Goodenough Gismo

  • Gismo39
    This is the classic children's book, Goodenough Gismo, by Richmond I. Kelsey, published in 1948. Nearly unavailable in libraries and the collector's market, it is posted here with love as an "orphan work" so that it may be seen and appreciated -- and perhaps even republished, as it deserves to be. After you read this book, it won't surprise you to learn that Richmond Irwin Kelsey (1905-1987) was an accomplished artist, or that as Dick Kelsey, he was one of the great Disney art directors, breaking your heart with "Pinocchio," "Dumbo," and "Bambi."



  • 74%How Addicted to Blogging Are You?





  • Google

Blogs I love and/or learn from

« Can the DLC Make Democrats Relevant Again? | Main | A Fantasy Fulfilled »

Comments

Alan

Hey, thanks for picking up our debate. One little complaint--the last quote you attribute to me is actually from Michael. Check out my comments on the Mighty Middle where we have continued our debate.

michael reynolds

Alan and I are actually in charge of arranging the banners and bumper stickers and hand-outs for the great Centrist Conclave in NYC. He's going to totally object to my mushroom cloud motif.

amba

Alan,

The name at the beginning of those last two quotes is you guys addressing each other, not an indication of who is speaking. It's confusing and I'll clear it up.

Jonathan Cortis

Michael, you cheating jerk, the mushroom cloud motif was my idea!

Alan

Amba,

It probably wasn't as confusing as I was boneheaded.

And, Michael, I think a mushroom cloud motif would be excellent, but only if we all bow to Mecca before the convention opens.

Ally

It is utterly ridiculous and morally repugnant on every level to threaten to nuke Mecca. I would bet that some of the people advocating this as an arrow in our threat quiver were vociferous and vocal critics of the Taliban blowing up the giant Buddhas. Hell, let's just threaten to nuke ourselves and the Brits. That way we ruin the jihadists' fun and take away the element of surprise that has us all on edge. On talk radio here in Tancredo country, the only people I heard backing his insane idea were 75-IQ lunkheads who undoubtedly miss the days when lynching was legal. Get real, people.

Spud

As Alan pointed out, this is not "A nation-vs-nation war." I get taken back when people talk as though the war on terrorism is a nation-vs-nation war. How do you nuke an enemy without a return address? Besides, isn't there such a thing as nuclear fallout? There is no logic in comparing Hiroshima/Nagasaki with the situation we are now faced with?

Richard Lawrence Cohen

"Speak softly and carry a big stick." I don't recall that during the Cold War the US and the USSR, at times of crisis such as October, 1962, made a practice of publicly threatening to annihilate each other. In fact government officials tried to downplay the possibility in public. Yet everyone knew it could be done and might be done. That was the deterrent -- not noisy threats. In contrast, the Bush administration and its suporters have made a practice of speaking loudly and using a small stick (e.g. boasting of "shock and awe" but not providing enough troops, enough armor), or the wrong stick (e.g. attacking a country that wasn't a credible threat, based on concocted evidence). The threat to nuke Mecca belongs to this pattern. It sounds desperate and shrill, an emotional acting-out rather than a reasoned policy. Therefore it is actually not a powerful threat, and is likely to arouse an equally desperate and shrill response.

Besides, everyone already knows we can nuke the entire Arab world if it comes to that.

Having said this, I also want to say that I understand and share the frustrations of the people who are supporting the threat. I especially share their frustration at their liberal opponents. Throughout this crisis, beginning 9/11, the left-wing position has seemed to amount to doing nothing, to replying to terror with gentle compassion and tolerance. This allows the left to take the moral high ground in debates. It's a very attractive stance, undoubtedly gratifying to those who take it. But it is completely, absolutely useless. It would be suicidal for an entire society to take that position. Until the left states a pragmatic, effective way of defeating terrorism, the center will be drawn to the right.

Spud

Richard Lawrence Cohen said, "I especially share their frustration at their liberal opponents. Throughout this crisis, beginning 9/11, the left-wing position has seemed to amount to doing nothing, to replying to terror with gentle compassion and tolerance. This allows the left to take the moral high ground in debates. It's a very attractive stance, undoubtedly gratifying to those who take it. But it is completely, absolutely useless. It would be suicidal for an entire society to take that position. Until the left states a pragmatic, effective way of defeating terrorism, the center will be drawn to the right."

I'm a little taken back by your statement here Richard. I guess it's because I see myself as a liberal, but yet I take terrorism very seriously. Are you equating those who oppose the Iraq war as the same as being soft on terrorism??

Ally

Islamist terrorism grows out of a fascist/totalitarian ideology. It can't be reasoned with or talked down. Because it's stateless, however, bombing places won't make it go away. The only way to eradicate it is to dry up the sea in which terrorists swim. That may occasionally call for surgical acts of war. But war won't get at the root causes, which are rage and hopelessness. And cynical, stupid wars like the one in Iraq will act only to make the sea larger and more fertile.

