Pages

Sunday, March 04, 2007

And Now, For Something Completely Different

A friend send along the following from Dick Cavett’s blog. I think he pretty much says it all.

Subject: Dick Cavett: What My Uncle Knew About War


Are you too getting just a little bit fed up with our leader's war?
Isn't everybody? Do you actually know anyone who thinks it's all going to turn
out fine? Except that chubby optimist Dick Cheney, of course, who thinks the
Titanic is still afloat.

And am I alone in finding our leader's behavior at press conferences irritating?
I mean that smirky, frat-boy joking manner he goes into while, far away, people
he dispatched to the desert are having their buttocks shot away. It's worst when
he does that thing of his that the French call making a "moue"; when he pooches
his lips out and thrusts his face forward in a way that seems to say, "Aren't I
right? And don't you adore me?"

As in his case, I was never a soldier, but God knows I wanted to be. Not in
later years when my draft number came up for real, but back in my Nebraska
grade-school days when Jimmy McConnell and Dickie Cavett watched John Wayne in
"Sands of Iwo Jima" at least five times, one of us sneaking the other in free
through the alley exit. Then we went home, got our weapons (high-caliber cap
pistols) and took turns being John Wayne. The alley was Iwo Jima.

Years later I met Big John. It couldn't have been better. He was in full cowboy
drag on an old Western (studio) street and mounted on his great horse Dollar. He
looked exactly as he did in "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon," and it took my breath
away. I didn't just like him, I loved him. I sorta wished I hadn't liked him
quite as much, so I could have asked him, "Duke, how come not you nor any of
your four strapping sons ever spent one day in the armed services?" ("I'm merely
asking," I might have added to lighten the tone. Or delay the concussion.)

I didn't dodge the draft, and unlike our V.P. I didn't have "a different
agenda." I didn't have to. I had mononucleosis (imagine how the "nuke-you-lur"
president would injure /that/ word in pronunciation) and, my draft board said,
they had way too many guys and nothing was happening, war-wise. Sound
preposterous? And yet there was such a time.

**********

I have a statement: Anybody who /gives/ his life in war is an idiot.

I guess I left off the quotation marks to let the words have their full effect.
They aren't mine, but I'm related to them. They're my Uncle Bill's words, and
his credentials for uttering the remark are a shade better than mine.

He may well have been the sole Marine to have survived driving landing barges on
three bloody invasions in the South Pacific. I asked an old Marine vet once how
rare Bill's survival was. He was gifted of speech: "I'd say survivors of what
your uncle did could probably hold their reunion in a phone booth and still have
room for most of Kate Smith." (We'll pause while youngsters Google.) "My guess
is that your uncle is unique."

Bill said that aside from knowing that any minute was likely to be your last,
the worst part of the job was having to drop the landing barge's front door so
the guys could swarm out onto the beach. Despite the hail of bullets against
that door, he had to drop it, knowing that the front five or six guys would be
killed instantly.

The phrase Bill hated most was "gave his life." That phrase is a favorite of our
windbag politicians; especially, it seems, the dimmer ones who say "Eye-rack."

"Your life isn't given," I remember him saying, "it's brutally ripped away from
you. You're no good to your buddies dead, and when the bullets start pouring in
you don't give a goddamn about God, country, Yale, your loved ones, the last
full measure of devotion or any other of that Legionnaire patriotic crapola. You
just want you and your buddies to see at least one more sunrise."

Bill also served on land and experienced something so god-awful that he thought
he would go mad: "Tom [his best friend] and I were trotting along, firing our
rifles, and I turned to say something to Tom and his head was gone." (Bill had
great difficulty telling this. I guess I felt honored that he had not been able
to speak of it for years.) He said the worst part was that while still holding
the rifle, the body, now a fountain, continued for four or five steps before
falling. He hated to close his eyes at night because that ghastly horror was his
dependable nightly visitor for years — like Macbeth, murdering sleep.

By sheer chance I was out on the sidewalk in front of Bill's house (we lived
next door) when he arrived home from the war. I wasn't even sure it was Bill at
first, he looked so much older.

