Doonesbury by Garry Trudeau for August 26, 2014

.

Ballad of a Thin Man.

You walk into the roomWith your pencil in your handYou see somebody nakedAnd you say, “Who is that man?”You try so hardBut you don’t understandJust what you’ll sayWhen you get home

Because something is happening hereBut you don’t know what it isDo you, Mister Jones?

You raise up your headAnd you ask, “Is this where it is?”And somebody points to you and says“It’s his”And you say, “What’s mine?”And somebody else says, “Where what is?”And you say, “Oh my GodAm I here all alone?”

Because something is happening hereBut you don’t know what it isDo you, Mister Jones?

You hand in your ticketAnd you go watch the geekWho immediately walks up to youWhen he hears you speakAnd says, “How does it feelTo be such a freak?”And you say, “Impossible”As he hands you a bone

Because something is happening hereBut you don’t know what it isDo you, Mister Jones?

You have many contactsAmong the lumberjacksTo get you factsWhen someone attacks your imaginationBut nobody has any respectAnyway they already expect youTo just give a checkTo tax-deductible charity organizations

You’ve been with the professorsAnd they’ve all liked your looksWith great lawyers you haveDiscussed lepers and crooksYou’ve been through all ofF. Scott Fitzgerald’s booksYou’re very well readIt’s well known

Because something is happening hereBut you don’t know what it isDo you, Mister Jones?

Well, the sword swallower, he comes up to youAnd then he kneelsHe crosses himselfAnd then he clicks his high heelsAnd without further noticeHe asks you how it feelsAnd he says, “Here is your throat backThanks for the loan”

Because something is happening hereBut you don’t know what it isDo you, Mister Jones?

Now you see this one-eyed midgetShouting the word “NOW”And you say, “For what reason?”And he says, “How?”And you say, “What does this mean?”And he screams back, “You’re a cowGive me some milkOr else go home”

Because something is happening hereBut you don’t know what it isDo you, Mister Jones?

Well, you walk into the roomLike a camel and then you frownYou put your eyes in your pocketAnd your nose on the groundThere ought to be a lawAgainst you comin’ aroundYou should be madeTo wear earphones

Because something is happening hereBut you don’t know what it isDo you, Mister Jones?

and realizing that there where no more words left to say, he decided to take a nap.

OK, I can skip this week’s repeats!

Dylan’s’s in the jacuzziMixing up the medicineI’m in the apartmentTalkin’ to the government…

From context, I’m assuming President Carter bungled a quote?.

Leftwing, Dylan did dope?

Beats me.On ‘tother hand, why should America be humble?We’re great!

Who would have thunk it: Dylan was ghost-writing Carter’s speeches.

And let’s be honest, Jimmy Carter’s best selling point was that he was not associated with the party of Nixon.He didn’t campaign based on the theme Borntalkingback cited, wasn’t elected on it, and never tried it, just was selective regarding who he pushed around.

5% of the world’s population produces 23% of the world’s economic output and growth.They’ve also produced the largest plurality of Nobel Prize winners for science and econ.

Pres. Carter’s problem was that he was naive about how people in the world view actions, something Pres. Obama fails at too – he assumed everyone would see and react as he did and became confused when they didn’t.He was also a micro-manager – he never could let a project or idea start to work without interfering and wanting to make changes, which is a huge failure with a bureaucracy that takes time to even get started.He didn’t understand how to plan for issues – just reactive in nature.

in all, he was a poor President – a nice guy but no someone to lead the US, and even though you may complain about the US’s lack of humility, everyone turns to it when there are problems.

The US didn’t fire a shot under Jimmy Carter. According to many, that makes him a great prez. LWP: Too bad you weren’t there to take that call. This strip is really showing age in this one in particular— the corded phone, no way to google anything on your computer, etc. No one has to call a songwriter to get lyrics for a popular song nowadays and in the old days, when you were on the phone, you were really on the phone. There seemed to be a cord shortage. So, you were stuck there. A little later, they came out with the super duper long cords, which would always become a super tangled mess. Then, the cordless years later, in which some were always having to adjust to not remembering where they put it at first, since they would just leave it anywhere instead of immediately hanging it back up. And now, the cell phone, in which we have to pay way too much $ for the ultimate convenience of having a phone everywhere we go, and we need a more convenient way to charge them, since they often lose a charge quickly. My teen daughter leaves for Japan in a few days and I know it will freak her out if she doesn’t have access to the darn thing, and she is bound to forget to charge, so it is bound to happen…

The organ grinder line is from I Want You from Blonde On Blonde, but it’s the lonesome organ grinder, not twisted. I was listening to the album decades after this strip, heard that line and yelled ’That’s the line from the Doonesbury strip’. I had always wondered.

