pundit had a brilliant and obvious idea.
This morning, the Rude Pundit decided to honor the efforts of Muntader al-Zaidi, the Iraqi shoe-tosser, by taking out a raggedy old pair of sneakers, putting them in a Priority Mail shipping box, helpfully provided by the United States Post Office, and shipping them to President George W. Bush at the White House. He included a note that read, “This is a farewell kiss from the American people, you dog.”
Since throwing objects at the president is generally considered a crime, the Rude Pundit figures sending shoes to Bush is a small, good thing, a gesture of contempt that has context. Sweet Christ, at this point, there should be giant sacks of shoes heading to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC, 20500, like letters to Santa.
None of you can have any objections in principle to that, I should hope. Let us all make our own small protest and send George W Bush a little Christmas present, a polite version of an upraised middle finger, and box up some old shoes and send him a deluge of metaphorical and symbolic disgust.
It would also be nice if the shoes were at least serviceable, so maybe the White House could follow up with one last decent act by donating them to the needy.
Alternative suggestion! I really like the idea mentioned in the comments. Since the shoes won’t actually be seen Bush and will probably be thrown out, cut out the middleman and do this:
-
Donate a pair of shoes to the local charity of your choice.
-
Send Bush a postcard, stating, “A pair of shoes has been donated to the needy in your name. This is a farewell kiss from the American people, you dog.”
Simple, cheap, and it gets the message across just as well, while also doing something good.
Of course, Bush won’t actually get them and probably won’t even be told about them.
Before you mail a shoe to Bush…
Well this I can only applaud and fully support!
After the ‘pretzel’ incident, wasn’t there a similar campaign to send him pretzels?
You don’t need a box, you can mail things like shoes without one. Just get out a sharpie and address it or use a sticker.
I’d prefer something more visible, like people throwing shoes up in the trees around the capital a la “Wag the Dog”.
I am shocked, shocked to see well-known atheist blogger PZ Maighers endorsing the mailing of footwear to the White House. Sure, it seems harmless enough, but let’s face it, it’s a slippery slope. Starts with shoes. Then it’s bombs. I normally love this blog, but this time, you’ve gone too far! For the good of the secular movement, I must insist you retract before the DI, Ken Ham, and the pope use this against you, as your actions bring shame to the larger freethought movement I, personally, represent. Which (more in sorrow than in anger, you understand) abhors this irresponsible action. And, for that matter, all action…
He’s leaving. Where were the shoes the past eight years? I think sending them on the way out is as cowardly as waiting until there’s a door between you and the person you’re having a spitting argument with.
Doing it now doesn’t serve any purpose — no matter how “cute” it might sound. It would have just been a waste of hundreds of thousands of dollars in shipping fees, as the shoes wouldn’t have made it to the White House anyway. I say again… it’s a little late for gestures such as these.
P.S. Yes, I know. Sending a pair of shoes before this incident would have just been wacky. Substitute “sending shoes” for any other gesture intended as a slap in the face. And yeah, there were protests. That’s what I mean. I suck at words. What I’m trying to say is, sending shoes to the White House as a slap in the face is like protesting that he needs to get out of office. >.>
To read makes my speaking English good. >.> orz
Well done!
Hey, neato. How’d he do that? It’s like a special kind of squid-magic.
Better yet, donate a pair of shoes to a homeless shelter or such, and send a postcard saying “A gift of shoes was made in your name to….” to the White House. It’s really doubtful that actual shoes sent to him would be donated anywhere; probably the would just be tossed.
He probably won’t see the postcards, but it’s at least possible he would be told about them.
*applauds MS.* People were talking about giving money to charities, but donating shoes to a shelter with a postcard to the White House at least sends the message while doing good at the same time. I think if enough people actually got on board, chances are he’d catch wind of it. (Okay. Sleep now.)
I was thinking that a tradition should start whereby at the end of every press conference (or perhaps the last press conference of the year or some other such landmark event) a reporter throws his or her shoes at the president.
That would be cool.
Years ago I thought about starting a campaign to mail GWB bags of pretzels with a little note saying “bon apetit” but then I worried that I might be detained for threatening the president.
Bush could display the heaps of footwear in his lame-ass Presidential Library.
While actually addressing the shoes rather than packing them up would technically work, that’s more of an insult to the mail carriers and sorters. They have enough idiotic crap to deal with, especially around the holidays when people get cute with packaging.
Hopefully someone will be at the White House to receive these shoes and then promptly throw them up on the electrical wires on Pennsylvania Ave. (warning:regional humor, and not good regional humor at that)
Frederik @ 3,
Oh,now you can?? What changed?
I checked,standard package to the US via air mail is 46.95AUD,i give that a pass,I’ll hurl a shoe at the thug in my mind instead !
Autotroll Script No. 4 wins the thread!
Would you be okay with your students throwing things at you in an expression of contempt?
I know I wouldn’t.
Seriously, you’re very wrong on this one. Mailing shoes is one things; it’s fine to endorse that. But you are absolutely wrong to endorse violence.
I have to agree that *throwing* shoes is not cool, however much I dislike Bush’s policies. Someone whips a shoe at me and there’s gonna be a problem.
It’s not harmless if the shoe *hits you*.
Come on; this is common sense.
Yes… postcard of shoes to President Doofus and donate the shoes to a charity:
http://www.soles4souls.org/
Oh shit. Misplaced Righteous Indignation meter #2 is smoking.
I have to agree that *throwing* shoes is not cool – Dave
It’s not supposed to be “cool”, halfwit.
@ Autotroll Script No. 4
Stop trolling here… this is my turf.
I could send a rabbit’s foot, but first I’d need to buy a saw and lots of whiskey.
Completely OT (for this thread) but there is a lovely piece of research about convergent evolution among honeyeaters on girlscientist’s blog:
http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2008/12/when_is_a_honeyeater_not_a_hon.php
Could this have a post here on its own, PZ?
FREE Infinite On-Demand TV Shows, Movies, Music(millions and millions of digital quality tracks), Unlimited Games, Money, and FREE College Educations (Stanford, Oxford, Notre Dame and more) @ InternetSurfShack.com
There was an article in the Times this morning about insulting gestures around the world. Just to keep everybody well informed on world culture.
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article5348373.ece
Dubya’s legacy:
Some day there’ll be a GWB library or some such fixture. It would be fitting if every morning when they open the doors they have to pick up all the shoes that were flung there the night before.
@Clinteas, #18:
Would you like a new car?
Then I guess it won’t matter if I drive it through your front door and take you out in the process, or just put it in your driveway and gently put the keys in your mailbox?
@Nick: Ah, halfwit… I’m a halfwit because I don’t think throwing things at people isn’t a good idea for people over, say, three?
I guess I’d rather be a halfwit than a juvenile retard with poor impulse control. Throwing something at somebody is assault, not an “insulting gesture”. But since it’s a reasonable way to express disagreement, I’ll throw my shoes at you instead of flipping you off.
Rev. BigDumbChimp wrote:
Hopefully someone will be at the White House to receive these shoes and then promptly throw them up on the electrical wires on Pennsylvania Ave.
“Dog was loyal, and the dog was true…n’there’s never been a better than my Good Old Shoe …!”
@ Autotroll Script No. 3
You don’t want to mess with me, man. I’ve got a pair of pink, plush bunny slippers here and I’m not afraid to use them.
@#$% autocomplete ruining the joke…
I’m a halfwit because I don’t think throwing things at people isn’t a good idea for people over, say, three? – Dave
You’re a halfwit, as my comment made clear, because you objected that shoe-throwing wasn’t “cool”. Halfwit.
Ok, I’m confused. Didn’t dubya told folks “The Iraqi people will greet us with ‘flowers'” ? He didn’t mention anything about saying bye bye with size 10’s.
@Nick: Ah. Deliberately ignoring the usage of common vernacular, however, must be cool. Looks like even at halfwit I’m still at least a quarterwit ahead of you, so it’s all good.
Dave,
You are also evidently quite unable to consider context – another good index of half-wittedness. Al-Riadi’s action was in response to an illegal invasion causing hundreds of thousands of deaths, and continuing military occupation.
@Blondin
Actually, the George W. Bush Presidential Library will be built in Dallas, TX, near Southern Methodist University (SMU). So far, there’s only an empty, fenced-off lot … which I think is more fitting.
Look, halfwit Dave, it wasn’t supposed to be cool. So objecting to it on the grounds that it wasn’t, is halfwitted. Got it now?
I have to agree with a lot of the previous posts – don’t waste your money. The shoes will never get to him if you mail them. If, on the other hand, someone had gone to the trouble of organizing a campaign, filling a dump truck with donated shoes, then drove to a spot visible from the White House and dumped them, I’d be all for it.
@Nick: I see where you’ve made your mistake. You think that the first definition of “cool” that jumped in to your head is the only possible definition. This rarely works.
“Cool”, in this case, doesn’t mean hip-trendy-etc. “Cool” can also mean “a good idea”, which whipping a shoe at somebody is not.
Please stop acting like a dick.
Sweet frakkin’ Jesus. Throwing a shoe is not violence. Let me repeat that. Throwing a shoe is not violence. I’m agog at the number of Pharyngulites – most of whose comments I enjoy for how reasonable they are – who cannot distinguish between a rude act of contempt and actual violence. From one liberal to many others – you’re making yourselves appear to live up to the stereotype of simpering, effete worry warts who won’t even take their own side in an argument.
This incident was an example of a relatively powerless person (the shoe-thrower) expressing contempt for an almost infinitely powerful oppressor. It’s the equivalent of a housewife in an occupied country spitting on (or even slapping) the foreign soldier who hustles her along in the streets. Would that slap be an “unacceptable act of violence?” I doubt you’d say so.
Liberals used to understand the concept of “imbalance of power,” and applaud the oppressed for managing to show any resistance. Yet so many here are equating the justified outrage and frustration of a powerless Iraqi against a cruel foreign invader with. . . an act of “unacceptable violence.”
Matt, stop and think. Comfortable middle-class students in an American classroom with comfortable middle-class PZ Meyers are in *exactly the same power dynamic relationship* as the Iraqi is to George Bush? Really? The context is just exactly the same? Really?
Would the GW Bush library actually need much space? I mean “The Very Hungry Caterpillar” and “The Bible” could fit into a space no larger than…a shoe box.
Ugh. I typed “Meyers.” FAIL. I can’t believe I did that. I promise I’m not a theist! Myers. Myers. Myers.
