Liberals archive » Oliver Willis

Archive for the 'Liberals' Category

Your Lack Of Self Awareness Is Intriguing

Published May 13, 2008 in Democrats, Hillary Clinton and Liberals. 11 Comments

Jeralyn Merritt at Talkleft writes:

As for the speculation that Obama would convince Hillary’s supporters to vote for him if he picks another female VP candidate like Napolitano or McCaskill, I highly doubt it. There is only one Hillary Clinton. Women are not interchangeable. In fact, it would be rubbing salt in the wounds of her already disappointed supporters. Like showing off the new girlfriend to the jilted one.

But I thought any sort of language that even alluded to Sen. Clinton as a “girlfriend” were sexist diatribes from the knuckle dragging he-man woman hater’s club? Or is Merritt now one of those self hating feminists we’re told by sites like Talkleft are the only women who vote for Barack Obama?

John McCain’s Out Of Touch Health Care Plan: Pray

Published April 30, 2008 in Conservatives, Democrats, Economics, Health Care, John McCain, Liberals, Newsweek and Republicans. 29 Comments

In case you were wondering that in the midst of all the drama on the Democratic side of the aisle it was possible for the Republican party to remain brain dead on the seminal issues of our time… wonder no more.

Sen. John McCain on Tuesday rejected calls by his Democratic opponents for universal health coverage, instead offering a market-based solution with an approach similar to a proposal put forth by President Bush last year.

McCain’s belief in the power of the free market to meet the nation’s health-care needs sets up a stark choice for voters this fall in terms of the care they could receive, the role the government would play and the importance they place on the issue.

The Republicans largely really believe some of this bull about the free market. They really think in their heart of hearts that the solution for every issue is to sprinkle some of that magical “free market” fairy dust and all will be well. The problem is, that is not what Americans feel. Oh sure, we’re willing to give the market a go of things - and for some things it works great. But we effectively operate under a free market health care system right now and its woefully unpopular. That’s the reason why health care is a serious issue in 2008 in a way that it wasn’t in 2004, 2000, etc.

John McCain is so out of touch with normal Americans (his health care costs are covered by his military disability, his Senate health care plan and should anything fall through the cracks his wife’s generous inheritance can take up the slack) that he believes that what people want is more of the current mess.

Yet the American mood on large national issues like this is not a faith based free market system, but rather historically tends to favor a collective system where we all pay in and benefit.

Who Are We?

Published April 28, 2008 in 2008 Election, Barack Obama, Democrats, Liberals and Progressives. 15 Comments

A few months ago I wrote about how I really really want the president of the United States to be someone who is the national leader of the country and not just a party chairman. I feel the need to point this out again in the middle of some of the typical blogosphere whining over Sen. Obama’s appearance Sunday on Fox News.

There are certain things I demand out of a Democratic candidate, but I don’t labor under the pretense that the person is going to check, check, check down the line for the progressive movement. Do I want them to sound like a Republican and echo conservative phrasing? No. But to act as if a deviation from the line will cause the universe to collapse on itself? Come on.

In the case of Sen. Obama I say again: I don’t want a cheerleader for the Democratic party. I want an adult to set this country back on the path of righteousness.

This comment from Matt Stoller’s comment thread does a good job of summing things up:

The job of a candidate for US President is to put together a winning coalition, not to pamper the tender egos or play into the macho fantasies of his/her supporters.

If you are this disappointed by Obama the candidate, you will weep bitterly as Obama the President tacks and weaves just like FDR did and as every politician has to. The question is balance and total direction. What you people have failed to understand is that the problem with Bill Clinton was not that he was expedient, but that his goals were limited to his own personal political success.

Most of us who support Obama are not under the illusion that he is a magical hero or that he is a progressive miracle worker. He’s a smart politician trying an potentially game changing tack that may reconstitute a pro-working-american coalition. So we don’t weep and gnash our teeth and demand constant reassurance or go into hysterics at every imagined slight.

Grow up, children.

I know I’m too cynical, but the sort of utopianism pushed in some corners of the progressive blogosphere are just kind of nutty.

Rachel Maddow Pwns McCain, Scarborough

Published April 2, 2008 in Liberals and Media. 8 Comments

Dear progressives and those ubiquitous “Democratic consultants” and “Democratic strategists” in the media…. LEARN.

