Slashdot Mirror


Dilbert Readers Rat Out Some Weasels

colinmc151 writes "Well, Dilbert's Way of the Weasel Poll Results are in, with 35,874 people voting. Weaseliest Organization was won by the Recording Industry Association of America. Weaseliest Company was won by Microsoft. The Weaseliest Individual award was won by George W. Bush. Weaseliest Profession went to Politicians. Weaseliest Country went to France. Weaseliest Behavior was 'Blaming fast food restaurants for making you fat.' Congratulations to all the deserving winners."

33 of 1,137 comments (clear)

  1. but France was right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful


    they knew the war was a fake and they stuck to their stance while UK/USA continue to evade and dodge the truth

    id say France was far from being the weasalist country, but making it the USA or UK would be un-patriotic right ?

    1. Re:but France was right by hughk · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The reasons I heard were:

      Saddam supported Osama bin Laden

      Total nonsense. Before GW2, Saddam and Osmama hated each other about as much as the americans. Maybe there is cooperation now, but definitely not before the war (they were from rival Islamic sects).

      WMD

      What about the weapons of mass destruction?

      Oh, after that they started saying that he wasn't a nice chap (true), but that didn't stop Rummy from doing business with him in the past. Can you blame people for remind Bush and Blair about the reasons they quoted for going to war?

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    2. Re: but France was right by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Interesting


      > The US went to war for many reasons. Go back and read some of the very early speaches on Iraq. What happened was the media picked up on WMD because it was a buzz word and a new one that hadn't grown stale yet. So the result of all this was whenever the president or someone spoke of the othe reasons, the press did the media equivilent of "Yes yes, but what about the WMDs?"

      Those early speeches are what convinced some of us that the war was an evil venture in the first place. The Bush Administration never made a case for the war. They went to the US Congress and tried to shame them into supporting it by saying that the UN would if they didn't. Then they went to the UN and tried to shame them into it by saying the US would if they didn't. They went to the UN to "make the case" and got laughed at. Basically all they ever did was say whatever they thought would push the best buttons in the current context. And whenever anyone actually called them out on it and said, "you didn't make the case", they would reply "we'll make the case when the time is right".

      And though much has been made of the fact that all the alarmism has turned out to be false, it was abundantly clear that the alarmism wasn't well supported even before the shooting started. If you got your news anywhere other than FAUX, you heard over an over again "The Bush Administration said today 'xyz'", followed by "our contacts in the intelligence community say that the evidence for 'xyz' is not reliable".

      And just a couple of weeks ago, even after the White House had formally acknowledged that there were no terrorist connections with the Hussein regime, Mr. Bush still couldn't resist trying to push that button in his speech to the UN.

      > What happened was the media picked up on WMD because it was a buzz word and a new one that hadn't grown stale yet. So the result of all this was whenever the president or someone spoke of the othe reasons, the press did the media equivilent of "Yes yes, but what about the WMDs?"

      That is historical revisionism, pure and simple. While the Bush Administration was all over the map trying to find buttons to push, WMD and (the also non-existent) ties to al-Q were the boogeymen that they invoked most often to marshal public support in the USA. We were terrified with WMD before, during, and after the war. Hardly a day went by without the 'discovery' of a lab, factory, or cache, that had to be retracted a week later. The Administration made a big issue of the capture of a stash of chemical warfare suits... and then the news would cut to a scene of US soldiers training on the use of similar suits. The spin control was absolutely sickening.

      And they haven't given it up yet; they tried like hell to spin the recent inspection report as a 'win' for the anti-WMD motivation - never mind the fact that the report was mostly empty spin to begin with.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    3. Re:but France was right by glesga_kiss · · Score: 3, Insightful
      id say France was far from being the weasalist country, but making it the USA or UK would be un-patriotic right ?

      Why do you hate America?

      Actually, it sounds to me like he loves America, or what it used to stand for. You know, the days when democracy was still around, and it was understood that free speach, differing opinions and even unpopular speach were essential to democracy.

      Now it's all heil to the chief. Heil Bush!!

