Neo, Retro Style
Wow, the blogwars that have been going on in the blogosphere! Word is that the Daily Kos and Eschaton (leftist blogs) sent their readers to flood Powerline blog (right-wing) with hate mail and such. Let's investigate...
According to Powerline, it started when Daily Kos and Eschaton sent malicious visitors their way. After many hateful e-mails and even telephone calls, Hindrocket snapped. He sent some e-mails which apparently were... unhappy? A bit of bad language and some insults flew to a couple of hate-mailers, and they posted the responses on their blogs.
Unfortunately, one of the e-mails that Hindrocket responded to was not too offensive (though it was a bit shortsighted and made a big deal out of "Enquirer" fodder), and the sender of the e-mail received an angry reply. He posted Hindrocket's response on his blog (warning: language, and links on that page may lead to offensive material; I don't trust it), and suddenly Hindrocket doesn't look so good.
It ended with Hindrocket apologizing, and the blogosphere's back to semi-normality. So here's my take on it:
Kos and Eschaton should know better. So should Hindrocket. Once it got to the point that they were receiving hateful phone calls, it was obviously out of hand. Hindrocket, you shouldn't have snapped like that; Kos and Eschaton, keep your minions in line, and don't criticize someone for using the same tactics you use.
Is this how the liberals wage their culture war? Find someone and make them mad? Let's also not forget the Democratic rallies where people get arrested for vandalizing property and getting out of control. One can always point to the public socialist indoctrination camps (read: schools) which the libs use as a more covert form of culture warfare as well, or they can point to Michael Moore and Kitty Kelly, the less-than-covert liars whom the Democrats embrace.
Here lies a very important difference between Conservatives and Liberals here. When a Conservative gets unruly or lies, the overwhelming majority of Conservatives distance themselves from him, and he often apologizes (Trent Lott, Newt Gingrich, and Hindrocket). When a Liberal gets unruly or lies, however, his actions are defended rabidly by the American Left (Farenheit 9-11, GOP Convention protests, and Kitty Kelly).
This is why so many people are turned off by the Democratic party. "The more extremist, the better," believes the DNC. Instead of distancing themselves from the comments of Dems who have gone off the deep end, the DNC enthusiastically jumps right in after them. Instead of staying mainstream, the Dems follow the fringe folks, and then call their new position "mainstream" (much to the dismay of mainstream America). Can this kind of deception be justified by excuse other than insanity or stupidity?
The recent blogwar was just a very small front in the ongoing culture war, but it highlights the absurdity of the Liberals' tactics. No, Hindrocket was not right for what he said; I can't justify it. I can, however, say that the senders of the hate mail were also out of line. Their misbehavior provoked Hindrocket's misbehavior, as is the case in so many cultural conflicts. And yet, the bottom line remains:
Conservatives: Watch what you say and practice what you preach.
Liberals: For Pete's sake, play by the rules. And a little less whining would be nice...
posted by jacob.thrasher @ 2/21/2005 09:21:00 PM
12 comments
12 Comments:COMMENT POLICY
Please refrain from the use of foul language. Any failure to comply will result in comment deletion.
Actually, I suspect this is more online drama than it is a "cultural war". With the unlimited ability to be anonymous online, many people who are normally moderately civilized go psycho. This is partly because they know they can get away with it, but also because all they see is words, no body language or facial expression. Some people are not very good at being civlized if they can't see the person standing in front of them.
This is an incredibly common syndrome of the online world. Which I think proves Max's point about being "rooted".
(Check that out here:
http://maxgoss.worldmagblog.com/maxgoss/archives/012741.html)
Interesting...
I dunno what this blogwar you're talking about is. But, I'll still stick an oar in.
I hate to break your bubble, but there's a hell of a lot more conservative liars than Trent Lott and Newt Gingrich. Say, the entire Warhawk faction? WMD WMD WMD WMD.
