Ah man pelt Bush wid a shoe!!

[daryn]

Yet you (and Daryn) seem to gloss over that this 'functionally lawless' journalist falls squarely within the affected class ... or did you miss that he was kidnapped last year?

glossing over?  of course the man is within the affected class.  I even say that he probably doesn't regret it now.  good for him.

but for all your fancy arguments you are determined the miss my relatively minor point that this kinda thing does happen all the time.  Is like Omar say: it's not unprecedented.  you want to make a distinction between the US president and other powerful politicians? fine.  if it means that much to you.

and no, I wasn't aware that he was kidnapped until I read your post.   

[Quags]

bush could dodge bullets

talk done

fer real morvant

[Bakes]

Rendered by Bakes:

I'll address your second contention first. You have presented an attractive and substantive delineation. However, policy has LONG been viewed as incorporated within the gamut of condemnation inuring to the level of the diminution of political office ...

Parsing thru the superfluidity... policy decisions have long been used as cannon fodder in considering whether politicians have reduce the office in which they served.  Really?

I'm unaware as to that particular history... the instances where political leaders have been accused of diminishing their offices have usually been for personal reasons, even in instances like Mugabe's where the bizarre decision-making blurs the lines.

it's the very reason protesters take to the street or engage in radical mass action.

Are you serious???  Protesters take to the streets to protest against dimunition of political office?  Here all this time I thought it was to express disapproval of whatever policy is at issue.

I'll suggest Reagan and Iran-Contra as an example ... without reaching the 'knowledge' reservation you have regarding Bush (b/c there is a nexus here re: what Reagan knew or didn't know) ...the very reason Presidents are purposefully insulated from 'knowledge' is so as not to drag them into questionable affairs that bring the office into disrepute ... regardless of the status of said policy.

Need we even discuss the fact that (the argument about how much Reagan knew or didn't know aside) the Iran-Contra deal was illegal?  So where's the parallel if the alleged behavior is illegal in one instance and just a matter of questionable decision-making on the other...where's the connection?

As to the first contention ...Political acts are informed by motivation. And, frankly, the journalist removed the role of speculation from our analysis by virtue of his words, the context, the background, his experience inter alia.

Asylum... motivation only mitigates the 'punishment'... it's never an excuse for the behavior.  I don't know the guy's motives, but even if he wants to make the somewhat specious connection between his kidnapping and Bush... it still doesn't excuse his behavior.  The focus of my disapproval has from the start been on his actions.

As I said... there's no need for me to enumerate the many reasons why I have come to think that the society in which the event occurred is a functionally lawless one. I similarly see no need to sit here and recount for your pleasure the many instances of ad hoc and outright arbitrary 'justice' that's handed out on the regular throughout much of the Middle East.... an upon the basis of which my statements were made.  If you choose to be obtuse and construe it as an "unwarranted extrapolation" blah blah blah... then I can't help you there.

Yet you (and Daryn) seem to gloss over that this 'functionally lawless' journalist falls squarely within the affected class ... or did you miss that he was kidnapped last year?

What of the symbolism of Bush's final press conference? Come nah man ... Bakes you always make most sense when you don't deliberately prioritize semantic dissection and argument for argument's sake ....

Even IF he's part of the affected class... what does that have to do with the price of tea in Iraq?  If my house gets robbed does that give me license to egg police cars?

Besides... I've already acknowledged that within the context of his society his actions may not seem as egregious, even understandable.  The ironic thing is that in making that point Zandolie came with some unnecessary sidebar argument that I was needlessly slandering the people of the Middle East... which you readily signed off on.  Now you want to argue that because he's been a victim of that self-same lawlessness it should somehow excuse his actions?

The equivocation is frankly... stunning.

[Bakes]

I don't understand. Clinton arguably did worse, but Bush is unpopular. For all the "worse" that Clinton do, you can argue that he was well received around the world. Think about the amount of disrespect a person has to have to even attempt such a thing (throwing a shoe). This is the President of the United States of America, and you have a person who believe that he can just toss his shoes at the President. How much lower can it get?

NOw I understand what you saying, but from a layman point of view, what happened was disrespectful and embarassing to the President office.

Wait... you don't understand... but yet you understand?  What do you understand from don't understand?  I'm really not following you.

Besides... I believe I've already explained in my PERSONAL opinion... how one can distinguish between Clinton's (and Nixon's) actions and Bush's actions.

