Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Anti- Bush political vulgarity in Belgium

Since this is a family blog, I will not comment on this item.

Discussions - 41 Comments

How juvenile . . . so stupid . . . so disrespectful.

They call the author of that piece fascist. The true fascists, it seems, are the ones who put up those stickers. The ones who made them. The ones who think nothing of them. This bothers me greatly.

Mr. Staevaert of the Socialists may want to consider the possibility of an Islamofascist "Peeing" on them at some point in the near future. But the european Left continues to stumble forward blindly. No hope for them I fear.

*sigh* Can I make a generalization now, jesse fan? Just like a Republican to lump all European Leftists into one big group of "Bush-haters" that want to "pee" on his face . . . yes, yes . . . no hope for the Europeans because a group of people in Belgium put these stickers in urinals . . . *another sigh . . . just for kicks*



I hate generalizations. And I won’t lie, the Left does it just as much as the Right. But I find it sort of sad to see it on this blog so much . . .

It was also sad to see other Europeans deface the American crosses at Normandy over the last few years. But, that’s probably just the lunatic fringe and a certain group of leftists.

It is interesting how infrequently those fascism- and theocracy-hating Europeans get around to publicly ridiculing, mocking, or even criticising Osama bin Laden or any of the high-profile terrorists who are infinitely worse in reality than Bush is in their fevered imaginations.

The very fact that they are so comfortable publicly ridiculing Bush, while remaining all but silent about global jihad shows who they really fear.

Heh. I’m scared of President Bush and he’s my President.

Well, I suppose Belgium has to be known for something. Otherwise we might be inclined to forget it exists.

I really enjoy using my GWB toilet paper.

Dear Ania:

I suppose it is only natural that the expression of your political beliefs should occur so close to their source, but, really, that’s nothing to brag about.

As to the people engaging in this sort of behaviour in Europe, are they really the "fringe"? If news reports are to be believed, the fringe seems to be a rather large part of the whole fabric.

And Matt, you’re guilty of the same thing you claim Jesse is guilty of: making broad generalizations based on the comments or actions of a few, or in this case, of only one ("Just like a Republican . . .").

Ania, that’s a pretty disrespectful, uncivilized comment. Let’s for a moment contrast Americans who were savaged for not eating French Fries and drinking French wine with what the Europeans, including many high-ranking ministers, are doing. I guess a civilization bereft of the ability or willingness to employ military force or a postmodern loss of moral judgment would be reduced to urinating on the president.

I am working on a Urinal target that will deliver 5000 volts to anyone who pisses on it.
If I went into a bathroom with Bush targets in the urinals I would piss on the floor.

I find it interesting to note that the German press is reporting anti-Bush demonstrations in the hundreds and thousands (as opposed to, say, the tens of thousands). I’m eagerly awaiting reports tomorrow of the pro-Bush/America demonstration in Mainz. Here, fwiw, is Der Spiegel’s English-language site.

Tony Williams said" "Ania, that’s a pretty disrespectful, uncivilized comment."

Oh, really! Since when talking about toilet paper is not civilized.

I do not hold against anybody if they don’t eat french fries or drink French wine. It is their choice. So, it is also my choice to use any type of toilet paper I want. I bought this toilet paper with my own money. As a demanding consumer in the free market economy I selected a luxury product that met my expectations. Is that wrong?

Actually, with my cute little butt GWB gets better deal than he deserves.

DWC: That was sort of the point. At least I was being honest, though. I was showing jesse just how stupid generalizations are. Or attempting to. Obviously, not all Republicans do that.



Walter: And you are surprised the Europeans are angry at Americans? Why always the jump to violence and meeting disrespect with more disrespect?

Obviously, not all Republicans do that.




Just for clarification purposes, let me change that to: "Obviously, not all Republicans lump all European Leftists into one big group of "Bush-haters" that want to "pee" on his face."

Ania, thanks for the non-sequitur.

