Home | Contents | Photos | News | Reviews | Store | Forum | ICI | Educators | Fans | Contests | Help | FAQ | Info

Terrorism:  "Good" vs. "Evil"

Another response to Terrorism:  "Good" vs. "Evil":

I received the following profoundly simple message from a correspondent. I presume it was a warning for terrorists:

Uncle Sam Wants You

make peace with yer god

and yer wimin

If my response below seems a little harsh, you may want to read the context that led me to respond thusly. Or you can proceed.

Rob's reply (9/16/01)
How about make peace, period?

I'm an agnostic. I don't have a god. But if I were a Christian like most people, I'd have to follow Jesus's command. His directive was love your enemies.

You and I are both a little old for Uncle Sam, aren't we? Are you planning to enlist? I'm not.

And I wouldn't think of enlisting before we identified the enemy. But I'd be glad to fire a gun at random if that would help any. Maybe I'd get lucky and hit the unknown perpetrator.


The debate continues (10/23/01)....
>> How about make peace, period?

always was the best option, my Flower Child.... <<

Despite your many gibes, I was a little young to be a flower child or a hippie (12 in 1970). These terms apply more to your age group.

>> There Is no negotiating with blatant terrorism. <<

Sure there is. We negotiated with Hitler for almost a decade before we went to war with him. The northern half of the United States negotiated with the southern half for almost a century before going to war over slavery. If we can negotiate over genocide and slavery, we certainly can negotiate over terrorism.

>> Reality, or, life as we have to deal with it, is survival of the fittest. <<

And yet, pacifists such as Jesus, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King achieved their goals without violence. The list of peaceful successes is rather long. See Winning Through Nonviolence for details.

>> ideals are really neat after that part's under control. <<

It's under control. Killing 3,000 people out of 285,000,000 doesn't come with a light-year of threatening our survival. I wouldn't worry about our survival if terrorists nuked New York City, and this attack was much, much less.

>> Well, I don't appreciate yer attempt at humor here... <<

I don't appreciate your Neanderthal-style kill-or-be-killed mentality, so we're even.

>> and, -{BTW}-, it's not 'towel head', dumbass, it's Raghead.!!!... <<

I think both terms are acceptable—or unacceptable, depending on your viewpoint.

The debate degenerates (1/2/02)....
>> I incorporated Mr.Kennedy's ideas and what I wanted, along came Haight-Ashberuy {again, sp?) and now I was a "hippie" <<

Isn't that what I said? You're the ex-Beatnik hippie flower child, not me. I guess you're projecting your past onto me because you're full of self-loathing, or something.

>> and how many of those 292,000 young fellers might we have NOT had to have sacrificed if we just would recognize evil when we saw it.???. <<

In the '30s, the USA was an isolationist country that wanted nothing to do with the rest of the world. It had little leverage to build a coalition and use diplomatic and economic sanctions against Hitler. That's totally different from now, where we're the world's acknowledged superpower. We have the clout to compel countries to act without bombing them to death.

>> you make me So tired.... <<

It's a good thing I'm too busy to answer your messages right away, or you'd be really tired.

So give up and quit this debate while you're behind. I didn't ask you to denigrate my beliefs with your "flower child" and "pinko" labels.

>> If we can negotiate over genocide and slavery, we certainly can negotiate over terrorism.

Idiot. I guess Sgt. Shultz said it best, you know nothink.!!!. <<

When you have a rational rebuttal, let me know. In case you didn't realize it, I'm kicking your butt from here to Wyoming.

>> you just won't / ain't able to `think' for yerself.... you make me So tired... <<

That's hysterical considering you're regurgitating the propaganda swallowed by 90% of the sheep-like American public while I'm contradicting the predominant view. In your upside-down world, I guess "think for yourself" means "parrot what I heard from flag-waving third-graders."

>> And yet, pacifists such as Jesus, nooope, I don't be Jewish, and I also don't believe in whiteman "God" manifest destiny... <<

I never said you were Jewish. My point stands. Jesus changed the world using nonviolent techniques.

>> See http://www.chickinshitasshole.com/nviolent.htm for details. <<

Another crushing retort...not. Let me know when you fight your way out of your paper bag and are ready to address my arguments. A kindergartner could hold up his end of the debate better than you have.