Bush new there were no relation berween 9-11 and Iraq yet HE CHOOSE" to go down that road. You can argue that the people around him fed him bad info, however he is the President and should have insight into what is really happening. I certainly believe that he knew exactly what he was doing when, he entered Afghanistan and Iraq.

He therfeore also ordered the killing of many innocent people and lied about it. 

Elan, a president isn't a jack of all trades... even if that is what he's asked to do.  Bush has advisors for a reason... how is he supposed to automatically "have insight" into what's going on if not from the words of the people advising him?

For all we know he did in fact know that the info was false and was part of the lie... but assuming he was similarly mislead as Powell was, then yea the buck stops with him, but doesn't mean he's somehow responsible for diminishing the office of the President in the process.

[FF]

WTF!! what going on in here?

Allyuh take de fawking stick out allyuh arse!!

this is HIGH comedy!    Jah Gol make ah gif of dat for meh please!! 

[WestCoast]

bush could dodge bullets
talk done

fer real morvant

[FF]

GOLD JERRY!! GOLD!!! 

Hear nah.. if bush did only ketch dat shoe and pelt it back I woulda pee myself here today



The first duck does get me everytime!!! 


Oh sh!t nooo...  look ah multiple shot view




High speed motion capture shot of how it really happen:

[grimm01]

GOLD JERRY!! GOLD!!! 

Hear nah.. if bush did only ketch dat shoe and pelt it back I woulda pee myself here today



The first duck does get me everytime!!! 


Oh sh!t nooo...  look ah multiple shot view




High speed motion capture shot of how it really happen:

And not a Secret Service in sight.
Allyuh think the man had practice before coming into the press conference or he just ketch ah vaps?

[Brownsugar]

WTF!! what going on in here?

Allyuh take de fawking stick out allyuh arse!!

this is HIGH comedy!    Jah Gol make ah gif of dat for meh please!! 

Boy I still cyar recover!!...

Jon Stewart, Stephen Cobert and SNL must be vex dey done taping for the year....ah feel they should do a special show just for this....

[Jumbie]

you disagree with someone or you're frustrated at them and the next thing that comes to mind is to attack them physically.



and thus the war against Iraq began

[lefty]

WTF!! what going on in here?

Allyuh take de fawking stick out allyuh arse!!

this is HIGH comedy!    Jah Gol make ah gif of dat for meh please!! 

Boy I still cyar recover!!...

Jon Stewart, Stephen Cobert and SNL must be vex dey done taping for the year....ah feel they should do a special show just for this....

I can see it now, the enquiry to follow Shoe-gate: where were the secret service

[pecan]

At a superficial level, the shoe throwing incident was funny.  This is inadvertent slapstick humour.

Many people laughed at this the same reason why we laugh when someone slips on a banana peel or on the ice.

The final outcome is what determine if it is funny or not.  If the person who slipped on the banana peel break his back, then it is no longer funny.

Bush was not injured, therefore, it is funny
Was the office of the president disrespected.  Well YES.  But there are many who do that, even in the USA.  IS the damage permanent?  NO

Bottom line, it was funny to many.  As with any situation, not all will see humour where others see it.

[asylumseeker]

Rendered by Bakes:

I'll address your second contention first. You have presented an attractive and substantive delineation. However, policy has LONG been viewed as incorporated within the gamut of condemnation inuring to the level of the diminution of political office ...

Parsing thru the superfluidity... policy decisions have long been used as cannon fodder in considering whether politicians have reduce the office in which they served.  Really?

I'm unaware as to that particular history... the instances where political leaders have been accused of diminishing their offices have usually been for personal reasons, even in instances like Mugabe's where the bizarre decision-making blurs the lines.

it's the very reason protesters take to the street or engage in radical mass action.

Are you serious???  Protesters take to the streets to protest against dimunition of political office?  Here all this time I thought it was to express disapproval of whatever policy is at issue.

I'll suggest Reagan and Iran-Contra as an example ... without reaching the 'knowledge' reservation you have regarding Bush (b/c there is a nexus here re: what Reagan knew or didn't know) ...the very reason Presidents are purposefully insulated from 'knowledge' is so as not to drag them into questionable affairs that bring the office into disrepute ... regardless of the status of said policy.