You are squawking rather loudly . . . does this mean you are one of those you badmouth?? Or is it only someone whose opinion differs from yours that fits such a bad description?

I’m still mystified by MayKitten’s comment, yesterday, in response to my post about the report from the Actuary about the impact of the Affordable Care Act. Does anyone seriously believe that because it was released on April 1, that it was intended as a joke? Maybe someone should explain that to the cancer clinics who are now routinely turning away patients on Medicare who were supposed to receive their radiation treatments there, instead of in more costly hospitals. It was just a joke, guys. You’ll get your payments. Don’t keep pushing those oldies out the door…

@DHGI want the stuff he had.

Transcript from 1978 SNL sketch with Dan Aykroyd as Jimmy Carter. I couldn’t find a video:-[ open on Presidential seal ]

Announcer: And now, a special message from the President of the United States.

[ dissolve to Oval Office ]

President Jimmy Carter:

Good evening. On Tuesday, we Americans will have the opportunity to exercise our role as citizens in a free democracy. Yet, only a third of the eligible voters will actually cast ballots. The other two-thirds are, in a sense, very lucky. Because they do not know what’s going on.

Last week, I delivered a message on inflation. Since then, the dollar has dropped in value, the stock market has sustained record losses, and the whole sow price index increased 0.9%. In other words, our economic system is screwed, blued and tatooed! We just have to face the fact that there is simply no way to fight inflation in a capitolly-intensive, highly-technological, conflict-riddled, anything-for-a-thrill world of today. That’s why, tonight, I want you to try to look for in inflation, an entirely new word: Inflation is our friend.

For example, consider this: in the year 2000, if current trends continue, the average blue-collar annual wage in this country will be $568,000. Think what this inflated world of the future will mean – most Americans will be millionaires. Everyone will feel like a bigshot. Wouldn’t you like to own a $4,000 suit, and smoke a $75 cigar, drive a $600,000 car? I know I would! But what about people on fixed incomes? They have always been the true victims of inflation. That’s why I will present to Congress the “Inflation Maintenance Program”, whereby the U.S. Treasury will make up any inflation-caused losses to direct tax rebates to the public in cash. Then you may say, “Won’t that cost a lot of money? Won’t that increase the deficit?” Sure it will! But so what? We’ll just print more money! We have the papers, we have the mints.. I can just call up the Bureau of Engraving and say, “Hi! This is Jimmy. Roll out some of them twenties! Print up a couple thousand sheets of those Century Notes!” Sure, all these dollars will cause even more inflation, but who cares? Everyone will be a millionaire!

In my speech last week, I said that America would have to undergo an austerity program, but since this revolutionary new approach welcomes inflation, our economy will be free to grow, and we can spend, spend, spend! I believe the watchwords for the 80’s should be “Let’s Party!” And in that spirit, I’d like to say, “Live, from New York, it’s Saturday Night!”

Camp David accord was a great moment under Jimmy Carter. He also was a great role model during the energy crisis. He installed solar panels at the white house which were later removed when he left office.

Those who believe that Jimmy Carter is a humble person have not heard his self-evaluation in recent years. He told Brian Williams of NBC news that he feels his role as a former President is ‘probably superior’ to that of other presidents. He concluded that because of his ‘activism’ (not sure what he means by that), but also because of his role in the Carter Center.-According to the former President “the Carter Center has decided, under my leadership, to fill up vacuums in the world. When the United States won’t deal with a troubled area, we go there, we meet with leaders who can bring an end to conflict and end human rights abuse and so on”. -I can’t honestly recall any efforts by the Carter Center recently to stop the civil war in Syria, or the battle in which the latest group of Islamacists was trying to wipe out a religious minority in Iraq.-But I can recall Jimmy Carter, while still in office, objecting to the use of federal funds to pay for day care for the children of low income women while they were trying to get training to become self-supporting. -I can’t share Mr. Carter’s high opinion of himself…

There were no shots fired during the failed rescue attempt. Unless they shot each other down.

Another quote, Mr. President?

“How’s Jesus look to you now, Barack?”

