What Are You Voting For?
September 21, 2004 1:40 PM Subscribe
The citations are a nice (and an especially important) touch. Loved it. 2 thumbs up!
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:02 PM on September 21, 2004
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:02 PM on September 21, 2004
Yeah, the comic is excellent. The scary part is, it's real...
posted by vorfeed at 2:29 PM on September 21, 2004
posted by vorfeed at 2:29 PM on September 21, 2004
The comic is a spectacular piece of propaganda. The arguments are often spurious but are certainly made forcefully. Definitely enjoyable reading material.
posted by mragreeable at 2:45 PM on September 21, 2004
posted by mragreeable at 2:45 PM on September 21, 2004
OMG Thank you!!! This really made coming to work to read MeFi worth it. <3
posted by Lizc at 3:02 PM on September 21, 2004
posted by Lizc at 3:02 PM on September 21, 2004
This is terrific and quite exhaustive. Who's handing these out in swing states?
posted by muckster at 3:22 PM on September 21, 2004
posted by muckster at 3:22 PM on September 21, 2004
The arguments are often spurious but are certainly made forcefully.
Given that it's pretty rare to find a comic that provides footnotes, couldn't you have actually pointed out at least one of the "spurious arguments"?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 3:24 PM on September 21, 2004
Given that it's pretty rare to find a comic that provides footnotes, couldn't you have actually pointed out at least one of the "spurious arguments"?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 3:24 PM on September 21, 2004
excellent...it should be handed out everywhere. (and i was happy to see the Supreme Court mentioned--one of my top 5 reasons for voting against Bush)
posted by amberglow at 3:33 PM on September 21, 2004
posted by amberglow at 3:33 PM on September 21, 2004
I want to see these left in rest stop public toilets all over America!
posted by zaelic at 3:46 PM on September 21, 2004
posted by zaelic at 3:46 PM on September 21, 2004
Blech. I quit on page 26.
posted by LittleMissCranky at 3:55 PM on September 21, 2004
posted by LittleMissCranky at 3:55 PM on September 21, 2004
Given that it's pretty rare to find a comic that provides footnotes, couldn't you have actually pointed out at least one of the "spurious arguments"?
I stopped reading after the 3rd or 4th comic and while I haven't found anything spurious, I found a lot of irrelevant and misleading information. For example, the comic talked about how the Bush family did business with the bin Ladens. Well, why does that matter? Just becaues you have one bad apple in the family doesn't mean it implicates the whole family in terrorism. Another example is the butterfly ballots used in 2000. Why is that a strike against Bush? He didn't design it; a Democrat did.
posted by gyc at 4:31 PM on September 21, 2004
gyc, you give examples of irrelevant info (though I don't at all agree with you about the Bush ties to the Saud royal family considering that it is later pointed out that some members later helped fund the 9-11 terrorists) but you haven't given one example ... at all ... of anything misleading. After all, the decision of which votes to count and which of the votes not to wasn't in the hands of a "Democrat", was it? Irrelevant? IN the frame in question that's possible, but in the whole work ... no. Read the whole thing and then critique it maybe? Do you care to try again, or are you content with having seen some pretty pictures?
And for the record, gyc, the relevant election stuff takes place in panel 5, which you, self admittedly, didn't read, and maybe not even panel 4. No wonder this comic strip begs us not to take the busllshit from such as yourself at all seriously. As you just admitted, you haven't payed any fricken attention to the last four years. Lets hope, for the sake of the country, that others have and will.
posted by Wulfgar! at 4:49 PM on September 21, 2004
And for the record, gyc, the relevant election stuff takes place in panel 5, which you, self admittedly, didn't read, and maybe not even panel 4. No wonder this comic strip begs us not to take the busllshit from such as yourself at all seriously. As you just admitted, you haven't payed any fricken attention to the last four years. Lets hope, for the sake of the country, that others have and will.
posted by Wulfgar! at 4:49 PM on September 21, 2004
Spurious arguments:
Page 5 : Confusing ballot designs resulted in 20,000 Democrats casting votes for Pat Buchanan.
