Ann Coulter came immediately to mind. The garbage that comes out of her mouth is far more offensive than anything Vonnegut's ever said, and at least he's written some amazing books.

Really?
Ms Coulter can be strident at times, but she is generally amusing and often pointed. Mr Vonnegut passed his 'best by' date some time ago, about 1965.

Cheers
JMH

Didn't anyone tell you?
Kurt is a Schizophrenic.....now does his moonbat rambling make sense??? Son Mark I believe inherited the Genetic disposition and went into a collapse in '72

That's what the 'Slaughterhouse 5' time tripping is all about. The theme repeats in many other of his works.

BTW you are right about the best before 1965 date! But SL5 was '69! and I think goes in the best of category.

Vonnegut is a very minor author and an even lesser mind. He writes for adolescents, both the real ones and the eternal ones.

Kurt Vonnegut is 83 and expects to be dead soon. He has a right to say a few off the wall things. Slaughterhouse Five is not really fiction. Kurt was there and in a slaughterhouse. He was only 22 at the time. That would warp anyone's mind. You go into the slaughterhouse and come out the next morning and 35,000 people have died all around you. Now it's your job to start cleaning up. One of his comrades literally puked his guts out. Kurt learned that all war is ridiculous and terrible. It was in WWII and it is now.

Kurt Vonnegut is 83 and expects to be dead soon. He has a right to say a few off the wall things. Slaughterhouse Five is not really fiction. Kurt was there and in a slaughterhouse. He was only 22 at the time. That would warp anyone's mind. You go into the slaughterhouse and come out the next morning and 35,000 people have died all around you. Now it's your job to start cleaning up. One of his comrades literally puked his guts out. Kurt learned that all war is ridiculous and terrible. It was in WWII and it is now.

Why does he get away with it?

Because, alas, the poor chap is clearly senile and in his dotage.

The left will rip Coulter to shreds for lack of PCness yet allow anyone, for eg., Vonnegut, to call a Republican president anything under the sun. I guess the Repubs will have to nominate their next candidate from the demographic of an Arabic Muslim lesbian folkdancer in a wheelchair rigged with TATP explosives before the left will stop slandering the President...

That's the sad nature of the poor, poor, pitiful left.

Sigh...

BTW, remember when Avery Haines got fired for saying pretty much the same sort of thing? Too bad she didn't slander a conservative... she'd by now be sitting in Lloyd Robertson's seat!

That's how one gets ahead in the realm of the left.

Ah Billy, you poor misguided idiotarian. Why don't you go over to Iraq tomorrow and take Tom Fox's place.If you survive that, go to Terhan and then North Korea and then come back here and tell us all how you made out.

In the run-up and aftermath of the Iraq War, America's political right engaged in any number of loathsome, thuggish acts in order to suppress dissent. Particularly disgusting was the way in which they went after anti-war artists like The Dixie Chicks, burning albums and slinging the word "traitor" around with wild abandon. And all for telling the truth: Bush really is an embarrassment to the nation; the Iraq War really is illegal, immoral, and a disaster.

But the Chicks are back and raising hell on their new album, which includes the tune "Not Ready to Make Nice", co-written with Dan Wilson of Semisonic.

A link to the official Dixie chicks is here http://www.dixiechicks.com/, if anyone here wants to pre-order the album or offer an apology.

More links on the old blog, which is here:

http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/

all war is ridiculous and terrible.

This is true, no doubt about it. What is also true is that there are alternatives to war that are even more ridiculous and terrible. Sometimes it's a damned if you do, dead if you don't situtation.

Big City Lib thinks that the response to the Dixie Chicks speech, which was more speech was the squashing of dissent and a 'thuggish act'. The left has become a parody of itself.

I said "thuggish" and "loathsome", not illegal.

In any case,there is no question that the Right screwed up this issue, and deserves the mainstream an apology.

Iraq is to Conservatism what the collapse of the Soviet Empire was to Marxism. Conservatives had a theory, and the theory was refuted. Time to look inwards and see what is left of the smoking ruin of their philosophy. Apologizing to The Dixie Chicks is probably a good start.

