Comments on: Sacra Bleu, That’s Just Up the Rue!

By: LamontCranston

LamontCranston — Thu, 04 Aug 2005 05:34:40 +0000

How does the author of “Liberality for All” reconcile his political beliefs with the fact that Liddy & North are criminals? Legally, morally and figeratively
Liddy: A certain well known hotel and everything surrounding that, breaking into a physiatrists office to obtain information to use against a political enemy, planning to assassinate journalist Jack Anderson* and on and on.
North: a certain well-documented incident involving military equipment & Iran and money & South-American rebels, not to mention well documented [John Kerry 1987, Gary Webb 1996, CIA 1998] involvement in narco-traffiking.
Perhaps he likes to play the macho chestbeating “ends justify the means” game?

*[if they hadn’t been found in the hotel, they would have aprox. one week later]

By: Ray

Ray — Wed, 03 Aug 2005 15:09:49 +0000

Ah, sorry, my misreading. Its hard to know what exactly Moore’s up to with Glaucon, since he does describe it as a Roman sock-puppet…

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 03 Aug 2005 14:41:03 +0000

It was the creator of this awful right-wing comic that I meant to say had a “deeply confused” view of the world. (Interviews I’ve read w/ Moore make me think he also does, but in a totally different and more or less harmless way. A way involving ancient Roman snake gods and the like.)

By: lillemask

lillemask — Wed, 03 Aug 2005 13:42:00 +0000

I’m sorry to keep side-tracking the discussion, but Watchmen certainly is more worthy of discussion than Liberality.

As several people have pointed out, the the 9/11 attacks were eerily reminiscent of the ending of Watchmen.

Post 9/11 there also was a global sentiment of unity in sympathy with the victims and the American people.

Unfortunately, this plan of the great peace-loving liberal Ozyma bin-Ladin didn’t work out so well in the long run.

By: Ray

Ray — Wed, 03 Aug 2005 08:54:09 +0000

Dr Manhattan was preventing nuclear war, but there were dozens of proxy wars going on around the world, IIRC. And Ozymandias reckoned Dr Manhattan was increasingly disconnected from the rest of the world, and was going to go sometime anyway, at which point nuclear war would break out.

Why do you think Moore has a deeply confused view of the world? Do you think he agress with Ozymandias? Do you think he believes Ozymandias’ plan will be a success in the long-term?

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 02 Aug 2005 23:16:38 +0000

I hate to let the discussion be side-tracked from the point that the creator of this comic has, quite obviously, a deeply confused view of the world if this is anything more than just a way to make money, but it should be pointed out that the real goal of Ozymandias wasn’t to prevent nuclear war (Dr. Manhattan was doing that just fine until Ozymandias got rid of him) but rather to “unite” mankind in some deeper way by giving them a common enemy. Merely preventing war wasn’t enough to do this. He had to start a sort of war for it. It was the unity of man-kind, not protection from war, that he wanted most. (That might make him a “liberal” in the bizzare dream world of this comic’s author, or of Hannity, but not in relationship to many real liberals.)

By: st

st — Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:49:49 +0000

rereading, I realize I meant:

“is the fact of its evil outweighed by the far greater evil it has, apparently, averted.”

Oh, well.

By: st

st — Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:45:42 +0000

Ozymandias’ plan isn’t obviously evil.
Sure it was. At the time it was being discussed and Rorshach made his stand, Ozymandias had already killed thousands of people, both in the incident in NYC and the multiple murders (by defenestration, intentional infliction of cancer, and explosives) leading up to the final bloody show. Oz’s plan could never be proven to be “the only way to avert the nuclear destruction of mankind,” but as it had already been carried out, public disclosure of the real nature of the incident in NYC would pointlessly undo its apparent success. There may well have been other ways to avert nuclear catastrophe, most of them involving Dr. Manhattan, but Oz’s plan itself included sidelining Dr. M. until the deed was done.

The decision faced by the heroes was not “do I support Oz’s plan” but rather, “now that this mass-murder has occurred, does the fact of its evil outweigh the far greater evil it has, apparently, averted.” The heroes say yes, Rorshach says no. To Rorshach, Ozymandias is just another killer.

By: lillemask

lillemask — Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:06:19 +0000

Also, one of the points of the ending of Watchmen is that Ozymandias’ plan isn’t obviously evil. Possibly his was the only way to avert the nuclear destruction of mankind.

By: Shelby

Shelby — Tue, 02 Aug 2005 20:38:06 +0000

Re Watchmen, I always thought the only classically conservative character was The Comedian. He’s the one who seems so gung-ho on Vietnam, supporting the administration, never asking questions, etc. Rorschach was a moral or social conservative, but didn’t translate that into politics; he just thought certain acts and mindsets were vile. Plus, of course, the whole “World is Coming to an End” signboard schtick.

Really, Ozymandias was the only politically-minded character, hence schwa’s discomfort above. But overall the comic doesn’t come out in favor of any political viewpoint—it’s more an examination of individual choice in a social world.

By: Kriston

Kriston — Tue, 02 Aug 2005 18:05:35 +0000

The G. Gordon Liddy Web site doesn’t show the radio show schedule or feature any archives, but the writer of the comic claims to have been interviewed yesterday on the air. One way to verify whether it’s a hoax.

I hope everyone notes that once you excise the “ali” (over which the UN is transposed) from “liberality” you get back your “liberty for all.” That’s quite clever.

By: st

st — Tue, 02 Aug 2005 17:51:30 +0000

You can’t imagine he’s vindicated by the ending?
Sure I can – but only in the highly personal way that B. Baugh mentions. Rorshach is, whatever else you say, the only one with the integrity to look at Ozymandias’ plan and say – “No. What you have done is evil.” The rest, even the freaking godlike Dr. Manhattan, just do the math and shrug, accepting the cost/benefit analysis and agreeing to keep their mouths shut. I may be wrong, but this is meant to demonstrate something powerful (and, in its way, honorable) in his character. Rorshach’s subsequent death (and his unmasked howl of “Do it!”) is classically tragic for that reason. At least I found it so.

Jeez, I’m a geek.

Back on topic, I bet a million billion dollars that the secret hideout of the conservative resistance is in the Statue of Liberty.

By: Bruce Baugh

Bruce Baugh — Tue, 02 Aug 2005 16:04:16 +0000

Moore has said in interviews that Rorschach was supposed to be a straight-forward nut job who acquired some virtues very much to Moore’s own surprise. But his personal courage and dedication and peculiarly focused honor don’t excuse his faults or make him admirable, at least not as far as Moore is concerned. They simply show that it’s hard to be all bad and that virtue can turn up in the most surprising places.

And yes, Moore is very much in the left-wing anarchist tradition. He’s skeptical of power in every form beyond the personal. For him, the good is always individual and local. (He also had a very funny line in explaining why he’d never go to Hollywood, and it largely came down to preferring to be where he is. “I’m really a very at-home sort. For me, the other end of the living room is a strange land where they do some things differently.”)

By: Tim

Tim — Tue, 02 Aug 2005 15:53:28 +0000

Victimhood gives you the moral excuse to do horrible violent (or, in Victorian pornography, sexually depraved) things that some deep dark part of you wants to do. And, of course, those things (sexy or violent) are what sell books.

By: washerdreyer

washerdreyer — Tue, 02 Aug 2005 15:44:53 +0000

How does this “Watchmen is very conservative” theory deal with Rorschach being a conservative (I’m tempted to say Buchananite) nut-job? You can’t imagine he’s vindicated by the ending?