Problem : We don't know that at all. There is a correlation with demoractic precincts and Buchanan votes, which certainly suggests a problem, but it's dishonest to suggest that every Buchanan vote in FL was a mislead Democrat.
In fact, Buchanan received 17,484 votes in the whole state. He received no legitimate votes at all?
Continuing : and 26,000 ballots that contained two votes each for All [sic] Gore. All 46,000 votes were disqualified.
Problem : Here their arguments are turning simply bizarre. You can't vote for Gore twice with a punch card. The disqualified ballots, of which there were 19,000 or so had votes for two candidates.
Secondly, the buchanan votes weren't disqualified.
Besides, what should they do with ballots with two votes?
Page 8 : The Strauss quote ("there is no morality...") is positively shameful. That's a quote of one of Strauss' detractors, being offered to appear as a Strauss himself.
Also the whole argument is a bit irrelevant. They have some op-ed pieces suggesting that some Bush employees studied under Strauss. It's hardly a wholesale endoresement of all the guy's beliefs by the Bush administration.
And then the quote at the bottom is classic - Strauss' daughter makes statements refuting the arguments made by Bush opponents trying to link neocons and Strauss. Instead of accepting that the Strauss thing might just be a red herring, they instead take on this tone of indignation that neocons are distorting Strauss' views for their own "totalitarian agenda." Bush is damned if he follows Strauss' philosophies or he doesn't. It's a contradictory and entirely unfair set of arugments.
I actually don't have the patience to go through the whole thing right now to find more specifics, but I can later if someone insists. More general points:
Somewhere later, I think the page was in the twenties there's a cite about George W and gun control. Cite 154, maybe? The article in no way implies the text in the comic. I've read bush speak a few times in favor of "instant background checks."
It seems conflicted as to whether or not George W. was a skilled manipulator or a bumbling, easily manipulated idiot.
It lumps everyone remotely right-wing who the author doesn't like into the same category.
There's plenty of bad stuff to say about W, but this comic spends 60% or more of its time attacking groups and people tangentially associated with him.
posted by mragreeable at 5:35 PM on September 21, 2004
Page 5 : Confusing ballot designs resulted in 20,000 Democrats casting votes for Pat Buchanan.
Problem : We don't know that at all. There is a correlation with demoractic precincts and Buchanan votes, which certainly suggests a problem, but it's dishonest to suggest that every Buchanan vote in FL was a mislead Democrat.
In fact, Buchanan received 17,484 votes in the whole state. He received no legitimate votes at all?
Continuing : and 26,000 ballots that contained two votes each for All [sic] Gore. All 46,000 votes were disqualified.
Problem : Here their arguments are turning simply bizarre. You can't vote for Gore twice with a punch card. The disqualified ballots, of which there were 19,000 or so had votes for two candidates.
Secondly, the buchanan votes weren't disqualified.
Besides, what should they do with ballots with two votes?
Page 8 : The Strauss quote ("there is no morality...") is positively shameful. That's a quote of one of Strauss' detractors, being offered to appear as a Strauss himself.
Also the whole argument is a bit irrelevant. They have some op-ed pieces suggesting that some Bush employees studied under Strauss. It's hardly a wholesale endoresement of all the guy's beliefs by the Bush administration.
And then the quote at the bottom is classic - Strauss' daughter makes statements refuting the arguments made by Bush opponents trying to link neocons and Strauss. Instead of accepting that the Strauss thing might just be a red herring, they instead take on this tone of indignation that neocons are distorting Strauss' views for their own "totalitarian agenda." Bush is damned if he follows Strauss' philosophies or he doesn't. It's a contradictory and entirely unfair set of arugments.
I actually don't have the patience to go through the whole thing right now to find more specifics, but I can later if someone insists. More general points:
Somewhere later, I think the page was in the twenties there's a cite about George W and gun control. Cite 154, maybe? The article in no way implies the text in the comic. I've read bush speak a few times in favor of "instant background checks."