The Eva Braun story: Behind every evil man

She was a good Catholic girl. Her ordinariness was her defining quality. So why did she devote herself to Adolf Hitler? As a major new biography is published, Frances Wilson looks at her strange life - and death

KURT VONNEGUT: Bush is the 'syphilis President'

Without elaborating on that insult, Vonnegut quickly segued into his next anti-Bush blast: "The only difference between Bush and Hitler is that Hitler was elected." +
via neale news

Iraq is to Conservatism what the collapse of the Soviet Empire was to Marxism. Conservatives had a theory, and the theory was refuted.

As I said, a parody of itself. How do you even begin to argue with logic this twisted?

Iraq is a Conservative War; its going down the sewer. Therefore the Conservative philosophy is going down the sewer with it. Sounds pretty straightforward to me. Now go say sorry to Natalie Maines.

Now go say sorry to Natalie Maines.

For being the most untalented one in the band? Oh and that's not logic, even with pixie dust it wouldn't fly.

I am very upset, please don't say anything more bad about blowjob billy.

Honestly,he's now just a demented old man,but he was aware.with his views,that he was preaching to the choir.
Why does he get away with it?'Cause the majority of media who disperse information in our present culture probably secretly agree with him.
Do we not see exactly the same thing here in Canada?

Send them back to face/answer to Uncle Sam. +

B.C. Grandfather Arrested by U.S for Deserting Vietnam War 38 Years Ago

His family in the East Kootenays is anxiously awaiting word on what's next for the father of three who deserted the marines and fled to Vancouver in 1968 at the age of 19 +

BillyWilyWilly's Dear Moniker Letter: Willy admits his mental coherence is flawed. +

bill clinton's draft letter: On December 3rd, 1969, Bill Clinton, then in his second year as a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University in England, wrote a letter to Colonel Eugene Holmes, who headed up the Reserve Officer Training Corps program at the University of Arkansas. Here is the full text of the letter.
[Note: After the draft letter, below, there is a transcript of a February 1992 Nightline program in which then-Governor Bill Clinton discusses the controversial draft letter with Ted Koppel.]

"Dear Colonel Holmes

When the draft came, despite political convictions, I was having a hard time facing the prospect of fighting a war I had been fighting against, and that is why I contacted you. ROTC was the one way left in which I could possibly, but not positively, avoid both Vietnam and resistance. Going on with my education, even coming back to England, played no part in my decision to join ROTC. I am back here, and would have been at Arkansas Law School, because there is nothing else I can do. In fact, I would like to have been able to take a year out perhaps to teach in a small college or work on some community action project and in the process to decide whether to attend law school or graduate school and how to be putting what I have learned to use. But the particulars of my personal life are not nearly as important to me as the principles involved.

After I signed the ROTC letter of intent I began to wonder whether the compromise I had made with myself was not more objectionable than the draft would have been, because I had no interest in the ROTC program in itself and all I seemed to have done was to protect myself from physical harm. Also, I began to think I had deceived you, not by lies - there were none - but by failing to tell you all the things I'm writing now. I doubt that I had the mental coherence to articulate them then. >>
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/etc/draftletter.html

This bigcitylib idiot is just that an IDIOT.
Why would anyone appologize to any lib for anything, oh maybe I am so sorry you have not yet figured out how to get you head out of your own ass or maybe sorry you were never taught how to think for yourself or.......well you get the idea.
Kurt V is was and shall ever be a little minded dolt with nothing worthy to say to free people, maybe we should send him of to North Korea or China for the remander of his days.

GOD BLESS AMERICA and the elected president!
For all those commies (oops liberals) out there his name is George W Bush!

I'd buy the next Toby Keith album if he said sorry to the Dixie Chicks. That's not going to be a safe bet on now buying the next songs he'll write about how great war is and how drunk he likes to get.

Kurt struck me as a bitter old man when I saw him on the Daily Show. It wouldn't surprise me if he's losing his mind, or at least all compassion for humanity.

Kurt learned that all war is ridiculous and terrible. It was in WWII and it is now

If Kurt learned that lesson he's an idiot. billy couldn't know that. he gets his history from video games.

War ended slavery and fascism. 6 million Jews butchered and during Germany's final collapse Hitler prioritized Jewish transports to the ovens. Of course, the Chinese had their horrors to endure with the Japanese occupation.

billy wouldn't know that.

More good men died in 3 days at Gettysburg during the Civil War than all of the total casualites in Vietnam. Slavery ended thanks to those good men.

billy wouldn't know that.