It seems like the "Conservative side"(there is no such thing, there's a billion viewpoints on everything. I suspect the Gay Republicans have rather different views than the Christian coalition) embraces one fact: "If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth"
WMD WMD WMD. WMD WMD WMD. WMD WMD WMD.
Sum total of WMDs found in Iraq by the UN and the US: NIL.
I don't defend the factual errors in 9-11, if there are any(I'm not actually sure, as no-one's pointed them out to me. just said there are). But people who get worked up about those errors aren't seeing the forest for the trees. Bush lied.
Which lie is worse?:
"AH DID NOT HAVE SEX WITH THAT WOMAN"
or
"SADDAM HAS WMDS. WMD WMD WMD."
Shannon,
I'm not familiar with the law, as it pertains to your right to post versus his right to privacy. I am, however, somewhat familiar with the informal rules governing social interactions and the potential repercussions/blacklash that can result from speaking negatively about an individual. Just as it is never productive to talk badly about someone in casual conversation, so it is never productive to post something negative in written format about an individual. The quasi-anonymity you gave it by not posting his last name was not enough to keep him from recognizing himself. Most likely, others who know you both are privy to his identity, as well. Search your heart for your motivation in posting about him, and I'll bet you will find that your impetus is negative.
The feeling of revenge may be momentarily sweet, but the lingering taste of the strife invoked is always bitter.
Blessed are the peacemakers.
Dave
Oh, I almost forgot.
I, for one, consider Australia to be among the staunchest of our international allies.
Dave
Actually, rumpelteazer, we're virtually the 51st state up here. Little Johnny does his best to Dubya Jr. Jr. We're in Iraq, and Australia has fought in every major war that the US has been in since WWI(often enough getting there before you. Why did it take the US until 1941 to realize that the Nazis were bad guys? Criticize the French? They were defeated because you didn't help them.)
Australia has stood by America's side right or wrong. Sometimes I wish we wouldn't.
LoneAmigo... Get a grip on reality, amigo. Please go back to the actual transcripts of Bush's speeches and policy points before the war in Iraq began. There were credible reports that Iraq had WMD, but that was not the lynchpin of the decision to go to war. Once again, I implore you to go back and READ THE FREAKING TRANSCRIPTS. I would also suggest reading Bob Woodward's book Plan of Attack. In it you'll find that the Bush administration was not perfect (as no one in this world is) in its assesments. However, you will find that the administration was not deceptive, but quite alarmed about the signals and intentions coming out of Baghdad. They were actually scared spitless that Saddam would reconstitute his WMD programs and make a pass to the wacko Islamofascists. Note that the yellow-cake intelligence -- FROM GREAT FREAKING BRITAIN -- indicated an interest in reconstituting Iraq's nuclear program; not that it actually had a bomb or was even that close to it.
As a side note, and in case you're wondering whether or not Bob Woodward can be trusted, or if he's just a conservative partisan hack, he's a well-respected (and probably left-leaning) journalist at the Washington Post. He also broke the Watergate story back in the early '70s. Most people know this, LoneAmigo, but you seem a bit weak on your history, so I thought I'd give you a quick refresher...
Furthermore, Iraq was the only nation among the three indicated as America's most dangerous enemies that the U.S. actually had the legal right to attack. I hope I don't need to list the litany of UN resolution violations, in addition to its now well-documented fleecing of the UN's Oil for Food program, etc., etc. ad nauseaum. The hilarious thing that happened is that after we attacked Iraq all the liberal woosies came out of the woodwork and started acting tough... "Yeah, but what about North Korea? North Korea's a bigger threat 'cause they probably have the bomb!" Oh. I see. So if we had attacked North Korea or Iran y'all wouldn't have been upset about that? BS, amigos. You just don't like the fact that America is going to stand up for its principles and quit playing the Realpolitik nonsense that Europe does (the same appeasement crap that kicked their butts 60 years ago, I might add). It's about time someone in the world quit yelling, "Stop! Or I'll say STOP again!" and actually did something.
