ESR's Anti-Idiotarian Manifesto

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by Griff
No offense, but you do understand that living in SEPA probably have me sucking the barrel of my 12 ga in less than 6 mos.

Aw come on Griff...we'll get ya a staff car...and I shouldn't need you more than 4 days a week. Just remember, you only need a Philadelphia address...I'm not asking you to actually live down here. Besides, the kids will love trips to the Please Touch Museum, not to mention the Art Museum and Fairmount Park. The Phoenix (IIRC) is right on the Parkway. Maybe we can get you a small plane and hire Maggie to take you to and from the sticks. (See! Jobs for everybody! Next up: Dave will be Director of Attitude.)

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by sycamore

See! Jobs for everybody!

Sounds like a Democratic administration to me. :-)

Careful there Griff--a Philadelphia address will make you eligable for participation in the Philadelphia debt reduction program...they call it "income tax"...collectable from folks who live *or* work in the city.

[elSicomoro]

Griff's standard income would be increased by 4.6% to cover the Philly Glee Club.

Cronyism knows no political boundaries. Besides, I need some level heads in there, not the current chuckleheads running the game.

[Griff]

You're gonna have to come through with Maggies dream plane. Since we're on the state dime, I can get an old airstrip refurbished that my uncle built years ago. How much runway do we need? A guy up the road has a short strip we can use until our dream facilities are up and running. Now, I've got relatives in concrete, dairy, social services, computer science, flowers, excavating, blood products... lets get the ball rolling. Despite my current LP affiliation, Irish-Americans wrote the book on graft it just comes natural. Let's make hay while the sun shines.

[BrianR]

How does another guy get in on this? I can fly too, and I hold the same certificate as Maggie does. I'm a bit out of practice, but that will change next year.

And we haven't heard about Maggie's dream plane yet. Perhaps it's an MD-11! An old airstrip won't quite hold up to that. I'll be going for my rotorcraft rating as well as my IFR rating pretty soon. I can get you where you want to go with a simple Bell JetRanger and some space in your own front yard!

Brian

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by BrianR

And we haven't heard about Maggie's dream plane yet. Perhaps it's an MD-11!

C'mon, I already committed to nothing bigger than could work in and out of 3000'. Besides, I'm not multir-engine rated.

I'll be going for my rotorcraft rating as well as my IFR rating pretty soon. I can get you where you want to go with a simple Bell JetRanger...

Rotorcraft *and* IFR? And presumably Instrument Rotorcraft? You must be rich now. :-)

Getting a whirlybird rating will teach you not to use "simple" and "JetRanger" (used prices run about half a mil these days) in the same sentence, too. In fact, "rotary-wing aircraft" is a misnomer, it is well-known that they are not actually aircraft at all, but rather are collections of moving parts flying in close formation.

Operating a turbine helo from your home will teach you new things about community relations...:-)

[wolf]

Originally posted by MaggieL



The local "Idiotarians of the Left" have been stridently vocal in this thread; there don't seem to be any "Idiotarians of the Right" here.

Oh, I'm here :waves: ... I just happen to agree with the statements in the manifesto, is all ...

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by wolf

Oh, I'm here :waves: ... I just happen to agree with the statements in the manifesto, is all ...

But, accoring to the Manifesto that disqualifies you as an Idiotarian of either stripe.

That's one of the things that I thought that made the AIM noteworthy: it explicitly recognizes the parallel between the fascism of the Jhadists and the fascism of the likes of the religious right and "PoinDexter's Laboratory" (right down to the Illuminati logo).

[elSicomoro]

We could always buy one of those turbo props that US Airways is apparently using on longer flights these days. (See my vacation thread in the Manifestos.) I hear those planes are loud though.

Hmmm...Brian...where to put you in the mix? Lessee, so far, we've got:

--Griff as Chief of Staff
--Dave as Personnel Director (aka Minister of Attitude)
--Maggie as Official Pilot (we can come up with a fancier name later)
--Shepps...fuck, what do I do with him? Political advisor is definitely good...Political Advisor/Head of Information Technology is even better.
--Brian...I think I'd like to have you and Hubris as security specialists. And this is PA, so you have more freedom with your weapons than in MD (or so I would assume). We'll make you the backup pilot if Maggie is sick or something.
--Hermit22 is going to be the "pure left" side of my staff. I have to have at least one of those, and people would scoff if I brought in some young punk from Melbourne.