One downside to the internet is that faceless moonbats of the utmost historic illiteracy stalk the rational and literate.

Still shilling your website, bigcitylib? What do you do, chum a hundred sites a day hoping to catch a reader?

Vonnegut was once clear-sighted enough to write what is perhaps the funniest, most concise treatment of the dangers of seeking equality of outcome (the gold-standard of socialism): "Harrison Bergeron."

http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html

After reading this short story, I have never understood his leftist political stance.

Oh well, I think John Adams said it best when he said: "Poets read history to collect flowers, not fruits; they attend to fanciful images, not the effects of social institutions."

Someone please tell me how one talks history with a pennyhughes who believes that the Civil War was about emancipatiing slaves and WWII about saving Jews?

The attraction of this site to the unconverted is not its "rational and literate" posters, but the neo-con BS and propaganda begging to be beaten back.

Well, agitfact, if you think the Civil War and Fascism were unjust reasons for war that's fine. In Europe, the handful of un-exterminated Jews and locals were rescued. Slaves were freed. End of story. It wasn't yours. We can understand your lack of appreciation for those silly historic military adventures.

If slouching toward Dhimmitude suits you, fine; if you think putting your hands over your eyes when Iran's mad mullahs get the big one will stop the fallout coming your way, fine; or you think that you and the global economy can drive cars and run industries on Pepsi; again fine.

Who are you counting on to save your sorry leftist pacifist ass if evil ever decends upon you? No one in history is exempt.
Your lefty crowd gutted the military in Canada and Europe. All of the little lefties surrender their firearms like good pc sheeple.

Put a Mohammed cartoon on your bumper and drive threw Paris or Amsterdam this summer. You'll probably get a bullet to the brain real fast. It seems some groups aren't good humored, pacificist followers of Ghandi, smitten with free speech, your multi-culti crap or the coy charm of Leftist baffoonery.

Got an answer to my question as to who will save your sorry ass if sh#t ever hits the fan in your lifetime? Take your time.

We are all ears.

Yo Penny, I love it so, to quote Patton. You sure bend a verb beautifully. Reality is very difficult concept for mindless idiotarians to grasp. Glad to see you doing your part to point out obvious truths that seem to be totally ignored by the moonbats.

Penny, Dear, a little less vitriol, and a bit more thought.

"... the handful of un-exterminated Jews and locals were rescued. Slaves were freed." No argument, these were good results, but they were not the reason the wars were fought.

However, you are implying that those wars were fought to achieve those aims, which certainly would be a way to prove Vonnegut wrong. But when you imply that wars are good because there have been desirable consequences which had nothing to do with the war aims, you are leaving logic. The dead at Gettysburg did not die in a battle to end slavery. And the Allies did not declare war on Germany because fascism was repugnant or Jews would be killed on an industrial scale two years down the road, but because they had good geopolitical and strategic reasons to stop German expansion.

I'll keep on saying it: separate the reason from the rationale. War is too serious a business to be undertaken for the wrong or insufficient reasons. I hope you do not find this alarming, but if someone had told Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin in 1940 that 50 million would die but 1 million European Jews would be saved, the war would have ended right then. I repeat myself, that's not what the war was about.

I hope you don't mind if I ignore the rest of your ridiculous roundhouse haymaker. It falls under the BS and propaganda part of my post.

Capt Craig, surely you meant "bend reality beautifully", not "bend a verb."

Show me reality and I will salute it. Show me BS or propaganda and I will deflate it.

Since this thread actually is about Vonnegut, I thought it might be interesting to see what his value is in the marketplace.

abebooks.com lists 168 hardcover copies of Slaughterhouse 5 available internationally. Of these, 147 are offered for US$20 or more, with 95 listed at US$100 and over. The top price is US$4,500. There is only one copy available in Canada, and it can be yours for US$290.

"However, you are implying that those wars were fought to achieve those aims"

For starters, that is not what I implied. But, commonsense would dictate to you that both situations involved an oppressor and an oppressed which decent people will conceptualize on a level as clearly as broken treaties and states rights. Decent men do not go off to fight a war for a piece of paper. Free and democratic men put their lives on the line to destroy evil inflicted on others. Bottomline.

Save your statescraft lecture for other socially underdeveloped dipsh#ts.