I don’t know… I think it might be more appropriate to pinch off a steaming coil and mail that to him with a note that says “Here’s a little piece of the economy you left us. Hugs!”
As much as I despise President Bush, I’m leaning that having a pair of shoes thrown at him may symbolize exactly how much progress has been made in Iraq.
Yes, it does indicate that people there hate his guts.
Yes, it does indicate that there is an immense amount of work yet to do.
On the other hand, throwing a shoe instead of shooting at him constitutes a refinement in the nature of social discourse. Progress. =)
(Donating a pair of shoes to the needy and sending a postcard would be a nicer refinement still.)
Some of you who are concerned with a lack of civility might need to understand PZ’s original point. If those in power, or those in the press would have treated Bush as the dipshit that he was in 2001 then we could have averted this disaster. Everyone was earnestly being civil and treating Bush like a real politician deserving of respect when it was painfully clear to the rest of us that he was a sociopath.
Those who are hung up on being civil and playing nice might like to read up on yourselves in Bob Altemeyer’s book on authoritarian personalities. It will be like looking in a mirror.
@ 31,
Analogy FAIL.Seriously.
“Shoes for Industry!
Shoes for Defense!”
@45: Don’t forget “The Pet Goat”!
Rick T #49: Those who are hung up on being civil and playing nice might like to read up on yourselves in Bob Altemeyer’s book on authoritarian personalities. It will be like looking in a mirror.
____________
Tyrannical politeniks (so stuck on the tree they are blind to the contextual forest) are so very creepy in their authoritarian dipshitness. It is ironic that they regard themselves in the opposite light, as being bastions of civility while they are so dense and maybe morally fragile that they can’t discern potent protest with violence.
Chimp Pet-Goat Dog.
The new official name of the pResident-in-charge.
@ JoshS
The force with which those shoes were thrown could easily have caused a bloody nose. That, to me, puts it into about the same category as a punch to the face. Seriously, it’s not like he underhand lobbed it. I’m all for the insult, but the method was violent.
@52 – still a shoebox (unless it’s a real pet goat)!
If I may make a suggestion, the brand of shoe should be NunBush, which is ironic.
On the other hand, throwing a shoe instead of shooting at him constitutes a refinement in the nature of social discourse. Progress. – abb3w
Not so: rather, a matter of opportunity. Journalists would have been searched for weapons before entering the press conference. If Bush were to give any more press conferences in Iraq, I’d expect the journalists to be obliged to remove their shoes.
Dave@43,
If you want to be understood, write with greater clarity, halfwit.
@55 and all the other “it’s violence” people:
“The force with which those shoes were thrown could easily have caused a bloody nose”
Gimme a break. It’s not violence and a bloody nose is hardly a serious injury. Besides, those shoes were what? loafers? It’s not like Bush had steel-toed work boots lobbed at him. Get over your wimpy little selves.
First the Shoe Bomber. Now an attack on the president with shoes… how long before your Homeland Security folks declare shoes to be controlled items due to their use as weapons?
The “Barefoot, Pregnant, and in the Kitchen” act will be promoted to disarm half the population.
I propose we wait…until he’s a civillian again and send them to his house. That way he has to deal with him own mail.
For all the people complaining about it being childish with the whole shoe thing HE SPIED ON YOU, TORTURED PEOPLE, DETAINED INNOCENT PEOPLE, AND GOT OUR SONS AND DAUGHTERS KILLED! He’s luckly it’s only shoes, he deserves dog
$#!t thrown at him and a prison cell for life.
MS’s idea is very cool. (I hope that doesn’t set off another squabble about what is, and isn’t, cool.) By chance, I’d already bought the shoes . . . three pairs, in fact . . . so I’m going to send three postcards to the White House. I’m even going to purchase actual paper postcards for this gesture, which for me is unprecedented.
As a complete non sequitur — or maybe not, after all — here are new words for “Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas” from Sojourners, a Christian Left organization to which I belong:
Have Yourself a Peace and Justice Christmas
Have yourself a peace and justice Christmas,
Set your heart a-right.
Flee the malls and focus on Christ’s guiding light.
Have yourself a peace and justice Christmas,
Give your time away.
Share God’s love, And serve “the least of these” today.
Here we are, as we pray for peace,
We’ll live simply and give more.
We care for those far and near to us,
Which brings cheer to us, once more.
God brings down
The haughty from high places,
And lifts up the low.
God cares for the hungry and the humble, so –
Forget the stress and let the peace and justice flow!
Dave@43,
And of course, in context, the shoe-hurling was an extremely good idea, as shown by the worldwide reaction, and especially that in the Muslim world. It achieved exactly what it was supposed to achieve – although apparently at considerable cost to the courageous man who did it. But then, as a halfwit, you’re unable to take context into account.
@abb3w:
Has the thrower been released from jail yet? If not, not much progress.
@ Lurker
I’m sorry, what? Unless you’re saying that the shoe thrower had no intention at all to injure President Bush, then yes it was an act of intended violence.
Secondly you seem to tacitly admit that it may have caused a bloody nose, is having an object intentionally thrown at you, which after impact draws blood, not violent?
I call bullshit.
I’ve read in several places online that the (Iraqi) security kicked the living shit out of this guy as soon as they got him out of the room. Anyone know if this is true or just BS? I don’t think much of Bush, but I would still like to think he is decent enough to strongly object to such an event.
Matt @ #20:
You asked:
>Would you be okay with your students throwing things at you in an expression of contempt?
>I know I wouldn’t.
>Seriously, you’re very wrong on this one. Mailing shoes is one things; it’s fine to endorse that. But you are absolutely wrong to endorse violence.
As a teacher, if my students were throwing things at me as gesture of contempt, it would indicate something was very wrong with my teaching.
As a black belt in taekwando, I strongly recommend endorsing physical violence in controlled and non-damaging environments. Next point?
We all know G-Dub is going to have a Presidential Libary, not a Library. Full of neat books about nucular war.
Well, I’ve got a pair of thigh-high black patent leather stilletto boots that I don’t wear anymore so I could send them on to him. Somehow though the vague thought that Bush might actually get them and wear them is an image that makes me vomit a little in my mouth.
@60 – its spelt “libery” dumass.
(Jokes!)
I don’t think much of Bush, but I would still like to think he is decent enough to strongly object to such an event. – moo
Have you been asleep for the past eight years? This is a man who has authorised torture.
Al-Raidi’s brother alleges he has been beaten up in custody, sustaining serious injuries. The Iraqi military deny this. Presumably if they are telling the truth, he will soon appear in public and in good health. If he is kept out of sight for more than a few days, we can deduce that they are lying.
Some context I haven’t seen discussed anywhere:
There’s a reason for Biblical stories about washing and perfuming feet. Semantic feet stink. No need for feces, just give `em the shoe.
You have to see the video to appreciate that the incident was a serious threat. The shoes weren’t light, and if Bush wasn’t as agile as he apparently is (remember when he flipped over his mountain bike’s handle bars?) there would have been an injury. The reporter has/had a good arm. Someone messed up the second pitch. And how was anyone to know that it was only an empty shoe? Could have been much worse.
Clinteas:
You asked me “what changed?”
What changed was the method of delivery, which I thought was so obvious that I’d try a colorful example. In the rear view mirror, I can see this was a mistake.
I’ll level with you: What changed was that PZ is now proposing giving shoes peacefully and in a civil matter (putting the car in the driveway) as opposed to throwing it at someone’s face (ramming the car through the wall).
If you cannot see how this is a significant different then I cannot help you.
There is a shoe specific charity that takes new but mismatched shoes for use by patients who have mismatched feet.
http://www.oddshoe.org/
(They also accept new matching shoes, as well).
That’s it! The baseball connection. I forgot Bush used to own a baseball team. It was his proof of experience qualifying him to be president. He was ducking a pitch.
And what does that little emoticon symbolize, exactly?
I suppose a nearly a century of violent imperialism (exploitation, humiliation, theft) has moved these savages closer to civil discourse. I’ve about had it with this fucking garbage.
The “needy” occupying the shoe factories and meeting violence with violence would be a nice refinement as far as I’m concerned. The needy are not only human beings but political actors, as I hope many ignorant social dimwits are soon forced to recognize.
could easily have caused a bloody nose
I’m going to resist the urge to post a link to many, many pictures of people who’ve gotten far worse than bloody noses because of George Bush’s little invasion.
if my students were throwing things at me as gesture of contempt, it would indicate something was very wrong with my teaching.
Like, for instance, that you kept wandering into the dorms and killing their fellow students more or less at random, if we really want to run with Matt’s analogy.
Here’s another place to donate shoes. A surge of charity (and recycling) would be a cool result of the shoe throwing incident : http://www.soles4souls.org/donate/your_shoes.html
if the shoe had actually struck Bush then we would be left not with a highly amusing visual but a visual of him getting injured. he would have come out looking like a victim and the whole gesture could have backfired in a big way.
also, can we stop using “dog” as a pejorative, please? dogs are great!
Some day there’ll be a GWB library or some such fixture.
Yes, there will – it’s planned for the campus of Southern Methodist University. Construction is to begin in 2009.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_Presidential_Library
That’s like saying that spitting on W, or anyone else, is a harmless expression of contempt, when it is in fact legally considered to be battery. For what it’s worth, spitting is less obviously an act of violence than is throwing an object.
It’s equal treatment under the law, or it’s naked aggression. I would like to see some regard for the actual ideals of a liberal democracy.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
“”For all the people complaining about it being childish with the whole shoe thing HE SPIED ON YOU, TORTURED PEOPLE, DETAINED INNOCENT PEOPLE, AND GOT OUR SONS AND DAUGHTERS KILLED! He’s luckly it’s only shoes, he deserves dog
$#!t thrown at him and a prison cell for life.””
Ummm, if you are gonna throw shoes at the Prez cause he sucks and you don’t like the Iraqi war… You need to throw them at Congress and most of its members for giving him the go ahead to go to war. You need to throw them at yourselves for reelecting those that voted to go to war and for your selection of a new president who put one of those people in a position to travel the world dodging invisible bullets…
That’s a lot of shoes…
If it is the economy you are throwing your shoes about, well, again, you’ve got an entire Congress to bare your sole to…
Remember, it was the people you were laughing at that were warning you all. Maybe just whack your foreheads with your Vibrams and wake up a little bit?