It seems conflicted as to whether or not George W. was a skilled manipulator or a bumbling, easily manipulated idiot.
It lumps everyone remotely right-wing who the author doesn't like into the same category.
There's plenty of bad stuff to say about W, but this comic spends 60% or more of its time attacking groups and people tangentially associated with him.
posted by mragreeable at 5:35 PM on September 21, 2004
Problem : Here their arguments are turning simply bizarre. You can't vote for Gore twice with a punch card. The disqualified ballots, of which there were 19,000 or so had votes for two candidates.
I do remember reading that some people, after not being clear about whom they voted for, wrote 'Al Gore' into the write in space. Maybe's that's what it's talking about.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 6:12 PM on September 21, 2004
I do remember reading that some people, after not being clear about whom they voted for, wrote 'Al Gore' into the write in space. Maybe's that's what it's talking about.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 6:12 PM on September 21, 2004
It seems conflicted as to whether or not George W. was a skilled manipulator or a bumbling, easily manipulated idiot.
I'll be the first to admit that at this late hour I haven't the time to address many of your arguments, but I do have to ask: If either of these arguments is true, you'd vote for Bush ... Why?
posted by Wulfgar! at 6:38 PM on September 21, 2004
I'll be the first to admit that at this late hour I haven't the time to address many of your arguments, but I do have to ask: If either of these arguments is true, you'd vote for Bush ... Why?
posted by Wulfgar! at 6:38 PM on September 21, 2004
I do remember reading that some people, after not being clear about whom they voted for, wrote 'Al Gore' into the write in space. Maybe's that's what it's talking about.
Well, what do you want the election officials to do? Counting these votes wouldn't be fair to people in other states who did the same thing but didn't get a recount. Yeah it sucks, and hopefully people will be more educated in voting procedures this election, but it doesn't seem like something you can blame Bush for.
posted by gyc at 7:00 PM on September 21, 2004
Well, what do you want the election officials to do? Counting these votes wouldn't be fair to people in other states who did the same thing but didn't get a recount. Yeah it sucks, and hopefully people will be more educated in voting procedures this election, but it doesn't seem like something you can blame Bush for.
posted by gyc at 7:00 PM on September 21, 2004
I'll be the first to admit that at this late hour I haven't the time to address many of your arguments, but I do have to ask: If either of these arguments is true, you'd vote for Bush ... Why?
I have no intention of voting for Bush. believe me.
My problem is with the intellectual dishonesty in a lot of the arguments. As propaganda, as I indicated earlier, the whole exercise is an overwhelming success. I have to admit that a few of the pages had me grinning with the effectiveness of the presentation.
But people are championing this comic as well-researched and fair stating of facts. It's just not. It's a lot like the Michael Moore style of persuasive documentary : present a bunch of tenuously related facts, then sarcastically insinuate whatever conclusion suits your agenda.
Except that this guy goes one step further and instead of the sarcastic comment, he states his interpolation of the motivations of Bush (or whomever) as fact, and then draws a sinister-looking cartoon of the idividual in question with a thought ballon saying stuff like "I got to remember to get that darned Roe v. Wade overturned" or "once we get into Iraq, I can get my boys at Hailburton some hefty contracts... heh heh."
It's just hard to have a level-headed debate with someone when they're going so far out of their way to villify and caricature the opposition.
posted by mragreeable at 7:54 PM on September 21, 2004
I have no intention of voting for Bush. believe me.
My problem is with the intellectual dishonesty in a lot of the arguments. As propaganda, as I indicated earlier, the whole exercise is an overwhelming success. I have to admit that a few of the pages had me grinning with the effectiveness of the presentation.
But people are championing this comic as well-researched and fair stating of facts. It's just not. It's a lot like the Michael Moore style of persuasive documentary : present a bunch of tenuously related facts, then sarcastically insinuate whatever conclusion suits your agenda.