"I hope you don't mind if I ignore the rest of your ridiculous roundhouse haymaker. It falls under the BS and propaganda part of my post."

I do mind. And I'll repeat it:

Who are you counting on to save your sorry leftist pacifist ass if evil ever decends upon you?

Step around it all you want. It will be asked every time you post.

...."the unconverted....propaganda begging to be beaten back....I ignore....I will deflate it"

You're a smarmy arrogant piece of work.

Value in the marketplace is no indication of the value of the author.
A signed copy of Mein Kampf is listed at $140,000.00

agitfact

Easiest thing in the world to take the stance you have, which is to just say war is horrible and be done with it. However, there are only ever 2 choices with regards to wars, fight them or do not. So would you not have fought WW2 or the Civil War?

A simple yes or no will do. Thanks in advance.

Penny, all right, the statecraft lecture continues for your benefit.

"Decent men do not go off to fight a war for a piece of paper. Free and democratic men put their lives on the line to destroy evil inflicted on others. Bottomline."

Wow, that truly is quite a bottom line. I could have sworn that the 1939 declaration of war by Great Britain and France had something to do with a treaty signed with Poland. At least that was the caus belli advanced at the time. And the first point of many arguments in favour of our support of the USA after the 9/11 attack, and indeed our Afghan mission, is an obligation under another piece of paper, the NATO Treaty. Pacta sunt servanda, and when they are not and the matter affects a nation's interests enough, the result is war.

Yes, Penny, men, decent or otherwise, do not go to war over pieces of paper. They go to war because they are sent as the ultima ratio of their nation. And no, Penny, evil has nothing to do with it. Evil is the product of propaganda worked in advance to justify a war, or during a war to support the war effort. That is not the product of the imagination of a leftist pacifist smarmy arrogant piece of work (to put the epithets all together,) but just the way the world works.

And this is why I oppose propaganda of any kind. It dis- and misinforms, it bends truth to a purpose, it motivates men to do things they wouldn't do otherwise, it makes it very difficult to temper the conduct of war, and it complicates the post-war period. Don't believe me, pick any war and see for yourself. Show me the war that has lived up to its propaganda billing.

I do harbour a faint hope that each generation will get smarter and become less susceptible to propaganda. Otherwise war will stay as the father of all and king of all (Heraclitus.) By the way, most soldiers are supreme realists and distrust propaganda, which is more effective among those who do not know what is involved.

"Who are you counting on to save your sorry leftist pacifist ass if evil ever decends upon you? - Step around it all you want. It will be asked every time you post."

Now that is quite a threat, so I will meet it head on.

It depends on which evil will descend upon me (or you,) Penny. Obviously you are trolling for my response to an external threat, and that is indeed what armies are for. Amazing, I'm not a pacifist! (I'm not a leftist either, but you'd never believe that.) And yes, if Iranian or other terrorists release enough dirty material south of the border, the prevailing south-west winds will spread it to us. But does that mean we should invade and occupy Iran and any other potential source of terrorists? Down that road lies paranoia, as well as a guaranteed lack of success. Even if such a global domination were possible, it wouldn't work - there will always be someone in a small lab somewhere capable of doing dirt, if so desired. This is not a post 9/11 problem - look at the anarchists in Europe in the 19th Century.

Penny, the answer lies in identifying - truly identifying - the threat against you. For instance, 9/11 was not the Pearl Harbour of a jihad against Western civilization, values or religion. It was a specific act in a continuing struggle against US foreign policy in the Middle East. It's advantageous to turn it into a Pearl Harbour, because that gets you off a couple of hooks. But as a specific act against a specific country, it simplifies the threat analysis for other countries.

We do not have the same footprint, exposure and effect in the world, and are far from providing a casus belli for any foreign group or country. Therefore, what's the external threat agains us? We can argue requirements and specific capabilities (such as heavy lift,) but overall, our foreign policy and defence capability are not that far off the mark. You have to keep a country working as well as defend it. Of course, should someone decide that Iraq III will be held in the Alberta Oilsands, we will have to reconsider them.

This leftist pacifist etc. etc. is a strong supporter of the armed forces he has spent his adult life in. That's why he wants to make damn sure that their lives and limbs are not risked under false pretences.

Defense Guy, a one-word answer would be totally inadequate. If pressed, I will say "probably," depending on which statesman's hat or soldiers uniform I would have been wearing at the time.