>> go see sgt. Slultz........ you are a sad thinking less than human.... <<


>> I don't appreciate your Neanderthal-style kill-or-be-killed mentality, so we're even. no Sir, we'll never .. ever, be `even'.... <<

I meant we were even on that particular score. Clearly, I know more about history, politics, and the "real world" than you do.

>> Sir, don't have a hair on your ass.... <<

Falling asleep here. Pick up the pace, please.

Original thinking = tunnel vision?
>> you don't see a god-damn thing that ain't `relevant to YOUR tunnel visioned <<

Says the guy who repeats Bush's party line like a mongrel fawning at his feet. Maybe you should change your name to Millie, after the Bush family's favorite lap dog.

>> You don't know. You never will. <<

I won't know what? More empty rhetoric in a message full of it—in more ways than one.

>> You are a coward. <<

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but I'm still kicking your butt in this debate.

>> Yep. I'm starting to hate you again. <<

Ask me if I care. No, really...ask.

>> think about leaving me alone. <<

I think you started it, buddy—by calling me names without justification. If you can't take the heat, get the hell out of the kitchen. Unless you want me to keep roasting your butt, in which case stay where you are.

Have a nice war, Millie. Give your master Dubya a big fat smooch next time you see him, okay? Maybe he'll give you a doggie treat for your loyalty.



The context (6/28/01)
Correspondent Doug Hardwick, a self-described redneck from Wyoming, runs a mailing list called Politics_Again, I believe. Correspondent Dan Foster may be a member of Politics_Again also. Based on a previous debate, I sent a message to Doug with a copy to Dan.

Doug shared this message with his entire group—people who had never heard of me before. The members of Politics_Again "shared" their responses with each other and Doug forwarded them to me. Here's my reply to all of them:


I see you decided to share my message to you with your entire group. Too bad you didn't share any of the context that led to that message, such as your talk of my "socialist rantings from his soft pink corner of the world." Which came after I responded to your unsolicited right-wing ramblings—e.g., "Robbing the rich to give to the poor is still stealing."

With my 30 years of political experience, I neither sought nor wanted your grade-school opinion of how taxation works. I have an MBA on the subject, so I don't need a fortune-cookie version of political and economic theory from someone who thinks fart jokes are high culture. If you want to quote a respected economist instead, then we can discuss the matter intelligently.

But since you chose to inundate me with an avalanche of also-unsolicited opinions from your Politics_Again list, here are a few responses. Let's see if you have the "grapes" to disseminate these comments. First, to Cherie:

>> I'm just a dumb broad, but it seems to me that spending all that time with his nose in the newspapers is equivalent to having his head up his ass 99% of his time. <<

People who admit to being dumb broads should investigate more carefully before they speak. In addition to reading the newspaper, I read several books each month...watch TV and movies...work extensively on the Internet...talk on the phone...and meet with friends and family. I have two master's degrees, labored in major corporations nine years, and have managed as a freelance writer another eight. My comic book has earned two grant awards and dozens of rave reviews, not to mention several radio interviews and speaking engagements for me.

>> I thought everyone over the age of 6 knew that you can't believe everything you read!!!! <<

Take your own advice and quit believing everything you read from Doug Hardwick.

>> As you said so succinctly...there is a "real world" out here <<

Wow, thanks for that deep insight. I'll keep that in mind next time I attend a convention, powwow, business meeting, museum show, or family barbecue.

Do you always inform middle-aged adults about the "real world out here"? Out where, exactly? Do you even know where I live? It would be pretty damn funny if you lived down the block from me, wouldn't it?

If your condescension is typical of the "discussion" in this group, you can imagine why I have no desire to participate.

FYI, besides working in two Fortune 500 companies and as a self-employed entrepreneur, I've lived in Los Angeles through several earthquakes, floods and droughts, the Rodney King riots, and the Olympics. My city is well-known for its racial diversity, pollution, crime, and crowded freeways. I own my own property, have had my share of serious relationships, and have traveled across the country. My interest in Native Americans has taken me to some of the poorest areas of America and some of the most beautiful.

Given all that, what aspects of the "real world" do you think you've experienced that I haven't? Give us a clue what you base your condescension on. I'm curious.

