It's providin not-aid an discomfort to America.

February 18, 2005 7:51 PM

Treason: Hurting America's Feelings --from fafblog: Now you may think "oh well Fafnir America's a big country it can take care a itself" but in fact it is very sensitive. When you say its mom's ugly or criticize its foreign policy or kick sand on its face at the beach it is just as hurt as if you'd sold its state secrets.
posted by amberglow (45 comments total)

Heehee, saw this earlier today but it still made me laugh.
And seriously, it's a good damn point. Treason is a fuzzy line, one that should be defined through deviation from moral action, not just from the questionably moral acts of a current barely-incumbent.

posted by dougunderscorenelso at 7:56 PM on February 18, 2005

it's one of my new favorite sites--really funny, and brilliant.
posted by amberglow at 7:59 PM on February 18, 2005

Ah, yes, the "treason" tag. That will surely prove useful.
posted by NickDouglas at 8:22 PM on February 18, 2005

Well, whatever. Just don't hurt Dios' feelings, you'll be banned for a week!
posted by delmoi at 8:58 PM on February 18, 2005

All the time you spend on the Internet and this was the best half-assed random humor blog post you could find, and it's from yesterday? Really?
posted by techgnollogic at 9:06 PM on February 18, 2005

yup.
posted by amberglow at 9:07 PM on February 18, 2005

huh, interesting.
posted by techgnollogic at 9:19 PM on February 18, 2005

Worship at the feet of Fafblog! Be worthy! Giblets demands that. Or soda. Or trout eyeball icecream. Giblets demands! Piss not off the Giblets.

I noticed something interesting today. If I read Fafblog (the whole world's only source for fafblog!) and then go back to my site, my background has turned pink. I think they're commies and have a commie ray or something.
posted by Wulfgar! at 10:28 PM on February 18, 2005

Laugh, laugh, fellow internet dweebs... But there are any number of otherwise reasonable people out there (and Ann Coulter as well) who, as far as I can tell, sincerely believe that objecting to the Iraq invasion constitutes providing "aid and comfort to the enemy". In fact, my own dear mother told me that, for expressing dissent, Tim Robbins would be indicted on charges of treason. She was quite serious; she believed this was about to happen.
posted by Clay201 at 10:33 PM on February 18, 2005

A friend of mine, a liberal (like me) with some kind of rational-thought impediment (like most conservatives) asked me if I'd heard anything about Micheal Moore being charged with Treson. Apperantly someone told him that it was happening and he was verry worried it was true.
posted by delmoi at 11:12 PM on February 18, 2005

amberglow gets a D- at the internet. techgnollogic gets a B+!
posted by mcsweetie at 11:24 PM on February 18, 2005

Your opposition to the Iraq war and your continual chanting about how Bush is going to steal Iraq's oil certainly inspired some Iraqis to join the resistance. You have the blood of American soldiers on your hands.
posted by drscroogemcduck at 11:31 PM on February 18, 2005

You know, Fafblog's worth a post on Metafilter if it hasn't gotten one already, if only so I can continue my recording of the evaporation of humor 'round here, but just the one blog post is... that's probably not so good.
posted by furiousthought at 11:33 PM on February 18, 2005

furiousthought, has it occured to you that your comment makes no fucking sense? "Fafblog deserves a mention on Mefi, but just one is unworthy". WTF? Seriously, that makes no sense. Would you like to elaborate?
posted by Wulfgar! at 11:46 PM on February 18, 2005

And Clay201, your anectdote is precisely why we laugh. A supposedly reputable lawyer and award winning blogger has just called a former President of the United States a traitor. And the reaction from those who supposedly love this country has been ...

*crickets*

I'd rather laugh than cry. Maybe that's just me. Well, me, amberglow, Fafnir and Giblets that is.
posted by Wulfgar! at 11:51 PM on February 18, 2005

Kind of like when Former Vice President Al Gore called sitting President George Bush a traitor, hmm.
posted by techgnollogic at 12:35 AM on February 19, 2005

A friend of mine, a liberal (like me) with some kind of rational-thought impediment (like most conservatives)...

You know what's interesting (he says sarcastically), conservatives feel exactly the same way about you and the rest of your horde. I mean, do you ever sit there and ponder conservative ideas and think, "how fucking stupid and thick does a person have to be to actually think and feel like that? How could they possibly imagine this and that is a good idea?" Yea? Me too. I just can't seem to wrap my brain around some of the policies and ideas the left comes up with. So see, at least in one sense, we do have something in common.
posted by Witty at 1:55 AM on February 19, 2005

Witty, I don't think I'm a traitor, but I'm someone who understands the neo-conservative anti-traitor point of view. It's hard, though. I have to go through bouts of adrenal electroshocks to boost the fear levels and then drop some tabs to augment my raging hard-on as I pole vault all logical obstacles put before me.