Need we even discuss the fact that (the argument about how much Reagan knew or didn't know aside) the Iran-Contra deal was illegal?  So where's the parallel if the alleged behavior is illegal in one instance and just a matter of questionable decision-making on the other...where's the connection?

As to the first contention ...Political acts are informed by motivation. And, frankly, the journalist removed the role of speculation from our analysis by virtue of his words, the context, the background, his experience inter alia.

Asylum... motivation only mitigates the 'punishment'... it's never an excuse for the behavior.  I don't know the guy's motives, but even if he wants to make the somewhat specious connection between his kidnapping and Bush... it still doesn't excuse his behavior.  The focus of my disapproval has from the start been on his actions.

As I said... there's no need for me to enumerate the many reasons why I have come to think that the society in which the event occurred is a functionally lawless one. I similarly see no need to sit here and recount for your pleasure the many instances of ad hoc and outright arbitrary 'justice' that's handed out on the regular throughout much of the Middle East.... an upon the basis of which my statements were made.  If you choose to be obtuse and construe it as an "unwarranted extrapolation" blah blah blah... then I can't help you there.

Yet you (and Daryn) seem to gloss over that this 'functionally lawless' journalist falls squarely within the affected class ... or did you miss that he was kidnapped last year?

What of the symbolism of Bush's final press conference? Come nah man ... Bakes you always make most sense when you don't deliberately prioritize semantic dissection and argument for argument's sake ....

Even IF he's part of the affected class... what does that have to do with the price of tea in Iraq?  If my house gets robbed does that give me license to egg police cars?

Besides... I've already acknowledged that within the context of his society his actions may not seem as egregious, even understandable.  The ironic thing is that in making that point Zandolie came with some unnecessary sidebar argument that I was needlessly slandering the people of the Middle East... which you readily signed off on.  Now you want to argue that because he's been a victim of that self-same lawlessness it should somehow excuse his actions?

The equivocation is frankly... stunning.

Dahis your understanding of 'affected class' ... you believe the contention is he's part of the 'affected class' merely b/c he was a victim of what you would interpret as criminality?

You insist on examining abstract criminality devoid of political context. In Iraq, how can you insist on excluding political imperatives? While, mind you, this 'lawlessness' that you insist on locating as ordered by errant Arab social prerogatives is informed by political reality.

[truetrini]

Throwing shoes in Iraq is a sign of contempt.  we cannot try to or should not try to apply western norms to Eastern norms.

Doing so is exactly why  there is so much mistrust and misunderstanding between christian and muslim today.  Would it have been any different if he had shown Bush the middle finger?

Is it any different when members of PETA shower actresses with flour for wearing fur?

Oh and by the way, this incident makes PM Manning's security detail great compared to the secret service!

One shoe...ok...but how the hell did he get off the second salvo?

[asylumseeker]

Yet you (and Daryn) seem to gloss over that this 'functionally lawless' journalist falls squarely within the affected class ... or did you miss that he was kidnapped last year?

glossing over?  of course the man is within the affected class.  I even say that he probably doesn't regret it now.  good for him.

but for all your fancy arguments you are determined the miss my relatively minor point that this kinda thing does happen all the time.  Is like Omar say: it's not unprecedented.  you want to make a distinction between the US president and other powerful politicians? fine.  if it means that much to you.

and no, I wasn't aware that he was kidnapped until I read your post.   

Let's review the record. First you propose the shoethrower as a mere attention seeker. Then, you propose that this sort of thing happens "all the time". Somewhere in there, you convince yourself I ignored the historic exposure of political figures to similar occurrences (why is baffling). Then you suggest applying the 'filter of a pre-existing anti-Bush bias'.

The mere attention seeker thing is an illusory and superficial assessment.

Notwithstanding the precedence of expressions of a similar nature upon members of the political class across the planet, if you don't view the POTUS as first among equals, then I can't help you. We can agree to disagree. I recognise this exchange as a discourse of fluctuating sophistication.

[Some on the thread find the situation purely humourous and some view it as not so funny. Others I am sure, identify both humour and graver sentiments, without being encumbered by a proverbial stick in the ass. I make no apology for falling into the final category. Comedy is not an inhibitor of analysis and analysis is not a negator of comedy. Indeed, as some on the thread have alluded to, some prominent comedians offer exemplary commentary and insight].

Back to you ... Where would a pre-existing anti-Bush bias be located? March 2003? September 2001? Where? When he was Governor of the Great State of Texas?