      The villification of France in the leadup to this "war" (armed robbery more like) had to be one of the scariest changes in the modern US. It's like you've thrown everything the founding fathers put together all away in a wash of deliberately misdirected patriotism.

    4. Re:but France was right by BugMaster+ChuckyD · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Are you serious? Its "The Media's" fault for emphasising the WMD issue. Sorry but it was the Bush Administration who emphasised WMDs time and time again. As it turns out they didn't know what they were talking about.

      Now its true that "The Media" just took what ever Bush said at face value and never questioned any of his claims, but this tired old media bashing just won't protect Bush from responisbility for this gargantuan fuck up.

  2. Headline from the Zoo: by Eberlin · · Score: 5, Funny

    Weasels in local zoos began protesting after slanderous survey compared them to the likes of Microsoft, GW-Bush, and the RIAA.

    One outraged animal was quoted as saying "enough's enough, man! We've been portrayed negatively throughout history but this is pretty low."

  3. Contradictory by phorm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Indeed, how can they label Bush as a known weasel, thus indicating his "war on terrorism" is at least in great part a sham, and still bash the french?

    I'm assuming that it's a statement apart from current war-related issues, since the french were often bashed before anyhow.

    1. Re:Contradictory by cperciva · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, the USA came in close second on the "weasely countries" list; I imagine that Jacques Chirac would have garnered more votes if many Americans had been able to recognize his name.

    2. Re:Contradictory by jpu8086 · · Score: 3, Funny

      California doesn't have a direct democracy. No form of state gov't follows a direct democracy in the United States. We are republic. Both at the federal level and state level. So it's not entirely that bad.

      However, the recall was direct. And, that truly is sad.

      --
      now supporting:
      cmdrTaco for president '04
      michael for oval office intern summer '05
    3. Re:Contradictory by xutopia · · Score: 3, Insightful
      "Namely, they (the French)have strong trade links with Iraq". Who didn't? Certainly not the US! I'll recall that outside of the US we have seen video recordings of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein before sitting down to discuss "business".

      Is this compromising for the US? NO! Why should it be for the French?

    4. Re:Contradictory by Skye16 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, according to what I could find on Google (on an admittedly non-intensive search), Bush asked for 399 billion for 2004's federal budget. If you are right (and I have no reason to doubt you) and our budget is currently nearing 2.2 trillion dollars, we're still looking at spending almost 1/4 of our budget on new bombs, planes and all sorts of neato stuff (which probably have no chance of helping us during a terrorist attack, which is the sore point - at least to me). And all of this isn't even counting the cost of the war in Iraq.

      I'm not really trying to say anyone is right or wrong, here. If I knew "the answer", I wouldn't be wasting my time posting on Slashdot - I'd be trying to fix it. But the truth is, I don't know and neither does anyone else, for that matter. But it does strike me as odd that we're currently "at war" against "terrorism" (and who knows what that even means anymore? It seems to be changed to fit anything we don't like anymore...) and we're spending next-to-nothing on defending ourselves. Everyone claims that "this isn't like a normal war" - and I agree - but if that's so, why are we trying to fight it as if it were one? I don't think a new and improved bunker buster is going to kill fanatical ideas anymore than I think I have a chance of becoming president someday.

      Source of my Defense Budget Figure: http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0203/020303cd2.htm

  4. Re:List looks about right to me. by Sevn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well lets see, if 35,000 internet users isn't significant, then I guess the 921 likely voters with the Zogby International America Poll that gave him a 49 percent approval rating, or the 900 registered voters in the Fox poll that gave him a 52 percent approval rating, or the 1000 people in the ABC News and Washington Post polls that gave him a 53 percent approval rating matter even less? Funny you should pick the Fox numbers. That's very telling. Feel stupid yet?

    --
    For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
  5. Re:Weasliest? by spoco2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Or... considering it's a HUMOUR(yes, that's how we spell it in Australia) site... maybe it's just a bit of FUN?

    Geeze, calm down.

