Asymmetrical Information

Where were these pictures taken???

re the bottom picture. That'll do, protester.

They are available in a Yahoo Slideshow:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?g=events/wl/102602iraqprotests&a=&tmpl=sl&ns=&l=&e=1&t=

It's nothing that can't be fixed by a bunch of virile manly patriots armed with 2X4s.

To be more specific - UK, France, Moscow(?), U.S.(?) and definitely California.

er..UK, Australia, etc....

My favorite rally signage: FUCKED TAPE

Don't worry George. If these peaceful gatherings don't give you the message, the next one will be even larger. Size does matter.

Opps! It was spelled FUCT. FUCT TAPE. As in we are under this current administration. But I guess you got the message. I'll send a photo when I get it developed. I can't afford one of those new fangled digital things. The way Jane can't afford a computer. Maybe she will be able to get one now that she is getting so many 'feel-better tips'!

I didn't know those guys are artists.

"Artists United: Win Without War"

Makes me want to think of parallel slogans. How about "Apple Pies Without Pollution".

Hard to argue with a slogan that's against war and in favor of winning. I guess if you're going to print up a lot of T-shirts and get people to wear them, it's easier if the slogan is hard to disagree with.

Of course the problem is, what if we have to choose between war and winning. I'm guessing most of Hollywood would vote for losing, then. (Of course, you don't have to choose losing as long as you claim it's possible to win without war. Last resort and all that.)

I also have to wonder how the "artists" define "winning". Possibly not the way I define it. In fact, I can't think of a way to depose Saddam Hussein and steer the Islamic world away from terrorism short of war. Then again, I'm not an "artist".

As for other good slogans, howz'about, "Free Beer"?

"Artists united"... sorta like Europe is!

I guess they're hoping that Dennis Miller and James Woods will see the t-shirt, suddenly think, "Oh, wait, that's right, I'm an ARTIST!" and scramble back on the peace-luvin' bandwagon with their artist brethren.

This is exactly the type of thinking that has sent Jane Gault from the blog roles for the time being. Not one of these things says anything other than an attack without any facts or merit.

The only thing some of these signs say is "Hey, look at me, I am a total idiot!" Like our No Blood for Oil, I can't even argue against that because it has no logic, it is just one of those arguments that sounds good until you spend five seconds realizing that there is nothing there.

Anyone stupid enough to equate Bush to Hitler or call Bush a terrorist does not have a valid point to make. I will not take people like that seriously or even accept that their side is a legitimate position. The only thing you can say to someone like this is that they are idiots, simply because facts and reason do not come into play in their reality.

War is not an option to these people unless it is supporting some communist guerilla group in Central America. They just are against anything the United States does.

This is not to say that there are not legitimate people who are anti-war and have what could be considered valid arguments, it is just to say that these fools marching do not have valid arguments.

As for these numbers, they are meaningless. Does anyone actually understand that there are 300 million people in this country, so even if there were a million protestors that would be 1/3 of 1 percent.

Last of all, did anyone see the parents whose kid was in the Marines and they were protesting against the war with the IQ challenged Sheila Jackson Lee? How bad are we to feel for them? So their kid goes to the Marines to get an education and experience and they are against the fact that he might have to fight. OH, BOO HOO! Why not just tell us you wanted your kid to stay home and get checks from the government for doing nothing and then when his commitment is up they should find him a job too. Talk about wanting your cake and eating it too. It's a shame that there are other Marines out there that are risking their lives for these dopes' freedom.

I remember a comment re:sculptors. [yeah, I know I can't spell].

"All bash, no brain." Sounds like the syndrome is spreading amongst the artists. You'd think that a good artist could devise something more or less original.

Wait - It was actually Gully Jimson from Cary's 'The Horses's Mouth'. Played in a movie by Alec Guiness if I remember correctly.

Yeah -- The Big Feet Mural.

Down memory lane we go...

How about : "United Artists: War Without Whining" ?

Isn't CA going to start floridating water? Maybe it'll clear up the fuzzies in their heads.

If I stopped having anything to do with media featuring artists who indulged in this sort of tomfoolery, I'd be quickly running out of material.

Ah, well. Now maybe James Cromwell can say "I'm not a rocket scientist but I played on on TV."