The same applies to Doug and anyone else who claims to know the "real world." Explain and justify your pompous assertions that you know reality better than I do. Go ahead, I'll wait.

To Doug again:

>> arrogant bastard is coming across more and more like, awh f#ck. <<

By "arrogant bastard," I assume you mean someone who disagrees with you when you tell him only gun lovers and ex-soldiers are true Americans.

>> Was it you, Cal.?. or Dan.?., was pointing out this wannabie politician won't even recognize fact sheets and findings that won't " agree " with him.? <<

Which "fact sheets" or "findings" would those be? Refresh my memory with some quotes from these alleged postings that I don't remember.

In fact, I've answered and refuted every message you've sent to me, which is more than you can say. Dan can assure you I pretty much answer every message from him. Attentive readers, please note.

>> He's so damned lost in his own lil'pink soft swirl of California Ultra Liberalism that he really has no idea of a `larger' world out there... <<

I already answered that ignorant charge. California reflects the United States a lot better than your gay-crucifying, survivalist corner of Wyoming does. Check your Census fact sheets and findings if you're unclear on America's present reality.

California has the fifth largest economy in the world...is home to perhaps the greatest concentration of computer technology, aerospace industry, and agriculture...but you think it's a soft, pink "swirl"? Which state do you think Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan came from, hm? Share some more of your findings and fact sheets about California, why don'tcha? We could all use a laugh.

While we're at it, Doug, we really should discuss your homophobia. "Pink, soft swirl"...could these not-so-veiled code words be any more obvious? Stop mincing words and tell us what you really think of California's 35 million people. Unless you don't have the grapes to speak plainly, that is.

>> this S#it fer brains has a `thing goin'on... <<

Yep, the same "thing" I thought you appreciated when we first met. PEACE PARTY, a multicultural comic book featuring Native Americans. Two young heroes fight everything from prejudice and pollution to supervillains and the supernatural.

If you thought fighting prejudice and pollution were conservative traits, you were very sadly mistaken. Apparently, you didn't have a clue what my actual beliefs were and dreamt up what I believed instead. I guess it's lucky you caught on before you deluded yourself any further.

If you think I've suddenly taken up politics, I suggest you enlighten yourself. Besides rereading and comprehending the comics themselves, go to my Forum page and review my postings. Note especially the dates, which range from 1994 to the present. If you think something has changed, you don't know what you're talking about.

>> I'm kinda sorry I ever `took up with him. <<

I'm sorry you ever pretended to be a friend and supporter, too. I have an extremely low tolerance for fair-weather friends and other forms of hypocrites.

>> But he's a great `bait & switch blowhard <<

I can't imagine what that phrase refers to, since I've kept consistently "on message" since my first message to you. Again, check my postings on multiculturalism and other progressive subjects from as far back as 1994. Apparently, this insult is more hot air you can neither define not defend.

At least Dan Foster engages in reasonable debates on the issues, although we rarely seem to agree. You could learn something from him. Ask him and maybe he'll give you tips.

>> so full'a his own crap that he just cain't unnerstand why the folks `outside his soft pink white existence won't run him for high office..... <<

Did you dream up the silly notion that anyone interested in politics must want to run for "high office"? Because that sure seems to be your position.

Since I've never sought office nor thought about the possibility, this is another phony insult. If you're going to fabricate charges, you could try to ground them in reality, at least. Multicultural comic books are my agenda, not election campaigns.

Of course, if I did run for office, my views would be vaguely similar to Al Gore's, which means I'd get the majority of the votes. Since you claim to be a Nader supporter—although you sound like a Bush baby to me—you'd get about 2% of the vote. To state the obvious again, my views resemble America's more than yours do. If you don't understand that, climb out of your hillbilly hole and learn what Americans really believe.

>> I started out pretty enthusiastic about his comic book idea, but he's steady blowin'that off..... <<

Nope, I continue to work on it daily. I've kept you posted with my biweekly Indian Comics Irregular messages and with messages such as the recent "Progress!" I've explained what I'm doing to you and I'm getting tired of correcting your misstatements. If you can't understand my messages, get someone to help you with them.