I blurted, "Hey, Bill, welcome home." He was two feet from me but neither saw
nor heard me. I knew the phrase current then. Bill was "shellshocked." Not the
current "post-traumatic stress disorder" or whatever the P.C.-sounding phrase is
today. For the first six months he was home, he slept in the yard.

You will think less of me for this, but my friend Jim and I, noticing how poor
Bill jumped at sudden sounds, thought a firecracker might be in order. Bill's
training kicked in by reflex. He hit the ground so fast it looked like film with
frames removed. And, lacking the standard-issue shovel, he started digging with
his hands. He never knew who did it. As for Jim and me, I trust that this will
be deducted from our shares in paradise.

Isn't it the excellent combat chronicler Paul Fussell who gets credit for the
phrase "the thousand-mile stare"? It described the look of the haggard soldiers
coming back from their first battle as the eager, fresh-faced kids — which they
had been a few days earlier — filed past them on their way "in." By definition,
both groups were the same age, but there were no young faces in the returning
group. They looked more like fathers than sons.

It amazes me that this bungled war can still be considered controversial. Who
are the 28 percent anyway, who think that George W., the author of this mess,
has "done a heckuva job"?

The other word Bill hated was "sacrifice." Sacrifice is something you give up in
order to get something in return. What good are we getting from this monstrous
error? Cooked up as it was by that infamous group of neocons (accent on last
syllable) who, draft-averse themselves, were willing to inflict on the (largely
unprivileged) youth of this country their crack-brained scheme for causing
democracy to take root and spread like kudzu throughout that bizarre and
ill-understood part of the world, the Middle East.

What /service/ is this great country getting out of all this tragedy, other than
the certainty that historians will ask in disbelief, "Was there no one to stand
up to this overweening president?"

I cringe at the icky, sentimental way the president talks about what we owe to
the people of plucky little Iraq. You'd think we all grew up ending our "Now I
lay me down to sleep…" with "… and please, Lord, be good to Iraq." They detest
us now, along with just about everybody else. Personally, I don't give a damn
what happens to Iraq, and don't think it's worth a single American life. Or any
other kind. Haven't philosophers taught us the immorality of destroying
something of infinite value — like a human life — in order to achieve a
/possible/ good? I guess not.

For weeks the word "cause" has rolled around in my head, attached to an elusive
quote. I found it. It's from Shakespeare's "Henry V" (as distinct, I suppose,
from Paris Hilton's "Henry V") and it's the part where the king, in disguise and
unrecognized, sits at a fire listening to some of his men discuss the next day's
battle and what it means to be fighting in a good cause. One says, "But if the
cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when
all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in a battle, shall join together
at the latter day and cry all, `We died at such a place,' … their wives left
poor behind … their children rawly left. I am afeard there are few die well that
die in a battle. … Now, if these men do not die well, it will be a black matter
for the king that led them to it."

http://cavett.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/02/28/what-my-uncle-knew-about-war/?ex=1173416400&en=f68e01a4418a0a71&ei=5070&emc=eta1
=

41 comments:

Anonymous said...

All wars are bungled in hindsight. People die because of bungling; treasure is lost because of bungling; people vote on the basis of misinformation assumed to be true.

It is easy to criticise anything from the point of agenda, throw epethets, and spout from a position of ignorance.

More FLIM FLIM FLIM from Ann and Cavett. Liberal democratic socialistic rubbish and propaganda to effect power for political thought.

Sort of like the "Move the sewer" group. 41 million in bankruptcy and still no sewer.

Flim-flam from self proclaimed experts with no knowledge or foresight of unintended consequences of non-action. Who listens to Cavett, and how does anyone know he writes the truth? Mabe he made this whole thing up like other stuff found in the past in the New York Times.

Some things are worth fighting for.

When the Israelis feel they are about to be pushed into the sea, they will respond with efficiency: nuclear weapons. It is not nice to threaten the fifth largest nuclear power in the world. Only the US presence in the middle east stops this.

Anonymous said...