Who knew Hugo Weaving was the voice of Fly in Babe? Great bit of movie trivia, that.

I've been thinking about the way two difference posters use Hitler's mustache, on both John Howard and George Bush.

Because, you know, the most fearsome thing about Hitler was his mustache.

The poster of Hitler and Bush with "The Twins" on it really points up the contrasts. Hitler is in uniform, and Bush is not. Wouldn't it be more impressive (if more work in Photoshop) to put Bush in uniform, too? But in fact, the people protesting the war are also the ones calling Bush and his advisors "chickenhawks" because they weren't in the military. From which we might deduce that the protestors would feel better if Bush's Cabinet all wore uniforms with lots of fruit salad, and looked more like a banana republic's junta.

Does anyone have the expertise to take on the task of creating a picture of Saddam Hussein with a toothbrush mustache?

""This is exactly the type of thinking that has sent Jane Gault from the blog roles for the time being. Not one of these things says anything other than an attack without any facts or merit.""

Obviously Jane has not been sent from the blog roles; in fact, I believe she has purloined the mantle of martyr after suffering those harsh attacks from people who aren't inclined to be bashed by 2x4's without protest.

It is difficult to get a cogent argument of any sort on a placard; and any attempt to catagorize these pithy comments as potential arguments is being intellectually dishonest.

Hmmm...my dictionary has "pithy" defined as precise and meaningful. Care to try for another word?

Maybe TonyB is feeling 'pithy,' except he has a lisp?

For the most part, to associate with the types of folks who put political statements, be they right wing, left wing, or anything else, on placards, t-shirts, or bumper stickers, is to place one's I.Q. in danger of falling 25 to 50 percent. Who was it that said that hell is other people?

Will Allen:

Is was Jean-Paul Satre (I can't spell in French either [small loss]) in "No Exit". aka "Huit Close".

Two gals and a guy in an elegant Hell.

Read it. It's actually excellent as a short play.

Au Reviour...

Le Grand Charles

TonyB: Perhaps the placards are just symbolically dishonest as well. After all, if all you can say is "no blood for oil" as a motive for not going to war, then you've obviously missed the obvious point all along that its cheaper to buy the black stuff in the first place. The only whacks these people took is with the stupid stick.

PJ/Maryland, your wish is my command. Saddam with a nice toothbrush mustache here.

About the last picture. Who's the little guy?

PJ: Of course the problem is, what if we have to choose between war and winning.

Of course, the right presents this dichotomy all the time, that the choice is between going to war and doing nothing.

Peter: Anyone stupid enough to equate Bush to Hitler or call Bush a terrorist does not have a valid point to make. I will not take people like that seriously or even accept that their side is a legitimate position. The only thing you can say to someone like this is that they are idiots, simply because facts and reason do not come into play in their reality.

So I guess you'll be disavowing yourself of the pro-war side because of all the people who want to turn Iraq into glass? I guarantee you there's a lot more non-thinking going on in support of war right now. Just about anyone who gives this war (or this administration) any thought can see all the ways in which it's a folly.

It's wrong to tar one side with its worst examples, and you people know better than that.

"You people." Bzzzt! Penalty!

Sorry, Andrea. I meant to say "you guys."

This is all a part of the New World Order folks. Look it up on Google. Can't have a 'one world, one leader' motif if there are a few randoms in the middle east. This has been in the works since Reagan. Plus Iraq's northern fields contain more oil than the Saudi's have in total......and no one has drilled yet!! There are rough years ahead for America and the world. Strap in and get a helmet.

Where are the protests against Saddam Hussein for all the pain and torture he has imposed upon his people? How about asking him to comply with inspections so war can be averted??? Talk about ignorance....

"Where are the protests against Saddam Hussein for all the pain and torture he has imposed"

Michael, Michael, Michael, you are asking these people to be honest. They would protest Bush if he promised to give them each $1,000 out of his own pocket. "Where did he get it from?" "It's gotta be illegal!" "Hey, how come Bill Gates got $1,000? I should get more, then, because he's rich."
If they were honest, they would simply admit that they are left-wingers who hate anything he does, no matter what it is, no matter his motive. This just gives them a bigger venue.

Where do these anti-war, anti-Bush idiots come from?