It's a little tiring.
posted by gsb at 3:13 AM on February 19, 2005

"Aid and comfort to the enemy" is exactly the same crap that was used to try and stifle dissent during the Vietnam war. Crap then, and crap now. If this country makes it illegal to express a contrary opinion on an Administration's policy, the country won't be worth fighting for.

And I'm waiting for a "Godwin" equivalent to references to Vietnam to surface.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:32 AM on February 19, 2005

> A supposedly reputable lawyer and award winning blogger has just called
> a former President of the United States a traitor.

When you laugh about Jimmy and savage attack bunnies, it's the same as calling him a traitor and selling his state secrets. We've known that for years, are you just now getting the memo?
posted by jfuller at 5:13 AM on February 19, 2005

amberglow gets a D- at the internet. techgnollogic gets a B+!

At least he still passed! Woohoo! Nice job, amberglow!
posted by graventy at 6:18 AM on February 19, 2005

Laugh, laugh, fellow internet dweebs... But there are any number of otherwise reasonable people out there (and Ann Coulter as well) who, as far as I can tell, sincerely believe that objecting to the Iraq invasion constitutes providing "aid and comfort to the enemy". In fact, my own dear mother told me that, for expressing dissent, Tim Robbins would be indicted on charges of treason. She was quite serious; she believed this was about to happen.

The thing is, for about the last 100+ years, this idea has sounded ridiculous in peacetime to thinking citizens. And then there's been a war, and prosecutions for "treasonous" speech have started again. Legislators discussing anti-sedition legislation during World War I sat around talked about how ghastly the 1798 Alien and Sedition Act was, and how badly they didn't want to repeat it. So they passed two acts which, together, were worse (one is still in effect). When the war was over everyone pretty much agreed that that had been a dumb idea, until World War II came along and FDR started pushing his attorney general to be tougher on anti-war speech and forwarding letters to his office which disagreed with his policies to J. Edgar Hoover.

So if the pattern holds, this may not be so far-fetched, and things may get quite a bit worse before they get better.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 6:51 AM on February 19, 2005

drscroogemcduck: I've got the blood of American soldiers on my hands because I (along with my fellow anti-war citizens) failed to stop this this invasion from taking place. Of course, I've got a hell of a lot more Iraqi blood on my hands for the same reason. And supporters of the war are equally responsible; the only difference is, they're not trying to do anything to correct their mistake.
posted by Clay201 at 8:10 AM on February 19, 2005

The "My criticism and doomsaying cannot possibly benefit the enemy under any circumstances" people are just as off base as the "you're a traitor, hippie" people.
posted by techgnollogic at 8:42 AM on February 19, 2005

the only difference is, they're not trying to do anything to correct their mistake.

It's worse than that. They're willing to sacrifice any number of lives before they rather than admit they were wrong and turn back from this insane project.
Pray for our troops and all civilians who may be hurt.
posted by sonofsamiam at 8:46 AM on February 19, 2005

Well then, if it is treason to speak the truth, let's make the most of it.
To (mis)quote Ash: liberal, conservative; I'm the guy with the gun.
At some point, whether your willing to fight for what you believe is the deciding factor. There seems to be more emotional and gut based arguements one side tends to have and more reasoned and - for lack of a better word - scientific arguements the other side seems to have.
In the short term, angry emotional people tend to win. Ultimately though, you must bend to reality. You cannot control perception and feedback indefinately without something outside your sphere coming in and kicking over your tea wagon.

Similar to what techgnollogic just said, but inverted (since the middle always suffers first in those conflicts).
posted by Smedleyman at 8:57 AM on February 19, 2005

I'm someone who understands the neo-conservative anti-traitor point of view

Actually, I don't find it too difficult to understand the "criticism equals treachery" concept. If domestic opposition to the war becomes strong enough, the troops will be withdrawn. Which means that dissent quite possibly gives the insurgents some incentive to keep fighting. So yeah, there's some logic to this ideology, it's just that it's completely fascist logic. It says, basically, that everyone should support one single goal, no matter how murderous and hideously evil that goal is. I mean, it's absolutely true that it's easier to achieve said goal when you have 100 percent support. Indeed, if Americans would just refrain from objecting to absolutely anything the military might be ordered to do, we could simply carpet bomb three or four cities in the Sunni triangle and the rest of the country would fall into line pretty quickly. And since it'd be an aerial attack, we could probably pull it off without a single American casualty. So everyone who objects to leveling entire cities and intentionally killing hundreds of thousands of civilians is costing American lives.