Just Who Do These Rich Clinton Donors Think They Are?

Published March 27, 2008 in Barack Obama, Democrats, Hillary Clinton, Liberals, Nancy Pelosi, Newsweek and Politics. 45 Comments

The more I read about the rich donors who told Nancy Pelosi to shut up, the more angry I get. I may not agree with her on quite a few issues, but Speaker Pelosi is second in line to the Presidency, the first woman to hold her position and a figure demanding of respect - especially from people who are supposed to be her fellow Democrats. These guys seriously think that because they went to a fancy fundraiser or maybe played a round of golf with the ex-president that they really are better than the rest of us. They have every right to add their voice to the chorus supporting Sen. Clinton, but they have no place, no standing, no right to order the Speaker around.

These people are symptomatic, quite frankly, of the negative that came along with all the good President Clinton did during his tenure. The moribund liberal wing of the party, defanged after the losses of Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis, gave way to the big check writers, the elite crowd whose cash did prop up the party for the short term and helped President Clinton gain his office. But for the Democratic party and the progressive movement they have been a waste. Just look at the congressional seats lost during Clinton’s tenure, look at how unprepared the party was to field a coast-to-coast slate of candidates under Terry McAuliffe’s leadership - a party chairmanship that was all about fundraising to the exclusion of getting majorities and a president elected.

But the Clintons and the moneybags crowd have not learned. That’s why they tried to throw their money around in Michigan and re-do the primary. That’s why the Clinton campaign is now faltering at fundraising, having maxed out these whales she doesn’t have the pool of Average Joe donors (like myself) that Sen. Obama will have in the general who have not come close to the $2,300 limit. That’s why, as their anointed candidate began to fail they just cut another of their fat checks to form a 527 committee whose work product is horrendous compared to the work of groups like MoveOn and the labor unions. Sure, wealthy donors help fund some of those efforts as well, but they are truly nothing without their regular Joe volunteers and members. And none of those groups is so in love with themselves that they believe that they can tell Speaker Pelosi what she can and cannot say.

We poor unwashed masses, lacking mansions and minks and chaueffers, elected Rep. Pelosi to the position of Speaker via our representatives in the House. We may not have tee times at the golf club, a yacht parked on the intra coastal, nor do we feed our pets prime rib — but we know that the Speaker is to be afforded a modicum of respect.

This is the stain that remains on the party even after the events of Crashing The Gate were documented by Markos Moulitsas and Jerome Armstrong. These are the hangers-on who look down their plastic surgery noses at Governor Dean’s 50-state strategy and his middle class demeanor even as the party begins to regain its role as a truly national party. These are the people who think nothing - nothing - of throwing a tantrum because us people, us regular Joes and Janes, had the gall to not vote and caucus for the candidate they bankrolled and sought to shove down our gullets the way they always do. Instead we chose to vote for a candidate whose donor base is almost 2 million strong. Just like a couple of weeks ago when they were demanding refunds of their donations to the party they thought they owned they are once again trying to tell us they bought the Democratic party the same way they bought a diamond necklace at Tiffany’s for their trophy wife.

Not any more. The Democratic party is once again becoming little-d democratic. A party where the rich guys have a say, but so do the regular guys. Speaker Pelosi speaks for us, from Park Avenue to Georgetown to Skid Row to Baltimore to The Lower 9th Ward and beyond.

And you respect her, or shut up.

As Warren G Said, We Must Regulate

Published March 22, 2008 in Business, Conservatives, Democrats, Economics, Economy, Liberals, Regulation and Republicans. 3 Comments

Wall Street and the right want to eat their cake and have it too. They want vital financial institutions to be left alone, given free reign to do as they wish - but when they screw up and cause a ripple effect throughout the economy they come running to the government for a no-strings-attached bailout.

Eh-eh.

You want the government to have a hand in the game, you have to play by the rules. You need oversight, regulation, a catchers mitt over the invisible hand. The crisis we’re facing now is a product of our government abandoning its watchdog role and becoming nothing more than a cheerleader on the sidelines. It’s time once again for our government to put on its referee’s uniform and get this game back under control.

The Stupid Season

Published December 16, 2007 in Liberals. 13 Comments

One of the reasons I avoided writing up an endorsement for so long (in addition to the fact that I wasn’t 100% sure who I would support up until a few days ago) is that people view what you write through a different lens than they normally would. I’ve made the decision in the last year or so to operate this site more like an op-ed column, which means I have my preferences but I still want to call things as I see ‘em, even if they hurt “my guy”.