Except that this guy goes one step further and instead of the sarcastic comment, he states his interpolation of the motivations of Bush (or whomever) as fact, and then draws a sinister-looking cartoon of the idividual in question with a thought ballon saying stuff like "I got to remember to get that darned Roe v. Wade overturned" or "once we get into Iraq, I can get my boys at Hailburton some hefty contracts... heh heh."
It's just hard to have a level-headed debate with someone when they're going so far out of their way to villify and caricature the opposition.
posted by mragreeable at 7:54 PM on September 21, 2004
Well, what do you want the election officials to do? Counting these votes wouldn't be fair to people in other states who did the same thing but didn't get a recount.
In other states? I thought voting in the was a state matter. Anyway, if the supreme court even believed that they were doing the right thing they wouldn't have specifically said not to use that ruling as a precedent, in case the shoe was on the other foot next time.
posted by Space Coyote at 7:55 PM on September 21, 2004
In other states? I thought voting in the was a state matter. Anyway, if the supreme court even believed that they were doing the right thing they wouldn't have specifically said not to use that ruling as a precedent, in case the shoe was on the other foot next time.
posted by Space Coyote at 7:55 PM on September 21, 2004
It's a comic book, mragreeable--what do you expect? I think it certainly would drive people to investigate some of the issues further, no? It can't in itself do it all.
posted by amberglow at 7:57 PM on September 21, 2004
posted by amberglow at 7:57 PM on September 21, 2004
Except that this guy goes one step further and instead of the sarcastic comment, he states his interpolation of the motivations of Bush (or whomever) as fact,
I honestly don't really care what Bush's _intentions_ are in going about dismantling every government structure not involved in snooping on people's library reading, whether he believes he's doing it for a higher purpose or knows very well what he's doing is less important than the fact that he's doing it.
posted by Space Coyote at 7:57 PM on September 21, 2004
and the fact that he's doing it is not widely known in the country--most people don't watch the news closely, or pay attention.
posted by amberglow at 8:03 PM on September 21, 2004
posted by amberglow at 8:03 PM on September 21, 2004
Space Coyote - I'd guess you and I agree a bit more on this issue than it appears. Bush, I suspect, will be remembered as a bad president because of what he's done, not because of what motivated him or the company he kept. The story of why he should not be reelected doesn't need to be dressed up in conspiracy theories and innuendo - just the facts will make a pretty convicing case.
Amberglow - I definitely don't want to appear to be that one humorless jackass who expects a comic book to be held to the same journalistic standards as Frontline. I simply want propaganda to be acknowledged for what it is.
This person thinks they've researched the relevant facts and have reached the proper conclusion, and quite likely feels justified in putting forth a handful of bad-faith arguments concerning Bush. I find that remarkably similar to the body of work produced by Jack T. Chick.
In fact, the bizarre irony here is that the comic book becomes as preachy as the religious right, and as deceptive as the Strauss quotes it attacks.
Anyways, at this point I think I've written my fair share of critiques of What Are You Voting For - about which there really are a lot of aspects I admire - so I'll politely back out of the conversation, at least for the evening.
posted by mragreeable at 8:23 PM on September 21, 2004
Amberglow - I definitely don't want to appear to be that one humorless jackass who expects a comic book to be held to the same journalistic standards as Frontline. I simply want propaganda to be acknowledged for what it is.
This person thinks they've researched the relevant facts and have reached the proper conclusion, and quite likely feels justified in putting forth a handful of bad-faith arguments concerning Bush. I find that remarkably similar to the body of work produced by Jack T. Chick.
In fact, the bizarre irony here is that the comic book becomes as preachy as the religious right, and as deceptive as the Strauss quotes it attacks.
Anyways, at this point I think I've written my fair share of critiques of What Are You Voting For - about which there really are a lot of aspects I admire - so I'll politely back out of the conversation, at least for the evening.
posted by mragreeable at 8:23 PM on September 21, 2004
« Older Darling! | 713 versions of Eruption now available Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by soyjoy at 1:55 PM on September 21, 2004