All fools who believe in Cavett and Ann are requested to click on the New York Times link. Sign up! You can then read the full statement.

I wonder what Ann gets paid for providing the link?

FLIM FLIM FLIM

Flim-flam.

Mike Green said...

Some things are worth fighting for.

You bet! How about the ability to correct past mistakes made by government that voted on a basis that proved not to be true?
To correct the unintended consequences of the very flim flam you decry.

Anonymous said...

You are correct Mike.

I am fighting to correct the past mistakes made by a government who said they had a plan and then proceeded to prove their plan was only to bankrupt the district in order to delay the sewer as long as possible.

Correct Mike.

Mike Green said...

And very many people are fighting this federal administration for bankrupting our international goodwill and making no plans for the consquences of an ill advised war.

Anonymous said...

I'm fighting this egomaniacal, immoral administration AND this incompetent CSD at the same time. Does that put me into some kind of liberal/conservative incongruity? I've always wondered about that. It seems this sewer war is fought alot along political/socioeconomic lines, doesn't it? I'm just left of Abby Hoffman, but still find myself at odds constantly with this CSD and it's supporters, and Ann, who's column today is absolutely wonderful and spot on. I agree with so many here who decry the actions of this CSD, but then read something like Anon 11:51 and just want to plotz. Go figure.

Mike Green said...

Dear " Go figure"
May I humbly offer you membership in the Los Osos branch of Cargo Cult?
The membership (as far as I can tell) is as diverse as your confusion.
Of course, I dont have any authority to accept new members, each member accepts themselves.
Puts a damper on political affiliations.

Anonymous said...

Is it true the Cargo Cult may have a "new member" in the offing with Mrs.Tacker make her announcement at the next Board meeting? It's going to be such a blessed event.

Mike Green said...

Only Julie can answer that

Mike Green said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Plotzmeister said...

Before we went to war with Sadam, he had already used chemical weapons. He had a nuclear research facility working overtime on the sly. He shut out inspectors. He was found with missiles that were illegal for him to possess by signed agreement
, and he was in open defiance of the UN. He was rattling the saber against Israel. Our intelligence WAS limited, CLINTON had cut our intellegence to the bone.

So who did we rely on. Ex pats who had left Iraq, British intelligence , and Israeli intelligence. Mostly Israeli. We were spoofed, no doubt: now we have hindsight.

Now that we are stuck, where is the foresight? Maybe the best answer is to leave and let the Jews handle their own problems. Let the Moslems destroy themselves. They have been doing a pretty good job on the innocents and themselves. The Israelis can help them to heaven and their virgins. Who really cares anymore, the world never really cared about the blacks chopping blacks in Africa, which they continue.

The world has too much population.

When much of the world's oil supply is disrupted, hundreds of millions will starve to death.

So we will beat our drums, twist our dials, and maybe peace will come with the sewer as cargo from the skys. Pray to Al Gore, head of the cargo cult, he will save us and provide. However maybe Cavett can do better. Bag your plotz and send it to Al Gore, he will be greatful, or better still, send it to Israeli intelligence.

Anonymous said...

Mike Green said...
"Only Julie can answer that"

Actually, it seems quite a few around town have been talking about Mrs.Tacker and her pregnacy.

Anonymous said...

Amazing. She may think this seals the deal, but it will not insure her the position in which she feels she belongs.

Additionally, she is over 40, correct? A little long in the tooth? Hmmm. I doubt this was planned by both.

Anonymous said...

Amniocentesis!

Anonymous said...

Political suicide. No chance to ever be elected for anything anywhere in SLO County. Morals do count!

Churadogs said...

Amazing, Dick Cavette has some pretty insighful things to relate from his Uncle about a huge topic -- WAR -- and what pops up on the comment section? Gossip about Ms. Tacker and more sewer snipes. Sigh.

Anonymous said...

Ann,

What do you expect from a bunch of dimwits with one tract minds. Nothing on any of these blogs can be discussed without demeaning someones character. It's a sad day when all anyone can discuss is Julies personal life.