I need a "man on the street." In this position, this person just hangs out...at cheesesteak stands, in coffee shops and diners, wherever...they're going to be the "pulse taker," seeing what the people are saying. Joe seems to be the deep undercover type...you're hired.

[Chefranden]

Originally posted by MaggieL

Nice move--baiting and a smear job all at once. Whoever it is that you might think "my people" are, "Gays and IV drug users" is certainly wide of the mark. (Lesbians are not at higher HIV risk than the general population. Bisexual women are perhaps higher-risk than lesbians to the extent of their unprotected sex with men....which probably still leaves them at lower risk than straight women. All irrelevant to the present discussion.)

You like to make up your own meaning to a post, and then argue against that. I think that your people are who ever you think they are. That's what I meant by your people. As if a smart real-intellectual like yourself couldn't figure it out. [I amend "gays" in my post to refer to male homosexuals, since you are pretending that you can't figure that out for yourself.] The gays in the previous post are not "your people" but the people your logic would bomb to save "your people", since they are more of a threat then Osama

The people I want stopped *aren't done yet*; by their own claim this is only the beginning. Your pseudoactuarial anaysis is also irrelevant to their ultimate goals. After all, when the Nazis first started out they hadn't actually exterminated many Jews yet either, mostly for lack of opportunity. After a few years of appeasement they managed to create some dandy opportunities, though.

As much as you try to change the subject, we are not discussing them or their goals. We are discussing the goals of Americans like you who are willing to kill innocent people to feel safe. I'm left to believe that the reason that you don't address the questions possed is that you are unable to defend your morality. The point is that you want have inocent people killed to achieve your own end, just like Osama wants to have innocent people killed to achieve his ends. It would seem that a real-intellectual like yourself could be honest about it a least, and not hide behind the usual political slogans.

Then are you also Madame Maggie, that you can predict what is to come? You really predict that Osama will be able to build ovens to roast us in? You really predict that Osama will have the power to pop us in? You need to be reminded that the Nazis had an Army, Navy and Air Force. Where is Osama going to get that? Again you haven't said how many you are willing to kill to prevent that from happening. The Nazis were willing to kill all the Jews to make the world safe for Aryans. Where does it stop with Muslims Maggie? 2million is that enough for you?

What the heck does appeasement have to do with it? Explain please how not blowing up shepherds and shopkeepers, yes and even soldiers in Iraq is appeasement to Osama.

Nor are the Jihadists fairly compared to natural causes of death; there will always be natual causes of death; until we learn to be immortal the aggregate death rate will always be 100%.

I know that I don't know as much about history as a real-intellectual, but it seems from what little I know that certain groups of humans have always had other groups of humans as enemys. How is being killed by your enemy any less un-natural then by your heart? Are you less dead when you are killed by your heart then by a bomb? Are your loved ones less sad or even less angry? If it is no big deal to be killed by your heart or your drugs, or Ford, or Firestone, why does death by Osama incite you to bomb Iraqis?

I happen to think that dying because you let religious fanatics take over is an especially stupid and ignominious way to go.

Really? More stupid then being killed by the drugs given you to make you better? More stupid than being killed for celebrating a wedding? How are they going to take over? And if they can, how is bombing bombing two puny countries like Afghanistan and Iraq that already have no way of invading us going to prevent the take over?

If that's actually to your liking because (even though you've tried to veil this message a little) "Jihadists aren't so bad because they only want to put queers to death", you should perhaps consider migrating to someplace like Nigeria, where lately they've been demonstrating who else is on their list. You might learn something; not all the lessons about the Jihadists are contained in their fatwas.

I apologize if I've tried to veil my message; if I have it's been unwitting. (Oh my, there's an opening for you). I think however that I've already condemned killings by both sides of anyone. And to that I'll add my condemnation of take overs. I hope that is clear enough now.

I said nothing about Jihadists wanting to put queers to death. I think that either you like the straw man approach to argument or you don't read posts very carefully.