Firstly, I think everyone is attaching far more importance to these urinal stickers than they warrant. Yes, Matt, they are juvenile and stupid (have ya ever laughed at a joke that you knew was juvenile and stupid?), and of course they are disrespectful. I presume the person/group that had them printed up has very little or no respect for Bush, and those who happily wizz away on his likeness get some small kick out of it. Does it need to be pointed out that these stickers, much like bumper stickers (only in this case they’re more...interactive), are NOT INTENDED to be some kind of political treatise or thought-provoking political analysis? Look, I know for a fact that there is such a thing (STILL, to this day) as toilet paper with Clinton’s mug on every sheet. Big deal. You may read whatever academic journal during your non-bathroom time (Ward Churchill to the left or NoLeftTurns to the right - okay, some of you take print-outs of NLT to the john to read there...fine), but whether you’ve thought carefully and deeply about the issues or not, bathroom relief time is about action, and emotional catharis. Keep in mind, that a lot of people (regardless of the numbers at the protests, there’s no denying that well over half of European citizens have serious problems with Bush) feel that Bush’s policies are harmful to many people’s ACTUAL LIVES, whereas, while urinal stickers may "bother greatly" Christopher Stone and other NLT fans, they present only a SYMBOLIC REPRESENTATION of Bush. All of Europe (and any Americans who are inclined to get some and/or use them) could tinkle on Bush’s visage 24/7, but guess who remains in the driver’s seat of The World’s Most Powerful Nation? Something tells me also that Bush won’t ever have his feelings hurt by one of the stickers. Removing those must be the lowest job on the presidential Secret Service Euro-trip team. As far as real, meaningful dissent goes, I’m sure GWB is well insulated from any form of that, too, be it thoughtful, intelligent critics in numerous journals or slogan-chanting protesters (I guarantee he didn’t even get a glimpse of them in Germany, as they were completely walled off, and out of view).

Christopher Stone said "The true fascists, it seems, are the ones who put up those stickers. The ones who made them. The ones who think nothing of them." Fascists - really??? Do you really think this meets the definition? And here I thought it was only the left that was capable of hysterical overreaction. As for those who made the stickers, I’d say they were simply businesspeople who saw a niche to fill.

Typo correction: I meant to type "emotional catharSis."

Mr. Knippenberg:

Why exactly do you find it interesting that anti-Bush demonstrations are numbering "in the hundreds and thousands (as opposed to, say, the tens of thousands)" ?? What does this mean to you, and how would you feel differently if the numbers were 100-fold greater? President Bush dismissed nationwide anti-war protests that numbered, cumulatively, at least in the hundreds of thousands, as "focus groups." Whether the groups of protesters number large or small, their significance (of whatever type) is uniformly brushed off as insignificant. If people protest abortion or affirmative action by taking to the streets in large numbers, do you feel that they have nothing important to say?

I am disgusted that Belgians and others side with enslavement and dictatorship instead of popular rule. I do not consider Nazism cute nor communism laughable nor Jihad acceptable debate. Those who wish me dead and those who side with them are my enemy and my enemy’s friend. I only wish there were a mechanism by which we could hand liberals and asshats over to dhimmihod without hazarding grownups. Until then, refer to my earlier note.

Apparently, Bush is visiting more than one city while in Germany. Something seems amiss (I’ll resist using the term fascistic) when citizens can’t even look out of their windows (note article is from left-wing rag, Financial Times) to see who or what has caused their city to shut down for the day. Can you imagine if Chirac visited the U.S. and citizens of some red-state town were required to take hiding in a similar fashion? Gosh, it might just make them mad enough to p-ss!
Do they have those Bush urinal stickers in Germany, too?

Mr. Billens,

I harbor no illusions regarding an increase in European affection for Bush, but I think that it has begun to dawn on them that he is steadfast in his resolve. You’re right, he doesn’t pay attention to protests, which kind of takes the wind out of the sails of the protesters. The sooner the Europeans realize that they can’t alter Bush’s fundamental commitments, the sooner their "realism" will actually be realistic.

Mr Knippenberg:

Again, if people protest abortion or affirmative action (in the case of abortion, I’ve seen it myself in DC during a visit; w/ affirm. action, I’ve seen it in much smaller numbers) by taking to the streets in large numbers, do you feel that they have nothing important to say?

Many reasonable, intelligent, morally sound people - plenty who haven’t taken to the streets - would use different, less euphemistic words to describe Bush being "steadfast in his resolve."

As for his not paying attention to protesters, it’s not ALL protesters that he ignores (he has, at least phoned in support from safe distances). Sometimes he and his administration have even been known to put wind INTO the sails of some protesters.