The mind boggles…
I find it hard to understand how those who are appalled by a lack of civility are getting hung up on whether or not shoe throwing is and act of violence as if somehow, if it is, then a line has been crossed. Who cares? Bush crossed many lines repeatedly and doesn’t give a rat’s left nut.
Violent or not it doesn’t matter. This is an expression of contempt, one that says “If I could kill you, I would.” You know what? Bush deserves it and it doesn’t matter one bit that this is uncivil or impolite. Sometimes you have to resist an evil force with enough counter force to keep from being overrun. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. Sometimes turning the other cheek just gets you slapped again.
Those of you who think the answer is platitudes and so called moral truths need to understand that at some point these niceties are just bullshit and completely worthless when faced with the atrocities that are overwhelming a people.
If it makes you feel good then by all means keep repeating that “two wrongs don’t make a right” or “a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush” or whatever.
I got a better one for you. “Shit in one hand and wish in the other and see which hand fills up faster”. How’s that for wisdom.
Why don’t you just let this man make his own decisions about his life and respect the fact that you haven’t walked in his shoes (or, heaven forbid thrown them) so you have no right to judge him as if you have any worth while answers, let alone moral high ground.
There is a petition on behalf of the Shoe Throwing Journalist who is, alas, not out of the proverbial woods ( OK, I live in New England):
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/iwffomuntatharalzaidi/index.html
Of course anyone in the last thread has seen my opinion about whether it’s violence, and I’d hope this thread doesn’t degenerate into the same argument again. I like the mailing-shoes idea, especially the charity one! Thanks, PZ, for finding a pretty neat and civil way to achieve the same kind of insult.
I’ve got it! Why don’t we host a SHOE GALA to raise funds for the needy?! I’m sure we could get Nike to sponsor it, and Paris Hilton or someone equally illustrious to appear. All of the proceeds could go to a shoes-for-Iraqis fund, and we could feel very proud and civil for having done our bit for the needy. Of course, we’d have to use non-union labor to save money, and the major decisions should (needless to say) be left to the more enlightened Wsterners. I mean, we can’t let any violent, militant extremists in on the decision-making process…
Charity is Godly!
No matter how good the idea is, someone just has to take a piss on it. For all you überpacifists, a no-violence-at-any-cost ideology can be as dogmatic as any religion.
The shoe thrower should get a fine or a few days in the hoosgow (free from torture and abuse) and be released. Dubya will never be introspective enough to understand his own culpability or the significance of the hurler’s insult, even if a shoe had knocked him on the noggin.
I wonder how much of a dressing down the SS agents got for not protecting him from the second shoe? (heh heh)
Augh. I mean thanks to MS for the idea and thanks to PZ for endorsing it. Credit where credit is due and all that. Sowwy.
Moo@67:
If he’s half way to half decent, he’ll ask the Iraqi authorities to let the man go. Don’t hold your breath, it hasn’t happened yet, and should have by now…
Human rights and shoes for bare life!
(h/t: Giorgio Agamben)
I hate Bush, but he’s gone in a month. I just can’t muster the seething hate some of you seem to have.
Here’s a better and far more constructive idea: buy some shoes for some poor kids this Christmas.
We have an Adopt-A-Family program at work. One family had four kids. I am personally going to buy them all new shoes. Good luck with that “mail shoes to Bush” thing, though. I’m sure you’ll change the world.
What constitutes “violence”? I once had jury duty because a man who was given a traffic citation flicked the paper ticket back at the officer and was promptly arrested. The charge? Assault. Seriously.
Shorter Scott from Oregon@83:
Ummmm… the mind boggles.
or maybe we could start a shoe shrine in front of the white house.
you know similar to all the flowers outside buckingham palace when Princess Dianan died, except totally different in that it would be shoes and the purpose would not be to show respect and mourning, it would be to show Bush what douche he is.
@Nick: Okay, halfwit.
Charity is human.
Re: Comment by Nick Gotts
I’m well aware of Bushes record, but it is one thing to authorise the limited torture and humiliation of known terrorists and individuals thought to be involved in plans to ‘IED’ American soldiers, and quite another to tacitly approve of the beating of an (effectively harmless) shoe-hurling protester. I’m not a person who is going to put up the ticking-bomb scenario slippery slope justify torture — I object to it at visceral (I suppose ‘rational’ can at least be debated) level. However it is still clear to me that even an intelligent person with reasonably consistent views could approve of one and object to the other without being an obvious hypocrite … and I don’t give Bush *that* much credit.
Sounds fun, but I think I will skip getting myself placed on the SS/HS/FBI watch lists and just donate a pair of shoes =)
Y’know what? It might be that throwing a shoe at the prez was violent…and that’s *perfectly alright.* Violence *isn’t* ‘inherently wrong.’ I’m not inclined to defend or condemn this that or the other individual war but, historically, it just ain’t the case that “violence doesn’t solve anything.” Actually, violence solves a lot. The United States was birthed in violence. I know I’m dancing along the edge of Godwinism here but slaves were freed and prison camps shut down and cults terminated and fundamentalists ejected by violence.
No, isn’t particularly compelling at all to hear any of you quaver-voicers bleat about there being “a better way” or Bush being “a basically decent man” because A.) nothing else works with Bush and B.) no he isn’t; no one basically decent tortures.
Yeah it was violence. And violence can be okay.
Solidarity is human.
yes violence is always wrong.
we should probably give back the country to england, cause we had no right to throw that wonderful tea into the harbor.
violence doesn’t solve anything.
Well of course I support this. I disagree with the notion of throwing a shoe at someone as harmless, as anyone that’s been hit by one can attest.
The guy’s been a terrible president, and so of course sending this sort of message is fine. I’m just saying throwing things at someone is a step beyond.
However, yeah, it’s probably too little too late. I’d recommend finding out where he lives after his presidency and THEN innundating him with shoes via mail, where he won’t have people who check his mail and throw them away before he gets to them. I do NOT recommend throwing shoes on him everywhere he goes.
Hey, it *could* have been one of those shoe bombs, you know! ;-)
And violence can be okay.
I’ve been saying that for decades. There’s some people in this world who just nned to be punched, like when someone clocked Richard Fuld in the Lehman Brothers gym a few weeks back.
The relentless capacity of people to miss the point continues to stagger.
Good luck with that “mail shoes to Bush” thing, though. I’m sure you’ll change the world.
You for example. While your proposal is laudable, this is kind of pedestrian charity we should be engaging in every day.
This shoe throwing business is a once in a lifetime opportunity to make a potent protest against one of our worlds most villianous criminals. A criminal likely to walk free without serving so much as a single day in prison.
Those that can’t see this are either trolls, or have some variety of Aspergers Syndrome which degrades their capacity for empathy.
moo@98,
As J@100 says, no-one who is basically decent tortures.
Kylock | December 16, 2008 11:54 AM
@ Lurker
I’m sorry, what? Unless you’re saying that the shoe thrower had no intention at all to injure President Bush, then yes it was an act of intended violence.
Secondly you seem to tacitly admit that it may have caused a bloody nose, is having an object intentionally thrown at you, which after impact draws blood, not violent?
I call bullshit.
You’re certainly entitled to call bullshit. I just find it difficult to see a small act of (mostly) protest by the (relatively) powerless against the powerful all that violent. Seriously. This is why the right is always calling liberals wimps. Sometimes physical displays of contempt are appropriate. Too many people on the left cannot contextualize physical acts and resort to simply labeling them all as violence.
And gosh, I wouldn’t want Bush to have a bloody nose, what an awful injury. How ever could the POTUS recover?
Back to lurking for me…
Brian@105, kindly refrain from disparaging people whose neural networks are wired differently than yours, ‘k? Especially when you’re doing it under the guise of chastising others for lack of empathy. It kind of undermines your point.
As far as I’m concerned, the determining factor for when violence is justified is the availability of recourse.
There are other recourses for dealing with any wrong that I, a private citizen, may commit. One can bring the full weight of the law down on my head, and that is a civilized way of dealing with me.
But if I am George Bush, then there is no legal recourse for dealing with my crimes, there exists no civilized method for exacting justice. My power and influence insulate me totally from any repercussions of my actions.
That’s when hurling shoes is justified, for it is the only remaining recourse, the last resort.
It is the stuff of revolution, of slave uprisings. The downtrodden are downtrodden because they have no recourse.
@93
“I once had jury duty because a man who was given a traffic citation flicked the paper ticket back at the officer and was promptly arrested. The charge? Assault. Seriously.”
Please tell us you exercised some jury nullification in that instance by voting not guilty despite the fact that technically the person did commit assault.
Personally, I think they should extend jury nullification to allow juries to charge jackasses like that cop and the judge who ran that trial of the very real crimes they are committing (false arrest, false imprisonment, etc.)
The relentless capacity of people to miss the point continues to stagger.
Whatever. I get the point. I just don’t think it will accomplish anything useful or lasting.
You for example.
Thanks! :-)
While your proposal is laudable, this is kind of pedestrian charity we should be engaging in every day.
I do, actually.
Those that can’t see this are either trolls, or have some variety of Aspergers Syndrome which degrades their capacity for empathy.
Aw, that’s cute. :-) Different point of view = mental illness. Very nice. Haven’t seen that one on the internets in, oh, at least 15 minutes.
Happy Holidays, Brian. Mail a pair of shoes for me.
I can’t believe nobody has made the obvious reference to Austin Powers.
“That really hurt! I’m going to have a lump there, you idiot! Who throws a shoe? Honestly… You fight like a woman.”
The issue of the immorality in the violent act of tossing a shoe made me think of a tangential issue:
Serious question:
When for example the United States Air Force drops a bomb on a poor sheepherder’s house in Afghanistan, and it turns out there was no one there except a peaceful sheepherder and his family, are survivors (if any) offered any compensation by the U.S? Or even sent a note saying “we’re sorry”?
Does anyone know?
I know it is not going to happen, but I would like to see one member of White House press corps ask at a press conference or even briefing without Bush present a question along the following lines: “Did the president followed up and check on safety and security of the Iraqi journalist who exercised the freedom of speech supposedly brought to his country by the president?”
I would love if this journalist would then say that he/she wants to hand over his/her own shoes to a spokesperson (or Bush) in a sign of solidarity with Iraqi journalist.
105 –
Dude, can you maybe substitute ‘moron’ or something? You’re insulting Albert Einstein.
also, can we stop using “dog” as a pejorative, please? dogs are great!