FYI, most of my e-mails contribute to the growing "brand" awareness of PEACE PARTY, whether they're political or not. It's called marketing, friend. Learn about it and you'll see how germane these messages are to my goals.

>> I personally don't think he's got the grapes fer it anyway.... <<

This message is filled with so many whoppers I can barely keep from bursting out laughing.

I addressed your sophomoric views on taxation almost seven years ago in a debate with someone else. I've posted it as Are Taxes Theft? If you just bought some grapes at the store, let's see you tackle it.

I'm betting you won't get to the end of the page before you give up. But go ahead, prove you do something with grapes other than munch them. Debate the issues and not your misinformed opinion of my publishing efforts.

Oh, wait, I forgot. You already said you wouldn't answer my arguments because...what was the reason again? I was too hot for you to handle? You didn't know squat about economics and politics compared to me? Tell us the reason you declined to debate the issues, hmm?

Wow. Get a reality check from Dan F. before you make any more ignorant statements, Doug. If there's anyone less afraid to debate the issues than me, I haven't met him. I don't think you have the grapes, the guts, or the spine to go ten minutes with me on any issue of substance.

As for your "loverlies" (your patronizing sexist term, not mine), send them my way and I'll be glad to straighten out their misapprehensions—about me, my comic, my politics, my state, or anything else you've gotten wrong.

Looks to me like you're the one about to quit our correspondence, Doug. Next time you wonder who has the grapes and who doesn't, ask yourself which one of us turned tail and ran. Then you'll have your answer.

To Daphne [aka nymph]:

>> that he is arrogantly expressing his opinions which, what little I have read, seem geared to bait and provoke <<

I geared the opinions you read of mine to respond to the provocations Doug sent me. But if you think phrases like "sh#t fer brains" are examples of educating and discussing rather than baiting and provoking, it's pointless to discuss this matter further.

>> as opposed to educating and discussing or even debating. <<

You can read several hundred of my attempts to educate, discuss with, or debate people at Blue Corn Comics. Or you can make up your mind based on my responses to Doug's juvenile attempts to label me "pink" (i.e., Communist or gay). It makes little difference to me.

As for what Doug is reacting to, good question. Both my tone and my message have remained the same since we first met. Since I haven't changed, maybe Doug is going through a "change of life."

Maybe he's upset because someone finally said "the emperor has no clothes." I think ol' Doug loves getting stroked by his "loverlies" and didn't expect anyone to actually question his views on the issues. Sorry about that, Dougie boy. You send me right-wing tripe about how taxation is theft and I'll dispute you every day of the week.

>> But, expressing opinions this way alienates most people to the point of turning the very people who would be on his side away <<

"This way"...let's see. I disputed Doug's right-wing postings and he started insulting my comic book efforts. Sounds like a "bait & switch" tactic me. I responded again and Doug posted three or four messages to his group attacking me. Sounds like a "blowhard" approach to me.

Meanwhile, I continue to get praise for confronting racists and other conservative know-nothings in a direct, forthright manner. My mailing list Indian Comics Irregular continues to grow—89 members and counting—as does the traffic on my site. I've gotten a few speaking invitations because people like—not dislike—my approach.

Luckily, I don't have to explain my political credentials to most people because they don't insinuate I'm unqualified to discuss politics. And I don't have to argue with most people because they don't call me "sh#t for brains," "bait & switch blowhard," "arrogant bastard," or "soft" and "pink." If you condone Doug's childish insults, you've just told us volumes about what you really think. So let us know: Do you approve his character attacks or not?

>> Personally, I feel there is absolutely nothing wrong with being a liberal...even an ultra liberal...or even a pink swirling whatever you called him liberal. I think we need all types...and all need a fair hearing. <<

I wonder how that will happen with your group leader calling people "sh#t for brains" and the like. Even labeling me a "pink swirling whatever" along with doubting my "grapes" is a plain attack on my character. If this is anyone's idea of reasoned debate, the lot of you don't know what reason is.

>> Anyway, I also agree with Cherie about not trusting everything you read. Very excellent points, dear heart. <<

A trite and condescending point, if you ask me. Since I don't trust everything I read—especially Doug's pissing-in-the-wind messages about who knows America—it's not only trite and condescending, it's inapplicable. I suspect I read from as many sources and talk to as many people as anyone on your list.