I would love to have each and everyone of these idiots spend 10 years living under the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein. I think their view of President Bush and the U.S. would change dramatically.

Bush says Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, and Hussein says they do not. You may not like EITHER of these two guys, but who do you think is more likely to be telling the truth about this? And before you answer, you better do your homework about what a wonderful and sane human being Saddam really is.

Bush "staying the course" on this issue in the face of growing opposition and declining approval ratings proves that he is more concerned with doing the "right thing" for keeping the American People secure, than he is about winning popularity contests.

Use some logic, people. No one LIKES war - not even George W. Bush. But sometimes war is the only way to stop an evil dictator.

Where do these anti-war, anti-Bush idiots come from?

I would love to have each and everyone of these idiots spend 10 years living under the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein. I think their view of President Bush and the U.S. would change dramatically.

Bush says Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, and Hussein says they do not. You may not like EITHER of these two guys, but who do you think is more likely to be telling the truth about this? And before you answer, you better do your homework about what a wonderful and sane human being Saddam really is.

Bush "staying the course" on this issue in the face of growing opposition and declining approval ratings proves that he is more concerned with doing the "right thing" for keeping the American People secure, than he is about winning popularity contests.

Use some logic, people. No one LIKES war - not even George W. Bush. But sometimes war is the only way to stop an evil dictator.

I agree that Sadaam is a danger to the world and the safty of the people in his country but have different views than most of the people on this page.

Why do I disagree with the way that Bush wants to solve this problem? To answer this I ask you another question, why do you want to violently attack someone that you KNOW has chemical and biological weapons and knows how to use them? It would only make them want to use them more and if you bomb the factory where is the resin of the cloud of smoke going to land? On the earth!

There are more options than war at the moment. The US needs to share their intelligence abilities with the UN to find out where this stuff is and find everything and do anything in its capability that the process is complete. You KNOW that the US knows absolutly everything about Iraq´s abilities because the little Powell gave in his speech was not even a pebble from the pile cause it was given publicly. Be firm with the dictatorship of Iraq but work with them, they have a right to live how they want just like you do. If you dont like stuff move to a country or place that fits you.

"why do you want to violently attack someone that you KNOW has chemical and biological weapons and knows how to use them?"

Because not eliminating Saddam, and his ability to use these weapons is even more dangerous. Considering his hatred for this country, do you really want to take the chance he will not attempt to use them on us? The fact is, Saddam is a danger to the world and his own people. By violating 17 resolutions we have legal justification to take him out, and should do so.

Kevin, Kevin, Kevin, it’s quite easy to say, “the war is inevitable”, when you live in USA ground, while innocent people in other side of the world will be under heavy bombing from US aircrafts. Most people die either burning like barbecue, or die breathless due to the continuous high-amplitude low-frequency sound from the successive explosions. Surgical bombing is a foolish propaganda of the missile industry. Are war defenders politically naïve, or are they defending only the war-industry interests? Moreover, Iraq economy and industry were shot to death in the Gulf War. Don’t tell me you believe in those “evidences” theatre-spectacle shown by Powell! Do you believe in Santa?

Don’t forget: the most threat to global welfare is USA itself and the way people with your opinion see the rest of the world!

In the picture with Martin Sheen... the guy next to him was president in the Sum of All Fears, right?

Eraldo, you're the straw that broke the camel's back. I'm going to assume that you are a fine, rational human being who argues well, but that you're upset. But I've read too many comments like yours that make my head hurt. I'm going to fisk you not out of animosity, but because you were there when my head exploded.

"innocent people on the other side of the world" - Hrm, would these be the innocent army officer who preside over teh daily trials and executions for treason which have been reported by defectors?

"die burning".... What does this have to do with anything. They're dead. They're dead because they're involved in a conflict between two nations who cannot back down. I sympathize for the ones who are innocent - there will be innocent deaths.