  6. Missing Option by DaveAtFraud · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I e-mailed Scott with a late nomination of SCO as the weaseliest company and Darl McBride as thw weaseliest induhvidual but apparently nominations were closed for this year.

    Oh well, there's always next year. And at the rate the various cases are dragging out, the year after that, and the year after that, ...

    --
    They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
    Ben
  7. Re:BITCHES.. ALL OF THEM by akedia · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well you can either get a handgun and murder them mid-coitus or you can take pictures and post them here.

    No, wait, do both!

  8. Re:fattest nation on earth is USA by Motherfucking+Shit · · Score: 5, Insightful
    but OH NO fast food has NOTHING to do with it, right ?
    Nobody's saying that fast food has nothing to do with it.

    If I get a Bacon Double Whopper with king-sized fries for lunch every day, I KNOW I'm going to get fat. It's not Burger King's fault, for god's sake. If I go to the bar and order 5 shots of tequila, I KNOW I'm going to get drunk. When I miss work the following day from being hung over, should the bar be held liable?

    Fast food isn't healthy. I knew this when I was, like, 10 years old. How is it that some guy in his 30's just wakes up one day after a lifetime of Big Macs and decides "gee, it must be that evil McDonalds conspiracy to make me gain weight..." Fast food restaurants are in business to do one thing, and that's sell food. If you come inside with money, they're going to give you some food in return. How is this wrong?

    I guess I must have missed the fraudulent ad campaigns that White Castle put out about "eat our burgers 3 times a day and you'll look like Kate Moss." [Subway and Jared are getting borderline here, but it's supposedly a true story, and I imagine they'd have been whacked by the FTC if it weren't. I also imagine that Jared did a shitload of exercising that they neglect to mention in their commercials. Whatever; the guy didn't sue Subway.]

    People need to take some fucking responsibility for their own actions and their own meals.

    500 Internal Server Error.
    --
    "BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
  9. The GOP Vote Was Split by Farley+Mullet · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Another respondant noted that if you add Fox News and the Republicans together, you'd end up in the #3 spot. However, if you add the votes for the Republican-controlled White House and Congress together with the votes for the GOP, you get an astounding 11190 votes, fully 3240 more votes than the RIAA.

  10. Re:ACLU is Weasly? by craw · · Score: 4, Informative

    Um, the ACLU does have an agenda, the protection of individual rights and liberties granted to Americans by the Constitution. These are not conservative nor liberal protection or a political agenda. They are just Constitution rights.

    The ACLU does not care if you are gay, black, white, poor, rich, or a member of the KKK (remember Skokie, IL?). All Americans are equally protected by the Constitution

  11. Re:France by Manko · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yup, that anit-French propaganda works a treat there in the States, don't it? Luckily the rest of us in the free world can still form an opinion...

  12. Re:Wow by DoraLives · · Score: 4, Funny
    Holy cow! You're not even there yet and you're already laying a weasly defensive strategy.

    You've got the slime all over you so I'm guessing you'll go far in your intended career.

    --
    Is it fascism yet?
  13. Re:I can't say I am surprised.... by merdark · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Except that when people are forced (yes, like you have a choice) to work 40+ hours a week they likely become tons less effecient and the added stress gives all sorts of health problems.

    Of course, I guess in the US no one can afford health care, so the health problems probably dont' affect your economy at all. At any rate, I'd sooner live free in france then as a slave to the US government and corporations. Hell, if I had a choice, I'd even learn french!

  14. Re:ACLU is Weasly? by rco3 · · Score: 4, Funny

    For a while, I've really been concerned about the falling quality of trolls here on Slashdot. Then along comes [parent], and restores my faith in trolldom.

    See, kiddies, this is how you troll. Keen. Subtle. I'm especially fond of the way that the AC doesn't explicitly call Fox News unbiased, unclouded - but he implies the hell out of it. He shows you the troll, but doesn't let you touch it. Kinda like MJ in his prime.