>> I, also, agree that this man seems anal retenive. <<

Wow, thanks for showing us how to promote intelligent debate, "nymph." So Doug insults me for not having the grapes to respond, and you insult me for responding too much—or whatever you mean by "anal retentive." Since your views are near-opposites, you've got all the bases covered.

Your "anal retentive" charge is especially funny since I communicated with Doug alone and he decided to share my views with his group without asking me first. In other words, he enlisted a brigade of people to shore up the positions he himself couldn't defend. I'm not sure if "anal retentive" is the best description of his behavior; perhaps "insecure" or "afraid" would be better.

To rbminnie:

>> Somehow [the phrase "anal retentive"] was not a part of my education, such as it was. It seemed to simply appear out of nowhere and no on that I know can tell me what it means. <<

In this case, a good example of "anal retentive" would be someone who tries to paint someone else as a commie socialist pinko when he can't or won't address the issues. That is, someone who's fixated on smearing people he disagrees with (i.e., liberals) like an anus clutching fecal matter.

To Doug again:

>> This is " Rob Schmidt " the guy what started that pretty cool NA type comic book... <<

Started it and continues adding to it almost every week. Besides what I already told you, the latest development is an animated comic strip at CarlosReynosa.com. Check it out.

>> Yep, I spotted it and jumped right on his bandwagon, endorsing the hell out of him and his work, pushed it off on my Lists and recommended it to publishers and stores out this'a'way and all... <<

For which I thanked and thank you kindly. The only question is why your position has changed when mine has remained constant. Perhaps you didn't understand what a long-range project it is to start a publishing business in your spare time on an unpopular subject during an economic slump.

>> ol'Weerd1 Dan has had an ongoing dialog with him for the longest time <<

As have many other people—chiefly those who don't attack and insult me personally.

>> while I like to think of mineself as a `Liberal' .,. I remain a proud hard fighting gun toting basic rednecked trailer trash American. <<

Most liberals favor reasonable gun controls, as you'd know if you got your nose out of your gunsight and read a printed word now and then. So do a majority of Americans, for that matter.

>> I tried to get this guy to see all sides to these issues and gave up. <<

Which was your attempt to get me to see all sides? Calling me "sh#t for brains"..."bait & switch blowhard"..."arrogant bastard"...or "soft" and "pink"? Next time, try facts and evidence rather than flaming language if you want me to "see all sides."

I considered both sides in the taxation issue in my debate seven years ago. Perhaps not surprisingly, my side won. Now go ahead and show us how you've considered my side of the issue. Or admit you can't.

>> Like I said though, I don't thing he's got the grapes for it, he only wants to hear his own pontificating... <<

Says the guy who pontificated to his group with several self-satisfied messages denigrating me. Again, most amusing considering I've answered your postings with evidence and logic and you've answered mine with insults.

>> Mayhap ol'Dan could `enlighten you better..... <<

Ol' Dan can enlighten you on how much I debate the issues vs. attack and insult others. He also may be able to enlighten you about what conservatives and liberals believe.

Here's a hint: When someone favors Native American rights, multiculturalism, goverment spending where appropriate, environmental protection, and gun controls, he's likely to be a—gasp—liberal. Another example of progressive values would be favoring Bill "America's greatest economic boom" Clinton over George "Who cares about global warming?" Bush. I trust you understand my positions now, but if you need any more education, please let me know.

Rob Schmidt

More debates with Doug
Kelly:  Pacifists think "it is better to allow more Americans...to be murdered than to capture or kill the murderers."

* More opinions *
  Join our Native/pop culture blog and comment
  Sign up to receive our FREE newsletter via e-mail
  See the latest Native American stereotypes in the media
  Political and social developments ripped from the headlines

. . .

Home | Contents | Photos | News | Reviews | Store | Forum | ICI | Educators | Fans | Contests | Help | FAQ | Info

All material © copyright its original owners, except where noted.
Original text and pictures © copyright 2007 by Robert Schmidt.

Copyrighted material is posted under the Fair Use provision of the Copyright Act,
which allows copying for nonprofit educational uses including criticism and commentary.

Comments sent to the publisher become the property of Blue Corn Comics
and may be used in other postings without permission.