Ditto “bitch”. I have a bitch who is the sweetest thing you can imagine, and the worst she ever did was chew my Amex card.
Now, as one of the damn dirty peaceniks who criticized your suggestion that people throw their shoes at Bushhole, this alternative suggestion is something I can get behind! The action is constructive! This action elevates we lowly humans above the object of our ire where violence against him would just be status quo for the homo sapiens.
Does anyone know?
There is a “condolence payment system”, but it is as slow and faulty as most government endeavors.
Here’s something about Britain paying out:
http://warvictims.wordpress.com/2008/11/23/britain-pays-out-700000-in-compensation-to-civilian-casualties-in-afghanistan/
Google is probably your friend for further info.
SfO,
In October 2002, a few days before the U.S. Senate voted on the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, about 75 senators were told in closed session that Saddam Hussein had the means of attacking the eastern seaboard of the U.S. with biological or chemical weapons delivered by unmanned aerial vehicles.
I think you need to read this :
Congressional record, January 28, 2004 (Senate)
Declaration from Sen. B.Nelson (Florida)
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2004_cr/s012804b.html
Next :
Next :
Congress did there job, they are not responsible for having been provided false information. Who instructed that the information about the dispute within the CIA be withheld to congress ? Who is his boss ?
This responsibility is entirely that of Mr G.W.Bush.
There is no need to dilute the blame and spread it around. Bush is responsible for this major fuck up which was this war, not congress. He is THE criminal.
Fastest, easiest thing to do: take a digital photo of shoes turned upside down (so the soles are showing), e-mail said photo to White House.
Fastest, easiest thing to do: take a digital photo of shoes turned upside down (so the soles are showing), e-mail said photo to White House.
OK, but only if I can use *your* email address. :-)
I’m snowed in so I’ll comment again.
Maybe one day we won’t have a need for violent protests like shoe throwing. Maybe when we can talk and discuss and reason things out we will be beyond this sort of barbaric behavior. Until then, these acts of defiance may be helpful in getting some of the sleepy ones to realize that Bush is a rightfully despised individual. I will not list his heinous accomplishments but he does deserve a civil arrest and lawful sentencing. Until that happens, all we have is shoe throwing, spitting, writing, protesting, flipping him off, etc. We tried voting but the Supreme Court and the voting machines screwed us there. I’m happy that at least someone had the courage to show the world what a lot of us feel about him.
By the way, if we had treated him with the contempt he deserved a long time ago then maybe, just maybe, this could have been avoided. Can you who are prone to the vapors understand that sometimes seemingly uncivil behavior could potentially avert barbarism of the likes demonstrated by Bush?
“Bodyguards quickly wrestled Zaidi to the floor and hauled him, kicking and screaming, from the room.”
One little problem with that story:
“His older brother, Dargham, has told reporters Muntadhar suffered a broken hand, broken ribs and internal bleeding, as well as an eye injury, and is in hospital.
If true, the reports confirm what the TV clips shown on the Guardian’s website in the aftermath of the incident seemed to suggest. A number of Western news reports referred to Zaidi as “screaming” while he was taken out of the press conference room. They gave the impression he was ranting at Bush. The soundtrack hinted otherwise. It contained a series of agonised yelps and grunts, as of a man being repeatedly kicked and thumped. By then, Zaidi was on the floor, and cameras could not catch him in the melee. But listen to the message of the microphones. It seems to tell a vicious tale.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/16/bush-shoe-zaidi
@Katharine
Yes, “moron” is a much better name to call someone who suggests giving shoes to poor children. PZ has updated the post to also suggest charitable donations. Is PZ a moron, too?
I guess it comes down to this – I hope no one on this blog would actually support an act of violence towards GW (a trial would be a different thing though!), but it happened. Given that, it seems to me, from that man, a legitimate protest. He wasn’t hit, or even hurt – unlike the journalist, I fear – and truly, the best he could do is ask that the journalist be spared. That would certainly help his battered reputation throughout the world and be a thoroughly “christian” thing to do.
gypsy@102: excellent point. I’ll be using it whenever I hear someone say violence is NEVER the answer to ANYTHING.
I like your suggestion PZ, but I still can’t see how you can say that throwing shoes is “harmless”. It’s true that no harm was done in this case, but if the president’s reflexes weren’t so good, harm could have been done.
but if the president’s reflexes weren’t so good, harm could have been done.
And the downside to that is… what, exactly? ;-)
Peter –
Did you READ the post and the other comments made on it?
Government committing violence – Ok, unless they hate us.
Non goverment committing violence – Terrorism, unless they like us.
It’s interesting the things you learn working for the US goverment.
@Katharine
Yes. QD suggested giving the shoes to the poor as something more constructive. How does that deserve childish name calling? Both you and Brian need to grow up.
Peter, you’re the one who needs to grow up. I do not think Peter is necessarily right to demean giving shoes to charity. If you’ll read MY ACTUAL COMMENT and the comments after it, I was commenting on Brian’s disparaging of people who have Asperger’s and suggested, if he wanted to insult someone, that he use a better term.
‘I do not think Peter is necessarily right to demean giving shoes to charity’ should read ‘I do not think Brian is necessarily right to demean giving shoes to charity’.
Can’t you idiots distinguish two questions?
(A) Was it violence?
(B) Was it justified?
(answers: yes and yes)
Ready, aim, throw! This tiny flash game lets you throw an unlimited supply of shoes at the prez: http://www.kroma.no/2008/bushgame/
Bollocks.
The very existence of the United States was the result of violence.
Violence solves a good many things. Yes, it creates problems too, and it’s certainly unpleasant, but it is an effective tool for solving a good many problems. Sometimes it is the ONLY tool that can get the job done.
While it may be nice to dream about a world that is all cuddles and smiles, that’s probably not going to happen as long as humans exist.
Equally, if GW might expect the ocassional protest (violent or otherwise) I guess that even if I’m against violence, the journalist might well have expected to be beaten up for his pains. Real world, after all. Let’s hope he isn’t badly hurt.
@Katharine
OK. However, understand that the post could just as easily be read as as “call him a moron instead.”
Has it ever been definitely determined that Einstein suffered from Asperger’s?
I was hoping this would re-evolve back into a science blog after the election, how foolish of me…
EvolvingSquid #146
that was exactly my point.
thankyou for the clarification. I was hoping however, that my sarcasm would have been sufficient.
Who gives a flying fuck if Bush gets a bloody nose?
OH FSM I AM SORRY FOR THE 11 IDENTICAL POSTS. (PZ’s filter blocked me from posting any more posts.)
Peter –
I don’t think it’s been DEFINITIVELY determined, but there’s strong suspicion, along with considerable background to support.
Regarding the first part of your post, you’re being a linguistic nitpicker, and nobody likes unnecessary nitpicking.
I was hoping this would re-evolve back into a science blog after the election, how foolish of me…
Sorry. Ideology is incurable and, in this case, progressive. :-)
There! Some medical science humor for ya!
Ok, not very good humor, but, hey, it’s Tuesday.
“violence doesn’t solve anything”
As Evolving Squid says, bollocks. That statement ranks right up there with “if you don’t vote; you can’t complain” as the best examples of vacuous comments from high school civics classes that people love to parrot as a respite from thinking.
If violence is so non-effective, then why are there at least eighteen significant armed conflicts raging right now? Boredom combined with crazy rock bottom prices at overstocked ammo emporiums?
Obviously, we can discuss whether or not a certain act of violence is justified, and there are some that might argue convincingly that acts of violence are never justified, and so on, but to blather on that ‘violence never solves anything’ is about as sophisticated and useful a claim as suggesting world peace is achievable via buying the world a coke.
As for Bush, I’d like to remind you that at the exact moment he was using his chimp fu to dodge patent leather, a 15-year-old Arab was getting waterboarded somewhere in Gitmo. If the worst Bush suffers for his crimes against humanity is a shoe upside the noggin, he should consider himself the luckiest sumbitch to ever walk the planet.
Regarding the first part of your post, you’re being a linguistic nitpicker, and nobody likes unnecessary nitpicking.
Geez, get a room, you two. ;-)
Oh, and Katharine, I find I can just click Post, and then click back to the original article. It takes a while for the site to respond, but you don’t really have to wait for it.
And that’s today’s Fun Intertoob Tip, kids!
Bush has had a lot of accomplices along the way. And many were Democrats.
And that is why no one, and I mean no one, will ever be made to pay for their crimes.
Protecting the phony two-party system is job one. On this the Democrats and Republicans are united.
Any evidence for this ? Or you’re just parroting something you heard and never bothered to verify ?
Not just foolish but actually stupid. Whaddaya want, sympathy?
I can only assume you’re making this claim based on the idea that a blog hosted by Scienceblogs should contain only science (BTW, conservatives who cannot support their conservatism with sound argumentation and evidence usually make this complaint about PZ’s liberal posts.) Since you’ve obviously got nothing better to do than concern troll via linguistic pedantry, perhaps you might set your sites on this article in Nature called “Comparing the horror of wars” since it obviously isn’t about nature.
OH NOES!!
I love it – specifically, the amended plan of donating shoes and sending a postcard in the update. A quick google search reveals this:
http://shoesforhumanity.org/
a shoe-focused charitable organization. I glanced at their site and they don’t seem overtly religious either (although I only just glanced, so maybe others want to do some digging). It seems to me it would be good to aim donations at one or a few organizations, because they will be able to report the increase in shoe donations (while I’m sure Bush will not want to comment on the number of postcards he received).
Wow. If I get this right, repetition enhances an argument’s validity. So here goes:
Throwing a shoe is violence. Let me repeat that.
Throwing a shoe is violence. Let me repeat that.
Throwing a shoe is violence. Let me repeat that.
Throwing a shoe is violence.
Try throwing a shoe at a public official in the US, the President no less, and see whether or not it is adjudged an assault in court. Any lawyers reading in this blog will surely aver that it is so. (I’m not going to bother to repeat that.) And if you actually make contact let alone cause an injury be prepared for many years in the greybar hotel.
I can’t see why so many people think this is a “cool” idea. You people all sound like the liberal equivalent of a mob at a Sarah Palin rally.
I read some of the posts from yesterday’s post about the shoe tossing. I was surprised no one thought a shoe should remain on one’s foot with a swift kick to the president’s backside as a preferable alternative.
