Over the weekend, Time Magazine published a long, glowing profile of Tom Hanks to help promote his upcoming HBO miniseries “The Pacific.” And as with all things entertainment media, the subject is never challenged or even made to shift uncomfortably in his seat. The push to ascend Hanks to “national treasure” status is clearly on.
Hanks does seem to be a genuinely nice man and the work he’s done to bring American history to life on film is impressive, especially during a time when the singling out of America’s exceptionalism is more and more frowned upon in artistic and academic circles. ”From the Earth to the Moon,” “Band of Brothers,” and “John Adams” are not only artistic achievements, but in this MTV-addled culture, might be the best hope of teaching America’s youth about the unique history and greatness of this nation. And I suspect ”The Pacific,” the 10-part miniseries premiering this Sunday on HBO (which Big Hollywood’s Michael Broderick will cover extensively) will be a worthy addition to what came before.
But when it comes to leftist Hollywood, whenever Tinseltown and America meet, you have to brace yourself for it — and by “it” I mean the leftist sucker punch. Throughout, Hanks sounds perfectly reasonable, intelligent and even patriotic for a couple of thousand words. But of course that’s just the lure to get us on his side before we’re walloped with this left cross: [emphasis mine]
[Hanks] doesn’t see the series as simply eye-opening history. He hopes it offers Americans a chance to ponder the sacrifices of our current soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. “From the outset, we wanted to make people wonder how our troops can re-enter society in the first place,” Hanks says. “How could they just pick up their lives and get on with the rest of us? Back in World War II, we viewed the Japanese as ‘yellow, slant-eyed dogs’ that believed in different gods. They were out to kill us because our way of living was different. We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different. Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what’s going on today?”
There’s no such thing as a definitive history. But what was once a passing interest for Hanks has become an obsession. He’s a man on a mission to make our back pages come alive, to keep overhauling the history we know and, in the process, get us to understand not just the past but the choices we make today.
No matter how many times you read this passage the context is clear. By “different” Hanks is clearly referring to race, culture and religion, not ideology.
Really, we wanted to annihilate the Japanese because they were different, because we saw them as “yellow, slant-eyed dogs that believed in different gods?” I thought it was due to the fact that “we viewed them” as barbaric imperialists who had attacked us first and wanted to enslave the world.
But there’s no reason to speculate about America’s motivations during WWII because history has proven Hanks wrong. We had every opportunity to annihilate these “different” people. Instead we chose, at great expense, to rebuild Japan and return the sovereignty of that nation over to the “yellow, slant-eyed dogs who believed in different gods.” Or, as most people prefer to call them: our newly liberated allies.
And to answer Hanks’s question: No — annihilating people who are different sounds NOTHING like what’s going on today.
This country spends billions and billions of dollars on weapons designed to target the enemy and save the lives of people who are “different” — those who are not our enemy but still manage to look different, speak languages we don’t and worship in ways unfamiliar to us. The irony is that as Hanks spoke those slanderous words, the American Military remains in the middle of two conflicts that have cost us thousands of precious lives and hundreds of billions of dollars all towards the noble goal of liberating 50 million “different” people in Iraq and Afghanistan. And we all know that had we practiced a more selfish and barbaric form of war the enemy would’ve been destroyed faster, American lives would’ve been saved, and the financial cost would not have been nearly as high.
But that’s not who we are.
Whether they’re “yellow, slanty-eyed dogs that worship different gods” or the people of the Middle East who share the same language and religion as those pledged to murder us, America selflessly protects the innocent who are “different” and as humanely as possible seeks to “annihilate” only those — even if they’re not “different” (like, say, Germans and Italians) – who practice an ideology that actually does believe in annihilating those who are different.
You almost get the sense that Hanks suddenly felt uncomfortable talking about America so extensively without throwing a bone to his MSNBC fanbase. Or maybe he misspoke, or maybe he really does believe it. Douglas Brinkley, the man who wrote the Time profile, sure found those words important. Important enough that the excerpt above is what closes the piece – the thought Brinkley chose to leave us with.
This piece was originally posted on March 9 at Big Hollywood, where Nolte is Editor in Chief.
Coming soon: A brand-new NewsBusters design. But we need your help!
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Come on Baskin.
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 17:15 ET by MaideneerCome on Baskin.
I'm down with Hanks
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 17:15 ET by FranksamActually, I do want the annihilation of people that are trying to kill Americans and destroy our country. I guess that makes me old school.
It's not just Americans....
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 19:06 ET by Ozconservativethey want to kill. Aussies, Brits, Americans, Israelis, Europeans.....this filth don't care. And I'm with you......let's just kill 'em all!!
Truth is absolute, truth is supreme, truth is never disposable in national political life - John Howard, Australian Prime Minister
Stupid is as stupid doeesz,
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 17:16 ET by mattmStupid is as stupid doeesz, right Forrest?
Yeah...
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 19:27 ET by unkeeafHanks is revered on the Left as a sort of genius. Comments like this prove he is just another liberal idiot.
-------------------------------------------
Best political yard sign ever:
http://bit.ly/a8MB6A
Gumplike
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 19:48 ET by Emma Grump"Laff is lack a bawx of chawcolates - yew niver know whutcha gonna git" Sort of like the last presidential election. Some of us had a pretty good idea what lied ahead, and the others are finding that out now.
Tom has obviously made too
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 20:29 ET by d1carterTom has obviously made too much money, he doesn't need any of mine anymore.
Got it backwards, Tom
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 17:22 ET by JeffC...Hey Tom!
THEY want to kill US because we're DIFFERENT (i.e. not Muslim).
We want to kill them because we have this thing about not wanting them to kill us, and better them than us. It's kind of like World War II--you're familiar with that, yes?
Why don't you try going to them with your complaints?
I guess Tom was high on
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 17:29 ET by rbosqueI guess Tom was high on crack during 9-11.
Tom, get clean and we can discuss the whole bad-guy good-guy thing.
I wonder
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 17:33 ET by ohiochilihow different his take would be if he were a passenger on one of those planes on 9-11?
Oh that's right...he'd be dead.
Tom, put your ideals to work here...lets move all the Gitmo guests to your house, you gasbag.
Well I won't be able to watch this mini-series....
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 17:41 ET by jdripperafter the insultes to my religion, my patriotism and so many other slights and out and out slanders I had it turned off. This series like the others will end up on Blue Ray and the History Channel I will watch it then.
HBO will never get anymore of my money as long as Bill Maher and the other HBO series are in place. I have better uses for my money.
Jack
"If at age 20 you are a conservative then you have no heart. If at age 30 you are a liberal then you have no brains." Sir Winston Churchill
Is he producing
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 18:02 ET by ahusser"The Pacific" mini-series.
"Somehow, I told you so, just doesn't quite say it." Will Smith in 'I, Robot.'
If by different this
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 17:46 ET by ConservativeRexIf by different this hammerhead means we want to annihilate them just because they want to annihilate us, then yes sir, I agree with that statement.
In fact, annihilate them so much and so many times, they quit wanting to annihilate us. That would just about fix us up.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
Is this nimrod TRYING to
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 17:59 ET by RowaneIs this nimrod TRYING to make himself more irrelevant?
*******************************
"That boy'll lie when the truth will do"
- Mrs. Johnson, 8th grade teacher (ca. 1970)
You know who else thought the Japs were yellow, slant-eyed dogs?
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 18:04 ET by SickofLibsThe Chinese, Tom.
The Japs were trying to kill us in WWII and the Islamists are trying to kill us now. That's what makes them 'different' from us.
The reason.....
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 19:12 ET by Ozconservativethey were called "yellow, slant eyed dogs" is because they ACTED like "yellow slant eyed dogs". I wonder is Tom Hanks has ever heard of the Rape of Nanking, or the treatment of Allied POWs.
Truth is absolute, truth is supreme, truth is never disposable in national political life - John Howard, Australian Prime Minister
I don't think Hanks has a
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 18:10 ET by Radical1979I don't think Hanks has a history degree. Sadly, I have to question the book by Sludge, one of the books on which his mini-series is based. The book deals with the fact that the Japanese were brutal, and some GI's responded in kind. But it wasn't really accepted on the American side, and the guys that did it were generally looked down on.
We are the good guys.