Bush’s responses to protesters sounds entirely reasonable to me. For example, if there was a protest for pedophilia, polygamy, or violence against gays and blacks, I would want him to reject their message and ignore them. If there was a march for black civil rights, anti-abortion, or republican government, I would want him to support their message. The content of the march can reasonably guide his reaction to it. Why should he embrace marches that might be hateful towards him or even those that contradict his policies?

Tony, I have lived in DC for many years and have yet to see a protest for pedophilia or polygamy- thank God! I don’t think that people are so eager to have a demonstration in favor of what most cultures consider to be taboo.

I protested against the war several times in 2003 and 2004 and was dismissed by the President as a focus group. I do believe that my protesting against killing children in Iraq was as legitimate and legal as protesting aganist abortion. Why did the President ignore the concerns of so many people? These people did not "protest for pedophilia, polygamy, or violence against gays and blacks" to quote you. They protested against something that the country was divided over. The President refused to have a debate about it - he just dismissed about the half of the nation, who against the war.

So, I am no surprized that many people who disagree with the President feel that the only thing for them to do is to pee or poop on Bush’s image. He will never have a debate with those who disagree.

Tony Blair, whom I hardly like, at least had a decency to meet with his opponents and answer their questions and they were very uncomfortable. Can we expect that from Dubya? I expect that the hell will freeze first.

Christopher Stone really needs to open his dictionary and check the definition of "fascism" and "fascist".
My dictionary says: "Totalitarism marked by right-wing dictatorship and bellicose nationalism." How does it apply to urinal stickers? Beats me.

So, I am no surprized that many people who disagree with the President feel that the only thing for them to do is to pee or poop on Bush’s image. He will never have a debate with those who disagree.

Huh? Then what were those three events that were held last fall with John Kerry? Pot luck dinners?

We’re "killing babies in Iraq"? That’s news to me. I didn’t know that our soldiers were such evil monsters fighting such an immoral war. By all means, send those "baby-killers" home. Is there a march I can join?

Our democratic republic is supposed to focus on representation and deliberation, which occurs best in smaller bodies with rules, as in Congress. Were the Democrats in Congress shrinking violets when it comes to opposing the President or were they simply complicit with him, then there might be good reason to engage in a more "demonstrative" form of political activity. ("When in the course of human events" and all that....) I’m not going to deny to any American his or her First Amendment right to speak or peaceably to assemble, but much of the demonstrative opposition, both here and abroad, strikes me as self-indulgent moralistic posing that teaches us more about those who engage in it than it does about what’s at stake politically either at home or abroad.

Mr. Knippenberg:

I guess I’ll give up on getting a straight answer about those protesting abortion or affirmative action (or the removal of Ten Commandments monuments in city halls). I presume you’d not consider protests that match your own viewpoints as being "self-indulgent moralistic posing."

"Were the Democrats in Congress shrinking violets when it comes to opposing the President or were they simply complicit with him, then there might be good reason to engage in a more "demonstrative" form of political activity."

Many people (not just radical leftists) do see the Dems as having been "shrinking violets" for some time now, and I think there are good cases to be made supporting those assessments. The Dems’ clear acquiescence on the lame WMD intelligence, the Patriot Act, and the granting of war authorization to Bush could be a part of any of those cases.

"I’m not going to deny to any American his or her First Amendment right to speak or peaceably to assemble..." - Thanks. Your restraint is admirable.

Mr. Williams - who are you quoting as having said that U.S. forces are "killing babies in Iraq"?? I’ve looked through the comments and I didn’t see that quote. In any case, why are you so very confident that no children or babies HAVE been killed by U.S. troops? (remember, sometimes even "collateral damage" can be of the most unpleasant variety!) If indeed the thought that babies have been killed over there would inspire you to march in protest, I wonder how old you were during the My Lai massacre (I’ve read participant soldier accounts where soldiers picked up screaming infants by one arm and flung them onto piles of corpses), and if you were inclined to protest that? If you decide to protest any killing of children in Iraq now, rest assured that Mr. Knippenberg won’t try to stop you.

Mr. Billens,

Given the hyperbole in which the President’s Congressional critics have from time to time indulged (though less recently since the successful election in Iraq), I guess I don’t agree with your characterization.