I suppose that would also qualify as too violent. So, I will donate a pair of shoes I bought some time ago as these shoes were on clearance and I’ve only worn the pair a couple of times as they didn’t fit very well. (The lesson here is: Never go cheap with shoes.)
Then, I’ll send a postcard to the bozo-in-chief telling him that I’ve donated said shoes to honor the dissing he received from an Iraqi journalist!
How dare you PZ? Comparing Dumbya to a dog is an insult to dogs everywhere!
I have two dogs and I can assure you they’re two of the greatest people I’ve ever known.
Re #150, under English law (and probably that of most US states, though I’m not qualified to comment on that), throwing a shoe at someone can constitute an assault even if it doesn’t hit them (since the legal definition of an assault is causing someone to apprehend immediate unlawful violence). If the shoe hits the victim, then it will also constitute a battery (regardless of whether any physical harm was done).
Lots of people complained that throwing shoes at the president was an act of violence, and therefore beyond the pale of what should be allowed. I think they’re wrong, that it’s a harmless expression of naked contempt, and that there ought to be more contempt expressed towards this president
So if you are publicly speaking at a university and I throw and possibly manage to faceplate you with my Dockers because I may not like what you have to say, I won’t be charged with assault and/or sued?
Sorry man, throwing a show at someone is attempted assault and not free speech, you have heard the old adage “Your rights end where my nose begins”.
*Throwing a shoe is violence.*
…And violence is sometimes okay. Your point?
*Sorry man, throwing a show at someone is attempted assault and not free speech, you have heard the old adage “Your rights end where my nose begins”.*
Do you know how funny you would/do sound to Iraqis, who’ve spent the past couple of years drilling holes in each others’ cheeks and foreheads with Maquitas?
I’m pretty well assured that if an Iraqi man wants to commit an act of violence, there will be no mistaking it for anything else.
As regards noses, well if we didn’t want them hit with shoes, maybe we shouldn’t have stuck them into other people’s countries then piously told them the resulting 8-year occupation was our “gift” to them.
Oh and this just in: The troops (yes, OUR troops) think it’s hilarious. I’m not usually inclined to defer to the military for moral judgments, but in this case I think I’ll go by them: These guys know violence. This is not violence.
There is far enough information available to say that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld knowingly distorted intelligence reports or ignored contrary information in constructing their case for the war and convince congress to pass the resolution athorizing the use of force and then the American people that there was an imminent threat.
Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are responsible for this war. Not congress nor any Democrats.
As long as those three have not been brought to justice, they deserve to be thrown tomatoes, eggs, or pies from Americans, and shoes from Iraqis. And that even after Jan.20, 2009, whereever they appear in public.
Americans need to wake up and demand justice be done.
Further reading :
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/04/10/blowing_cheneys_cover.php
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/opinion/07sun1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo
Who gives a flying fuck if Bush gets a bloody nose?
hmm, judging by what shrub did in reaction to someone threatening his daddy, one can only imagine the horrors he would be prepared to unleash should he himself ever actually have his nose bloodied.
I also get the feeling that the shoe-nyet-ers would also think impeaching Bush or any of his underlings was “uncivil” (or maybe even “violence”). So too prosecuting him for his crimes (just crimes; not war crimes, since, y’know, *we never bothered to declare this a war*): That too would be “uncivil” or “partisan” (or “violent”). Holding a mere truth commission where administration apparatchiks got immunity so long as they came forward and told all they did and knew? You’d probably also find that detestably confrontational. Or uncivil. Or “violent.”
I may be wrong. But I have the niggling feeling that you’d have Sincere Concerns about anything that amounted to DOING SOMETHING about this soon-to-cross-the-county-line-of-history criminal.
What’s the law in Iraq have to say?
Ooh, you know I just realized there’s already a name for this: The idea that Western countries can (and should) kill with impunity on a mass scale but that to ridicule, criticize or throw shoes at the political leaders who mastermind it is “uncivil”:
Liebermania.
Send stilettos to the high heels of the Bush administration.
What’s the law in Iraq have to say?
last I checked, the current President is attempting to charge the journalist under a (new?) Iraqi law claiming the throwing of shoes was an insult and attack on the IRAQI president, since it was within 3 feet of him or something.
traditions be damned, eh?
If you’re going to borrow from Dick Cheney’s playbook, I should warn you that there are oftentimes unintended consequences of following the whole “ends justify the means” thing.
If you’re going to borrow from Dick Cheney’s playbook, I should warn you that there are oftentimes unintended consequences of following the whole “ends justify the means” thing.
that’s a nice bit of hyperbole, but as has already been pointed out, little more than that.
@123,
Well, I got the impression from the words “kicking and screaming” that he was screaming in terror, in response to being an Iraqi man arrested for throwing things at Bush. That’s… slightly worse, because then he was being beaten in a room full of journalists, which would constitute overt intimidation of the other journalists also.
Nasty =(
When it comes to Iraq the Democrats are hardly innocent. Maybe they’re not as guilty as Bush and Cheney, but they’re not innocent. 29 out of the 50 Democrats in the Senate in 2002 voted for the Iraq resolution.
I honestly doubt these people actually bought into the garbage that Iraq was an “imminent threat”. Iraq’s own neighbors didn’t consider it to be a threat. They must have known that the world’s sole superpower faced no danger from this small country on the other side of the world. The Iraq occupation had a good chance of going well, barring extreme incompetence. They didn’t want to be labeled as the “unpatriotic” politicians who voted against a successful war. They put their political careers ahead of the Iraqi people.
And if this whole “Bush fooled me into voting for a war” argument is true for some of them, then they are simply too dumb to hold office.
*If you’re going to borrow from Dick Cheney’s playbook, I should warn you that there are oftentimes unintended consequences of following the whole “ends justify the means” thing.*
Horrors! Next slave-holding states could be forced to emancipate their negroes, the British could be forced to recognize the colonies’ independence, Russia could force out the French invaders, some kind of “resistance movement” might form in Axis-occupied nations, and oh . . . wait a second . . .
oh awesome.
Posted by: SC, OM | December 16, 2008 12:57 PM
– “Charity is human.”
— “Solidarity is human.”
Throwing shoes is human.
(All right maybe chimps do to… but hey , we’re closely related.)
J,
Wow, ethnocentrism, strawmen, and intentional misreading! You’re on a roll today. Shoe-non-throwers in the other thread have already advocated for the impeachment and prosecution of Bush as per, you know, the proper functioning of justice.
And if this whole “Bush fooled me into voting for a war” argument is true for some of them, then they are simply too dumb to hold office.
well… yeah.
*Wow, ethnocentrism, strawmen, and intentional misreading!*
Intentional misreading . . . how? Ethnocentrism . . . where? And no, historical examples are not made of straw.
*Shoe-non-throwers in the other thread have already advocated for the impeachment and prosecution of Bush as per, you know, the proper functioning of justice.*
And where and when do you anticipate the proper functioning of justice to take place vis-a-vis this presidency, Angel?
Anyway, in the event of an actual impeachment, I’m sure you’d oppose it.
Does it cause one to become a foolish equivocator whose arguments demonstrate at best a lack of subtlety and discretion and at worst the fallacy of the excluded middle?
If not, how did you get to be that way?
Ethnocentrism: “I’m pretty well assured that if an Iraqi man wants to commit an act of violence, there will be no mistaking it for anything else.”
Intentional misreading and strawman: “idea that Western countries can (and should) kill with impunity on a mass scale”
Strawman 2: “Anyway, in the event of an actual impeachment, I’m sure you’d oppose it.”
Working on building a straw army, I see. Well, I’m glad there are shoe-throwers in both threads who are capable of engaging with ACTUAL arguments and opponents instead of imaginary ones. Otherwise this would get boring pretty quickly.
Shoe-non-throwers
??
Is that like not stamp collecting?
I’m not really inclined to listen to bullshit quavering of people calling for “the proper way to do things” (I swear; that’s like 1 notch down from “Won’t somebody PLEASE think of the children!?”) when there is A.) FUCK-ALL chance of the proper way of doing things actually being done in ANY way and B.) FUCK-ALL prior examples of the proper way of doing things being done in past by the involved characters.
Thus, no, I do not see how it would it be cosmically inappropriate–contrary to U.S. law, sure, but in alignment with the universe itself–for Bush to chew a shoe?
@Nick: Oh, I’m sorry; I used complete sentences and didn’t call you names–I can see where you’d get lost. Buh-bye.
@175,
Yeah, man, I don’t know… It’s exam week. My wording is fail.
Hrm. Let’s see:
a) Lie fat, white ass off to congress and the entire world systematically and deliberately for months, start ruinous, bloody war resulting in an endless, irresolveable quagmire and tens to hundreds of thousands of deaths, immense and irreparable damage to an ancient cultural legacy, and hundreds of billions of dollars in cost to your own citizenry, trash the constitution, lock people up without redress for years, torture them, send them to nations where others torture them for you… and angry liberals will call for people to throw shoes at you.
b) Beat a conservative ticket silly in an electoral campaign, and their raving supporters will call for your death.
Okay then. He’s got a point. That is the liberal equivalent…
So no objection here. Carry on.
*Ethnocentrism: “I’m pretty well assured that if an Iraqi man wants to commit an act of violence, there will be no mistaking it for anything else.”*
No, not ethnocentrism: Recent history. Have some Iraqi men (I never said all or most, mind you) NOT been committing some of the worst acts of violence recently seen on this planet?
*Intentional misreading and strawman: “idea that Western countries can (and should) kill with impunity on a mass scale”*
Um, it’s an intentional *reading*; I have no idea how it’s ‘mis-‘ anything.
You seem to have way more problems with shoes than with bombshells. Or, almost as bad, you have *only* as many problems with bombs as you do with shoes. Like throwing a shoe is somehow even in the same galaxy as dropping a bomb because they can be feebly crammed into the same little idea-box marked “Violence”.
Acrepjectists?
details on what might be happening to the journalist in custody, and what law he might be charged under:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7785338.stm
so correct Iraqi president to Iraqi PM in my previous post.
Seconds until someone calls me “deranged” or “hateful” for actually wanting to see real, powerful criminals rather than powerless shoe-tossers punished, T-minus 10, 9, 8, 7 . . .
Wait a sec: Are you STILL expectantly waiting for kisses and flowers (maybe neck extended, eyes closed, lips puckered?) as our just reward for invading and occupying these people, Angel? WAKE UP, prissyfuck.
what are you, some deranged hateful anti-american hippie?