There was no question
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 18:22 ET by ahusserThe Japanese were as evil as they come during their national psychotic episode. From the Baatan death march, torture and brutal mistreatment of prisoners of war to the Rape of Nanking their bona fides as pure evil scumbags was never in question. The waffling left always wants to "understand" the other side. They can never imagine a supposedly civilised people lapse into barbarism and insanity. We were the good guys we still are the good guys. Many many thousands of our soldiers died snuffing these psychos out. To the enlightened left we are the evil ones because we dropped the A-bomb on them (thereby saving thousands of soldiers lives). Remember many of these folks admired Ho Chi Minh, Mao, Fidel Castro, Che Guevera and Stalin. These are the folks now in charge of the Democratic Party and one of them is the President.
"Somehow, I told you so, just doesn't quite say it." Will Smith in 'I, Robot.'
Hanks discovers history but fails to learn from it . . .
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 18:38 ET by Galvanic. . . Apparently, WW2 was just a huge misunderstanding between reasonable peoples, fueled by racism and waged for annihilation.
Hanks' statements beg the question: Do he and Speilberg see our war veterans as people who sacrifice so much to defend our way of life for us all, or merely victims of that way of life -- to be pitied as much as honored?
The fact that Hanks -- a man who has prospered more than most thanks to our way of life -- doesn't seem to 'get it,' suggests that he hasn't learned the true lesson of American history. He can only appreciate the sacrifice of individual veterans vice the sacrifice of the whole.
Sad.
Galvanic
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 18:47 ET by ahusserI posted on another blog that "Saving Private Ryan" was excellently acted, well done, and with fantastic 'realism' in the special effects department but was ultimately an anti-war movie. I say then and now I am not pro-war or wish war on anyone but ultimately I believe this 'knee-jerk' peace or anti-war stance is nihilistic and self-defeating. As you pointed out, that casualties of war are just victims to these folks and that avoidance of conflict and appeasement is always preferable to fighting; that there is no ideal or cause worth fighting for for any reason and in fact like in Vietnam you are just a sucker or an idiot if you fight.
"Somehow, I told you so, just doesn't quite say it." Will Smith in 'I, Robot.'
No, you are a liberal idiot
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 18:57 ET byNo, you are a liberal idiot if you believe that there is no cause worth fighting for, and you are a sucker if you appease the enemy. And you were a coward if you dodged the draft during the Vietnam War.
I hope you weren't calling me a liberal idiot
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 19:07 ET by ahusserIf you did then you didn't read my post. If I misunderstood where you were coming from I apologise.
"Somehow, I told you so, just doesn't quite say it." Will Smith in 'I, Robot.'
Andy---
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 19:23 ET by matthewdeanIt appeared to me that Clarity may have misunderstood.
I knew what you were saying, but of course I also knew you served honorably in Nam.
I also know that as distasteful as war is, guys like you will always step up.
You, and all who served, are never told, "Thank you," enough.
You are much appreciated.
MD
Thanks MD
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 23:30 ET by ahusserNothing worse than being called a liberal idiot LOL sometimes I get too wordy for my own good.
"Somehow, I told you so, just doesn't quite say it." Will Smith in 'I, Robot.'
And you were a coward if
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 19:11 ET by Radical1979And you were a coward if you dodged the draft during the Vietnam War.
Or you have a position in the Obama administration. Make that AND you have a position in the Obama administration.
Hanks and Anti-war Protestors
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 20:26 ET by exLibWell, I have to say that to a liberal there IS a cause worth "fighting" for:
Peace, ironic though, isn't it. A liberal will go to jail to "fight" for peace.
Also, fighting to stop conservatives from keeping porn from the public airwaves, vile and anti-christian art from receiving federal funding, and abortion getting gov't funds.
Those are just a few of the things liberals think are worth fighting for and they are also not conflict avoiders in the sense that many actively incite conflict in the supposed pursuit of peace.
What I think is true is they have a simplistic view on how peace is achieved, believing that conservatives and those who wage war actually pursue war.
The facts are that hollywood, especially guys like Hanks who have been so hugely famous for so long are divorced completely from reality and those who live "normal" or even conservative lives.
They are all mostly liberals, and all they remember is that youthful immature hubris for the small town roots most of them have. Given that deep down inside they really don't "deserve" the fame they have, they feel a need to "make a difference" and that usually entails being for things like Global Warming or whatever they feel will endear themselves to the News Media and most of their fans.
To Hanks credit, unlike cretins like Sean Penn and the like, at least Hanks realizes that he should respect the military and at least intellectually realizes that they provide a service and sacrifice to alllow him to continue his career.
Speilberg see the fighting
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 18:58 ET by Radical1979Speilberg sees the fighting in Europe as worthwhile, becuase the Jews were being anhilated. I wonder if he would feel that way if it was only the Poles and Checkoslovakians who were exterminated.
No I was just expounding
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 19:09 ET by ahusseron your excellent remarks.
"Somehow, I told you so, just doesn't quite say it." Will Smith in 'I, Robot.'
I didn't mean to say I
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 18:55 ET by Radical1979I didn't mean to say I question the book by Sludge (or was it Sledge?), I meant to say I question weather or not Hanks read the book. I believe everything written by that brave man, and others who fought in WWII. I read about The Rape of Nanking and the Battaan Death March and there is no question in my mind Japan, as a nation, was as psychotic, evil, and dangerous as Hitler.
Sorry about having mis spoken.
See my comment above
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 19:10 ET by ahusserI replied to the wrong reply. Your remarks were excellently made. Maybe some authors, in hindsight, see things differently from the perspective of many years.
"Somehow, I told you so, just doesn't quite say it." Will Smith in 'I, Robot.'
Rad---
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 19:11 ET by matthewdeanYou described the book correctly. I understood in your first post that you were wondering if it had been fairly adapted when used as research.
MD
Rad---
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 19:05 ET by matthewdeanIs that the book "With the Old Breed at Peleliu and Okinawa", by Eugene Sledge?
MD
Yes and it's a great book.
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 19:07 ET by Radical1979Yes and it's a great book. I have to edit my post, I meant I have to question if Hanks read the book, not the book itself. It's unbelievable to me what those men went through. Going to edit my post right now.
Rad---
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 19:14 ET by matthewdeanGene made it home to become a biology teacher for many years.
He unfortunately passed away; some time last year , I believe it was.
MD
MD - at least he didn't have
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 19:29 ET by Radical1979MD - at least he didn't have to hear this tripe Hanks is spouting. He was spared that.
I can't edit my post anymore
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 19:08 ET by Radical1979I can't edit my post anymore but I meant to question if Hanks had read the book by Sledge, not question the book itself. Great book about the Pacific War and the brave men who fought in it.
America Wants to ‘Annihilate’ Terrorists....
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 18:21 ET by upcountrywaterFirst of all we the USA, had an option of H-bombing then from space...
Second of all.. Hired the russians to come in and cover up all the radioactive sites, after all they have Chernobyl experence.
Third bring in 500,000 Halliburton Energy Services employees, and Pump that Glassed over waisteland dry..
Nope we sent in young Americans to knock on every door and ask if there were any terrorists inside....
The bottom line on Obama: He puts our money where his mouth is.
"Back in World War II, we
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 18:27 ET by chessplayer"Back in World War II, we viewed the Japanese as ‘yellow, slant-eyed dogs’ that believed in different gods. They were out to kill us because our way of living was different. We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different."
Ok, thats true. Racism was involved. But Hanks, and libs in general, have selective memories. They only seem to recall racism by whites. The Japanese were every bit as racist as the Nazis, maybe even more so. Too bad those "different" people (terrorists) did`nt annihilate Hanks.
Hanks
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 18:32 ET by ahusserHas generally been under the radar politically. I mean you probably know almost everyone in hollywood is a liberal but some choose to keep it to themselves. But why is he coming out of the closet now is it because fearless leader is being attacked and losing that aura.
"Somehow, I told you so, just doesn't quite say it." Will Smith in 'I, Robot.'
This guy produced "John Adams"--?
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 18:38 ET by carolina09I mean, it is so "cognitive dissonance." He speaks, and proves himself a dolt.
Maybe he's just the figurehead? There was one scene in John Adams that I hated, a gratuitous sex scene between Abigail and John in France. It was distasteful. Maybe that was the part Hanks added.
Eeuuw. The guy playing
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 18:59 ET by Radical1979Eeuuw. The guy playing Adams should NEVER be in a sex scene. I couldn't get into the series. I loved the book, the series never gave me the same feeling as the book, don't know why.