Woe is the world of sick minded empty headed jerks who post here.

Anonymous said...

TO ANON 1:08

Can't you tell this woman is despised by those who will have to pay the bills for her lies and obstruction? What are you, a renter? Why do you blame people for being upset? Is not a 41 million dollar bankruptcy enough? CDOs. etc. Character? What character? Have you ever read the oath of office she signed? How about you, ANN?

Tawney Lynn Leimkuehler said...

I feel bad that Julie's "PRIVATE LIFE" seems to be so PUBLIC! I feel sorry for her children, I'm sure they're old enough to read these blogs. It's sad that some have stooped to this level.

Anonymous said...

She really shouldn't have stooped so low. Lying wasn't enough. Can the kids divorce their mother?

Anonymous said...

As to Cavett. Many years ago he was considered a liberal commie symp. Sort of funny, however, in a queer sort of way. Not too much of a following from those who worked hard all day. The workers were asleep by the time he came on. He was the darling of the pseudo intellectual community, like Truman Capote, or Leonard Bernstein. Unlike Capote or Bernstein, he has yet to leave a lasting impression. This guy is no Jack Benny. He sure as hell was no Johnny Carson.

His major claim to fame is and was his ability to get many Hollywood stars on his show to interview.

Anonymous said...

"tawney lynn leimkuehler". Is that a real name?

I guess as long as it is your old pal Julie, you would defend her, no matter what.

The fact is, a public figure is subject to the scrutiny and criticism of the public. Instead of castigating the public for the obviously outrageous behavior of Mz. T, you should be advising her to stop making such a spectacle of herself.

But with a moniker like "tawney lynn leimkuehler", what can we expect?

Churadogs said...

Anony sez:"His major claim to fame is and was his ability to get many Hollywood stars on his show to interview."

Actually, Cavett was an amazingly adept interviewer. At that time, most interviews were the 5 minute on-off, buzz-word, promote next movie, blam out the door type (Like leno and Letterman do now.) . He was one of the first to actually sit for a whole hour and draw out his subjects. he also got non-Hollywood folk on for in-depth interviews. That's a difficult skill to do well and he was very good at it. (Merv Griffin, of all people, was also a good interviewer, thought his show's format didn't allow a lot of time)

anon sez:"Can't you tell this woman is despised by those who will have to pay the bills for her lies and obstruction? What are you, a renter? Why do you blame people for being upset? Is not a 41 million dollar bankruptcy enough? CDOs. etc. Character? What character? Have you ever read the oath of office she signed? How about you, ANN? "

Before you keep yourself ramped up into a lathered up fury of personal attack and rage, I would suggest you take another look at that "41 million dollars" Where did that come from? You treat it as if it were real. The breach of contract case hasn't been started, much less settled. I'm waiting to find out just who pulled the plugon that SRF loan, since parts of that $41 million you seem to think is "real" are actually "claims" made by contractors. "Claims," until they're settled, have no reality. I can go into court and sue you and "claim" you owe me $61 million dollars. Does that make it real? Do you actually owe me $61 million dollars? No. Not until the judge rules and the appeals are completed. Even then, on appeal, you know well how many judgements are either reduced or set aside. So that $41 million you apparently are so worked up about isn't real . . . yet. So, take a deep breath.

As for the oath of office, I don't believe the oath of office to serve on a CSD covers private living arrangements, private relationships, family matters, but does say the person will support the constitution and see the laws are faithfully carried out & etc.

It's hard to sort out Anonymouses, but there seems to be only one person -- is that you? -- who seems obsessed with Julie's private life or constantly posting gossip or pointless speculation or, what? made up stuff? assumptions? personal attacks? That always makes me wonder, Why?

We have plenty of ISSUES to discuss here. If you've got some personal obsession or personal issues with Julie, that would appear to be YOUR problem, so you might want to address that in private.

Anonymous said...

Ann:
I agree with you that Dick Cavett's skill as an interviewer was exceptional. I feel at one time, no one could touch both Cavett and Tom Snyder for their interviewing prowess. Thanks for the article.