… it’s so much easier to punish shoe tossers!
… yeah, I know it’s likely the needle is over there in the shadows somewhere, but the light is so much better over here…
If we send shoes to George W., We should send them to the Democrat leaders in congress for putting us in the economic mess we are in.
It just serves no purpose
why does it seem that a lot of people here seem to miss some basic distinctions in WHEN violence is used?
violence by the powerful on the powerless is evil, cruel, and any number of negative adjectives
violence among equals is uncivilized
violence by the powerless on the powerful is a justified form of resistance. sometimes, it’s even a moral imperative, when there’s no “civilized” way to draw attention to your plight and achieve justice.
It’s easy to hate Bush for what he has done, but he is still our president and should be treated as such. I don’t want to see any American president (or any other world leader, for that matter) treated that way, and I think it’s sad that people who are in many ways fairly reasonable would want to debate about whether it’s OK or not. Demonstrations and protests are appropriate. Physical acts of violence definitely are not.
Obviously you have a specific definition of ‘purpose’ in mind; perhaps you’d like to define your concept for us so as to make your claim marginally meaningful.
Feynmaniac #166,
unless you can provide evidence to support it and specific names amongst the 77 senators (48R, 29D) who approved the resolution No: 107-243 and honestly didn’t believe the US was under imminent threat, what you are writing is mere speculation.
For instance I do not know, nor have I any evidence to support the notion that Sen. Bill Nelson (see my post #119) is lying in his declaration.
If you can’t even give one name and the supporting evidence, they are all innocent. Stupidity, naiveté, trusting the foremost intelligence experts in your country are not crimes.
On the other hand, willingly distorting intelligence reports or ignoring contrary information in order to construct a case for a war, clearly is.
There is sufficient evidence to support the affirmation that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are criminals.
It is too important that these 3 obvious criminals be brought to justice. Speculations about the rest do not help this process, it only serves as excuse to muddle it and to delay punishment of the 3 evident criminals.
He’s not my president, and his office shouldn’t give him a free pass to be a fuckwit without consequence. And just who the fuck are you to tell us what is and what isn’t appropriate without any justification other than an obvious appeal to blind authority?
One Eyed Jack #112: I can’t believe nobody has made the obvious reference to Austin Powers.
“That really hurt! I’m going to have a lump there, you idiot! Who throws a shoe? Honestly… You fight like a woman.”
Sorry, but you might want to look at post #4 in the original shoe-thread… ;o)
I definitely like the postcard idea. However, look what Bush has said since the incident:
This is from CNN.
There are just so many things wrong with what Bush says here. All you really need to know is that Bush’s press conference was in the Green Zone. That alone proves that Bush is just being incredibly disingenuous when it comes to not understanding people are really, really angry at him.
I plan to send my postcard. At this point, I’d say that over half the planet regard this journalist as a hero. Not just in the Middle-East, but everywhere. Once you understand the insult, which isn’t “bizarre”, as W claims, you feel great about what this guy did. It wasn’t violent (okay, it MIGHT have caused a bloody nose, at worst. Sorry!). It made a point. It was even eloquent.
And W proved, once again, that he doesn’t understand a thing. He. Thinks. People. Love. Him. Get it?
I second Brownian in #191. he sure as fuck isn’t my president either. we aliens aren’t allowed to vote. and even if, being president is no excuse to wage a war of agression and get away with it without so much as a black eye.
If the shoes are smelly enough, could it be considered a terrorist act?
I’d just like to point out that my comment on the original shoe-throwing post included a suggestion that the unimpressed US public each send one shoe to Bush.
Brownian,
That was an expression of opinion. Obviously, I don’t expect everyone (or anyone, apparently) to agree. As for him not being your president, I offer my condolences. :)
*It’s easy to hate Bush for what he has done,*
No, it’s PROPER to hate Bush for what he has done.
*…but he is still our president and should be treated as such.*
Why? Why shouldn’t he? Why should his office alone afford him respect when he has done nothing but dishonor it?
*Demonstrations and protests are appropriate.*
THEY. DID. NOT. FUCKING. WORK!!!!!!!
*Physical acts of violence definitely are not.*
Says who? You? Oh good. Well we’ll just deploy you and your wagging finger to the front gates of some prison full of political dissents and soon you’ll have everyone released, right?
JRS,
So if it’s a matter of principle, you wouldn’t approve if a Zimbabwean journalist threw a shoe at Mugabe, nor if a French or Polish journalist had thrown a shoe at Hitler ?
Congratulations are much more appropriate.
someone in DC could collect all the shoes and at least display them somehow. Then they could be donated. I’d chip in a couple $ for that bit of activism.
At this point, I’d say that over half the planet regard this journalist as a hero.
Cite the poll you are referencing, please? What? No poll? Oh.
Don’t get me wrong. I think Bush deserves at least a couple thousand shoes to the head, to be sure, but you just pulled that out of your ass.
And I’m not going to see the thrower as any sort of hero. It was one monkey throwing dung at another monkey. Complete filth all around, and an amusing sideshow event at best.
If a shoe tossing semi-journalist is what the world latches onto for a hero these days, we are in some deep, deep shit.
And the reaction amongst supposedly smart and scientifically minded folks? Send shoes to Bush? What? Are you a pack of retarded mongrels? Seriously, this is some pathetic shit.
#199 – Wouldn’t it be better to put those people on trial and imprison them? Why do we need to throw shoes?
Did throwing shoes at Bush do anything to change what he did? Would it have changed anything he did if it had happened in 2003 or 2001? I don’t think it would. It’s a meaningless, violent act that does nothing but demean the person responsible for it. He got some notoriety too. So what?
Hear! Hear!
Bush has claimed that he’s doing “The Lord’s Work” in Iraq. Bush doesn’t care what other people think about his actions. He’s right with “The Lord,” that’s all that matters.
JRS, that’s fine; but opinions, like theories, are best served with a steaming helping of fact and argument. Expressing “X is not appropriate but Y is appropriate” is all fine and dandy, but it’s best demonstrated rather than asserted. For instance, why do you feel that way? What’s your definition of ‘appropriate’? What about situations where participants feel that the only process of achieving redress is through inappropriate behaviour, and via what mechanisms do you suppose this situation might be avoided (or alternatively, ignored)?
If this were a survey, “I think X” would be an appropriate response. As it is a blog with active and lively participants, “I think X” is no longer appropriate. “I think X because etc. etc.” is.
From the BBC: the meme is spreading!
Environmental activists have staged protests in several Australian cities against a plan to combat climate change announced by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.
Some campaigners held up white flags to signify Australia’s “surrender” to climate change, while others reportedly threw shoes at a puppet of Mr Rudd.
And I’m not going to see the thrower as any sort of hero. – Logo8
Well no. After all, he only risked death or torture to make his point.
semi-journalist – logo8
Quite. I mean, he only works for some rag-head rag, doesn’t he?
It’s called a peaceful protest, dipshit. For someone who appears to consider themself superior to ‘supposedly smart and scientifically minded folks’ you’re actually pretty clueless – especially when you write things like this:
Because we can’t put them on trial and imprison them, short of inciting people to an armed uprising which would lead to much bloodshed (unlike shoe-throwing). If we could, we would be suggesting throwing shoes, would we?
Your concern is noted and discarded with appropriate disdain.
This shoe throwing becomes a discussion about princples :
– no to violence
– no to klling
– no to treating of a world leader that way
– etc
Should principles be inflexible ? Should only really important and fundamental principles be inflexible, but others only serve as guides and be flexible enough ?
Most people who are anti-shoe-throwing seem to have very fixed principles, and IMHO not very important principles.
I live them with a few quotes on principles :
“We all live in the protection of certain cowardices which we call our principles.”
“Principles have no real force except when one is well-fed.”
Mark Twain
“I like persons better than principles, and I like persons with no principles better than anything else in the world.”
Oscar Wilde
“I am a man of fixed and unbending principles, the first of which is to be flexible at all times.”
Everett Dirksen
“To have doubted one’s own first principles is the mark of a civilized man.”
Oscar Wendell Holmes
“Important principles may and must be inflexible.”
Abraham Lincoln
And the last one is quite interesting :
“If there be one principle more deeply rooted than any other in the mind of every American, it is, that we should have nothing to do with conquest”
Thomas Jefferson
So I was reading the morning news: Iraq shoe-thrower faces court
Brownian,
I don’t think Bush deserves to have shoes thrown at him because he is the President, and because as a head of state he is deserving of respect which precludes violent acts. Now that I think of it, it’s not really so much an opinion as it is a fact.
I know that many people here disagree though, and I don’t really expect to change any minds. I just think that expressions of dissent don’t have to include violence, and usually carry less weight when they do.
It may feel very satisfying to some people to watch the video of Bush dodging shoes, but I felt personally insulted as a US citizen. More than that, though, I thought the shoe-thrower was an idiot.
What we need to acknowledge is that we’re not against violence, just unsanctioned violence.
If GWB is brought up on war crimes and sentenced to death isn’t that also violence directed to a world leader?
It seems that it is by some people’s definitions. Not mine or course.
But people here are trying to make this black or white and its not.
Quite frankly, if GWB had any balls he’d ask the iraqi gov to pardon the reporter. but then I don’t think he has. I think Dick Cheney has them in a jar on his desk, a gift from Laura.
I don’t think Bush deserves to have shoes thrown at him because he is the President, and because as a head of state he is deserving of respect which precludes violent acts. Now that I think of it, it’s not really so much an opinion as it is a fact.
That you don’t think so might be a fact. That someone, anyone, “deserves” something, or does not, is inescapably a value judgement, and, as such, is an opinion. You label it “a fact” because you can’t or don’t want to support your opinion with an argument.
The proper translation of the Arabic term is the more appropriate cur. There should be no doubt about what kind of dog.
#211 You felt insulted!!!!
I wake up every morning personally insulted by that pompous ass who is not qualified to flip burgers let alone be president.
Respect is earned, and he spent 8 years earning nothing but contempt.
Your insulted!!!
Imagine the 500,000 dead Iraqis and how insulted they and their families feel?
And it was bizarre, and it was an interesting way for a person to express himself.”
That’s what makes me so angry – Bush is either THAT ignorant, or is deliberately pretending not to understand just how huge of an insult that was. He’s going to invade an entire country and throw it into ruins, and claim that he did something good, and he doesn’t even understand their culture enough to know when he’s been properly insulted? Idiot.