Actually, if I were to migrate I'd pick someplace like Norway, which doesn't seem to have to blow anybody up to get along and be safe. But if all us pacifists did that then who would protest your quick draw mentality? Besides I must make amends for the people I've killed for God and country, by trying to prevent more of the same. If I must suffer your sharp tongue in the mean time so be it. This time it would be nice if you actually answered the points I’ve made. Who knows? If your argument is impeccable then I may be converted back into a killer.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by Chefranden

I think that your people are who ever you think they are.

Thanks for clearing that up, I guess.. If what you meant is "US citizens" then you should probably say that; following directly behind your comments about AIDS it wasn't very clear.

I said nothing about Jihadists wanting to put queers to death.

OK, must have been just me saying it and you ignoring it then. You'll have to pardon me if *I* don't ignore it.

As much as you try to change the subject, we are not discussing them or their goals.

Well, that was the substance of both the Manifesto and my explanation of my point of view: the Jihadists and their goals. Since you consider that "changing the subject" we're at cross-purposes here. "Bringing the entire planet under sharia law" is their stated goal, but that doesn't bother you (yet), so you go ahead pronounce it "not the subject".

You need to be reminded that the Nazis had an Army, Navy and Air Force. Where is Osama going to get that?

I see....the Jihadists and their goals aren't the subject, but their means are. Very well. They seem to have done OK so far without their own Navy and Air Force...stealing boats and airliners seems to be good enough. As for an army, maybe you haven't noticed, but binLaden claims to *have* an army. Of course his asymmetric warfare tactics rely a bit on the likes of you trying to tie his target's hands.

The Nazis were willing to kill all the Jews to make the world safe...

Gee, that's funny....so are the Jihadists, and they'll throw in the rest of the infidels, no extra charge. How about that. Just a coincidence, right?

The point is that you want have inocent people killed to achieve your own end...

Well, you keep hammering at that, even though it's not true. My view is that using innocent people as shields isn't a tactic that should be honored.

Far from *wanting* to kill innocents, I'd be delighted to see the Jihadists stand on their own rather than run and hide behind innocents after striking and then exploit any results for propaganda. Of course their story is that *our* innocents aren't innocent, but the ones they hide among are. Very convenient.

You seem to admire such tactics, or at least think the US should play along with them, so I doubt we can agree on this subject.

Actually, if I were to migrate I'd pick someplace like Norway, which doesn't seem to have to blow anybody up to get along and be safe.

That's one of the nice things about being a small NATO member, I suppose. The bigger guys provide your defense for a few decades, and then you can sneer at them for it as a bonus. Nice.

I'm sure Norway is safe--for now--as long as somebody else is the priority target. But the Jihadists say they will get around to Norway eventually, so you'd better have Plan B standing by in case your point of view prevails, after all, you're an infidel.

Almost like being a European Jew in the 1920-30s. So where is it you're living now?

But if all us pacifists did that then who would protest your quick draw mentality?

You could certainly do that from Norway as well as you are now. I still think you should try Nigeria, though.

Originally posted by sycamore
--Brian...I think I'd like to have you and Hubris as security specialists. And this is PA, so you have more freedom with your weapons than in MD (or so I would assume). We'll make you the backup pilot if Maggie is sick or something.

That would rule. I am digging this fantasy more and more every time something new is posted about it

[Hubris Boy]

Originally posted by sycamore
I think I'd like to have you and Hubris as security specialists. And this is PA, so you have more freedom with your weapons than in MD (or so I would assume).

Security specialist, eh? Hmmm...

How about "Minister Without Portfolio" instead? I prefer not to be encumbered with trivial details like job descriptions when I work.

[elSicomoro]

I don't think that would fly here. We'd at least have to give you a nice-sounding title, so that the snoops over at the Philadelphia Daily News and FOX Philadelphia won't be too suspicious.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by sycamore
I don't think that would fly here.

Yeah, get with the program. :-) Titles aren't meaningless, but a good pol doesn't allow hirself to be constrained by them.

Besides, if what you're really up to is in your job description, it can hardly be described as a "covert activity". If you're smuggling cigarettes, you don't want a title like "Minister of Agriculture"; that's giving too much away. Better your door should say "Community Relations--Office of the Ombudsman" or some such.