I agree, carolina-
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 20:17 ET by BO STINKSThe first two episodes were the best. The final two or three were starting in (albeit subtly) with liberal talking points. Too bad.
"Liberals have managed to eliminate the idea of manly honor. Instead, all they have is womanly indignation." ~Ann Coulter
We did not "want" to
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 18:58 ET byWe did not "want" to annihilate the Japanese "because they were different". We declared war on them because - A. They attacked us. B. They attacked the entire East Asia Pacific Rim, including China, the Phippines, Indonesia, Korea, Singapore, and New Guinea - and every Pacific island they could occupy. C. They seized all of the natural resources in the entire region. D. They had aligned themselves with the Nazis. E. They were raping and torturing innocent people. F. They vowed to destroy America. GOT IT, TOM?? Lesson # 2 (The Difference Between Radical Islam and the Rest of the World), coming soon to a Hollywood schoolhouse near you.
Actually we didn't want to
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 19:02 ET by Radical1979Actually we didn't want to annihilate the Japanese at all, they refused to surrender. Even after Hiroshima they refused. They only surrendered after the second bomb was dropped. Their military was ready to sacrifice their whole race for that war. Ours wasn't. Hence the bombs. Good decision Truman.
Exactly, Rad,
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 20:12 ET by UpNorthMitsuo Fuchida, the architect of Pearl Harbor, told Paul Tibbets that he'd done the right thing. Fuchida said that the Japanese would have resisted an invasion with sticks and stones. Estimates of the casualties if an invasion were staged, range from one million to "several" million, just on the Japanese side.
Perhaps Mr. Hanks needs to go back and do just a tad more reading of the history of the Pacific war?
You refer to OLYMPIC and
Wed, 03/10/2010 - 01:28 ET by Lord ElicaniYou refer to OLYMPIC and CORONET. Casualty estimates range from 1.7-4 million for the U.S., and at least 5-10 million for the Japanese.
They manufactured half a million Purple Hearts in anticipation of these operations. Sixty-five years later, some 120,000 of these still remain unawarded.
I may be twisted and evil for thinking this, but thank God that nearly a quarter of those medals still have yet to be awarded.
Cities full of hatred, fear and lies
Withered hearts and cruel, tormented eyes
Scheming demons dressed in kingly guise
Beating down the multitude and
Scoffing at the wise
- Rush, "A Farewell to Kings"
They hated Hitler
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 18:57 ET by Quasi-socialistbecause he was different. He differed on the mass liquidation of human beings. Can't we all just get along?
Tom's a master of understatement
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 19:05 ET by metaphorsbwithuSaying terrorists are "different" is kind of like saying copycat killers are "unimaginative."
metaphorsbwithu
What a shame it is...
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 20:08 ET by PrairieSkythat Tom Hanks has revealed himself to be a leftist Kool-Aid drinker, like most of the rest of his buddies in the entertainment industry.
Hanks' statement "...We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different. Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what’s going on today?” is an amazingly ignorant take on America's thinking concerning Japan and the Japanese during WWII...The US didn't want to "annihilate" the Japanese because "they were different"..."Different" had nothing to do with it...Japan attacked us, and we fought back. We were defending ourselves. Period.
And no, Mr. Hanks, that doesn't sound familiar to what's going on today...Is he really this stupid? Does Hanks really believe that the reason that we are fighting the terrorists is "because they are different"? Has he forgotten what happened on 9/11? Apparently he has, or he couldn't possibly have made such an asinine comment.
From the beginning of his career, I have been a big fan of Tom Hanks, but sad to say, because of his unfortunate political leanings and incomprehensible statements such as these, I no longer feel about him as I once did. What a disappointment he has become.
"The problem is not that people are taxed too little...the problem is that government spends too much." ~President Ronald Reagan
Excellent post Prairie-
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 11:36 ET by BO STINKSIf we had wanted to "annihilate them because they are different," we would have set up "chemical showers" and "ovens" instead of internment camps.
For our gov't indoctrinated friends on NB - a Democrat President created the idea of internment camps.
"Liberals have managed to eliminate the idea of manly honor. Instead, all they have is womanly indignation." ~Ann Coulter
Context, BO...
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 11:48 ET by JerContext, context...context.
During the Civil War, many of the policies of Lincoln [R-Ill.] smacked of absolute tyranny.
Jer
Wasn't addressing you, Jer-
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 11:55 ET by BO STINKSBut thanks for sniffing and looking down your nose. You are very good at it.
"Liberals have managed to eliminate the idea of manly honor. Instead, all they have is womanly indignation." ~Ann Coulter
No Tom, it's because these
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 19:36 ET by StogieGuyNo Tom, it's because these followers of the "religion of peace" are intolerant and want to annihilate anyone who doesn't follow their religious and cultural belief system.
Just ask Christians in Nigeria about that.
Maybe you need to read something other than the New York Times and Daily Kos.
Pacific
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 19:39 ET by Captain KirockI'll still watch the Pacific series, even though Hanks is a lefty. The John Adams series was excellent and Band of Brothers was ok, at least the first 4 or 5 episodes. After that Band of Brothers became rather tedious, sometimes absurd.
Not me...
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 19:49 ET by shooterI won't be watching "The Pacific" now that I know who is behind it.
_________________________________________
"An armed society is a polite society" -- Robert A. Heinlein
Hanks is wrong...
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 19:54 ET by shooterHanks said "...We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different."
No...we wanted to kill them so that they would not kill US!
Tom...get a grip on the fact that WE WERE THE ONES WHO WERE ATTACKED, both on December 7, 1941, and on September 11th, 2001.
Tom...you turned out to be quite the idiot...the Forrest Gump role affected your brain.
_________________________________________
"An armed society is a polite society" -- Robert A. Heinlein
Because they're
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 21:43 ET by RR GOPBecause they're "different"? Jesus H., Tom...what is wrong with you, man?
"Under Capitalism, man exploits man. Under Communism it's just the opposite."
"All that Communism needs to make it successful is for someone to feed and clothe it."
Hollyweird Is Contagious
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 21:50 ET by countmein5050Makes me sad...but I just have to assume, regardless how harmless they might look during talk-show circuit interviews, or how inspirational they might be as a CHARACTER they play, or even how normal they appear of camera...Hollyweird is just full of contaminated and diseased liberals. The tricky part is starving them out of work....
Jimmy Stewart Is Dead
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 23:08 ET by TeamcheeserGod bless Jimmy Stewart.
Tc... Amen to that...and
Wed, 03/10/2010 - 02:06 ET by bigtimerTc...
Amen to that...and then some.
'Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea'~Breitbart
I posted this about Hanks over at HotAir earlier...
Wed, 03/10/2010 - 01:36 ET by R D HelmThis was the original HA thread.
Enough said.
-Dave
Dave - what Tom Hanks would say :p
Wed, 03/10/2010 - 02:49 ET by MrShyBy both Tom's logic and his comparison of then-and-now, my guess is, if you brought up things that precipitated the wars we're currently waging, his answer would be something like:
Huh? 9/11? No, had no idea... what happened?? OMG!!! And, wait, they attacked our ship a year earlier and killed 17 of our soldiers? They bombed our embassy buildings in Africa before that, two different times? Serious?? And wait, whoa, really?? They attempted 9/11 back in 1993? These same Islamic radicals also killed 200-plus of our men in Lebanon back in the 80's??
They keep repeating "Allah is great" and "down with Jews, with Israel, the west, and all infidels and non-believers"?? Their radicalism is spreading throughout Europe as we speak? They're killing and terrorizing non-Muslims all over central and northern Africa? They're killing their own in Pakistan and driving truck bombs and killing civilians everywhere they can in the Middle East?
The whole Middle East region has been a thorn in the side of the world for some time, really?? And it hasn't changed in that region and only seems to get worse? So many of it's countries are tyrannically ruled and oppress it's people, especially women??
Shoot, I honestly knew none of this. I figured we just had a deep-seeded, irrational fear and hatred of Arabic-looking people wearing towels around their heads and burkas, who constantly do that funny bowing-down on their little rugs.
I'm not looking for anyone's pity. - Jer
There have been studies. - Jer
RD and Mr Shy
Wed, 03/10/2010 - 16:56 ET by UpNorththe two of you captured the whole response to Hanks' idiotic ravings. Thanks for wrapping it up so neatly.