John, #210
I doubt it’s in the American Govt or its puppet the Iraqi Govt’s interest to have Zaidi being thrown in Jail for a long duration (up to 15 years).
That will only serve to convert him to a martyr and augment the symbolic importance of this incident and prolong its effect in the Arab world.
I’m going to take the liberty to ignore J on the grounds that he’s just making shit up, and respond to negentropyeater.
I agree with a lot of the quotes you cited (not all, and I think you’ll agree that’s not a problem), especially the last one – the US should NOT be involved in conquest, and the occupation of Iraq should NOT be happening. And yes, some principles should be flexible. It’s more a question of what you think should cause principles to bend. As I’m not arrogant enough to believe that I’m perfect, I’m not going to take my ability to empathize with something as sufficient to bend principles around it. In the question of whether you excuse something as human frailty, of whether you punish it, empathy matters. But in the question of whether it needs to be excused, principles are more important. Sometimes it’s necessary to do immoral things to prevent greater immorality from happening. Sometimes the ends might make it necessary to use otherwise undesirable means. But this doesn’t make the means exempt from moral examination. Maybe it’s the lesser of two evils, but the fact that it’s lesser doesn’t make it good. (I’m not referring to Bush’s actions vs. the guy’s actions as the two evils, I’m referring to the guy’s action vs. doing nothing.) Does that make sense? I just had an econ exam and my brain’s been wiped.
I agree that Bush should lobby for leniency or a pardon on behalf of the shoe-thrower.
Hint: NOT from The Onion.
Huh? You apparently don’t know what a ‘fact’ is.
Maybe. But if that’s the case, then why didn’t your vaunted heads of state protest to express their dissent with Saddam, rather than going to war?
Not so satisfying as if he’d been beaned.
Too bad for you. Get some perspective. You’re not the president.
Well, he was a victim of torture. The waterboarding probably didn’t do his brain much good.
@219,
Pretty much nothing that could happen now could be considered a pardon. They already put the guy in the hospital; he was already much more severely punished than he should have been. But yes, Bush should lobby for his release. …As he should for most of the people his agents have tortured. But oh well. Yeah.
negentropyeater @217, I too doubt it’s in their best interest. But it’s not like either party has shown much acumen over such issues in the past…
—
And, to those many other posters claiming this was violence – there’s a big difference between (ineffectual) attempted violence and actual violence.
I’m surprised at how many commenters here don’t seem to recognise the action was symbolic, or that Bush’s response (apparent perplexity) was either ignorant or disingenuous.
Nice. I have just donated my shoes, and will be sending my postcard very soon. :) I won’t call him a dog though, I don’t know why I can’t do that as much as I dislike him. I will, however, very gladly blow him a goodbye kiss…
Muntazir al-Zaydi (the thrower) now has over 6,500 fans on Facebook. http://www.facebook.com/pages/-/40778818468
We all should have been throwing shoes at Bush for the last five years. If he had ever been even slightly accessible.
Yeah, I’d probably feel bad if the shoe had hit him, but it didn’t.
Angel Kaida,
So in this case, you don’t think that the principle that one should not send a shoe at a world leader should be bent ?
Iraq has been invaded illegally by the USA, causing several hundred thousand deaths, ruining its economy and infrastructure. The principle holds, according to you ?
So in which case would you bend this principle, can you give an example, and how do you justify beding it, and not for the Zaidi/Bush case ?
Brownian,
We’ll just have to disagree on whether visiting heads of state should have shoes thrown at them, or if there are circumstances where that could be acceptable. To suggest that I should have to come up with some sort of proof for my position against that is rather silly, I think.
What’s fascinating is that the fact that Zaidi has been violently beaten up seems to bother certain commenters far less than that the PotUS has been thrown two shoes accross a room.
To suggest that I should have to come up with some sort of proof for my position against that is rather silly, I think. – JRS
You were asked for an argument for your position, not proof. If you comment here, you’d better get used to being asked to support any assertion or opinion you put forward. If you’re not prepared to do so, I suggest you piss off.
JRS #203,
Some of your questions are particularly naïve.
Do you really believe that Zaidi can put Bush on trial ? Or a Zimbabwean journalist put Mugabe on trial, or a French jornalist put Hitler on trial ?
I hope that Zaidi’s shoe will remind and motivate many Americans to demand that Bush be brought to justice. That is possibly the best he could do to get Bush on trial.
negentropyeater,
I assume you are referring to me. I don’t agree with the violence against Al-Zaidi either, and I think it’s a shame that he was beaten. They should have only used as much force as was needed to arrest him. Hopefully, we’ll get more details about exactly what happened and who was responsible in the next few days.
JRS,
See, I don’t put the two “violent acts” on the same level :
1- on one hand you have one of the world’s worst crminals who just ran the risk of receiving two shoes thrown at him accross a room
2- on the other hand you have a journalist, whose only crime is to have thrown 2 shoes accross a room at one of the world’s worst criminals, being severely beaten up
One I approve of, the other I found profoundly disgusting.
A matter of principle you say ?
Wowbagger: It’s called a peaceful protest, dipshit.
And called wasting your time, fuckhead. Useless, just like you and your pals here shaking your tiny fists at The Man who is utterly unaware you even exist. He won’t give a gnat’s fart how many shoes you send. But, please, if it keeps scum like you busy, go ahead and sally forth in your impotence and irrelevance.
Follow the shoe! No, wait, follow the gourd! No, the shoe! The gourd!
When my father was a pitcher, he once had to be escorted out of Canada by police after beaning a guy.
Just thought I’d share. Carry on.
negentropyeater,
I don’t see how it’s possible to completely justify any act of violence. You can say it was retribution, justice, or whatever, but ultimately it was just a temper tantrum followed up by a beating from frustrated, angry (and possibly bored) security people.
Thanks for the tip. All the best to you in the manner you see fit to impact the world.
Okay, look. We can all agree that violence is bad, especially when you’re the one that the acts are directed against. But there are levels of violence that are justified and not nearly worth all of this trouble.
Seriously, this whole damn ordeal is ridiculous. This guy threw an object at someone who’s the leader of a powerful, wealthy nation–a man who has armed officials ready to protect him and some of the best health care at home. The journalist who threw these shoes, however, just witnessed the death of thousands of citizens and had his entire life flipped upside-down. Even if the president HAD gotten a bloody nose or a bump on the head, which is the lesser of the two evils?
Not only that, but the poor guy got the shit kicked out of him because of it. For the love of FSM, you should stop worrying about the damn president–who dodged both of the shoes–and see that the atrocities this man has both witnessed and experienced are far worse than such a minor act of violence.
I personally think you’d have to be insane to consider these acts on the same level just because they are technically violence. It’s like comparing the swatting of a fly to the annihilation of a country.
Someone needs a hug.
I can’t ‘approve’ or ‘disaprove’ of the anguished outburst of a man who has seen his country torn apart and countrymen die because of an unprovoked act of agression.
JRS,
Completely? No. But many here (including myself) would claim that some acts of violence may be justified considering intent (why is why manslaughter is distinguishable from first or second degree murder in law) or if their effect is to prevent further, more grievous violence (or it’s general result: injury. Others might disagree about whether a given violent act fits some criteria for justification, or whether any act can be justified (as you are making).
That’s why there’s no such thing as ‘complete’ justification, but that doesn’t mean we should throw our hands up and not try to understand the arguments for or against.
For all those deploring that mean ole shoe tosser picking on our Glorious Leader, you might be interested to know that within seconds of his act, he was already being beaten and hurt while Bush smirked:
JRS,
Really ?
So you’re a student at Virgnia Tech. This mad guy has just killed 12 person. You have a gun. You see him, he’s about to kill another 3. There’s nobody else except you who can save these 3 person. You don’t think you are completely justfied to try to shoot him ?
The hardcore Republicans who support Iraq war even now can still use this event to their defence. Before, one could only get away with hurling shoes at the statue of the man, and after the man has been deposed. Now, one can hurl his shoes at the man, without punishment by hot-poker to the anus. Although, he might have to participate in a naked prisoner pyramid.
Posted by: JRS | December 16, 2008 6:17 PM
” I just think that expressions of dissent don’t have to include violence, and usually carry less weight when they do.”
Yeah. I’m sure Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, et al would concur…
JRS needs a remedial English class to learn what a “fact” is. And while he’s at it, a history class to learn about the effects of violent dissent and uprisings over he last several millenium.
Actually, negentropyeater, as whether any acts of violence are justifiable is in dispute, the analogy might be more apt if instead of being armed with a gun you’re in position to toss your shoe at the gunman’s head, distracting him long enough for the other students to escape.
However, JCR has already claimed that he did condone the necessary amount of violence needed to restrain al-Zaidi, so he’s already demonstrated that he doesn’t accept his own claim as worded.
JRS,
are you a Libertarian, by any chance ?
I can’t believe that some wingnut idiot earlier in the thread tried to make the case that Al Zaida was coerced by Islamists into throwing shoes… where do these people come from?.
Posted by: Logo8 | December 16, 2008 5:37 PM
“Are you a pack of retarded mongrels? Seriously, this is some pathetic shit.”
Oh, the irony!
Logo8 bleated:
Yeah, we’re all in awe of your potence and relevance.
Pissant.
Brownian,
I wasn’t trying to make an analogy, just describing a situation where I’d consider an act of violence justified (a much worse act of violence than throwing a shoe accross a room btw).
Sorry negentropyeater, I didn’t mean to step on your argument.
JRS wrote:
Actually you were asked to give proof to support your “fact”:
So let’s see some evidence for the “fact” that Bush being Maximum Leader means that he’s precluded from violence.
Or just admit that you think it’s fine and dandy for Bush’s actions to result in the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis but it’s a sin for shoes to be tossed at him.
Yes, there are different levels of violence, and there are cases (self defense, limited use in law enforcement, etc.) where the use of violence has some justification. I think the intent in those cases has to be some sort of net positive result, though, and it would be better to seek nonviolent means where possible. In the case of the shoe-throwing and the beating that followed, all I saw was violence for its own sake.
negentropyeater – Nope, Democrat. :) By the way, I think bringing up the Virginia Tech incident is a little cheap, and I don’t see any comparison.