Richard Lawrence Cohen

Spud: I too see myself as a liberal and as my comment indicated, I oppose the Iraq war. Nor do I think that Bush has made the country safer from terrorism than Gore would have. I'm glad that individual liberals like you (and I) take terrorism seriously, but I don't see the left wing as a force making any pragmatic contribution to defeating terrorism. I see it scurrying reflexively for the high ground, addressing only the need to get at the root causes of terrorism. I see little understanding on the left that this problem must be dealt with in the short term if we are ever to reach the long term.

Ally's comment seems to me to represent an awareness of both the short and long term problems.

michael reynolds

Amba:
I cannot believe it took me this long to notice your sly little bookselling at work. Nuking the Cube indeed.

Spud

Richard, maybe it's because I don't know half the time what people mean when the term "the left" is used. Who are "the left" anyway? I can't help but believe that most Americans are very concerned with terrorism and feel strongly the need to protect ourselves. It is so obvious to me that we are not winning the war on terrorism with a war that is costing the United States a billion dollars every three days. Left or right shouldn't matter. How about common sense?

Tom Strong

Richard: I'm glad that individual liberals like you (and I) take terrorism seriously, but I don't see the left wing as a force making any pragmatic contribution to defeating terrorism.

Like Spud, I don't really understand what you mean by "the left". MoveOn & the like, I guess? The problem is that hyper-partisan organizations like that one will never throw their support behind the Republican party, even though that may be the wiser thing to do, long-term.

Which frustrates me, because I thought Kerry's approach to terrorism, while under-marketed, was eminently practical. And yet if polls are to be believed, it is on this issue where he was most trounced. And frankly, it's hard not to believe that this was because of the jingoistic simplicity of the Bush Administration's rhetoric.

Richard Lawrence Cohen

Spud, Tom: I don't think we have a major disagreement here. But I'm a bit confused as to why Spud is focusing on the war in Iraq. We're talking about possible responses to al-Qaeda. I agree with Spud -- and Kerry -- that Iraq is a diversion.

Moveon is an good example of what I mean by the liberal left. But whether they would ever support a Republican candidate is not the issue -- it's not a possibility. The issue is whether a Democratic candidate could occupy the center and convince most Americans that he or she would do a better job than Bush of defeating terrorism.

I suppose I've hung around academics too long. In certain circles, to say anything supportive of the US government, or anything to indicate that military action on our part is ever appropriate, makes one a suspect character. I know the average American doesn't feel that way -- but that's why the Democratic party is losing the average American.

I agree that Kerry would have done a better job of running the military than Bush, and I'm amazed at how Bush and his people were able to blow smoke rings at Kerry so sucessfully. Actually, I blame Kerry for running a terrible campaign, and the party for choosing him.

amba

Michael,

Well, it was while I was researching SECRETS OF THE CUBE that I learned that the word Ka'aba means "Cube."

amba

Richard wrote, "Actually, I blame Kerry for running a terrible campaign, and the party for choosing him."

ME TOO.

Spud

Hey Richard, I was focusing on Iraq because that is where we have spent the most resources. I don't pretend to know, but it seems to me if we had made Al Qaider out primary focus instead of Iraq, we would have been further ahead in our struggle with terrorism than we are now. I would ask supporters of our invasion of Iraq, how do we know when we win the war over in Iraq, when they bomb London and Egypt???

michael reynolds

Amba:
And is it true that SECRETS OF THE CUBE is available from Amazon.com for the low, low price of $11.20 if you follow this link: www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0062512668/qid=1122425977/sr=2-2ref=pd_bbs_b_ur_2_2/103-3624181-4426256


amba

Hey, thanks, my man!! You said it, I didn't have to! ('Specially thanks for not mentioning that you can probably get one "new or used" for $0.45 or something . . . no royalties . . . )

michael reynolds

Amba:
By the way, Alan and I have agreed we're sick of talking about this topic and are going to just sit around and drink some Scotch. He's enjoying the Glenmorangie, I'm enjoying the Glenlivet French Oak. Pour yourself something.

amba

God damn . . . I don't have any Scotch around, it'll have to be crappy vodka . . . but I'll raise it to you guys anyway.

pbswatcher

See Desperate Situations and The Suicide Strategy.

Randy Arch

Nuking Mecca would have a profound psychological effect in Islam.
1) History has already been written by Allah. Nothing happens unless Allah wills it.
2) Allah has directed that all Muslims that can afford to go on the Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in their life. This is one of the 5 pillars of Islam.
3) Another pillar of Islam is that Muslims pray toward Mecca 5 times a day.

Islam means Submission. Islam seeks to have the world submit to Allah's will. Islam has conflicts with all other religions and with those elements of Islam that are apostate and don't follow the "true" Islam.
So I believe that the countries most likely to nuke Mecca are India followed by Russia, and perhaps the USA. I doubt the USA would actually do it. If Mecca were nuked it is probable that no one would ever know for sure who did it.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

New on FacTotem, my Natural History Blog

Jacques' Story: Escape From the Gulag

The AmbivAbortion Rant

Debating Intelligent Design

Ecosystem


  • Listed on Blogwise

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 08/2004