Anonymous said...

Ann:

Go down to the LOCSD office and read the oath of office that board of directors sign. It is interesting that they sign an oath to represent the interests of the WHOLE community.

To do otherwise is a violation of their oath, and certainly without full research on the possible consequences of their vote is negligence and lack of due dilligence.

*PG-13 said...

Anon X > As to Cavett. Many years ago he was considered a liberal commie symp. Sort of funny, however, in a queer sort of way. Not too much of a following from those who worked hard all day. The workers were asleep by the time he came on.

Ann > Actually, Cavett was an amazingly adept interviewer.

Anon Y > I agree with you that Dick Cavett's skill as an interviewer was exceptional.

First of all, thank you Ann for posting the exceptional Cavett piece. When a well written piece of this quality simply can't be iimproved upon - regardless of which way it leans - it deserves further distribution. Also, thank you so much for reconnecting me to Dick Cavett. Unlike Anon X, back in the day I really enjoyed and appreciated Mr Cavett's interviewing skills. His interviews were so far above anything else on TV at the time (possibly still) that there simply was no comparison. But like Anon X I could seldom stay up late enough to watch his show with any regularity. It was a special treat when I did get to experience him and his guests. This was long before VCR's (and now TIVO) changed the game completely. Reading your re-post of his column inspired me to click a few more links and glory be I discovered many of his interviews have been re-issued on multiple DVD sets. See Dick Cavett list on Amazon.com. Life seldom gives such second chances. I didn't know about these so this is going to be special treat. I've already ordered a couple sets and can't wait to see how they play now some 40 years later. Which means I'll be sitting in front of my TV watching a master instead of spending that time reading unfounded demeaning comments about _______ (fill in a name). Double-bonus!

Tawney said...

to anon. at 8:44 MAR. 6..Just for YOUR information, Julie is NOT a pal of mine, OLD or Otherwise. Just because she is a "public figure" & is "fair game" doesn't mean YOU should sit in judgement of HER. We have a higher Power that will ultimately "judge HER". This is NOT the forum to recollect for the whole world all of Julies "activities". The toll it takes on the innocent children is not worth all YOUR DISCLOSURES. You should be ASHAMED for adding to the paian of this family. Yes, my name REALLY is Tawney L. Leimkuehler!!!

Anonymous said...

To Tawdry L. Lime-Cooler:

And YOU should be ashamed for trying to stifle my 1st Amendment rights!

You sound like Franc3 on the Tribune Blog, all full of sanctimonious self-rightousness. I'll bet you go to church on Sunday and show road rage on the way home.

Public figures do not have private lives, and a public figure that has put themselves in a position for criticism should expect to receive just that.

I feel more sorry for the kids, as their mother has abandoned them.

Anonymous said...

We have NO CSD board. We have Gail. The board doesn't think, they follow Gail like she's God. And look what she's done to this community.

Tawney said...

to anon @1:27 Mar. 7..OH GROW UP!! NO ONE is trying to STIFLE YOUR 1st ammendment rights. I'm NOT franc3 & I'm definitely NOT TAWDRY!!. You sound like David Duggan, cinthea coleman, Michael Jones or Sharon (Rabbi) Fredericks!
Get a grip, it's obvious all YOU can do is GOSSIP about things that are NONE OF YOUR CONCERN.

Anonymous said...

Anon. at 1:27, if YOU feel so sorry about Julie's children, then lay off the dirty gossip. You probably don't even keep YOUR nose clean, so DON'T criticize others, Bee*OTCH.

Anonymous said...

Tawney:

Awwwwwwwww. What a "Nicey" woman you are!!!!!!

So SWEET and malevolent.

Oh well. WE ALL know what a "pious"
good neighbor YOU are.

Go clean your dirty house.

Marti said...

My dear anon. 9:03PM....I have a news flash for YOU....Tawney is a friend of MINE & her house is spotless. You really ARE a critical BEE*OTCH! Get a LIFE & go back to re-hab & get back on YOUR MEDS, you poor, pitiful THING. THIS thread is SUPPOSED to be about Dick Cavett, NOT Julie Tacker!!!