    To frost this cake, he throws in a couple of mild insults in. Not weak enough to ignore, but he's not abusing the 7 famous wordy-dirds. It bypasses your builtin four-letter discrimination routines and actually feels like he might mean it! You can't ignore it! He means it! Meanwhile, you're so browned off you slide right past the logical flaws and attack the red cape. Ole!

    He waves the red cape some more; you lumber around chasing it, eventually tire, and it's over. YHBT.

    I salute you, AC. We need more with your skills.

    --

    Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
  15. Re: A theory on catching Bin Laden by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Insightful


    > As for Bin Laden, I'm sure that with the billions of taxpayer dollars we give the Military Industrial Complex each year, we are only days from finding a man in a cave, and another one on the run in Iraq.

    Pardon my cynicism, but I suspect he's not being caught so that the Bush Administration will have a boogeyman to scare domestic audiences with.

    Saddam's probably vacationing in the Bahamas while the US military pretends to look for him.

    (Sigh.... Before Bush got appointed I used to laugh at conspiracy theorists.)

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  16. Re:France by Doomdark · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Hear, hear. Even if one disagrees with France's assesment of threat, it's weird that values that are so dear to most americans (integrity, standing up to what one believe's, not being pushed by bullies) are suddenly repulsive, when displayed by other nations. :-/

    Somehow it was always implied that there must be some other filthy reason for them not to be gung-ho about letting the super power go vigilante, than their general aversion to war.

    And on the other hand, few european leaders that openly supported US attack, such as Silvio Berlusconi, were portrayed as pretty much saints... ironic, considering that:

    • Berlusconi has long been claimed/suspected as being corrupt (although investigated, he hasn't been convicted), even using Italy's political standards.
    • Italy in general was (and is) very vocal against death penalty, and considers US practice barbaric... which used to strain countries' relationship prior to war.
    But I guess those leaders just knew how to play the game, and count on short memory (and lack of interest?) of US politicians, to gain some brownie points. I mean, they didn't really send much any soldiers, or do funding; words are cheap.
    --
    I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
  17. Weasel's format by Tomorrowist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What struck me is how the options could help determine the winner. Take the top selections for weaseliest individual, for example. GW Bush won handily over Moore, Arafat, and Chirac.

    One could make three separate comparisons. 55% of the people may find Bush more of a weasel than Moore. 47% may find Bush more of a weasel than Arafat. 50% may find Bush more of a weasel than Chirac. In general, it would be the same people calling President Bush the bigger weasel in each of those comparisons; to over generalize, we can call such people liberals. Similarly, people-we-could-overgeneralize-and-call-conservati ves would always tend to defend President Bush.

    Because there is only one big name 'conservative' (Bush) drawing all the 'liberal' votes and three big name 'liberals' (Moore, Arafat, and Chirac) drawing the 'conservative' votes, the outcome is preordained: President Bush is called the biggest weasel. Or, the bigger lesson could be that 'liberals' are more focused in their accusations of weaselality.

    Granted, I've made some generalizations here. And this is a fun poll, not a national election. But my point remains. I can't get the expression 'lies, damned lies, and statistics' out of my head.

    --
    Trolling for karma since 2003.
  18. Re:France by descubes · · Score: 4, Informative

    France stood up to the Nazis when Poland was invaded.

    The precise time table is:
    Sep 1, 1939: Poland invasion
    Sep 3, 1939: France declares war to protect its ally
    Sep 5, 1939: US proclaim neutrality in the conflict

    It's not until the US were attacked themselves that they came to the rescue. Who was the weasel?

    See this page for more info.

    --
    -- Did you try Tao3D? http://tao3d.sourceforge.net
  19. ACLU supports Exercise of Religion by lostnihilist · · Score: 3, Informative

    agreed. Probably the most controversial (controversial insofar as it perpetrates the myth that the ACLU is 'Weasly') point brought up is that the ACLU doesn't protect the free exercise of religion. Luckily, it is also the easiest to disspell.