 

[asylumseeker]

Throwing shoes in Iraq is a sign of contempt.  we cannot try to or should not try to apply western norms to Eastern norms.

Doing so is exactly why  there is so much mistrust and misunderstanding between christian and muslim today.  Would it have been any different if he had shown Bush the middle finger?

Is it any different when members of PETA shower actresses with flour for wearing fur?

Oh and by the way, this incident makes PM Manning's security detail great compared to the secret service!

One shoe...ok...but how the hell did he get off the second salvo?

Yep.

[Dutty]

Oh and by the way, this incident makes PM Manning's security detail great compared to the secret service!

One shoe...ok...but how the hell did he get off the second salvo?

If you slow dong de flim frame by frame yuh go see the second shoe come from behind the grassy knoll

Obviously it had more than one thrower

[lefty]

Oh and by the way, this incident makes PM Manning's security detail great compared to the secret service!

One shoe...ok...but how the hell did he get off the second salvo?

If you slow dong de flim frame by frame yuh go see the second shoe come from behind the grassy knoll

Obviously it had more than one thrower

true

[Brownsugar]

Oh and by the way, this incident makes PM Manning's security detail great compared to the secret service!

One shoe...ok...but how the hell did he get off the second salvo?

If you slow dong de flim frame by frame yuh go see the second shoe come from behind the grassy knoll

Obviously it had more than one thrower

 
Dutty ah find yuh quiet dese days....but ah could always count on yuh to drop een with a classic!!...

[capodetutticapi]

Oh and by the way, this incident makes PM Manning's security detail great compared to the secret service!

One shoe...ok...but how the hell did he get off the second salvo?

If you slow dong de flim frame by frame yuh go see the second shoe come from behind the grassy knoll

Obviously it had more than one thrower

[Bakes]

You insist on examining abstract criminality devoid of political context.

Yes, I do.

In Iraq, how can you insist on excluding political imperatives? While, mind you, this 'lawlessness' that you insist on locating as ordered by errant Arab social prerogatives is informed by political reality.

Because (as stated ad nauseaum) I'm not interested in motivation or "imperatives" as you term them.  Suppose a firefight broke out in his neighborhood and troops were taking fire from an apartment above his.  To negate the threat and RPG was launched that destroyed the target apt. but also his own in the process.  We may understand his pain, but would that justify him targeting Bush personally?  I share in much of his outrage at what the Bush administration has done... I disagree with his actions.  As already stated, whatever his 'imperatives' may be, that may only serve to mitigate whatever punishment or condemnation results from his act.  It does not in itself excuse the act.  Shocking that with your background you can't grasp this simple fact.

[Bakes]

Throwing shoes in Iraq is a sign of contempt.  we cannot try to or should not try to apply western norms to Eastern norms.
Doing so is exactly why  there is so much mistrust and misunderstanding between christian and muslim today.  Would it have been any different if he had shown Bush the middle finger?

Is it any different when members of PETA shower actresses with flour for wearing fur?

Oh and by the way, this incident makes PM Manning's security detail great compared to the secret service!

One shoe...ok...but how the hell did he get off the second salvo?

Absolute nonsense.

It is necessary to look at actions from an objective rather than subjective standard.  Applying your standard, 'Westerners' would never be qualified to criticize such barbaric practices such as the stoning to death of a 13-year old girl for adultery (she was raped) as recently occurred in Somalia... who are we to tell them not to implement Sharia law?

Westerners also couldn't nor should they criticize other barbaric practices such as female genital mutilation or 'honor killings'

In fact taking your ridiculous proposal further... what business is it of the US or anyone else to criticize or meddle in ethnic conflicts across the globe?  Who are we to apply our "standards" in condemning what's happening in Darfur or what happened in Rwanda?

Going even further... the Nazi pogroms were conducted with the acquiescence (if not approval) of the German people... by the standards applicable to WWII Germany, it was okay to exterminate the Jewish vermin.  Who were the allied forces to tell the Germans how to treat the jews?  In fact who were northerners to tell southern planters NOT to have slaves in the US?  You can try and argue that they operating on the same standards, but for many reasons (I see unnecessary at this point to list) that argument fails.  Seperate culture.  Separate standards.... should southerners been allowed to keep their slaves?

Objective standards have a very central place in this and any discussion.