*PG-13 said...

Marti > Tawney is a friend of MINE & her house is spotless. ..... THIS thread is SUPPOSED to be about Dick Cavett, NOT Julie Tacker!!!

Oh, that my house was as clean as Tawney's. < sigh > No, make that < envy >

After my initial read a few days ago followed by further link-clicking to find out what Dick Cavett's up to today, I came back to re-read his column yet one more time. Good writing draws me back again and again just to enjoy the reading. It was a beautiful column. This time though I'm left pondering the ending:

> For weeks the word "cause" has rolled around in my head, attached to an elusive quote. I found it. It's from Shakespeare's "Henry V" ... and it's the part where the king, in disguise and unrecognized, sits at a fire listening to some of his men discuss the next day's battle and what it means to be fighting in a good cause. One says, "But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in a battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all, `We died at such a place,' … their wives left poor behind … their children rawly left. I am afeard there are few die well that die in a battle. … Now, if these men do not die well, it will be a black matter for the king that led them to it."

Oh, Willie, did ever a man know the times/our times/any times so well? And catch it so perfectly? Throughout history there seems always a great rush to war. A rush to throw human bodies, souls (and families) into battle. Far too often those choosing to go to war have never personally tasted war. I mean taste it literally: The smell, the fear, the loss, the horror. Many seem to find glory or success in war. Curiously few of them are veterans of war. Oh, we have gung-ho, semper fie's, rah-rah boys (and girls) still banging their shields of battle. It is a rush, a union, a brothership unlike any other. But that is the energy & spirit of battle. Not the sanity of peace-making. If peace we desire then battle must truly and always be the very last resort. Leaders must know this. And we must - always - hold them accountable for any rush to war. Not an accountability after the fact - that's way too late - but an accountability BEFORE the fact. If an otherwise seemingly sane leader who has personally tasted battle chooses to enter battle again that's one thing. But for us to follow and support leaders who have never known the horrors of battle - indeed, leaders with a history of dodging such horrors - to rush into war reflects our own insanity. The days of a king/emporer/czar sending his army into battle of his own volition are long over. (read: centuries.) If not for the rest of the world at least for us. (Presumably) Yet we seem so easily lead into war. We believe our president. When we want to believe even when he tells us lies. If only our president would sit around the fire with his soldiers before the day of battle. If only he could taste a little of the fear of the next day. And the day after. And the days after that. If only he knew the horror of war. < sigh > Generals and Admirals and other military brass are professional warriors. They have devoted their lives to war. Don't ask them whether to go to war. (Duh!) Or how to extricate ourselves from an un-winnable war. (double Duh!) They're the wrong people to answer such questions. I don't know. Committee's are a terrible way to lead. I'd much rather follow a strong leader - even into error. But a leader who doesn't know where-of he's leading needs to draw upon counsel. In the case of war no better counsel than those who have experienced it. No, not professional warriors aching for a chance to test their many long years of training or the evolution and refinement of their equipment. But those who know the black side of war and have no vestment in the decision whether to go to war. I wonder. Did GW ask any of these people before sending more of their kind into battle? I'd really like to know.


(Fair disclosure: I've not tasted battle myself. I've listened closely and patiently to many who have. I would if necessary but I have no great desire to taste it. I believe we tend to rush to war faster than we tend to rush to peace. I think it should be the other way around.)

Anonymous said...

Better buy a dictionery, Tawdry.
The word "amendment" has 2 "m's" not 3.
AND, YES it IS my concern that we have a person like Julie on the BOD. She can't handle her own life without messing up.
She has been a willful spoiled brat on the BOD. She got on the Board only because there was only one weak candidate running that was pro Tri-W. Julie wasn't even top vote getter. She only got on the ballot because she had fooled so many old people with her lies and deception. And, I do not care if this current blog is about that commie Dick Cavatt, I was not the one to bring up Julie in the first place, but since she was brought up, I feel perfectly justified in posting about her.