“There’s always another stranger sneaking glances Some trigger-happy fool willing to take chances Some old whore from San Pedro’ll make advances Advances on your spirit and your soul…”

Facebook/Nixon/TonyKey

Just remember, Barack, they sure spent a whole lotta money serving them idols, (MTV & the Emmys) and they ain’t served God a lick like he told ‘em to – you never seen like the wine bottles when he gets P.O.’d -

Now, go get my money – I’ve got a First Lady to feed.

@montessoriteacher

They didn’t have the internet and Google in 77. You’d think, one of the staffers would have the LPs with the lyrics.

More than 10 million jobs were created during Carter’s term.He treated the US energy policy as a matter of national security. Unfortunately, many Americans considered lowering the thermostat or air-contioning as a sign of weakness, not patriotism.

The USSR was conquering natiion after nation at the time. The conquered nations experienced civil wars, cleansings, slaughter of millions. President Carter negotiated treaties without verification provisions, based on trust. Do you call it self determination to go along with these conquests and killings?If you would have peace, you must be prepared for war, otherwise the predators see no reason to not make war on the weak.

@DavidHuieGreenSorry DHG but that isn’t true. The reason the USSR invaded Afghanistan is because the Communist regime in Kabul was on the verge of being defeated by a bunch of rag-tag Mujahideen. An Islamic regime in Afghanistan would have had a direct effect on the Central Asian Republics that were part of the Soviet Union at the timeJust years earlier, Soviet advisers had been kicked out of Egypt. The Soviet influence in the Mideast was declining.In Europe, Solidarity was posing a direct challenge to government in Poland.

LeftwingPatriot,You say the USSR invaded Afghanistan to protect their favored government and to protect neighboring nations they also ruled over.And that justifies it how?

And that is just one of many nations they invaded directly or by proxy.They trained and supplied folks to conquer existing governments.

Their actions led to the deaths of millions by war and associated famine and disease.Over and over and over.And you justify their actions by saying they had their reasons.Yes, they did: worldwide domination.A friend once told me, “We are Russian. We take.” She was proud

@DavidHuieGreen

Oh DHG, you should know me better than that by now. I would never justify a crime committed by that horror show to humanity, the Soviet Union. My point was, the USSR was not as strong in the the 1970s as some people claim;it was literally imploding.

As for Jimmy Carter and the USSR, here is what Republican Robert Gates had to say about him:

“I believe the Soviets saw a very different Jimmy Carter than did most Americans by 1980, different and more hostile and threatening,” Gates writes. In both conventional weaponry and in the nuclear arena, he argues, Carter would “provide a strong foundation for Ronald Reagan to build upon.” By contrast, Gates describes the first president for whom he worked, Richard Nixon, as “by far the most liberal” of the group. (Gates also shows a bit of dovish ankle, revealing that before leaving the CIA to work in the Nixon White House, he marched in a May 1970 antiwar demonstration.)

Most of all, writes Gates, who was the national intelligence officer for the Soviet Union at the time, Carter’s emphasis on human rights cast a spotlight on the Soviets’ greatest vulnerability. The rights theme, Gates says, made Carter “the first president during the Cold War to challenge publicly and consistently the legitimacy of Soviet rule at home.” In his view, these were “the first steps” toward the beginning of the end of the Soviet Union.

Your friend should’ve said, “we are Russians, we self-destruct.”

You cite the growing strength of Solidarity, but it

was outlawed and disbanded at the time. Angola, where I worked, fell to them in the mid seventies.Several other African nations were taken over byTheir puppet/slaves starved.. The Angolans were convinced they murdered their leader when he made overtures to the West. Dos Santos refused to go to Moscow until their leader died.Vietnam conquered/ unified.Pol Pot began his genocide.Ethiopia began its genocide.Small nations were afraid to not bow to the new overlords since nobody was openly standing up to them.Pseudointellectuals maintained all their failings were caused by the fact all had not joined their socialist utopia. I watched them preach their drivel in Hyde Park..No, they were not collapsing even as their sla

Slaves starved

@DavidHuieGreen

What happened in Angola was a direct result of the failed colonial policies of Portugal.Ho Chi Minh could’ve been our s.o.b. if we had supported his claim to independence instead of French re-colonialization. Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge was a regime nobody wanted to be friends with and it was another communist country — Vietnam — that drove them out of power and ended that country’s nightmare.

“What happened in Angola was a direct result of the failed colonial policies of Portugal.Ho Chi Minh could’ve been our s.o.b. if we had supported his claim to independence instead of French re-colonialization. Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge was a regime nobody wanted to be friends with and it was another communist country — Vietnam — that drove them out of power and ended that country’s nightmare.”