[Organic]

why does everything in here hadda end up ah cock waving affair. oh shit man. allyuh doh have woman???
 the shit funny...ah cyah believe this became an pseudo intellecutal argument.
duck bush duck!!
the shit funny........lemme add this....imo....lol

[truetrini]

Uhmmm Bakes, Applying the same standards are foolhardy.

That was my point.  I never stated that we cannot criticize, even in the Muslim nations some are outraged.

But their culture is interwoven with their religion, in the Western world it is far less noticeable.  I have noticed that Middle Eastern political factions are not motivated by ideology but they base their beliefs on ties of blood and faith.

That is NOT the norm in the US or other western nations.

Cousin marriage is widely the norm in Arab nations,and that practice is adhered to in Western countries with large arab populations. 

Anyway, you digressed and went tangential to my point.

Crictizing is ok, meddling is another.  Applying Western norms to Eastern civilization is folly.

What is WIDELY ACCEPTED As God sanctioned (rightly or wrongly, mostly wrongly thru western eyes) in many Arab lands by both males and females is WIDELY LOOKED DOWN upon in Western Nations.

From religious beliefs, to marriage to mating rituals, to education to diet, to hand shaking.......DIFFERENT and the same rules cannot be applied when dealing with eastern mores are they can be for folks of western civilization.

[kounty]

dat was real funny!!!

[pecan]

heh heh

what started as a man pelting a shoe and whether that was humourous or not has morphed into a long winded and philosophical discourse on Western vs non-Western norms and values

Only on this forum oui!!


aye Bakes, I have a confession to make.  The last time I debated you was deliberate (I hope the Mods doh ban me for trolling).  I wanted to see how your responses would evolve ...and you did not disappoint.


I wonder if any of this transpired in this thread? 

This thread was tres entertaining.  Thanks to all !!!

[asylumseeker]

heh heh

what started as a man pelting a shoe and whether that was humourous or not has morphed into a long winded and philosophical discourse on Western vs non-Western norms and values

Only on this forum oui!!


aye Bakes, I have a confession to make.  The last time I debated you was deliberate (I hope the Mods doh ban me for trolling).  I wanted to see how your responses would evolve ...and you did not disappoint.


I wonder if any of this transpired in this thread? 

This thread was tres entertaining.  Thanks to all !!!

The common denominator tends to be Bakes.

[TriniCana]

GOLD JERRY!! GOLD!!! 

Hear nah.. if bush did only ketch dat shoe and pelt it back I woulda pee myself here today



The first duck does get me everytime!!! 


Oh sh!t nooo...  look ah multiple shot view




High speed motion capture shot of how it really happen:

allyuh nah....
ah now reach back and first ting ah head for was inside here to see if dis reach yet....
oh gawd ah dying

FF take win....look how dat shoe winging 

[dinho]

you know what tiefing my head?

i look at the replay a few times and it look like after Bush duck de first shoe, he was kinda smiling almost like he was playing dodgeball... Facial expression is not one of shock or fear at all. lol

[Bakes]

Uhmmm Bakes, Applying the same standards are foolhardy.

That was my point.  I never stated that we cannot criticize, even in the Muslim nations some are outraged.

But their culture is interwoven with their religion, in the Western world it is far less noticeable.  I have noticed that Middle Eastern political factions are not motivated by ideology but they base their beliefs on ties of blood and faith.

That is NOT the norm in the US or other western nations.

Cousin marriage is widely the norm in Arab nations,and that practice is adhered to in Western countries with large arab populations. 

Anyway, you digressed and went tangential to my point.

Crictizing is ok, meddling is another.  Applying Western norms to Eastern civilization is folly.

What is WIDELY ACCEPTED As God sanctioned (rightly or wrongly, mostly wrongly thru western eyes) in many Arab lands by both males and females is WIDELY LOOKED DOWN upon in Western Nations.

From religious beliefs, to marriage to mating rituals, to education to diet, to hand shaking.......DIFFERENT and the same rules cannot be applied when dealing with eastern mores are they can be for folks of western civilization.

The bolded is contradictory within the context of this thread... the debate started with my "criticizing" the actions of the journalist.  The standard used is an objective standard, removed from the subjective thinking of the actor.  Your first post in the thread was to make the point that we have to look at it from the actor's perspective... if we do so then we can't criticize him... so yeah, your whole point thus was that it's foolish to criticize him.

The whole meddling talk is best left for another day since it really doesn't apply to this thread.