I think the Chinese,
Wed, 03/10/2010 - 04:23 ET by killa37I think the Chinese, Phillipinos, Malasians, Indonesians, and a few other 'non white' people really hated the Japanese during that time...........and I also think that a lot of WHITE people really hated the Germans in that same era!!! So.......was it a racial thing?? I don't think so!!!
What we have now is a cultural/religious clash.....and it is as monumental as anything that went on during the 30's and 40's....and untill these suicidal libs figure it out, we're going to keep having to fight on at least TWO fronts.............the war within, and the war without.
Oh, yeah, boys and girls.............it IS also racial, if you really want to break it down.........who wants to win the race.......those of us who believe in 'freedom'...........or those who believe in 'submission'??? Freedom ain't free......and submission is.........giving your freedom to someone else..............take your pick, sheeple!!!! FUBO!!!!!
Americ
Wed, 03/10/2010 - 11:45 ET by jessieHAmerica wants to annihilate terrorists because they killed our fellow citizens. They attacked us on our soil. They killed women and children. inocent people were snuffed out. Hanks needs to go make another movie and leave the inteligence to people that have inteligence. His comments are almost as stupid as Sean Penn's.
God Bless Tom Hanks!
Wed, 03/10/2010 - 19:40 ET by JerTom Hanks is indeed a 'nice man', and his actions in 'bringing history to life' are undeniably commendable. But neither of those facts is the reason he is so widely revered by the overwhelming majority of our nation's remaining, but rapidly dwindling 2+ million veterans of World War II. Rather it is his tireless activity in promoting causes dear to the hearts of those of the "Greatest Generation" that has earned him their undying gratitude.
Hanks has devoted thousands of hours of his time and expended enormous sums of money to honor these men and women--whether in connection with the WWII Museum in New Orleans, the World War II Memorial in Washington D.C., or the Naval memorial project in Normandy--and it is those and related efforts of Hanks which should make him the subject of our praise--not the object of scorn. Accusing him of slander and duplicity ("sounding patriotic...to lure us toward his side" only to "wallop us with a left cross") does this fine man a serious disservice.
Jer
What do those two
Wed, 03/10/2010 - 19:50 ET by MightyMouthWhat do those two paragraphs have to do with Tom making a remarkably dumb statement?
"I'm madder than a midget with a yo-yo" -- Larry the cable guy.
A great deal. a.) I
Wed, 03/10/2010 - 20:37 ET by JerA great deal. a.) I believe it was a glaring omission to slam Hanks without acknowledging his splendid efforts on behalf of veterans and the latter's great respect for Tom, and b.) In my view the statements which are the subject of [excessive] focus on this thread could have been better and more clearly articulated by Hanks but are not "remarkably dumb".
Jer
More than
Wed, 03/10/2010 - 22:17 ET by UpNorthone poster acknowledged the good that Hanks has done. I echo what's been said, about his work on the WWII museum, The WWII Memorial in DC, and the Normandy project. But, his ignorant statement that the US was again doing in SW Asia, what it did in SE Asia in WWII, was just that, ignorant. For that, he deserves the rebukes that he's gotten.
And, that's the way it is.
Well, if you say so. Who
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 01:43 ET by JerWell, if you say so. Who am I to argue with Walter Conkrite? :-) [But, I wish you would point out the others, in addition to the one I mentioned.]
Jer
Who the hell is---
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 03:44 ET by matthewdeanWalter Conkrite?
MD
Oh for heaven's
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 03:51 ET by JerOh for heaven's sake...It's socialist Cronkite's right-wing brother who dropped the first "r" to play up his CONservative credentials.
What? You never heard of him?
Jer
Ah, Jer, you know these---
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 04:14 ET by matthewdeanleft coast educations aren't always what they are cracked up to be.
You may consider me chastised. If I did miss hearing of him, and apparently I did, is there any penance that you know of?
MD
md...
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 04:20 ET by Jer"left coast educations aren't always what they are cracked up to be."
Well, they're apparently pretty effective in teaching one to spot misspellings, typos, transpositions, and various and sundry grammatical transgressions. ;-)
Jer
MM
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 03:51 ET by MrShyExactly. Beyond dumb. He flat-out stated that we were not really fighting an "enemy" during WWII, much as we're not really fighting one now.
Unacceptable.
Double-whammy unacceptable, in fact. It's giving the benefit of the doubt to THEM, not US, in both instances.
That level of stupidity -- and really, anti-Americanism -- from our modern-day "Jimmy Stewart" (yeah, sure... maybe our modern-day Burt Lancaster) is jaw-dropping.
I'm not looking for anyone's pity. - Jer
There have been studies. - Jer
Jer---
Wed, 03/10/2010 - 20:27 ET by matthewdeanThe only "serious disservice" aimed towards this liberal man, as is usually the case when a liberal says stuff deemed non-sensical by conservatives, is what you as another liberal see as inappropriate and take offense at.
Tom Hanks has indeed done many laudable acts of homage, taking different forms, in showing his apparently deep appreciation to and for our past military prowess and personnel.
That fact has been fairly recognized in this thread.
If Hanks chooses to "stand and deliver" statements about the enemies America faces today, then he must also stand prepared to receive valid criticism if others disagree with his views.
It almost seems, based on your post, that in your mind, moral relevance is the great balance mechanism for judging Hanks, i.e., he did good therefore anything he says must either be a wash or given a pass.
The law of seniority says last hired, first fired.
A liberal law appears to be, last said, first dead.
In other words, forget what Hanks just said (it is dead news), remember instead only his good works in the past.
Don't work that way in real life, though.
Glad you are back.
MD
Really, Matthew?
Wed, 03/10/2010 - 21:40 ET by Jer"Tom Hanks has indeed done many laudable acts of homage, taking different forms, in showing his apparently deep appreciation to and for our past military prowess and personnel.
That fact has been fairly recognized in this thread."
Really, Matthew? Did you actually read all of the comments in this thread...and you still stand by that remark?
exLib--after blasting libs in general--tossed a backhanded compliment in Hanks' direction. Other than that single instance, I can't seem to locate in this thread the "fair recognition" of Hanks' "deep appreciation to and for our military...personnel"--beyond the mention of his involvement in Band of Brothers and Pacific.
Which comments did you have in mind?
Jer
P.S. It's nice to be back. Thanks.
Jer---
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 03:43 ET by matthewdeanPretty sure I caught 'em all, Jer.
Yeah. I stand by that remark.
"Which comments did you have in mind?"
Well, primarily mine, Jer.
MD
Matthew...
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 03:46 ET by Jer"Which comments did you have in mind?"
Well, primarily mine, Jer.
I see. That 'splains it. :-)
Jer
Jer
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 03:54 ET by MrShyShow us where anyone was vitriolic.
And yes, I recall several over the past few days that started with "He's done a lot over his career that is commendable, but..." and that's more than admirable. We're quite kind here.
But dumb (and dangerous, really) is as dumb does, or whatever. That won't be overlooked.
I'm not looking for anyone's pity. - Jer
There have been studies. - Jer
Well, Shy...I suppose it
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 04:41 ET by JerWell, Shy...
I suppose it depends on your definition of "vitriolic". Plenty of borderline examples, to wit:
"Comments like this prove he is just another liberal idiot."
"I guess Tom was high on crack during 9-11."
"...let's move all the Gitmo guests to your house, you gasbag."
"Well I won't be able to watch this mini-series...after the insults to my religion, my patriotism and so many other slights and out and out slanders..."
"Is this nimrod TRYING to make himself more irrelevant?"
"Too bad those "different" people (terrorists) didn't annihilate Hanks."
"He speaks, and proves himself a dolt."
"I won't be watching "The Pacific" now that I know who is behind it."
"Tom...you turned out to be quite the idiot."
"I will never spend another dime to watch any of your movies again, and will no longer allow them to be aired in my home, you America-hating moron."
"...Hank's idiotic ravings."
"That level of stupidity -- and really, anti-Americanism - from our modern day "Jimmy Stewart" (yeah, sure...maybe our modern-day Burt Lancaster) is jaw-dropping."
Again, maybe not "vitriolic" [and that was your term, not mine] but pretty malicious, nonetheless.
Jer
[And may God bless Jimmy Stewart and Burt Lancaster, too.]