: Portugal considered it a state like we do Hawai’i.The Soviets stirred up their nationalism, leading to Portugal cutting political ties and then the civil war which followed. And treaties which shored up an unpopular government with Cuban soldiers in exchange for the fishing rights which would have easily fed the people and given them something for trade..You are saying if we had interfered the right way Vietnam could’ve been OUR puppet? Remember the nation was divided by the request of Soviets as reward for declaring war on Japan between nuclear bombings after they had killed previous peace overtures from Japan who made the mistake of thinking that they were a neutral party and would pass along the offers. The Soviets WANTED us to kill each other..They picked sides when the winner was obvious so they could get their share of the spoils and expand their power..Folks might not have wanted Pol Pot, but he was supported in coming to power by Soviet support. They thrived on the destruction they caused..Turning a blind or even condimnatory eye wouldn’t have stopped it. They had to be convinced they should stop. Carter — for all his virtues — didn’t. Reagan -for all his faults - did.

James,Regarding: “There was never two VN, that was a fiction. The French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu in 1954. As they retreated from VN, they told the US to stay out. We all know what happened next. US egotism and lies resulted in the death of thousands of US troops and many thousands more VN.”.“VN never had an expansionist intent.”".Last first, I never said they did. The USSR on the other hand definitely did..Then there obviously WERE two due to partition insisted upon by the USSR who then armed their part to spread Communism to the other part. .All political boundaries are imaginary and subject to disagreement. There were some in Vietnam who did not consider themselves part of the government even as Kurds do not agree they are really part of the assorted governments who claim them. (The common solution to that dispute is to kill those who don’t obey.)

@DavidHuieGreenYou said:

Portugal considered it a state like we do Hawai’i.The Soviets stirred up their nationalism, leading to Portugal cutting political ties and then the civil war which followed. And treaties which shored up an unpopular government with Cuban soldiers in exchange for the fishing rights which would have easily fed the people and given them something for trade..You are saying if we had interfered the right way Vietnam could’ve been OUR puppet? Remember the nation was divided by the request of Soviets as reward for declaring war on Japan between nuclear bombings after they had killed previous peace overtures from Japan who made the mistake of thinking that they were a neutral party and would pass along the offers. The Soviets WANTED us to kill each other..They picked sides when the winner was obvious so they could get their share of the spoils and expand their power..Folks might not have wanted Pol Pot, but he was supported in coming to power by Soviet support. They thrived on the destruction they caused..Turning a blind or even condimnatory eye wouldn’t have stopped it. They had to be convinced they should stop.Carter — for all his virtues — didn’t.Reagan for all his faults – did.-

The French felt the same way about Algeria that Portuguese felt about Angola but 90% of Algerians did not enjoy French citizenship. Guess why not?How many African Angolans served in the Portuguese Parliament? The Soviets took advantage of Angolan nationalism but they didn’t need to stir it. Angola wasn’t the only Portuguese colony that was rebelling;Mozambique was also rebelling against colonial power.It was the Portuguese army that decided to rebel against its own government’s policies and staged the Carnation Revolution.

Vietnam was not divided at a request by the Soviets -

Korea was. Vietnam was divided in 1954 after the Geneva accord, with intent of unification after free elections that the US opposed.You don’t see me criticizing US policy in Korea because the US and it’s allies were clearly in the right in repelling the invasion by the puppet North Korean regime.

As for Pol Pot, history speaks for itself. We know who drove him out of power and ended the killing fields. If he was anybody’s puppet or client, it was probably China.

The Carter Administration started supplying support to the Afghan rebels long before Reagan came to office. Again, the Soviets were not as strong as many believed. Many expected the Soviets to try to take over Yugoslavia in 1980 after Tito died but the invasion never came.

You give Reagan credit for ending the Soviet Union. Would the Soviet Union have come to an end if someone other than Gorbachev had been chosen the leader in 1985? The first thing Gorbachev did was replace Andrei Gromyko as foreign minister. Gromyko had been a shill for the Soviet Union since the 1930s (he started out as a driver at Soviet Embassy in Washington DC). He replaced him with Eduard Shevarnadze, a man with no foreign experience but who shared Gorbachev’s belief that the USSR desperately needed reform. Let’s say the Communist Party had chosen someone in the mold of Brezhnev or Andropov, would there have been rebellions in Eastern Europe? Would the Berlin Wall come down? I look at Reagan as a very effective politician. I admire the ability he had to deliver a clear vision of his ideas and beliefs but he did not bring down the USSR single-handled. Let’s start with Truman and creation of National Security apparatus — the Marshall Plan, Berlin Air Lift, CIA, NATO. All these events and institutions kept the USSR in check. Containment was an effective policy.