Hindsight is always perfect, foresight limited.

Thanks for the answer, even though it really was more of a dodge.

Now, can you point me to the place where Osama stated that 9/11 was a response to American Foreign Policy in the ME? I seem to recall him refuting this point recently.

Billy Pilgrim was a warrior at the Battle of the Bulge and a survivor of the firebombing of Dresden. He should be able to express his views.
The subtitle of the book (SH5) is "The Children's Crusade".
Then as now most of the participants were extremely young. The only ones that were dum enough and naive enough to be convinced to do the dirty deeds at hand.
The armchair quarterbacks and rah rah cheerleaders stay home.

Defense Guy, I'm sorry that you thought my answer "more of a dodge." Frankly, your question was stupid and impossible to answer in one word. Either a "yes" or a "no" be assailable on many counts, which no doubt was your intention. "Probably," depending on side, place and time, is more of an anwer than it deserves.

The trouble I have with Osama's statements is that they are not made in a language I can understand, and I try not to have my credulity challenged. You are right, I trust no one where self-interests are involved, and wish more people would do the same.

Frankly, your question was stupid and impossible to answer in one word.

Of course, the your stupid question isn't worth my valuable answer. How did I not see that one coming?

Either a "yes" or a "no" be assailable on many counts, which no doubt was your intention.

And you know what my intention was not do to your unconscious knowledge of your own projection, but because of all the phone physics where you work, you are the bestest.

"Probably," depending on side, place and time, is more of an answer than it deserves.

I suppose that we in the west should all be glad that you will not be allowed anywhere near the levers of power. Because tough choices must be made, and you don't seem to have the stones to even answer the easy ones.

You sir, are a prime example of why the left is being rejected time and time again at the ballot box. I hope you keep it up.

I won't bother to address you again. I attempted to ask you 2 simple questions and you simply cannot help but to equivocate and show your arrogance.

psychics not physics

Defense Guy, you will find a hint of an answer to your second question on www.ict.org.il/articles/fatwah.htm. And I really don't mind you not addressing me again.

Billy! Go away, you are insignificant, you can't even spell dumb.

Back to Vonnegut, the topic.

He was an bigger babbling idiot last year. Maybe his further decline into dementia or psychosis or alcoholism has diminished his vicious tongue this year. Ironically, he fought fascism only to age supporting Islamofascits.

Aging second-rate leftists almost never retire with class(Carter, Clinton*) or without the rant excelerating as they decline(Belafonte). Narcissists have no sereneness, humbleness, or non-attention getting skills as geriatrics(my generalization, not subject to science or a control group study, but I'm standing by it).

* Canadians, add your own.

Where we never want to be.

Bless Canada for reversing the Dhimmitude Europe Syndrome.

Stay the course.

Goodness gracious, before today I believed my betters, but since aqifact I know that the way it should have been is that we were fully colonized, all the Jews are dead, and all the blacks are slaves, Gee whiz, what would we have done for moneylenders, for entertainers in sports, and for a Big Brother.

Penny, re: "Bless Canada for reversing the Dhimmitude Europe Syndrome."

I think you have jumped the gun on that conclusion, Penny. Much more needs to be done here to bring to the nation's (indeed, the world's) attention the dangers posed by this so-called 'culture' and 'religion'. Most Canadians are still oblivious to the insidious nature of the Islamic threats to our society, to our democracy, and to the world at large. Fundamentalist Islam is a scourge, the next plague that is overtaking the planet.

Sorry, Ronrob, you don't know those things from me. The only thing you might learn from me is that nothing is as simple as it seems, that there is a difference between a reason (say, a war aim) and rationale (propaganda,) and that, if you pretend to live in a democracy, you'd want to know reasons and not just proffered rationales. You do want to be governed with your consent, dont' you, so you might as well make it informed consent.

When information is offerd to you, you should ask yourself who wants me to know this for what reason, the old cui bono/who benefits. Of course, you can wrap yourself in the invincibility of ignorance, exchange opinions and certitudes with fellow bloggers of the right mindset, and congratulate yourself on how smart and in the swim of things you are. SDA certainly would be the right blog for that.

I hope that this is not a revolutionary revelation, but international politics is very much like domestic politics, and we all know how that works. Except that in international politics people can get killed, so we should be even more careful.