@225,
No, in this case, I don’t think the principle that we should not advocate or commit violence against other human beings should be bent. And the situations you listed in other discussion – you have the ability to stop someone from killing three other people but only if you do violence to the would-be killer – would justify bending such a principle. Few things would.
@251,
I don’t agree with JRS that it’s a fact either, or that Bush’s head of state status gives him any increased physical sanctity, but can you please quit with the binary thinking? He doesn’t think what Bush did is good either. It’s entirely possible to simultaneously hold the belief that someone is a criminal and hold the belief that one should not bodily attack said criminal.
Similarly, can’t we agree that between the black and white extremes of murdering said criminal and committing no violent act whatsoever lie some gradations of bodily attack and that launching a pair of loafers one after the other at said criminal should get props for achieving some small amount of comedic justice?
Well, we can agree that there are gradations. This isn’t comedic justice – it isn’t any kind of justice. Justice probably won’t happen. It is a little bit of revenge, an outburst of anger, but I think that giving the guy “props” for behaving violently – no matter how much my heart might be with him, and no matter how horrifying it is that he is currently suffering so much violence toward himself – would be hypocritical on my part, since I am also opposed to physical abuse of the incarcerated and vigilantism.
“””JRS,
I don’t see how it’s possible to completely justify any act of violence.
Really ?
So you’re a student at Virgnia Tech. This mad guy has just killed 12 person. You have a gun. You see him, he’s about to kill another 3. There’s nobody else except you who can save these 3 person. You don’t think you are completely justfied to try to shoot him ?”””
This is, in a nutshell, the only plausable and justified Iraqi war argument. Saddam killed and you intervened to save lives.
Unfortunately, like American politics, Iraq isn’t a two-legged stool either. The theatre in the round known as Iraq had a defective religious culture and a large enough percentage of psychopaths in its society to ruin itself.
Remember, this was a culture that forgave a murderer (Sadr)and had millions follow him because his father was a religious hero.
As for the shoe incident, those arguning the “violent act” case really don’t understand the significance of the gesture, which was meant to be entirely humiliating and not pain inducing. In the Arab world, the man effectively dopped his pants and shat on Bush’s face…
I’d applaud him for that, wouldn’t you?
Just to be clear, I never said I thought Bush was a criminal. I haven’t appreciated his policies or the rush to war and the catastrophes that came as a result, but for him to be a criminal he would have to be convicted of some crime. That hasn’t happened and isn’t likely to happen. Throwing shoes and calling names isn’t going to help anyone, though. I am hopeful (but doubtful) that the next 4-8 years can be more about fixing the problems that Bush and others caused in the last 8 years, and less about trying to affix blame and pointing fingers at the other side.
oh, is that how this works. you’re not a criminal unless you’ve gotten yourself convicted? so the mass murderers and rapists of Darfur are not committing crimes? the men who stone rape-victims aren’t criminals? OJ is not a murderer?
I have the sudden urge to perform a non-criminal action on you.
For him to be a convicted criminal he would have to be convicted of some crime. Pretty basic stuff.
No, SfO, we do understand that it was, in terms of cultural significance, like a nastier form of giving the finger. It’s just that it also entailed a violent action. There was, for instance, the possibility of the man taking off his shoes and turning both the soles to Bush. That would have achieved the same insult (or maybe not to the same degree?) without launching an assault on his person.
Unfortunately, the situation is such that he probably would have been beaten and tortured for that too. Sick stuff.
http://www.sockandawe.com/
– and make it 100 million hits!
#195: Eactly, the combined smell of all these used shoes would constitute an act of distributed biochemical mayhem (DBCM).
SfO,
No, this is not a plausible argument. Intervening to save lives is justified but not if you know that you might end up causing the death of far more people than you would have saved.
It has been shown that the vast majority of Saddam’s human rights abuses happened more than a decade before the invasion. It was known by all major human rights organisations as they all argued that even had human rights concerns been a central rationale for the invasion, military intervention would not have been justifiable on humanitarian grounds. As Human Rights Watch’s Ken Roth wrote in 2004, despite Hussein’s horrific human rights record, “the killing in Iraq at the time was not of the exceptional nature that would justify such intervention.”
Simply, if you cause several hundred thousand deaths in order to save a few thousand, intervention is not justified.
JRS,
This wasn’t cheap, this wasn’t a comparison either. You affirmed that you didn’t think violence could ever be justified. I gave you an example where even shooting someone would be justified.
This pretty much sums up your thinking !
Since our economy is in ruins not many of us out here can afford to part with our old shoes, PZ.
If time travel were to become possible in the lifetime of some of the posters here, would we learn of it from certain commenters writing to tell us of how their older selves gave them a serious smack down?
Words have meaning. Words have consequences. Anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of public opinion. Being ardent about a subject only makes matters worse.
That’s the second comment I’ve read since I awoke that I don’t understand. To whom is it directed? What are you trying to say?
And of potentially greater importance, should I avoid reading comments in the morning, when they leave me confused?
Wow! A comment from SfO which didn’t mention the evils of the Fedral Gubmint, only hinted at the two-party duopoly, didn’t begin “Ummmm”, and didn’t end “the mind boggles”! Congratulations Scott – keep it up!
SC, OM@266
No, Alan Kellogg should avoid writing comments when he’s confused – that is, in the morning, afternoon, evening or night.
Wow. Contempt for Bush–how original, PZ. How useful. How predictable. I bet you have one of those “1/20/09” bumper stickers on your car too.
I have no love for the Idiot-In-Chief, but I can imagine better things to do with my time and talent, and I thought I had less of both than you do.
By the way, in case you don’t get the memo, Nixon and Reagan are dead, so no need to send them anything.
SC,
I also don’t get it, and I’ve been up for 6 hours. Maybe Kellogg tried to say something profound, that would be a rare exception.
Wow. Contempt for contempt for Bush – how original, Codswallop. Congratulations on your appropriate choice of nym.
Next thing you know Walton’ll stop beginning 92% of his sentences with “I”!
Codswallop,
Want to take the bet ? How much you want to bet ?
something went wrong with my blockquotes !
SC, OM@272,
Yes – or Randy Stimpson will find something out for himself, Piltdown Man will stop using Latin tags, jcr will realise von Mises isn’t the last word in economics… Mind you, if too many of these events come to pass in a brief timespan, we’d have to concede to Piltdown that miracles do happen!
You realize if you mail shoes to the President you’ll just end up in a Syrian CIA prison, right?
Of course, one thrown shoe is much more important than 8 million purple fingers.
“””It has been shown that the vast majority of Saddam’s human rights abuses happened more than a decade before the invasion. It was known by all major human rights organisations as they all argued that even had human rights concerns been a central rationale for the invasion, military intervention would not have been justifiable on humanitarian grounds. “””
I see. So you find it acceptable that the perp of these abuses remained in power to lord over a cowering populace? I won’t take a side in this argument because I’ve declared the argument a stalemate. For me, it falls into the “perfect moral dilemma” box where it will forever stay.
Your argument claims foreknowledge of Iraqi self-destruction, which was guessed at, surely, but not certain.
The other argument suggests that MORE “human rights abuses” (are you aware of the abuses you are referring to? I mean really aware?) were certain, given the actions of Saddam’s past, making the intervention justified (especially as to the situation with the Kurds)…
Making false attributions of deaths, though, doesn’t help the argument either way…
TX CHL Instructor,
The majority of Iraqis who voted in the general election, voted for parties which had signed the “Pact of Honour” pledging them to secure the swift removal of foreign forces, and the elimination of all results of their presence. Most of those parties reneged on this commitment. Every poll taken has shown a majority for the invaders’ removal. The claims of the invasion’s supporters that they respect Iraqis’ opinions are simply lies.
TX CHL Instructor,
I think it would be fair to say many Iraqis would approve of the thrown shoe, considering 61% approve of attacks on US-led forces. Too bad those fingers weren’t purple from a vote to have US forces in Iraq withdraw. Otherwise, the measure would pass with 71%. Also, too bad 100,000 Iraqis, some of whom participated in the voting, have died because of the war.
When you shout the empty slogan of “Democracy” you can easily lose sight of the humanity.
Hi, Scott!
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/husseinindex.htm
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/3/3/stephen_kinzer_on_the_us_iranian
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/09/oh_no_now_dinesh_dsouza_is_aft.php#comment-1101310
dude, even Darth Cheney knew that would happen… it was VERY predictable.
Wow, this thread is a bit of a clusterfuck.
Here’s my $.02.
Guy throwing shoe: Yes, it IS violence, but it’s certainly understandable. I won’t say I condone it, the jury in my head’s still out on whether it’s truly justifiable, but it’s absolutely understandable.
Guys assaulting shoe-throwing-guy: Hoooooly crap, that’s absurdly excessive, especially given the lack of potential for serious (ie, armed) threat. Tackle/subdue the guy? Expected. Beat the ever-loving shit out of him? Out of line by a fucking mile. And, yes, if Bush has even the barest smidge of compassion in the shriveled recesses of his addled brain, he’ll push for pardoning.
Sending shoes to Bush: Clever, but generally pointless and wasteful.
Donating shoes, sending snarky note to Bush: Great idea!
Throwing a cream pie would have been funnier.
Throwing a cream pie would have been funnier.
but not more culturally relevant.
Your argument claims foreknowledge of Iraqi self-destruction, which was guessed at, surely, but not certain.
more than just guessed at (you could, if you really cared, actually find this out for yourself). Would you think that basing decisions on the best available information is a good strategy, or not?
because Bush certainly failed on that one.
even if you fictitiously suppose it a “guess”, it was entirely ignored by the administration.
I suppose you yourself would have decided the issue on a coin toss?
especially as to the situation with the Kurds
remember when I told you to look up the relationship between the Turks and the Kurds?
something tells me you never bothered, considering you keep seeming to forget we traded the Kurds for limited access through Turkish territory.
you choose to remain willfully ignorant, which of course gives me room, and with great pleasure, to label you what you are:
a demented fuckwit.
Uh.. the shoe deal was staged.
The shoe-hurling meme continues to spread!. Meanwhile, an Iraqi judge confirms that Muntader al-Zaidi has been beaten, although claiming this occurred at the site of the hurling, not later in custody.
This post definitely sparked all sorts of discussion. I just want to add a resource for everyone. K.I.D.S. (Kids in Distressed Situations) is an organization where you can donate new children’s shoes. So if you’re interested in shoe donating (sans throwing) on a large scale and want to help children in disasters, this is another great organization to consider.