“Let’s start with Truman and creation of National Security apparatus — the Marshall Plan, Berlin Air Lift, CIA, NATO. All these events and institutions kept the USSR in check. Containment was an effective policy.”.Yet containment had not contained.

“You give Reagan credit for ending the Soviet Union”.Yep. He shook the foundations of the Evil Empire simply by calling it that..He declared the wall a monument not to their power but to the failure of their system.

.He showed dependence on Mutual Assured Destruction was madness, because he wasn’t entirely sane if he could joke about bombing “in five minutes”..Their people tolerated them for safety. He showed they were not safe..And then he gave us GHWB who showed we could annihilate their conventional weapons but who didn’t conquer for control, left after victory. (Smarter, more prudent than his son.)

“The Carter Administration started supplying support to the Afghan rebels long before Reagan came to office. ". At least you admit Carter was involving the USA in the internal affairs of other nations and killing commies rather than claiming he was all peaceable like someone above kept saying.

And yes, the government of Vietnam is to be praised for ridding Cambodia of PP and finally realizing they (Vietnam) were killing their people with silly faith in socialist theory.It’s aashame they didn’t accept democratic unification years earlier rather than let China and USSR dictate their killing of themselves.

@DavidHuieGreen

The first job of the President is Commander-in-Chief. Being “peaceable” is a luxury that sometimes is not available.Remember, Carter’s National Security Adviser was Zbigniew Brzezinski, a man who was compared to Darth Vader when “Star Wars” was still fresh in people’s minds.As for how much credit Reagan deserves for the fall of the Soviet Union, we will have to agree to disagree. It was John Foster Dulles who opposed a plan for a free election in Vietnam. The North also violated the agreement. No innocent parties.

Neither one of us is going to change other’s views but I still enjoy our exchanges.

“Neither one of us is going to change other’s views but I still enjoy our exchanges.”/That’s because we’re both wonderful people./As shown by, " The North also violated the agreement. No innocent parties." and the recognition the USA isn’t the Great Satan even if we do have a few leetle teeny tiny flaws. .“Vietnam was not divided at a request by the Soviets — Korea was. Vietnam was divided in 1954 after the Geneva accord, with intent of unification after free elections that the US opposed.”.I hate being wrong but it was bound to happen eventually. You and James are right. I was wrong. (James is still wrong about Vietnam not being divided, it has been divided off and on for many centuries due to conquerors, but that doesn’t even matter here.).One thing Reagan projected was that Communism was not the wave of the future, that it was headed to the dust bin of history. Just making people consider such things helped. As best I can see, most of our presidents didn’t believe that, they believed they had to actively oppose the USSR. RWR did so as well, but the idea that they would naturally fail was there. I noticed whenever they conquered a nation, there was terrible killing and short term benefit to the USSR only. They could only continue by conquering those who were not already destroyed. Further, their actions kept costing them just as Cuba did, so did several other conquests. .We agree they were doomed to fail, but great was the fall of all those they would take with them. We will see echoes of their scheming for decades to come..And yes, Portuguese people included some racists. I saw photos in their museum in the fort overlooking the bay of Luanda, showing soldiers playing soccer with the head of an Angolan they had beheaded. I’m not sure how common this was or if there were extenuating circumstances which made them particularly hate that particular head./I was discussing education with my friend, Joao de Mata and he told me the Portuguese never educated black people. I mentioned Joaquim David (head of the national petroleum company last I checked) was educated in Lisbon. He explained that Joaquim was not really black on the inside, only on the outside. This led me to question all information since it implied those who went along could get along and be treated decently... Much is more complicated than those who post here make it sound...(One example of that is that Bush the lesser surely did some silly things, but I have wondered how much of the financial problem could be tied to terrorist attacks and the effects on the economy. Maybe he didn’t single-handedly bring on a world-wide recession.).But again, please note I am not concentrating on only one invasion and conquest even if Korea and Vietnam look alike to me, or I get them mixed up.In fact, I don’t concentrate too well on any one certain aspect of the universe to the exclusion of all the interconnected rest.