But - by your own argument - Saddam will use those weapons. Despite your groundless assertion "Surgical bombing is a foolish propaganda of the missile industry" - which deserves a fisking of it's own. there is no other nation in the world that can conduct a war as surgically as we do We have the concept of surgical bombing. You're defending a man who uses poison gas ( the antithesis of "surgical") on his own people, and who has researched biological weapons. Exactly how does anyone wish to persuade me by pointing out that if we destroy the weapons with surgical bombing - no matter how unsuccessful the application of the adjective "surgical" - they can't be used. Frankly even if we drop a 500'lb bomb on every 5' square of the facility, using a WWII CEP, there will probably be less civilian casualties than Saddam using them. (sorry, that was the sentence where my head exploded).

The remainder of your comment is simple ad-hominem attacks that I would be embarrassed to utter.

Like I said, this isn't about Eraldo - I suspect that (she|he) has been arguing this longer than I have and has been dragged down the slippery slope from rhetoric to ranting by the intransigence of the other side. My intent is to stand on that slippery slope and point downhill and say, "Folks, let's not go there shall we? Let us draw a line here and above this line civilized people will have reasoned discourse, and below this line will be artillerymen and fools.

"Moreover, Iraq economy and industry were shot to death in the Gulf War. Don’t tell me you believe in those “evidences” theatre-spectacle shown by Powell! Do you believe in Santa"

Eraldo, you are right much of the Iraqi economy was "shot to death" during the first gulf war. Who is to blame for that, the US?? Or Saddam who violantly attacked neighboring Kuwait? I do feel bad for the Iraqi people, and the last 2 years sanctions have been scaled back sightly, to alow the Iraqi's to sell more oil. What are the chances Saddam is allocating these increased funds to hospitals, schools, and infrastructure?? Or is it more realistic that his son has increased his Rolls Royce collection from 1,200 to 2,000.

Based on what I have heard from every Iraqi defector, whether it be a scientist, former gov't personnel, or average citizen. They all seem to agree that they would like to see this war happen in order to remove the oppressive regime of Saddam Hussein. This in itself identifies to me how oppressed these people are. They understand that the amount of civilian casualties incurred in this war will probably be miniscule compared to the amount incurred under continued Saddam rule.

Sorry hanged man, felt the need to do some more ranting

"Where do these anti-war, anti-Bush idiots come from?"

Kevin, my head exploded when I read your comment above. Is there your rhetoric? You just call idiot all people that placed their opinions here against a non-justified war? Please, define your concept of the term idiot. An idiot is anyone that disagrees with your born-formed ideas? Maybe I am wrong, but I see you as the essence of Americans pro-war.

Eraldo (this a male name)

Critiques are too long. And sound like bellyaching. But a picture is worth more than a thousand words. That makes it fun.

Eraldo, I hope your head explodes when it is hit with an American missle, just as your lining up in front an Iraqi military installation to act as a "human shield"...."IDIOT"

OK - FOUL!. That last comment is out of line. I'll leave it for a while, but Jane or I will delete future comments in that vein.

Two things;
First of all, Jim, if you want to make rational arguments for the war against Iraq, go for it. But please don't resort to telling people that you hope they die, it doesn't help our case at all.

Second, Eraldo, you called this war "non-justified". How did you come to that conclusion, exactly?

Has Hussein invaded countries in the past? Yes.
Is Hussein blatantly disregarding resolutions passed by the U.N. Security Council? Yes.
Is he a threat to his own people? Yes.
Is he a threat to other nations? Yes.

Tell me, Eraldo, how even this small list of reasons fails to justify a war against Saddam Hussein.

Eraldo,

Powell showed us proof. Now you're asking for proof of the proof. And when that is given, will we need to prove that.

Saddam says "I don't have nuthin'" and that's good enough for you?

What constitutes as proof? At some point, you simply have to take someone's word for it. I'm for Powell as I don't see any reports of him pointing at someone in congress and having them taken out and executed. Then again, I only read reports and saw videos of Saddam doing this. That's not enough proof I guess.

Ok, Robb. What you have convinced me is that you are in fact for Powell! I saw in CNN the so-called "profs". I hope you remember that image processing does magic on satellite data. The other stuffs sounded too ridiculous even after a more critical analysis of the facts. On the other hand, do you know what country really produces Anthrax and other bio-hazardous stuffs in large scale? Chemical MDW? What about ICBM? Guess?