In general, I would argue that demonstrations are valuable and/or "necessary" only when there is no more articulate and rational, i.e., "deliberative," way to put a point across, and I think I said that in my post above. So, yes, lunch counter sit-ins and marches were necessary during the civil rights era, as was the orange "people power" resistance in Ukraine last December. When you have a government that does not seek the consent of the governed, that does not give its citizens a voice (treating them as subjects, rather than citizens), then one might "deliberately" have to take "drastic" measures. I admire the serious people in Montgomery and Birmingham, in Kiev, in Beijing, and (most recently) in Beirut who could do nothing else but what they did. (Lest I offend anyone, this list is not exhaustive.) But I’m not a fan of holding up placards and chanting slogans when there are other, more deliberative ways of engaging in politics.

I’m sorry, I guess I just don’t understand the phrase, "my protesting against killing children in Iraq." I assumed that meant one of two things:

1. You were a principled pacifist against all war, since war almost invariable has a negative impact, sometimes devastating, on civilians and any killing of soldiers and civilians is morally wrong. 2. You were accusing U.S. soldiers of murdering innocent civilians - children, as you put it - if that was U.S. policy, then it would be an immoral war.

Simply check comment #26, and let him know what the answer is. Would I be against the purposeful murder of innocent civilians in Iraq, My Lai, or anywhere? Indeed, that would violate the principles of natural law and respect for the sanctity of human life. I would be the first to protest this, and I am very confident that Professor Knippenberg would join me arm-in-arm. But, I would not protest a war in this was not occurring and then call it an unjust war - that would be an unreasonable, unprincipled, and rather utopian, pathetic pacifism that plagues the left today.

Mr. Knippenberg - Mr. Bush carefully avoids - or is shielded from - almost any form of dissent. Here’s a recent snippet from Der Spiegel which adds the latest piece of evidence to that view. This administration does not seriously ENGAGE its critics, it just lumps them in with "enemies of freedom" or as "aiding our enemies." The Der Spiegel graphs:

"During his trip to Germany on Wednesday, the main highlight of George W. Bush’s trip was meant to be a “town hall”-style meeting with average Germans. But with the German government unwilling to permit a scripted event with questions approved in advance, the White House has quietly put the event on ice.

The guest list for the Wednesday afternoon gathering has been handpicked by several US organizations with offices in Germany. In recent days, the Aspen Institute and the German Marshall Fund have sent lists of possible guests to the German Foreign Ministry.

The requirement was that all of the nominees had to be in their twenties or thirties and they must already have been in a leadership position at a young age. In other words: there won’t be any butchers or handymen on the elite guest list, but rather young co-workers from blue chip companies like automaker DaimlerChrysler, Deutsche Bank or the consultancy McKinsey. The fact that two American organizations are the ones managing the guest list suggests that the chat won’t be overly critical of Bush."

I have this take on it: ’Go Ahead, Piss on me" I think could be taken as Bush saying that not even being pissed on could make him move off of his stance. Bush is Bush, and some say thank God, others say Dear Lord. The issue here is not some horrible act by some horrible "lefty". There was a niche for it, and by gum, someone bit on it. Now we as Americans can look at it one of two ways: Either he’s pissed on in hatred, or pissed on because nothing can get to him anymore...he’s heard/felt/smelled it all. Let it be, for Pete’s sake. This issue has become of dissent, so therefore, why quash any person’s view, just because you don’t agree? How about a conversation, rightites? Or is there fear that it may come out looking like those three "conversations" we had last fall where two guys made themselves look foolish and not smart, or rigid and boring?

Oh, and I intentionally didn’t specify which was which with my last statement. You pick, because I’m not implying what I said is one or the other candidate. Four adjectives, 2 guys.

Tony, I am not against every war - I am not a pacifist. I wish that wars never took place but there are circumstances, in which wars can’t be unavaioded. It is my strong conviction that Bush’s war on Iraq was unjust. If Iraq attacked U.S. or any other country - then yes, let’s fight Iraq and if civilians die, they die because America (or other country) had to defended. I would still think that these civilians are, for the most part innocent, but at lease there will be a legitimate reason for them. It was not the case with Iraq. When the war on Iraq started in 2003 - America or any other country did not have to be defended. Where are the WMDs, for Pete’s sake?

I do not know if Republicans look at different pictures from Iraq than non-Republicans but I have seen pictures of dead Iraqi children - killed by American bombs. I am not saying that they were killed on purpose. All I am saying is that staring an unjust war means premeditated killing of civilians including children. For me, Iraqi children who are not less important than American fetuses. Why aren’t they as important for the guy, who claims to promote a "culture of life".

