| Times Online | 0 | |
| Fox Boston | 0 | |
| Merc. News | 0 | |
| Big Govt | Obama’s Shock Troops: SEIU and Political Intimidation in St. Louis |
0 |
| NYT | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Whiner-in-Chief:
"[W]hether the grumbling is about Republicans on Fox or bloggers in pajamas, there's a word for what the president and his aides are doing. That word is "whining." And nothing [...] does more damage to Obama's credibility or authority than the sense that a popular president is becoming the whiner-in-chief."
- John Nichols, Nation Magazine - 10/12/09
Tuesday open thread, and more on Senator Larry Craig
When you spend as much time on the computer as I do, between the 8-5 and blogging, it begins to take its toll on your eyes, and mine are really bothering me today. I’m getting ready to head home and give my eyes a rest (read: sleep), so feel free to use this thread to post on the hot topics of the day until I return later this evening.
Also, a HUGE word of thanks is in order to the readers to this blog, as today saw the ol’ Sitemeter tick past the 900,000 mark. Looks like I may hit a cool mil this year after all – in blog visits, that is 
The big story continues to be disgraced Senator Larry Craig, and what the future holds for him in light of his arrest for lewd conduct at an airport back in June. Hugh Hewitt is calling for Craig’s immediate resignation.
What do you think?
Update: I’d be remiss if I didn’t link to this piece from the Lord of the Lies Glenn Greenwald, trying to spin my opinion on Larry Craig as a “then versus now” type of opinion, as if to suggest there’s something hypocritical in what I said then versus now, which is interesting, considering in my post last night on Larry Craig I linked back up to that very same piece I wrote on Craig back in October, which doesn’t contain a trace of hypocrisy except in the minds of selective fact quoters such as Rick Ellensburg (aka Glenn Greenwald) himself. Why would I link back to something I had written nearly a year ago if I felt it was in any way hypocritical? I still think Mike Rogers is a disgusting individual and just because it’s been confirmed that Larry Craig is gay doesn’t change that fact. I also addressed the “gay” issue in that post, as well as my most recent one. I encourage anyone who is interested in the facts to read – or re-read that post, and not take the left’s favorite sock puppet’s (for the backstory on that, go here) word for anything I’ve written about the issue.
Perhaps this is an attempt at revenge for the blog equivalent of a smackdown I laid on him last week. Or maybe his definition of ‘hypocrisy’ is miles away from most people’s. Wouldn’t be surprising, since Salon’s blogger of perpetual outrage has developed quite a knack for redefining terms to suit his arguments, as Jason Steck noted here (check the comments to that post, as well, for more) last week. Nice try, Glenn, but you lose. Again.
PM Update: I’m well-rested and ready to resume blogging. Getting ready to eat some dinner, and I shall return shortly thereafter.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
3 Responses to “Tuesday open thread, and more on Senator Larry Craig”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
Glenn Greenwald is a pathetic individual, but even more pathetic are the libs that use the sock puppeteer as a true fact source.
Im posted this at the Gazzette ST, as it is my 2 cents.
Mr. Greenwald, et. al.
In the interest of full disclosure I am a moderate that posts on occasion at Sister Toldjah’s blog, and I frequent others. I pride myself in being a pain to both political affiliations. While I admittedly lean to the conservative side (for logical reasons) I am a considered to be a socially moderate to left.
It would seem to me the failing here by most regarding the topic is to objectively examine what was said.
So, the accusation is of an ad hominem attack was made by Mr. Greenwald on this passage:
“Just the other day, warmonger Michael Rubin of AEI…”
The definitions of “ad hominem”, as provided by Sister Toldjah in post 15 is from a reliable source, so it is satisfactory.
Next, we must examine the deinition of “warmonger”. Per dictionary.com, there are several definitions:
1: a person who advocates, endorses, or tries to precipitate war.
2: One who advocates or attempts to stir up war.
3: a person who advocates war or warlike policies
4: a person who advocates war or warlike policies
If by using the utmost lenient definition, a warmonger could be viewed as anyone who isn’t a strict pacifist, as they would be “endorsing war”. As an example, anyone who would believe World War II of the American Revolutionary war was justified would be considered a warmonger in the strictest sense.
This is not acceptable as it is not only impracticable, as there are by a wide degree of consensus “justifiable war”. Unless Mr Greenwald is a pacifist (which is indeed a possibility) I would have to conclude this was not his intended use of the moniker.
Let me propose that Mr. Greenwald’s implication was that Mr. rubin, as a matter of policy, advocates war. this was generalized in post 3:
“(a) characterizing someone based on the arguments being criticized (i..e, “he is an extremist warmonger because the positions I’m criticizing are examples of extremist warmongering”)”
This would place the burden of proof on Mr. Greenwald’s to prove the accusation that Mr. Rubin is a warmonger.
So, I did some research on Mr. Rubin. I encountered a July 2007 article called “Don’t Blink, Don’t Back Down”. In it, Mr. Rubin states:
“Rather than fund outside groups, Washington should invest in a template for change. No one knew ahead of time the Chinese student who stopped a line of tanks; the important thing was he had the space to emerge. U.S. policy should create such space. Independent labor would make the regime more accountable to its people. Unions could force the regime to invest in schools, not centrifuges. Independent media and communications could let a real civil society to emerge. This takes money. Those denouncing U.S. funding are not the imprisoned student and labor activists, but reformists loyal to theocracy, and gullible pundits. Tehran’s crackdown on dissent predates U.S. support for civil society. And the Iranian overreaction shows both its vulnerability and the efficacy of U.S. pressure.”
Mr. Rubin seems to advocate a policy of internal change in Iran via promoting internal political pressure.
My conclusion is that Mr. Rubin does NOT warrant the label”warmonger”,.
More over I would submit that Mr. Greenwald did not do his proper research regarding Mr. Rubin before making his accusation, and thus it was an ad hominem attack or at the very least, unsubstantiated.
The more important point here folks is regarding the strident language that is used by both side of these issues, as Mr. Greenwald seemed to use in this case. Not many folks that support the Iraqi War are “warmongers” no more than those that do not are “progressive communist”.
I would submit to everyone involved that individuals who support War in Iraq is not to be haphazardly labeled “warmonger”. War is an aberrant manifestation upon the facade of the virtues of mankind.
Good points, Ted, but unfortunately that won’t compute in the mind of Mr. Know It All who, if he sees that comment, will deem you as a blogger without any credibility – which is what he typically does to bloggers he can’t refute honestly.