Robb: I just forgot about Saddam has executed members of Iraqi congress etc. Unfortunately, this occurs everyday in several non-industrialized on sub-industrialized countries, and not for it we are invading those countries and killing their dictators. An example of a stronger threat is N. Korea, which is well armed with at least mid-range missiles, and what is worst, assumes have nukes. Other examples are Iran and Syria.

Well, Eraldo, with all that talk about some mystery country producing "anthrax and other bio-hazardous stuffs," I got the feeling that you were (not very subtly) pointing out the fact that the US has a military. I may be wrong here, but I thought that the existence of our armed forces was a given. And about us producing these weapons in large scale, well, the US bioweapons program was terminated in 1970 and bioweapon stocks were destroyed between 1971 and 1973. (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/cbw/bw.htm)

The US chemical warfare program still exists; info about it can be found here:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/cbw/cw.htm

And now, back to our show.

Yes, we have chemical weapons. The question is, are the United States led by a dictator? Or by an elected representative of the American people? Now, I know that some of you anti-war types are quick to equate "Bush" with "dictator." (Boy, that makes a quick 'n' easy slogan for posters, huh?)

But think about this thing we have, here in the US of A, that goes by the name of Freedom. If Bush were a dictator, like Saddam, then all of the anti-war protestors up in New York recently would have been, oh, gassed. And he'd be having various senators taken out and shot. And then Dan Rather would have interviewed him... but I digress.

When you have a dictator, you don't have freedom. In Iraq, they don't have freedom. They have a dictator.

Also, Eraldo, I gotta say, forgetting that Saddam's guilty of humanitarian crimes is pretty lame. And yes, other countries have this same problem, and North Korea is an excellent example.

Like you said, it's widely believed that North Korea has nuclear capabilities. Unfortunately, that is an extremely good reason -not- to mess with them. However, Hussein doesn't have nuclear weapons (yet) and we are therefore in a position to act.

As for the other countries with oppressive governments, it's true that we are not "invading those countries and killing their dictators." In theory it would be great to be able to remove every single dictator from power at the same time, but when you enter the Real World, you realize that it simply can't be done.

This is an ongoing process, Eraldo. The fact that we are unable to take immediate action against the numerous dictatorial regimes in power is not an excuse for non-action.

Think of it this way; here in the US, I'm sorry to say, we don't catch every criminal like Westerns would have you believe. Now, is that a reason for us to sit on our butts and let them ALL run free?

I'm sure you can come up with the answer to that question, Eraldo.

Well just a random comment I'm happy to see how many people are actually posting, it's nice to know there's a ton of people interested and debating this issue and others. Its a nice change of pace from the critique all Americans are somehow uniformed boobs.

In any case on to talking about the points Eraldo made. I see he hasn't specifically responded to any of the counter-points but I'm not holding that against him, perhaps he just hasn't been online. I being a lazy college student have nothing better to do than rant on a webpage (rather than doing homework of course).

1) I'll start with the good news Eraldo I agree with your first point. The war is NOT inevitable. That's true, war has never been an inevitable option. Problem is the ball is in Saddam's court, if war ever comes its due to his own lies and deciet. Iraq just yesterday declared it found a bomb...yes read that again...FOUND a bomb. I guess it was just lying behind one of Saddam's cars and no one saw it. This is the attitude of this man and his government. It is not complying past dragging this out as it has for the last 12 years. War would not be an option if he just said "here's everything, go blow it up", the UN would have justified its resolution.

2) Ok on to innoncents. Listen no one here is saying killing is any good. I have friends stationed in Kuwait, I'm not eager to see them go into battle or see anyone die. I also don't get this how they die bit. If they're innocent it sucks they die, it unfortunately happens in war, but it does. I don't feel worse because of how they die, the FACT they did die is bad enough. Let us not forget however that these innocents are put in harms way since Saddam has no qualms in cramming every woman and child he can find into a military target. Also what about the fact that Saddam knows this will cause us to look elsewhere, if we indeed care not a bit about innocent lives why wouldn't we bomb away? Seems Saddam knows about about how moral we as a country are

3) As for smart bombs, I'm not a technical genius, but lets say for the sake of argument that you are right, that "smart" bombs are about as "smart" as I am in my calc class (which is not saying much). I still don't see the argument. The fact we're even attempting to use these shows our moral standing in that we DON'T want to needlessly kill people. We could crater that country till it looks like the moon with our B52's and yet we don't. This is because, your opinion not withstanding, we actually don't want to hurt the innocent. Again some might die, but again the blood will be on the hands of Saddam Hussein. In every instance where innocents are being put in harms way it is due to his negligence and his actions.