John Moser, please, don’t make me doubt in your intelligence. By particpating in presidential debates Bush was not doing any favors to anybody. The debates were not started with Bush, and as we all know, he would probably preferred to avoid them. What I meant in my comment was a debate with regular folks (not with John Kerry) who diagree with him. Bush shelters himself from such people and that’s a fact.

John Moser, please, don’t make me doubt in your intelligence. By particpating in presidential debates Bush was not doing any favors to anybody. The debates were not started with Bush, and as we all know, he would probably preferred to avoid them. What I meant in my comment was a debate with regular folks (not with John Kerry) who diagree with him. Bush shelters himself from such people and that’s a fact.

Okay, just so you don’t question my intelligence, let’s go back to your original statement:

He will never have a debate with those who disagree.

When I pointed out that there were indeed three debates held--and that’s exactly what they were called--during the fall campaign, you respond by putting forward a narrow definition of debate. Does the fact that presidential debates didn’t begin with Bush make them non-debates? Does the fact (which you assert but don’t back up) that Bush allegedly would’ve rather not participated in the debates make them non-debates? If a "debate" is now defined as one between the president and "regular folks (not with John Kerry) who diagree [sic] with him," then I maintain that no U.S. president in recent memory has engaged in a debate. Why hold the current occupant of the White House to a special standard?

As for the Blair comparison, I presume you are referring to the Prime Minister’s question and answer session, in which he takes pointed questions from his parliamentary opponents. As this is a tradition that long predates the current PM, and arguably members of Parliament do not qualify as "regular folks," I would contend that Blair does not live up to your standard, either.

Mr. Williams - You initially misquoted DC Resident as having said "killing babies in Iraq." It’s a minor difference, certainly, but the idea of quoting someone (not paraphrasing) is to use the person’s EXACT words. Anyway...are you denying that soldiers intentionally killed civilians, including infants, at My Lai?? I believe this is part of the well-established historical record. But I see that you’ve now set the standard for initiating your protest so that any "purposeful murder of innocent civilians" must, additionally, be a "U.S. policy." In other words, as long as there’s no public statements or documents detailing murder of civilians as part of the war plan, you’ll not protest? And since you will/would, apparently, support any war launched by a Republican (and maybe, even some Dems) as righteous, necessary, and justfied, it appears that there wouldn’t be any U.S. military action you’d oppose (perhaps w/ the exception of a war started by a Dem.). This looks like some kind of extreme opposite of a pacifist to me. If, in the process of "liberating" and "establishing democracy" in Iraq, 20% of its civilians are killed by the coalition, would you think that’s a reasonable cost? No, I’m NOT saying 20% of Iraqi civilians HAVE been killed, but I’m wondering if there’s some level, limit, number or percentage wherein you’d lose support for our military actions in Iraq. Remember, the Iraqis are not supposed to be our enemies. Shouldn’t you consider what a defintion of a Pyrrhic victory in Iraq would be?

A. Tony Williams said, "I would not protest a war in this was not occurring and then call it an unjust war - that would be an unreasonable, unprincipled, and rather utopian, pathetic pacifism that plagues the left today." You might be amused to know that you are in agreement with the one and only WARD Churchill that pacifism plagues the left today. Churchill has even written a book about it, called "Pacifism as Pathology." I would guess, though, that you are bothered by it for very different reasons than Mr. Churchill.

B. I wonder if Mr. Knippenberg is surprised at how many comments his comment-less post has received. He says this is a "family blog." What does that mean, really? I’m a single, unmarried (I’m straight - don’t worry!) guy, 37 yrs. old. Is it ok if I read your blog, too? I wonder how many actual families gather around the ol’ Hewlett Packard and enjoy the wondrous intellectual stimulation of the No Left Turns blog? A creepy vision...

It certainly started a conversation, didn’t it...this commentless post. I now think that the urinal pictures are laughable. They are a novelty, and sadly seem to be endorsed by the Belgian governement. The laughable part is how the Belgians have gotten our goat and here we are 42 posts later, and it has all degraded into good ol’ fashioned "nuh-uh", "yeah-huh" schoolyard battles. Thank God for morning entertainment provided here!

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/6000