I note this because when some people decide they don’t like someone, they throw logic way out the window. For instance, this venom from Matt Stoller because he doesn’t like Sen. Clinton:

Three, the Clinton’s have, how to put it, real character issues. I haven’t written this before, because I don’t believe in going after family members unless they make themselves an issue, but Chelsea Clinton, despite the opportunity to do anything she wants, chose to be a hedge fund manager. What does that say about the Clinton family commitment to public service? I write this because Clinton is using her daughter in an ad that says ‘My Mom taught me to stand up for myself, and to stand up for those who can’t do it on their own’, and then express pride at passing those values on to her daughter. What kind of value system is that? And what does it say that Clinton is bringing her daughter into the contest bragging about her daughter’s greed? This is one small example (Mark Penn is another), but it’s pretty clear that the Clinton’s have become in some ways Bourbon-esque aristocrats.

That’s one of the top five stupidest things I’ve ever read on a blog. Seriously. Somehow the Clintons have “character issues” because Chelsea works at a hedge fund? Seriously? Give me a break. Chelsea Clinton has chosen a private sector job because she wants to. She’s under no obligation to be in public service - considering the kid grew up in the White House, who the heck says she wants to be in politics any more than her connection to her mom and dad? Who would want to? Attacking Chelsea like this is a considerable low blow from Matt Stoller, especially when you consider that Matt’s own background is one of significant upper-class upbringing - going from Ivy League schooling right into politics.

It’s even sillier when you note that someone like Ned Lamont, who Matt pushed for so strongly, made millions in the private sector before running for office (and used the proceeds from his wealth to finance his campaign).

Advocating for or against for someone can be done from a position of common sense. You don’t have to go so over the line that you look stupid. But it does happen. Repeatedly.

A Truly Horrible Ad

Published December 4, 2007 in Liberals. 1 Comment

"Democratic Courage" has an ad attacking Sen. Clinton from the left in the Democratic primaries. But even though I like Sen. Clinton, there’s more than enough material to hit her on, but this ad totally fails. It’s all over the place and ends with what turns out to be a limp message: Hillary Clinton caves in to Rudy Giuliani. Really? That’s what you come up with? Lame.

The Republicans Are Scared Of “X”

Published November 4, 2007 in Liberals. 1 Comment

Look, folks, this kind of stuff is fine for political gabbing and navel-gazing, but please don’t pick a candidate to support because of what you think the Republican reaction may or may not be. This election coming up is one of those where the left actually has an advantage, however slight, so it would be best if the candidate is the one who gets you in your gut.

E.J. Dionne Is Guilty Of Blindness

Published October 12, 2007 in Liberals. 8 Comments

I like E.J. Dionne, I really do. But seriously, he joins the ranks of those liberal elites oh so shocked about their behavior towards 12 year old Graeme Frost and his family:

And of what were the Frosts guilty? Well, they own their own home, which they bought for $55,000 in 1990 and is now worth about $260,000; they invested in a commercial property, valued at $160,000; Halsey Frost, a self-employed woodworker, once owned a small business that was dissolved in 1999; and Graeme attends a private school on scholarship. I rely here on facts reported this week in The Baltimore Sun and The New York Times, both of which set straight the more outlandish claims made by the Frosts’ attackers.

The right is unapologetic. "The Democrats chose to outsource their airtime to a seventh-grader," wrote National Review’s Mark Steyn. "If a political party is desperate enough to send a boy to do a man’s job, then the boy is fair game."

OK, the Democrats are "fair game," but a 12-year-old? No wonder nobody talks about compassionate conservatism anymore.

Dionne was around during the Clinton bashing days - many times he was one of the few liberals allowed on the news to argue about the insanity of it all. I know for sure he’s been writing throughout the Bush presidency about the mendacity, viciousness and thuggery of the opposition movement/party.

Why must we pretend as if these people are rational, honest, scrupulous human beings? They are not.

These are the same people who cheered the idea of making "head shots" versus federal agents when the Attorney General was Janet Reno. What makes you think they’ve grown morals since then?