4)Oh also next time you decry a Powell speech please give me more than "well photoshop can do stuff like mess with a satalite photo". Give me proof please. If you're going to make a damming statement that the Sec. of State blatently lied to the international community, give me more than just what amounts to your opinion.

Eraldo, listen if you want to be taken seriously back this stuff up. Bring something back so we can discuss it, raise the bar of public debate on this issue. Don't simply recite talking-points about how the US is some evil country. You do a disservice to the ideas you hold.

Well just a random comment I'm happy to see how many people are actually posting, it's nice to know there's a ton of people interested and debating this issue and others. Its a nice change of pace from the critique all Americans are somehow uniformed boobs.

In any case on to talking about the points Eraldo made. I see he hasn't specifically responded to any of the counter-points but I'm not holding that against him, perhaps he just hasn't been online. I being a lazy college student have nothing better to do than rant on a webpage (rather than doing homework of course).

1) I'll start with the good news Eraldo I agree with your first point. The war is NOT inevitable. That's true, war has never been an inevitable option. Problem is the ball is in Saddam's court, if war ever comes its due to his own lies and deciet. Iraq just yesterday declared it found a bomb...yes read that again...FOUND a bomb. I guess it was just lying behind one of Saddam's cars and no one saw it. This is the attitude of this man and his government. It is not complying past dragging this out as it has for the last 12 years. War would not be an option if he just said "here's everything, go blow it up", the UN would have justified its resolution.

2) Ok on to innoncents. Listen no one here is saying killing is any good. I have friends stationed in Kuwait, I'm not eager to see them go into battle or see anyone die. I also don't get this how they die bit. If they're innocent it sucks they die, it unfortunately happens in war, but it does. I don't feel worse because of how they die, the FACT they did die is bad enough. Let us not forget however that these innocents are put in harms way since Saddam has no qualms in cramming every woman and child he can find into a military target. Also what about the fact that Saddam knows this will cause us to look elsewhere, if we indeed care not a bit about innocent lives why wouldn't we bomb away? Seems Saddam knows about about how moral we as a country are

3) As for smart bombs, I'm not a technical genius, but lets say for the sake of argument that you are right, that "smart" bombs are about as "smart" as I am in my calc class (which is not saying much). I still don't see the argument. The fact we're even attempting to use these shows our moral standing in that we DON'T want to needlessly kill people. We could crater that country till it looks like the moon with our B52's and yet we don't. This is because, your opinion not withstanding, we actually don't want to hurt the innocent. Again some might die, but again the blood will be on the hands of Saddam Hussein. In every instance where innocents are being put in harms way it is due to his negligence and his actions.

4)Oh also next time you decry a Powell speech please give me more than "well photoshop can do stuff like mess with a satalite photo". Give me proof please. If you're going to make a damming statement that the Sec. of State blatently lied to the international community, give me more than just what amounts to your opinion.

Eraldo, listen if you want to be taken seriously back this stuff up. Bring something back so we can discuss it, raise the bar of public debate on this issue. Don't simply recite talking-points about how the US is some evil country. You do a disservice to the ideas you hold.

Ok sorry for the double post. Whoever is running the board please feel free to delete the previous post.

Just one more thought. Can we please get rid of this tired "anti-war" misnomer. What I mean is, no one who's saying we possibly should use force (yet again, ball's in saddam's court) is PRO war. I'm not sitting here waving a flag going "Bring back Clauswitz" or after seeing a bomb go in during the Iraqi war screamed "One more time!". That's just nonsense. We are not pro war, we are in favor of using all actions up to war in order to ensure that WMD's aren't the new deal of the week at Baghdad's Wallmart.

Another random though (I have many) I just found it very funny that the actor standing next to Sheen was the president in "Sum of all fears". For those who didn't see it he was an idiot of a president since he didn't know his face from his you know what (don't know the rules on the board lol) when it came to foreign policy. Not suprising then that he's in that picture. Art imitating life or something.

Comments are Closed.