Jer
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 05:00 ET by MrShyHow many of those do you deem vitriolic? Your definition? We can agree to keep names like "idiot" and "dolt" out of the definition of vitriolic, right? What here is seething with hatred and anger?
What he said was downright traitorous, and you can't sugarcoat it.
And yes, several tried to acknowledge him beyond this inexcusable comment:
I'm not looking for anyone's pity. - Jer
There have been studies. - Jer
Shy....
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 05:15 ET by JerPlease reread my original post and my initial reply to Matthew. That fairly and accurately stated and summarizes my position. Getting bogged down in what may or may not rise to the level of "vitriol"--again the term you used--is pointless. The same goes for your phrase "seething with hatred and anger".
I acknowledged exLib's qualified compliment, as well as the additional references to Band of Brothers and Pacific by others. My point was the uniform omission of any recognition of Hanks' outstanding efforts on behalf of WWII veterans--which I specifically addressed and, to my knowledge, no one else did.
Jer
Jer
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 05:15 ET by MrShyNo, I'm happy to put the definition in your court. Which of those are vitriolic?
I'm not looking for anyone's pity. - Jer
There have been studies. - Jer
Shy...
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 05:21 ET by JerYou don't get to change the rules if you wish to fairly debate the issue. You need to challenge my actual assertions--not make up ones I never made. Otherwise, you can take your ball and go home and move the goal to wherever your heart desires.
Jer
Jer
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 05:35 ET by MrShyWhat's up? I'll accept your definition.
I asked you what comments were vitriolic, and you were not definitive, that's all. You took a lot of time to find and post 12 that were "borderline", and "depending on the definition" -- your words -- so I just want you to give me the ones that are certainly vitriolic, in your opinion.
I posted four that acknowledged Hanks' past record and achievements, that we both agreed on.
I'm not looking for anyone's pity. - Jer
There have been studies. - Jer
Shy...
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 05:51 ET by JerDefine "vitriolic". You used the term. You define it. So far, I haven't conclusively stated that any comments were vitriolic. Good grief. Your word parsing never ceases to amaze me.
Why did you post exLib's remarks when I had already acknowledged his post? Why did you post others that mentioned Band of Brothers and Pacific when I had already acknowledged those. You're regurgitating my points and saying "aha!" as if you have exposed omissions on my part. Sorry, you failed.
I specifically addressed Hanks' expenditures of time and money for causes such as the WWII Museum in New Orleans, the WWII Memorial in D.C., etc. and the enormous respect he has gained from vast numbers of veterans as a result of such efforts. What posts have alluded to those efforts?
Jer
Jer
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 06:03 ET by MrShyTrue, no one here commented, much less went in-depth, about his veterans activities.
Anyway, all I initially posted was to remind you while many are very offended, puzzled, and turned-off by his comment, and understandably expressing this, no one, IMO, was over-the-line vitriolic. You came back with 12 posts -- a direct response to my question -- so I can only presume they're what you see as vitriolic. I wanted clarification, as we can agree that many, if not all, are not. So, not sure why you went and archived all of those.
I'm not looking for anyone's pity. - Jer
There have been studies. - Jer
Shy...
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 06:51 ET by JerWe're just chasing each other's tail. I introduced those examples by explicitly stating it depended on what your definition of "vitriolic" is, and then proceeded to list some "borderline" examples, imo. Obviously, some are a bit more strident than others.
I would suggest that stating "it was too bad the terrorists didn't annihilate Hanks" was more extreme than calling Hanks an idiot. I would even go so far as to suggest the statement is indeed vitriolic, rather than simply "borderline". Would you agree?
Jer
update. Just noticed if we could expunge Matthew's and MadRat's posts, you and I would completely dominate the Recent Comments list--and we haven't accomplished a damn thing. :-)
Jer
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 07:28 ET by MrShyWas that so hard?
Thanks. One comment was certainly vitriolic. Not twelve.
I'm aware that you prefaced your initial answer with conditions and variables, but all I wanted was your list of vitriolic comments. That's all I ever asked for.
The liberal in you wants to complicate things and add shades of grey. I'm just trying to get right to the heart of stuff. Always am.
I'm not looking for anyone's pity. - Jer
There have been studies. - Jer
Shy...
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 10:24 ET by JerI appreciate the cordial dialogue. Very much so. I hope it bodes well for the future.
That said, your arguments fail to hold up in the face of simple, common sense analysis.
Here's why:
"Was that so hard?"
Yes, it was. And unnecessarily so. My assertion was that Hanks had been unfairly "slammed" and made the object of our "scorn" instead of "praise". I then proceeded to provide specific details about his efforts on behalf of veterans which in turn engendered immense respect for Hanks by those very same veterans.
Matthew responded with a claim that those efforts which generated such "deep appreciation" for Hanks had been "fairly recognized in this thread". I disagreed and requested examples of same. [Note that I never asserted that Hanks had been a victim of "vitriol." However, it was obvious to me that, in gerneral, praise had been light while criticism had been heavy.] Matthew essentially conceded my point.
"Thanks. One comment was certainly vitriolic. Not twelve.
I'm aware that you prefaced your initial answer with conditions and variables, but all I wanted was your list of vitriolic comments. That's all I ever asked for."
Shy, you replied to my response to Matthew with a demand that I "show [you] where anyone was "vitriolic". This was deflective and thus destructive to further dialogue. Not only that, but you then repeatedly refused to define the term which you yourself had injected. The issue at hand did not involve defining or determining, say, the speed of light, the value of pi, or the hypotenuse of a triangle, but rather the largely subjective and elastic measure of emotive intent implied by the usage of a particular rhetorical term.
As such, you were requiring me to shape the definitional parameters of a term you had employed. It made absolutely no sense--other than to hamstring the debate. "Vitriolic" can mean merely"caustic" or "unpleasant" or "disagreeable" or [slang] "bitchy". But it may also mean "sulfurous denunciation" or "withering and venomous" or "dripping with malice" or "bitterly scathing".
You say I only provided one example out of twelve. According to what definition? And remember, I asserted only that my examples were "borderline" after once again reminding you it was dependent upon definition.
So, you agree that wishing Hanks had been "annihilated by the terrorists" was at least borderline vitriolic. [I would say not just borderline vitriolic, but odious, repellent, and contemptible as well. Wouldn't you?] How about the post suggesting Tom was "high on crack during 9-11"? Borderline vitriol? Or the observation by my good friend Dave that Hanks is an "America-hating moron"? Borderline vitriol? Or your remark that the level of his...anti-Americanism...is jaw-dropping?" Again, borderline vitriol?
I think a good case could be made for those and others--arguably all--being borderline vitriolic. So now we're up to at least four, not one. But, it all depends on the applicable meaning, and supplying that was your reponsibility.
The liberal in you wants to complicate things and add shades of grey. I'm just trying to get right to the heart of stuff. Always am.
Wrong. Glaringly, stupefyingly wrong. You added the shades of gray and steadfastly refused to clarify the issue or sharpen its focus. It's not a liberal or a conservative thing. It's dodging and deflecting, and it's a Shy thing. And, I'll keep trying--civilly and amicably--to break you of the habit.
Jer
Jer
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 10:52 ET by MrShySeriously, no sense losing your top over this.
I asked for examples of vitriolic comments. Nothing more and nothing less.
Not "borderline" vitriol. Not "Shy, first, what's your definition of vitriol?" vitriol. Just vitriol. Vitriolic comments, Jer. Straight up.
For some strange reason, instead you went and posted 12 comments based on this new, revised, broader interpretation than just vitriol. After exhaustive back-and-forth with you to get you to simply post those you deem as vitriolic, you finally concluded it was 1 comment.
Anyway, finally, thank you for providing me with the comment you deemed vitriolic. Why you didn't do this some 15 posts up is beyond me. There was no need to make this a Federal case.
You're a funny cat, Jer.
EDIT: And are you serious? No, it's not my responsibility to supply you with the meaning of a word (term? phrase? word) in the English dictionary that we all can look up and, then, apply accordingly.
I'm not looking for anyone's pity. - Jer
There have been studies. - Jer
Geez, I really thought that
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 10:58 ET by JerGeez, I really thought that was set out so you would understand the problem, Shy.
Will you just do me one simple favor? Pretend I've never heard of the word vitriol or vitriolic. Indulge me. Define it, or give me a synonym. Please.