Like I said; fascist logic, but logic we have no trouble understanding. Because we all have fascist tendencies. I'm not joking; we do. Anyone reading this can think of a case where their government, their company, their rotary club, etc. had a decision to make and they thought "Oh god, don't let the great herd get involved in this; they'll screw it up. Leave it to the experts / the educated / those with experience / the party faithful." Well, that's fascism. Countries who come under attack (or who fear an attack) often respond by handing over control to a strong central authority and giving greater license to the military. Again, fascism. We're all perfectly capable of it.

So no, I don't think it's really that hard to understand the logic.
posted by Clay201 at 9:18 AM on February 19, 2005

it's completely fascist logic. It says, basically, that everyone should support one single goal, no matter how murderous and hideously evil that goal is.

No it doesn't. It doesn't say anything at all about what one should do. You got it mostly right when you said "dissent quite possibly gives the insurgents some incentive to keep fighting." All you've discovered is that some types of criticism of one side help the other side. That aspect of reality doesn't mean you should support any side. It means you should understand and acknowledge what effects your actions have on a conflict. It means you do not live in a bubble where you can say anything you want without taking responsibility for the consequences. You cannot support the war and then be shocked and offended that there are costs and people die, and you cannot denounce the war and oppose it tooth and nail every step of the way only to turn around and say your protests cannot hinder or encourage either side.
posted by techgnollogic at 10:22 AM on February 19, 2005

it's completely fascist logic. It says, basically, that everyone should support one single goal.

It doesn't say anything at all about what one should do.

Perhaps I should have said "argument" instead of "logic". It's arguably true that logic, all by itself, doesn't tell us what we should or shouldn't do, merely what is or isn't true. However, the argument put forth by the 'dissent = treason' folks definitely has something to say about what we should and shouldn't do. Namely, that we should support atrocities.
posted by Clay201 at 10:34 AM on February 19, 2005

Um, no. Excepting a few "nuke 'em all" wingnuts, most of the "dissent = treason folks" do not believe we are committing atrocities, or that we should support attrocities. Their argument is that we should support a campaign against the terrorist perpetrators of atrocities.
posted by techgnollogic at 11:06 AM on February 19, 2005

Excepting a few "nuke 'em all" wingnuts, most of the "dissent = treason folks" do not believe we are committing atrocities

So you're saying the wingnuts are the best informed of the "dissent = treason" folks?
posted by kenko at 11:42 AM on February 19, 2005

You have the blood of American soldiers on your hands.

That's funny. I thought that was on Bush, for sending them there in the first place. I guess I just assumed that's where he got all the red ink for his budgets.
posted by trondant at 11:54 AM on February 19, 2005

i'm generally in favor of aid and comfort to the enema.
posted by quonsar at 12:50 PM on February 19, 2005

Namely, that we should support atrocities.
More that we're supposed to support any damn thing they do--whether atrocity or not--which is not why we have free speech and checks and balances built into the various branches of govt. We're not supposed to have an imperial Executive branch.

It's funny that no one now calling others "treasonous" were guilty of endless criticism towards our previous President.
posted by amberglow at 12:57 PM on February 19, 2005

It's funny that no one now calling others "treasonous" were guilty of endless criticism towards our previous President.

But that was... different.

BTW, techgnollogic, you're argument is completely fallacious. You're suggesting that if Americans would just fall in line, the insurgency in Iraq would wither on the vine. News flash: What is happening now in Iraq is less an insurgency than it is a civil war, Shia vs. Sunni. We've unleashed forces we did not and do not understand and cannot hope to control but for the very type of thing Clay201 cited.

I tend to doubt the insurgents are drawing inspiration from Fahrenheit 9/11 or Ted Rall. They've got their Korans to keep them warm at night.
posted by kgasmart at 1:09 PM on February 19, 2005

The 'criticizing the war helps the enemy' folks seem to fear their government losing a war more than they fear committing more massive injustices in trying to "win".
posted by Space Coyote at 1:15 PM on February 19, 2005

and are we officially in a war anyway? i thought we haven't been in one legally since WW2.
posted by amberglow at 1:37 PM on February 19, 2005

has it occured to you that your comment makes no fucking sense? "Fafblog deserves a mention on Mefi, but just one is unworthy". WTF? Seriously, that makes no sense. Would you like to elaborate?

...getting back much later...