    1) Freedom of Religion Bill supported by the ACLU to protect the exercise of religion by individuals.
    2) ACLU helps Falwell in VA I'm sure you'll never hear about that on FOX news or Christian press. The ACLU helped the Rev. establish a church with all the rights of normal corporations, ending that form or religious discrimination.
    3) The infamous veiled photo for driver's license case The most pressed argument is of course national security. But as is easily seen if anyone bothers to RTFA, 800,000 ID's have been given without a photo, so why worry about this one with an 'incomplete' photo.
    4) The ACLU's efforts to keep government influence out of churches and in the hands of the peoples of the respective faiths
    5) Keeping religious discrimination out of Head start

    I found this in 30 seconds of searching. This doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of cases where individual's religious preferences have been protected by the ACLU. If you were to go to each state's press archives, you'd find dozens of cases where the ACLU has helped to force schools to allow students to pray. The confusion comes in because most people (and apparently alot of people on Slashdot and school administrators) are entirely incapable of distinguishing between a state actor and an individual actor. When you've learned 4th grade civics, maybe you can speech more intelligibly about civic issues.

  20. Wow! by EverDense · · Score: 3, Funny

    That's the first poll Dubya's ever won.

    --
    http://jesus.everdense.com/
  21. I'm sick of those bashing the French! by xutopia · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Whenever someone bashes the French for being arrogant I wonder who's the real culprit.

    I guess most Americans only ever saw the video of Jacques Chirac shaking hands with Saddam Hussein and never the one of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with the Iraqi leader.

    The French like the Americans have been in bed with Saddam Hussein at some point in time. If the French are weasels because of that, what does that make Americans? Iraq is an important country geopolitically and if any country didn't at one point have ties with it they'd be stupid not to!

    The French don't owe the US for freeing them from Nazis just like the US doesn't owe the French for their helping hand during the civil war.

    I don't understand why Americans enjoy bashing the French so much! Do you feel threathened by something they have and you don't? 5 weeks of paid vacation perhaps?

    1. Re:I'm sick of those bashing the French! by misterpies · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Paltry help? France declaring war on England prevented England from throwing all its resources into the war. Without the French navy's victory in the Chesapeake, Cornwallis would have been safe and cosy in Yorktown and would have never surrendered. Given that the population of the 13 colonies were more or less evenly split between revolutionaries and loyalists, for all we know the USA would just be part of southern Canada, with low crime and free healthcare for all. Hmmm, you're right. The Americans really should hate the French.

      But the real answer to any arguments about the French (or other Europeans) "owing" the US for WWII is this: the war finished almost 60 years ago. Yes, as a European I am grateful to your grandfathers and great-grandfathers for their help. But this is not a debt that is passed down the generations. If YOU want my gratitude, then YOU do something to deserve it.

      --
      The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
  22. Jared's story is true by thaddjuice · · Score: 3, Informative

    The whole thing about Jared losing all that weight eating Subway is true. I subscribe to Men's Health magazine and every month they have a feature where people write in and tell how they lost weight. Then the editors analyze the program, what's good and bad about it, and tell you how it can work for you.

    Anyway, a few years ago, Jared wrote something in a college newspaper and it got sent in to MH to tell his story. He said he liked the low fat sandwiches and so he ate them for lunch and dinner every day for a year. He didn't exercise much except for walking regularly.

    Long story short, he lost a bunch of weight, someone at Subway read the article and their PR department picked up on it and now he's famous. There's a history thingy here

    --
    Find me in ~/.sig
  23. Dilbert is a BSA spokesperson by qwertyatwork · · Score: 5, Informative

    Stop reading dilbert, he is a spokesperson for the B.S.A. bsa another site

  24. Re:Iraq money can't be a loan! by Skye16 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I question the morality of making someone pay for something they didn't expressly ~ask~ for. Everyone says "hey, we shouldn't have to pay for reconstruction" but the truth is, an overwhelming amount of damage was directly caused by our actions. If it isn't our responsibility, whose is it, then?

    I always assumed this was part of the "debate" for war; ie - who pays for it? And I also assumed that, if the overwhelming majority of Americans agreed to go to war, they also agreed to foot the bill for it.

    Assuming tends to be a major pain in the ass, doesn't it?