If You Fight Dumb, Why Fight At All

Published October 7, 2007 in Liberals. 4 Comments

Matt Stoller doesn’t like that I think a purge of the Democratic party is suicidal, but he decided to argue it dishonestly.

Here’s what I said:

I don’t agree with his vote, but apparently now Dennis Kucinich is not progressive enough and must be challenged in a primary. Because he voted against the bill because it was not liberal enough. Dennis Kucinich.

Yes, that Dennis Kucinich. If Dennis Kucinich ain’t pure enough for these liberal purity purges, these folks are going to end up with a really, really, really small Democratic party.

Here’s what Stoller posted on his blog:

I’ll randomly pick Oliver Willis, who suggested in response to the same line of posts Sullivan discussed that primaries are ideological purges and that the only reason I could think a primary against Kucinich was a positive development is that Kucinich is not progressive enough for me. When I confronted him and pointed out his illiberal impulses, Willis’s rationale changed, and he then returned to the premise that primaries waste time and resources.

Now, of course, I didn’t change my rationale at all. But his comment didn’t refute my main idea that a primary for primary’s sake against a guy like Dennis Kucinich for not being progressive enough was idiotic. In addition to that rationale, it is a waste of time and resources. I am able to hold both ideas in my head at one time. What Stoller is saying here though is that if you’re against one, fruitless, useless, primary, you’re against the very idea of primaries.

That sounds almost as simplistic as an argument Bush would make.

Look, I wish every area in this country was as forward thinking and progressive as Montgomery County, Maryland, where I live. But that simply isn’t the case. As such, a political party - in order to gain power - must run a candidate in a district with a snowball’s chance of winning. You’re not going to get Heath Shulers elected to office in Maryland, nor are you going to get Dennis Kuciniches elected in North Carolina. That’s just a fact.

In 2006 the Democrats decided to compete across the board and threw away the litmus tests and pushed candidates all over the country. As a result they won the House and Senate and elected Pelosi and Reid to leadership positions.

Now, I don’t like the way a lot of the more conservative Democrats vote on issues, but the idea that the remedy to this is a primary challenge is - in most cases - a surefire recipe to give the seat to a Republican. Many of these seats are in Democratic-hostile regions, and they won election by the skin of their teeth (Shuler won 54-46). You give them a primary challenger and even if they win, they’re beaten up in resources and in the local media - softening them up for a Republican, who already has inherit advantages in the district.

What I would prefer is a strategy of going after Democrats gone astray. Here in Maryland, for instance, Albert Wynn should have a much more progressive voting record. Instead he’s pro-corporate, anti-working Marylander. Yet, his district is overwhelming Democratic. Right now he’s being challenged by Donna Edwards, and the real race is the primary. If Edwards wins, she will be the congressional representative. Through the primary process you’ve made the congress more progressive without shooting the party in the foot.

But because I didn’t agree with Stoller’s reasoning, he dismissed it with a wave of his hand as being anti-primary.

CAP Is Blinding Us…

Published October 5, 2007 in Liberals. 0 Comments

With SCIENCE! (Science Progress, that is)

Full spectrum blast.

Matt Stoller Gets Really Silly

Published September 29, 2007 in Liberals. 2 Comments

I don’t agree with his vote, but apparently now Dennis Kucinich is not progressive enough and must be challenged in a primary. Because he voted against the bill because it was not liberal enough. Dennis Kucinich.

Yes, that Dennis Kucinich. If Dennis Kucinich ain’t pure enough for these liberal purity purges, these folks are going to end up with a really, really, really small Democratic party.

How It’s Done

Published September 20, 2007 in Liberals. 63 Comments

The thousands of people in Jena today show to me that the anti-war movement has lots to learn and that nobody is as organized on the left as civil rights organizations. Period.

Hell Yes

Published September 19, 2007 in Liberals. 0 Comments

Paul Krugman is blogging. Begone New York Times stupid pay thing!

Dept. Of Liberals Wasting Money On Futile Things

Published September 13, 2007 in Liberals. 2 Comments

Why, oh why would you spend money on a poll of Ned Lamont versus Joe Lieberman? I liked Lamont, but he was a flawed candidate against an incumbent with the moral compass of a garter snake but sharp political instincts. I bet if you polled America now, John Kerry would beat the crap out of George W. Bush.

But it’s kind of moot at this point, no?