It's like this. Historically, links to a particular post on a blog haven't made very good FPPs on Metafilter. They just haven't, it's not very much to link to, unless that particular blog post leads to an interesting chain of events, is unusually insightful or informative, etc. You know. Now, Fafblog itself is funny as hell. The whole thing is definitely deserving of notice. But just the one post on Fafblog is not quite enough...

Ahh screw it I don't care that much.
posted by furiousthought at 3:18 PM on February 19, 2005

Is this the same Fafnir that worked with the man behind this?
posted by TwelveTwo at 3:22 PM on February 19, 2005

related thing from digby: We on the left are being chastized daily for being terrorist sympathizers. Former presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are said to be on the other side. Any criticism of the government is Unamerican. And all of this is based upon the idea that liberals are rejecting Western values and putting ourselves in league with Islamic fundamentalists. This is literally nonsensical.
In point of fact, the argument could much more easily be made that it is the other way around. It grows more and more likely that the right, who wholeheartedly supported the war and are currently supporting the political handling of the occupation, deposed a totalitarian dictator to install a repressive fundamentalist theocracy in its place. I fail to see how that advances the cause of our country or western civilization. Indeed, it is a betrayal of everything we stand for.
Who are the real traitors to western enlightenment values --- those of us who find both totalitarianism and religious fundamentalism abominations or those who topple dictators to install theocracy? I'd ask the women of Iraq in about five years what they think. Of course, they won't be allowed to speak freely, so we'll probably never know.
posted by amberglow at 3:45 PM on February 19, 2005

Related thing from New York magazine. By last November, [New Yorkers] hoped the U.S. would see things their way—and it was some solace that by January, a solid majority of the country apparently agreed with New York that Iraq was a mess and a misadventure.

Until the Iraqi vote: surprisingly smooth and inarguably inspiring and, in some local camps, unexpectedly unsettling. Of course, for all but a nutty fringe, it is not a matter of actually wishing for an insurgent victory, but rather of hating the idea of a victory presided over by the Bush team. (I may prefer the Yankees to beat the Red Sox, but I cannot bear the spectacle of Steinbrenner’s gloating.) Three months after failing to defeat Bush in our election, plenty of New Yorkers privately, half-consciously hoped for his comeuppance in Iraq’s. You know who you are. Last week, you found yourselves secretly . . . heartened—and appalled—by the stories of the Marine general who said it was “a hell of a hoot [and] fun to shoot some people” in Afghanistan, and about the possible Islamist drift of the Shiites who will now govern Iraq. When military officers show themselves to be callous warmongers, and neocon military adventurism looks untenable, certain comfortable assumptions are reaffirmed.

Like “radical chic,” a related New York specialty, “liberal guilt” once meant feeling discomfort over one’s good fortune in an unjust world. As this last U.S. election cycle began, however, a new subspecies of liberal guilt arose—over the pleasure liberals took in bad news from Iraq, which seemed sure to hurt the administration. But with Bush reelected, any shred of tacit moral rationale is gone. In other words, feel the guilt, and let it be a pang that leads to moral clarity.

Each of us has a Hobbesian choice concerning Iraq; either we hope for the vindication of Bush’s risky, very possibly reckless policy, or we are in a de facto alliance with the killers of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. We can be angry with Bush for bringing us to this nasty ethical crossroads, but here we are nonetheless.

To which fuller can only add (special nostalgia trip for the treasonous old farts on board) HO, HO, HO CHI MINH! NLF IS GONNA WIN!
posted by jfuller at 4:56 PM on February 19, 2005

quonsar
i'm generally in favor of aid and comfort to the enema

And I'm generally in favor of giving AIDS and cum farts to the enemy.

Or something like that.
posted by kcds at 6:03 PM on February 19, 2005

if we weren't planning more misadventures (which is way too mild a term) like Iraq, Anderson would have a point--but now that Iran and Syria are next, it's more important than ever not to repeat all the same horrific mistakes. I for one, have absolutely no confidence in the election or the rigging that's now going on behind the scenes to ensure that segments of the pop there that didn't even vote are represented--and an Islamic state of Iraq is not one of the many and changing reasons why we went there--and is not good for us at all.
posted by amberglow at 8:44 AM on February 20, 2005

Benefits that come out of bad things does not in any way justify the bad thing as being acceptable.

spock just posted that in MeTa, and i think it fits.
posted by amberglow at 9:53 AM on February 20, 2005

You're suggesting that if Americans would just fall in line, the insurgency in Iraq would wither on the vine.

Don't be ignorant. I said no such thing.
posted by techgnollogic at 12:20 PM on February 21, 2005