Thanks.
Jer
Jer
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 11:20 ET by MrShyI did this. Early on.
After you went ahead and posted 12 comments all with varying degrees of not-niceness, but not comments you deem vitriolic -- which, naturally, had me scratching my head a bit -- I tried to help and gave an example... "seething with hatred and anger." I think that's a good description of vitriol, and separates vitriolic expressive language from, say, stuff like "guy's an idiot, what a dolt, etc.."
You really didn't have to muck this up. If you directly posted, simply, comments you thought were vitriolic... 2, 4, 7... whatever, fine. I just wanted your total. Total of vitriolic comments, in your view.
I'm not looking for anyone's pity. - Jer
There have been studies. - Jer
Shy...
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 11:40 ET by Jer"Hatred and anger?" That makes it even more speculative and subjective and virtually impossible to discern. I'm reading words on a page. I can't see or hear the author or guess his/her mood. Were you full of hate and anger when you said Hanks' level of anti-Americanism was jaw-dropping?
So if that's the standard, I'll have to say that none of the comments on this thread are conclusively vitriolic.
Let me ask you this: Do you believe any of the comments crossed the line? Were unnecessarily harsh? Were unjustified or unfair?
By the way, I've been gone a few days, so I haven't read any recent remarks about Hanks on other threads.
Jer
Jer
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 12:10 ET by MrShyOkay, are you now being deliberately obtuse? "Seething","seething"... Why did you zip right past that opening adjective?
And now, after you have not directly satisfied us with your opinion on definitive, over-the-line vitriolic comments, you come skipping down the road asking:
Let me ask you this: Do you believe any of the comments crossed the line? Were unnecessarily harsh? Were unjustified or unfair?
OMO. I'm still waiting on you giving me that list.
In the interim, with all of this nonsense, yes, I've looked at your "dirty dozen" and have determined that, I think, two, and possibly three, fall under this category. I'll find them and provide you that small list in another post, sure. FYI, five on your fuzzy list have no business being there... nowhere near the realm of "vitriol", or even nasty or mean.
Again, I'm here banging my head against a table the last 10 hours or so, holding your hand to get you to give us your list, doing your job.
You purposely do this, don't you?
Welcome back, btw. I think this is the only thread about Forest Gump.
I'm not looking for anyone's pity. - Jer
There have been studies. - Jer
Shy...
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 12:10 ET by JerSorry for the omission. Were you seething with anger and hate when you claimed Hanks' level of anti-Americanism was jaw-dropping?
How about on past occasions when you've proclaimed your hatred for Democrats and liberals. Were you "seething"?
Stop banging your head, Shy. It's not good for you. I gave you my good-faith list over seven hours ago in accordance with your terms. I refined it later to focus on the more egregious examples. When you stipulated just a few minutes ago that the test is "seething hatred and anger", I amended it again. I've been doing the best I can to comply with your groundrules--which are being applied to words which I neither uttered nor stated.
And for goodness sakes...relax. Like me. I'm not "over the top" or anywhere near it.
Thanks for the "welcome back". Nice to be here.
Jer
Jer
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 12:16 ET by MrShyWere you seething with anger and hate when you claimed Hanks' level of anti-Americanism was jaw-dropping?
Reading that, is that me or someone "seething with anger and hate"? What do you think, Jer? You're a smart guy who thinks... right?
I'm not looking for anyone's pity. - Jer
There have been studies. - Jer
Shy...
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 12:21 ET by JerI don't think you were seething when you posted that. But, I could be wrong--just as you were about my "going over the top". But maybe you meant it in a different sense.
Jer
Jer again again
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 12:28 ET by MrShyHahahahaha...
I'm prying intellectual DIShonesty from Jer's cold, almost-dead liberal hands.
Good answer, yes.
I'm not looking for anyone's pity. - Jer
There have been studies. - Jer
Jer again
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 12:22 ET by MrShyOMO....
I refined it later to focus on the more egregious examples.
OMO.... Oh, you did, did you? You refined it?
O. M. O. (Oh My Obama)
Egregious examples? That would be, well, like, say.... oooohh.... how about...... vitriolic. And here we are, off the loopy Jer merry-go-round, back to square one. Back to my initial question. Precisely as it was presented to you.
Please, stop, Jer. I'm dyin' here.
I'm not looking for anyone's pity. - Jer
There have been studies. - Jer
Shy...
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 12:29 ET by JerYou're taking this much too seriously.
Nope...as I pointed out earlier, vitriolic is somewhat elastic in definition. "Unpleasant" "disagreeable" "caustic"...remember? Again, however, if "seething anger and hatred" is the standard, then my list would be reduced considerably, perhaps in its entirety. IMO, it [the definition] lies somewhere in between.
Now, how about answering some of the questions I posed earlier to you about the list and also your emotions when posting your hatred for Democrats and liberals.
Jer
Jer---
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 00:29 ET by matthewdeanIn your 9:24 ET post you state "Matthew essentially conceded my point".
No I didn't.
It's ok if you thought I did, but I did not.
And I did notice that in one post you said what Hanks' said were not "dumb remarks", but in a later post you said what Hanks' suggested was "naively ludicrous".
Hmmm.
MD
Matthew...
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 02:12 ET by JerI said in that post his statements were not well-articulated but were not "remarkably dumb"; because I do believe there is a a small kernel of truth buried [deeply] within his clumsy rhetoric.
Otherwise, good catch. I'll essentially concede your point.
Jer
Jer---
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 02:35 ET by matthewdeanAccording to my reckoning, lebenty-leben more and I will catch you.
MD
But you're gaining on me,
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 02:42 ET by JerBut you're gaining on me, <kid>. I'm redoubling my efforts.
Jer
MD
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 04:09 ET by MrShyYes, I noticed yesterday him trying to hide behind one of our soldiers. Glad you pinned him on this.
I'm not looking for anyone's pity. - Jer
There have been studies. - Jer
Hey Shy---
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 04:12 ET by matthewdeanHow goes it, bro?
You gettin' by on an hours sleep a night is unbelievable.
MD
Right... Shy noticed this
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 04:21 ET by JerRight...
Shy noticed this "yesterday", but because of his benevolent wish to avoid publicly embarrassing me, he refrained from pointing it out.
Excuse me while I throw up.
Jer
MD
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 04:26 ET by MrShyHey. Actually, correction. I get by on an hours sleep a DAY (as in, daylight outside as I slumber... and more than an hour, though, thankfully. :))
I'm not looking for anyone's pity. - Jer
There have been studies. - Jer
Really Uncle Jer?
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 13:16 ET by JWFNice yummy potatoes there. But you missed the meat of MD's post.
Oh, Tom the hero helped the WWII vets. Yippee! Does that now give him a right to rewrite history? I say again, rewrite history.
Back in World War II, we viewed the Japanese as ‘yellow, slant-eyed dogs’ that believed in different gods. True enough, they were played up in film and posters as despicable little critters. But it was a different time with different morals. Are we playing up our current enemies in this kind of light? And I do not recall RELIGION being an issue in any of the films and posters. That is revising history.
They were out to kill us because our way of living was different. No, I do believe they wanted to kill us because we were in the way. They wanted to dominate a certain sphere of the world. We were one of the powers the could put a cog in their works. Again, revising history.
We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different. No, we wanted to stop them. We never wanted to annihilate them. Again, rewriting history.
Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what’s going on today?” Neither Hanks historical revisionism, nor what is going on today can compare to what went on 60 years ago. It was a different time with different morals.
For Hanks to compare his historical lies to today's struggle is indefensible. Tom Hanks took care of the WWII vets and spit in the face of today's vets.
How about 2 other civilians that took the time out of their lives to bring some measure of joy to veterans, both active duty and separated? Bob Hope and Lt. Dan. Kindly point out where they have spit on the veterans those strove so valiently to help.
I have been nice to Uncle Jer for months now. Am I allowed just the tiniest slur when he turns his back?
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Yes indeed, Vet...
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 13:45 ET by JerAm I allowed just the tiniest slur when he turns his back?
You certainly are. In fact, I find it a relief after having Shy ask the same freakin' question 42 different ways [not the question you have appropriately raised], and then when I finally pose a couple to him, he suddenly remembers he has piano practice.