Shorter Peter Beinart

Published August 24, 2007 in Liberals. 1 Comment

The netroots should be silly and back unrealistic candidates like Mike Gravel instead of being actually useful and making people like me look dumb.

Freedom’s Watch: Resist The Trap

Published August 22, 2007 in Liberals. 0 Comments

The new GOP astroturf organization putting out ads in favor of the failed Iraq War strategy is relying on liberals to pull their usual tactics out in response to them: “exposing” who is behind it. Yeah, it’s Ari Fleischer, yeah, he’s a pro liar. Blah. Blah. Blah. The American people won’t hear that. They don’t hear it. Just refute what they are saying, and not who is saying it (it’s why the right trying to demonize George Soros hasn’t worked beyond righties who hate Soros).

The surge isn’t working to end the war or make America any safer. The president is an idiot. No matter how many millions of dollars of propaganda they push, those are the facts.

Continue reading ‘Freedom’s Watch: Resist The Trap’

Amazingly Stupid Things Some Liberals Say

Published August 14, 2007 in Liberals. 4 Comments

There has been some interesting blogging by Michael Cohen of Democracy Arsenal in response to Atrios pointing out how dumb some liberals still are in continuing to act as if pro-war liberals like Will Marshall of the DLC were somehow right about the decision to invade Iraq and giving them a pass for never having acknowledged how monumentally wrong they were (and are).

As I stated in the comments there, while the ultimate policies involved in invading Iraq are the handiwork of George W. Bush, he would never have been given a free hand were it not for liberals and Democrats who did the dirty work for him. This includes the think tank and pundit crowd like the DLC, Peter Beinart and The New Republic, as well as congressmen and senators like Dick Gephardt, John Edwards, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, etc.

The decision to invade Iraq was a stupid one. Next to the Vietnam War, it probably ranks as one of the three or four worst foreign policy decisions in the history of the United States. Millions of us knew it was a bad deal. Back in 2002 and 2003 we somehow had this figured out while the Democrats and liberals in Washington were busy giving away our security and the political power of the Democratic party away in a mad dash to look tough. While the country was wishy-washy on the war, those of us in the base of the Democratic party were deadset against it. In my case it was because I believed after 9/11 the primary mission of the government and our military was to apprehend and kill every last member of the Al Qaeda network and whoever chose to aid them. I supported the first Gulf War, I supported U.S. aid to forces who wished to topple Saddam’s regime, but the invasion and occupation of Iraq, right at the same time we were tasked with fighting a global war against Al Qaeda seemed to be a recipe for failure.

Sadly I was right. Millions of us were right. The most important foreign policy decision of maybe the last 30-40 years and us dumb dumb regular Americans had a lot more clues than the guys and gals who wanted to prove just how tough they were.

Fast forward 4 years post invasion, and there are thousands of Americans dead in Iraq, thousands more Iraqi civilians dead, our reputation seriously marred in the rest of the world (somehow the same country that tamed the Nazi regime and the Japanese empire can’t handle one country with any sort of competency), and oh, Al Qaeda is growing like a weed. Yet, especially in the liberal pro-war camp, for many of them they still remain on the side of angels. Sorry for them, but the game doesn’t work the way it used to. You don’t get to go an entire season batting .000 then get called up to play in the World Series. They were wrong, many of them have not conceded any mistakes on that decision, yet seek to continue to lecture the rest of us like we don’t know dick.

That is like taking lessons on ethics from Tom DeLay.

(By the way, Cohen sounds just as weasly as Bush here when he claims that the UN Security Council’s findings against Saddam made a “defensible” case for war. Except that when President Bush floated the idea of getting military action through the UN he realized it would fail. Because of the administration’s inability to use diplomacy like every other administration has in the past, the vote “whip count” was a failure. The UN would not go to war, that’s why we went in alone and that’s why the whole thing got screwed up so badly. And bitching about name calling? Really? Really?)

We’ve Been Sans Regulation For Too Long

Published August 7, 2007 in Liberals. 8 Comments

Dana Blankenhorn makes a good case.

Without regulations, government regulations enforced at taxpayer expense or private regulations enforced at industry’s expense, bridges may collapse, mortgage fraud may be committed, bad food or drugs may be sold, and levees may break, killing many people. When people are killed, or terribly injured, or have their life savings stripped from them by nefarious means, well we have to put the people who did it in jail, just as if they used a knife or gun themselves.