I would also suggest, LoneAmigo, that you go back in time, before 9/11, and research the stated policy of the Clinton administration, which was... REGIME CHANGE! The previous administration was also convinced that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. However, instead of doing anything that would actually change the situation, the administration lobbed missiles here and there.
The positive outcomes of the war in Iraq are too numerous to mention, but its potential to cause a Democratic Dominoe effect in the Middle East could be its greatest legacy. I don't know about you, but I care that my fellow man lives in a democracy with a better chance at life and liberty, rather than in the confines of a bassackwards, despotic regime that keeps its people mired in poverty and ignorance (think Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.). Plus, it has the added benefit of making America more secure.
Your opinions, LoneAmigo, will end up on the ash heap of history, along with the whining, do-nothing whimpering of the likes of Neville Chamberlain and Tip O'Neil. Oh, that's right. You don't know much about history (what about biology?). Tip was the Speaker of the House when Reagan was president, leading an opposition that hated Reagan's stand against communism. They painted it as arrogant and cowboyish. But you know what? The wall fell. In case you're wondering, I'm referring to the Berlin Wall that separated the communist East side of Berlin from the free West. You might want to read up on that too. Dang. Do I have to go back to the fall of the Roman Empire, and catch you up to date on everything that's transpired since then amigo?
Always have liked the attitude of the Aussies, in general. One of the main reasons Aussies have stood beside us yanks is because, even though they fought valiently, if it wasn't for US forces in the South Pacific, Hirohito would have annexed their homeland. They had plenty of spirit, and lots of moxie, but simply lacked the resources and manpower to overcome the Japanese.
Many down under remember this, and are grateful.
As far as the French go, if it wasn't for our assistance, they would probably ba speaking German right now. The French people, (in general, not all, of course), seem a little too proud to aknowledge this.
Hah. The Japanese wouldn't have got past Darwin. Coupla days in the outback without knowing your war around, you're screwed.
But yes, without the Americans, Australia would probably have fallen. After a long struggle: "The Russians have winter, the Australian have summer." For a while. Depending on happened in Europe. Thanks, guys. But I'm not grateful to George Bush. The US that saved Australia wasn't the US of today.
As for the French, remember a little thing called the "American Revolutionary War"? Or the War of 1812?
"The Americans are only interested in being friends when the British are burning Washington"
The French in WW2 were let down by poor leadership and bad planning. If they'd been able to actually get their troops out of the Maginot line, they'd have probably been in Berlin by 1941. The French fell before the Americans even got involved.
Oh boy...will people ever learn the difference between an honest mistake and intentional deceit? Anyways, great post Neo! I am seeking help to a question that I had applied to myself, but after reading this post I think it applies to you as well. Check it out: http://tinyurl.com/6gbku
(I made a TinyURL so it would fit in the space provided.)
I am still waiting for one of these conservatives, who never saw Moore’s movie, to show me where he lied. The way you guys talked I was expecting this movie to be a guy on a soapbox making stuff up. However, when I saw the movie I realized that wasn't the case. Please show me where he actually lied about something.
You also said conservatives distance themselves from the guys who get unruly and lie, well I didn't see them distancing themselves from Bush when he lied about WMD, even after receiving 3 reports from US sources saying there weren't any.
However, I do recall many Democrats distancing themselves from Howard Dean in the primaries.
You also said the Dems have a "more extremist the better policy"; again I would have to disagree and point you to Alan Keyes, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and George Bush, all extremist conservative Bible thumping Republicans.
Just because the brainwashed American mainstream is turning into vacation Bible school, doesn't mean that the people on the outside of that thinking are "on the fringe". In fact, it's just the opposite; the mainstream is now what was the fringe and the crazy fundamentalist. All you have to do is look at Iran and Saudi Arabia to know how well that works.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home