Hanks remarks were, to be kind, inartfully worded, and gave the distinct impression that cultural and racial differences constituted a casus belli for our entry into WWII and the current GWOT, and further were and are dominant influences in the conduct of said wars. That, of course, is sheer nonsense. They are factors, but certainly not in the sense Hanks naively and ludicrously suggested.
Jer
Jer
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 14:06 ET by ahusserHijacked this blog real good just like ADK does. Remember you don't have to have the last word.
"Somehow, I told you so, just doesn't quite say it." Will Smith in 'I, Robot.'
ahusser...
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 14:14 ET by JerPlease explain how I hijacked the blog.
Thanks,
Jer
Jer
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 04:10 ET by MrShyAll you had to do was provide comments you thought were vitriolic. Over-the-line, seething, etc.. You didn't. For some reason, you instead gathered up a much longer comments list that was far broader in it's make-up of tone (with almost half not belonging even on a "borderline" list -- which, however, was not what I asked for.)
Then, you continually didn't provide this for each time I clarified (although I was always clear) and re-requested. Vitriolic comments. Simple. And you could go with your definition, of just the word/term "vitriolic", is what I immediately explained after you put up that incorrect list.
Anyway, finally, after about 9-10 exchanges, you did.... sort of.... zero in on the ones that were, say, heinous, over-the-line........ ladies and gentlemen.... vitriolic.
I'm not looking for anyone's pity. - Jer
There have been studies. - Jer
Shy...
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 04:16 ET by JerThanks for those profound insights, Shy. For the record, I accomodated your request to the best of my ability within the purview of the clumsily-framed guidelines you established.
Now how about honoring your promise made approximately sixteen hours ago that you would supply a list of your own. And have you given further thought to the other questions I posed?
Jer
Jer
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 04:42 ET by MrShyJer, today, the day after his blog hog:
I accomodated your request to the best of my ability within the purview of the clumsily-framed guidelines you established.
Shy, yesterday, posting this initial said request:
Show us where anyone was vitriolic.
Shy, yesterday, posting his immediate follow-up request -- with clarification, just to be absolutely clear:
How many of those do you deem vitriolic? Your definition. What here is seething with hatred and anger?
Jer, I'm now literally on the floor (typing, barely, with one finger... :p)
Your comedy gets better and better.
I'm not looking for anyone's pity. - Jer
There have been studies. - Jer
Shy...
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 04:43 ET by JerWe've covered that turf ad nauseum. Time for your list.
Jer
btw...I believe "blog hog" applied to both of us.
About the "list" you promised...
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 05:13 ET by JerHmmm.....Now seventeen hours and counting. You must be on something like your eleventh draft by now.
We're expecting a masterpiece.
Jer
Here you go, Jer
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 05:20 ET by MrShyI'll just pick out the ones from your list. A few more have posted today, I believe, but there's too much to sift through. Okay, here:
"Comments like this prove he is just another liberal idiot."
Jer, why is this on the list? That's vitriol?
"I guess Tom was high on crack during 9-11."
Jer (sheesh), why is this on the list? Comedy, yes. Vitriol???
"...let's move all the Gitmo guests to your house, you gasbag."
Not a nice name to call Hanks, but sort of a funny one. And again, vitriolic?? Seething, and so on?
"Well I won't be able to watch this mini-series...after the insults to my religion, my patriotism and so many other slights and out and out slanders..."
Jer, again-again, huh??? I asked for vitriol, remember?
"Is this nimrod TRYING to make himself more irrelevant?"
Jer..... never mind.
"Too bad those "different" people (terrorists) didn't annihilate Hanks."
Okay, VITRIOL (1)
"He speaks, and proves himself a dolt."
Next.
"I won't be watching "The Pacific" now that I know who is behind it."
Next. (unreal.... someone must have ADD....)
"Tom...you turned out to be quite the idiot."
Here comes that word again.... Next.
"I will never spend another dime to watch any of your movies again, and will no longer allow them to be aired in my home, you America-hating moron."
Sure, VITRIOL (2), why not. I'll give you this one, with the ending.
"...Hank's idiotic ravings."
He/she's not even calling Hanks an idiot, just his ravings. N. e. x. t.
"That level of stupidity -- and really, anti-Americanism - from our modern day "Jimmy Stewart" (yeah, sure...maybe our modern-day Burt Lancaster) is jaw-dropping."
And mine. Hanks' level of stupidity in his comment is jaw-dropping.... Vitriol, Jer, vitriol.... How many times do I have to say it?
So, there. Two that are vitriolic to just about any average person with a Webster's Dictionary next to them.
Two or three that were not all that nice, but hardly personal and direct in a seething, vitriolic way.
Some 6-7 that got on the list because, Jer, you obviously don't pay attention. And/or you were so eager to impress us quickly with an all-bolded, 12 comments-long list, but you didn't really sit and think.
:)
I'm not looking for anyone's pity. - Jer
There have been studies. - Jer
That's it?
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 06:10 ET by JerI had to wait seventeen hours for that pile of sophistic rot? Pathetic.
Let's remember, Shy. I had never accused anyone of engaging in vitriolic commentary. Yet you, making an absolute mockery of relevant and productive dialogue, demanded that I point out the "vitriolic" comments, while refusing to even describe what you meant by vitriolic.
Notice the closing words of my "list" post: Maybe not "vitriol"...
But now, you--taking duplicitous behavior to an entirely new level--claim that I insisted all twelve items on my list were examples of vitriol. You are either actuated by <ad hominem alert> deliberate deceit or, in the alternative, just plain stupid. Which is it?
Since this is a conservative blog, you will benefit from the support of many defenders. I assure you, if we were debating on neutral grounds, you would be laughed off the site.
I explicitly noted that if "seething" hatred were the metric, NONE would be considered vitriolic by me. And I'll concede my inclusion of the statement about "not watching Pacific" was an error even under broad categories of negativity.
But on that note, I'm ending this circus. It was a pointless exercise from the beginning--unrelated to my introductory posts on this thread--but nevertheless initiated by your strawman nonsense.
Jer
Jer
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 06:47 ET by MrShySo what.
I came on and simply asked where on this thread people were vitriolic. If you saw that as a diversion from relevant and productive dialogue, why respond?
Oh, but you did.
You put up a list of 12 -- and clearly spent some quality time searching the thread and assembling them. Why? No one twisted your arm.
Anyway, you've wanted my list of what I deemed vitriolic, and I provided it, in good detail. Why you're all huffy and puffy now is not my problem.
I'm not looking for anyone's pity. - Jer
There have been studies. - Jer
Jer 2
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 07:05 ET by MrShySince this is a conservative blog, you will benefit from the support of many defenders. I assure you, if we were debating on neutral grounds, you would be laughed off the site.
That's the familiar sound of someone who has ended up looking silly again in another discussion/debate, and is now just flailing and acting macho out of frustration.
I explicitly noted that if "seething" hatred were the metric, NONE would be considered vitriolic by me. And I'll concede my inclusion of the statement about "not watching Pacific" was an error even under broad categories of negativity.
Here's where the psychological study of Jer really becomes fascinating. So, with vitriol being defined as "seething hatred", you counted 0 (zero) while I actually found 2.
Think about that for a moment, Jer. And everyone.
I actually think a couple of people on this thread -- me, a conservative -- were vitriolic, while Jer didn't find any.
Again, you reacted in a funny way, frantically gathering up as many comments as you could that were even remotely not-complimentary to Hanks. You got all jittery, asking "What do you mean by vitriolic? Define it?", although, oddly, you did this after you assembled your long list.
You reacted this way because, well, of COURSE my question is relevant to you painting us a picture of everyone being cruel and piling on Hanks. You got scared. You should have calmed down, given me the 1 or 2 (or zero) vitriolic comments, and we could have moved on.... oh well, that's water, as they say.
I'm always on to you, Jer. Sorry, but that's just how it's going to be around here.
I'm not looking for anyone's pity. - Jer
There have been studies. - Jer
Sorry Shy...
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 07:08 ET by JerThe Big Top has been taken down. The circus train is packed and about to leave for St. Pete. All the other clowns have boarded and are starting to worry about you. Better hurry!
Jer
Jer
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 07:32 ET by MrShyIn the future, don't be afraid. Don't over-think stuff. Be direct. You ask a question, I'll answer it directly. And vice-verse.