RELATED:
Hillary Clinton Announces Plan to Address Mortgage Lending Abuses; Preserve Dream of Home Ownership

John Edwards: Protecting Homeowners And Fighting Predatory Mortgages

Why The Comedy Should Always Come Before The Politics

Published August 7, 2007 in Liberals. 2 Comments

It stinks just as bad on the left as when the right does it. Clunk-a-clunk.

ODub’s First Law: FUNNY FIRST, politics later.

Sirotabot

Published July 14, 2007 in Liberals. 21 Comments

I think it’s funny that David Sirota, whose resume screams "DC Insider!" in 48-point bold type (your average American doesn’t make a living for several years as a congressional aide, there’s nothing wrong with that job, but it isn’t exactly an average 9-5 by any stretch) seriously peddles this persona of some sort of outsider in the great beyond known as America.

And yes, I am typing this post from a location that is physically within the beltway and that doesn’t make it any more or less valid.

Send Me Links

Published July 6, 2007 in Liberals. 37 Comments

I hate having to do this every once in a while, but I don’t think folks are getting it yet. Send me links. Not for a little while, but constantly. Send me links. I read a lot of stuff, but I can’t read everything. I want to share the bit of traffic I’ve got with others and back and forth and so on. Liberal bloggers do not link out enough, and I want to fix that. Send me links.

Thank You, George W. Bush

Published June 27, 2007 in Liberals. 178 Comments

In 1964 the Goldwater campaign announced the take over of the Republican party by the far-right John Birchers, racists, and conservatives. For better or worse over the next 40+ years they grabbed power like never before and tried their damnedest to turn America to the right.

I think the Bush presidency is going to turn out to be the left’s 1964.

Young Americans are more likely than the general public to favor a
government-run universal health care insurance system, an open-door
policy on immigration and the legalization of gay marriage, according to a New York Times/CBS
News/MTV poll. The poll also found that they are more likely to say the
war in Iraq is heading to a successful conclusion.
More than half of Americans ages 17 to 29 — 54 percent — say they intend to vote for a Democrat for president in 2008. They share with the public at large a negative view of President Bush, who has a 28 percent approval rating with this group, and of the Republican Party. They hold a markedly more positive view of Democrats than they do of Republicans.

Among this age group, Mr. Bush’s job approval rating after the attacks of Sept. 11 was more than 80 percent. Over the course of the next three years, it drifted downward leading into the presidential election of 2004, when 4 of 10 young Americans said they approved how Mr. Bush was handling his job.

At a time when Democrats have made gains after years in which Republicans have dominated Washington, young Americans appear to lean slightly more to the left than the general population: 28 percent described themselves as liberal, compared with 20 percent of the nation at large. And 27 percent called themselves conservative, compared with 32 percent of the general public.

My teens and early twenties were spent under the Clinton presidency, and even with a Republican congress you figured that it would take a whole lot to screw up the country. Whoops. For a considerable amount of Americans, their politically formative years have been the Bush years and they’ve seen just what kind of damage can be done to a nation from one man and his party. To a lot of them they simply cannot understand the sort of experiments that had to be done to your mind in order to vote Republican. I think this will work out well.

Thanks, President Bush.

Problems Of The Left

Published June 18, 2007 in Liberals. 4 Comments

I don’t agree with most of the conclusions and accusations in this Matt Taibbi rant about the left in the regularly loopy AdBusters magazine (it’s the slick looking magazine that screams that something is wrong but never says what you should do about it), but I thought this snippet made sense:

We all know where this stuff comes from. Anyone who’s ever been to a lefty political meeting knows the deal – the problem is the “spirit of inclusiveness” stretched to the limits of absurdity. The post-sixties dogma that everyone’s viewpoint is legitimate, everyone‘s choice about anything (lifestyle, gender, ethnicity, even class) is valid, that’s now so totally ingrained that at every single meeting, every time some yutz gets up and starts rambling about anything, no matter how ridiculous, no one ever tells him to shut the fuck up. Next thing you know, you’ve got guys on stilts wearing mime makeup and Cat-in-the-Hat striped top-hats leading a half-million people at an anti-war rally. Why is that guy there? Because no one told him that war is a matter of life and death and that he should leave his fucking stilts at home.