And, from what I hear, your house is *not* as clean as your alter-ego "Marti" would like us to believe. YOU know what I am talking about!

And, incidently, Ann, All anonymous posters are NOT just one person. Has it ever occured to you that many people have the same
perspective?

Churadogs said...

Pg 13 sez:"Oh, Willie, did ever a man know the times/our times/any times so well? And catch it so perfectly? Throughout history there seems always a great rush to war. A rush to throw human bodies, souls (and families) into battle."

Yep, Ol' Willie got it right. Alas, I am more and more convinced that we humans are simply hard-wired for war. Just like we're hard-wired to seek the spiritual, see patterns in random things and events (Man, the toolmaker, add Man, the pattern-maker; a skill, by the way, that would have meant survival in a hunter-gatherer -- patterns meant food or danger, your skill at quickly "reading" that pattern meant you lived and passed on that pattern-making ability to your offspring.)

anonymous sez:"And, from what I hear, your house is *not* as clean as your alter-ego "Marti" would like us to believe. YOU know what I am talking about!

And, incidently, Ann, All anonymous posters are NOT just one person. Has it ever occured to you that many people have the same
perspective?"

I never said they were. As for the clear anger behind and, to me, the edgie nastiness of your personal attacks on Julie, (or towards anyone who disagrees with your comments) apparently you didn't read my previous posting on Anonnymice. I find your, uh, interest in Julie's personal life. . . uh. . . interesting. I also wonder if you would post the same comments if you also used your real name? In short, do you stand behind your comments as an "un-anonymous" person? If not, why not?

As for "many" people also sharing your, uh, interest in Julie's personal life? I wouldn't use the word "many" in that context. A few? Two? Three? Out of a community of 15,000, the word "many" doesn't quite fit.

Tawney said...

Thank You Ann for trying to show this "hateful blogger" that not ALL of us wish to particpate in all that hatefulness. It's just too emotionally draining. This person & all of his/her ilk, are the reason this community cannot or will not heal.

Churadogs said...

Tawney said...
Thank You Ann for trying to show this "hateful blogger" that not ALL of us wish to particpate in all that hatefulness. It's just too emotionally draining. This person & all of his/her ilk, are the reason this community cannot or will not heal.

7:39 PM, March 09, 2007"

This particular commentor reminds me of an old folk saying about zealot moralists: "Only one who has hidden under a bed himself thinks to look there first."

As for "healing." Near as I can tell, this town wasn't torn apart. 40% were and remain permanently out to lunch. Of the remainder, I suspect the majority know the county's chugging along on this project, they'll get the info, vote to assess themselves, the sewer will get built and they'll chug along -- totally uninjured and so not in need of "healing."

The small percentage of Sewer Jihadis on either side of this "war", well, that's another matter.

To me, the furyand often downright personal nastiness and really ugly, uncalled-for comments from both sides bespeakes of "something else" going on inside themselves. Strange.

Anonymous said...

I've heard only one side with personal nastiness of late. The other side appears to have dropped out. Care to comment?

4crapkiller said...

From the Tribune sewer blog:

SewerShaman opines (or threatens?):

"With all the inhumane nonsense that you guys have spewed, you shouldn't be surprised that one day, instead of a pat on the back, you will find a bullet: a bullet embedded in that thick skull of yours."

Thanks for the advice. Sounds a little like the advice given to many from the thugs in the back of the LOCSD Board meetings in the past. Were you the person issuing death threats to former board members?

I do not think you are a member of civilized society. You are a dangerous person. You be one sick puppy. All you can offer in disagreement is threat of violence.

Ann: the above is the character of one who supported the stopping of the sewer. One of your folks. When this person is confronted with facts and documentation we get veiled death threats.

And in your stupidity you wish us to reveal our identity? Of course he is on your side, you have nothing to fear.

Anonymous said...

Bev. De Witt-Moylan here:

1:29 PM reminds me of a quote I saw once from Yascha Heifetz. He said, "No matter what side of an argument you're on, you always find some people on your side that you wish were on the other side."