You saw some deeper, ulterior motive in me just wanting to know who you thought was really giving it to Hanks unfairly -- in light of his comments -- i.e., who was over-the-line. There was none. I just asked. Your irrational list sort of sent this spiraling out of control.
You turned this into a song and dance, and it didn't need to be.
I'm not looking for anyone's pity. - Jer
There have been studies. - Jer
Thank you Professor Shy.
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 07:58 ET by JerThank you Professor Shy. In the future, whenever I feel afraid, I'll hold my head erect and whistle a happy tune so no one will suspect...I'm afraid!
But about the 'direct question and direct answer deal'...good advice. While we're on that topic, let me ask you a direct question. A few months ago, during the time you were repeatedly calling me a "shyster", I linked a source explaining the insulting nature of the term [you had been insisting it was not insulting] and directly asked you to examine the source and then acknowledge the term's offensiveness.
You completely ignored the request, never responded, and dodged the issue. Now, my direct question: Why?
BTW...to my knowledge you have not referred to me as a shyster or shyster lawyer in several weeks now. I appreciate that.
Jer
Jer
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 08:17 ET by MrShyYou completely ignored the request, never responded, and dodged the issue. Now, my direct question: Why?
I didn't feel like responding. It was all peripheral, off-topic, other-thread, personal-to-Jer stuff you were obsessing over. And you're doing it here, too.
You see? Direct. I answered. And in those other threads, well, in places I chose not to answer. When I do, I'm direct.
Regarding your last off-topic paragraph/question, do you want me to call you that name? Why are you bringing this up?
I'm not looking for anyone's pity. - Jer
There have been studies. - Jer
Shy...
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 09:14 ET by JerPeripheral? Not at all. You swooped in on a thread to congratulate another poster and gratuitously flame me as follows:
"Good work."
"I took a good share of heat around here in my tireless work exposing and taking to task this trickster/hustler/lawyer/ charmer, that I finally figured I'd give it a rest." MrShy 02/07/2010
In subsequent posts, you continued the name-calling assault [Jer the Turd, etc.] and had in recent threads pulled out and played the ubiquitous "shyster card". I asked you to review my link and acknowledge the term's offensiveness--no apologies necessary.
Now, I do owe you a partial apology because even though you ignored that request, you did respond to another later on. But one has to wonder about your veracity, because this was what you posted:
"I clicked on it. I read it. That name is no big deal in any conext, let alone it's use here. [Emphasis mine]
Now, Pity Party Barrister, I beg of you to pull that thumb out of your tremendously mature-stunted mouth." MrShy 02/07/2010
Following is the relevant text from that link you supposedly read and found to be "no big deal in any context":
"shyster"
n. Slang
An unethical, unscrupulous practitioner, especially of law.
[Probably alteration of German Scheisser, son of a bitch, bastard, from scheissen, to defecate, from Middle High German schīzen, from Old High German skīzzan.]
shysterism shy'ster·ism n.
WORD HISTORY Calling someone a shyster might be considered libellous; knowing its probable origin adds insult to injury. According to Gerald L. Cohen, a student of the word, shyster is derived from the German term scheisser, meaning literally "one who defecates," from the verb scheissen, "to defecate," with the English suffix -ster, "one who does," substituted for the German suffix -er, meaning the same thing. Sheisser, which is chiefly a pejorative term, is the German equivalent of our English terms bastard and son of a bitch. Sheisser is generally thought to have been borrowed directly into English as the word shicer, which, among other things, is an Australian English term for an unproductive mine or claim, a sense that is also recorded for the word shyster. [My emphasis in bold]
Now, genius, did you really click on that link and read the foregoing? And do you still stand by your claim that it's no big deal to call a lawyer a "shyster"? Those are direct questions. I'll await your direct answers.
And the current relevancy involves issues of trust, honesty and expectations for future behavior.
Jer
sheesh
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 11:11 ET by MrShyWow. He now lays on thick the peripheral, off-topic, other-thread, personal-to-Jer stuff. I have nothing more to say.
This is my direct response.
I'm not looking for anyone's pity. - Jer
There have been studies. - Jer
Take note, Jer. Only
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 14:12 ET by Another Dead KennedyTake note, Jer. Only conservatives are allowed to have the final word on the pages of NB.
-Dead Ted
That last word comment was between me and Jer.
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 14:26 ET by ahusserBut if the shoe fits. Never mind instead of hijacking maybe I should coin the term blog hog.
"Somehow, I told you so, just doesn't quite say it." Will Smith in 'I, Robot.'
Andy---
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 00:20 ET by matthewdeanMight check out Jers' 5:51 ET post to Shy.
MD
Once again, Victor Davis Hanson puts our commentary to shame.
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 02:14 ET by JWFRead the whole thing - Is Tom Hanks Unhinged?
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
JWF...
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 02:29 ET by JerWhenever I hear or read the moral tut-tutting by critics regarding the "take no prisoners/war of extermination" behavior which was the hallmark of combat in the Pacific theatre during WWII, I recall the very succinct observation of a Marine veteran of several of those brutal and hellish island bloodbaths: "We were there, they weren't."
Jer
I will not disagree.
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 03:05 ET by JWFBut this is what you took away from Mr. Hanson's piece?
Vet...
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 03:14 ET by JerThat Hanson is one of the moral tut-tutters? Not at all. I haven't even read the entire piece yet [only your excerpt], but noted his remark about WWII combat in the Pacific and that led directly to my comment.
U J
I think you should.
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 03:27 ET by JWFYou being a history perfesser and me being a history student. We have much in common with the history professor and author, Mr. Hanson. He was much more succinct than I and even used the sphere word as I did. Then compare his succinct commentary to my crude commentary. I is fail in comparison.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Vet...
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 05:05 ET by JerJust finished reading Hanson's essay: Brilliant, eloquent and unassailable. It should be part of the required reading list for every high school and college student in America.
By the way, I think none of us could stand the comparison to Hanson's powerful rhetoric.
Jer
Back in World War II, we
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 05:54 ET by Jack BauerHow about the Germans. They were white Aryans who believed in the same Christian God as Americans. They were noted for their civilized culture based on the Reformation, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.
Famed for their contribution to western art, music and literature.
How did we view them Tom?
Actually Churchill covered that point:
How did the Chinese and the Koreans view the Japanese? They share the same genetic characteristics in skin color. Why they hated their bleepin' guts for what the Japs did to THEM.
Ever heard of the Rape of Nanking in 1937, Tom?
You know something Tom.... merciless, cruel and inhuman Japanese warfare didn't BEGIN on Dec 8, 1941 for MILLIONS of yellow slant-eyed people who believed in different gods.
Millions of people loathed the Japanese (and still do) for what they did in trying to annihilate them first. Dumb-ass.
Jack
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 06:07 ET by MrShyCheers from this side of the pond!!
Pretty amazing that our modern day "national treasure" of an actor is this ignorant of his homeland's basic war history, huh? And then, of course, his false equation of his false history with today's struggle.
I'm barely a HS graduate Joe Schmoe, and somewhat of a hermit, and this guy should have both domestic and worldly wisdom and knowledge by now... being famous and traveling everywhere (like so many of them)... and yet, he's completely trapped in this clueless bubble they all live in.
I'm not looking for anyone's pity. - Jer
There have been studies. - Jer
Hey Shy -- Hanks is in the
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 06:15 ET by Jack BauerHey Shy -- Hanks is in the terminal state of that mental disease that afflicts silly liberals.
They cannot abide the thought that other cultures are, in fact, inferior to the liberal, western democracy which gives them (like Hanks) their license to pontificate.
Obviously they (like Hanks) cannot mitigate the actual crimes of, say, the Japanese. They were uncivilized (by our culture) bastards. No ifs, ands or buts.
So their only recourse is to try the moral equivalence gambit. The "well, when you get down to it, we're JUST as bad as them. If not worse. If not that, then WE drove them to this extreme by OUR behavior."
That is at the root of what they seem to believe, when you strip the ignorant verbiage.
It's worse than ignorance. It's the arrogance of ignorance. It's a revelling in ignorance.
Jack
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 06:35 ET by MrShyYes, exactly, all of their rhetoric is a manifestation of liberal guilt, that shows up all over the place when they look at things and take sides.
Their arrogance of ignorance, spot-on. And they do revel in their twisted "we'll say we're inferior because we know we're superior" ways. :p
I'm not looking for anyone's pity. - Jer
There have been studies. - Jer