Saturday, July 09, 2005

Sister Blog Wuss Out?

Just what is going on over at The11thHour?

Dave at The11thHour had "enrolled" in a evil-sister-blog relationship with a right leaning group of pundits at fileitunder.

But that relationship appears to have been terminated - or at least suspended.

Dave's link to the sister blog site no longer appears on The11thhour blogroll.

Dave indicates he was offended by several ad hominem attacks.

Folks, we need to stay focused on the issues, and avoid castigating our opponents.

I also believed that it was a novel idea to have a evil-sister-blog arrangement with those bloggers who, in general, disagree with one's political outlook. So I'm sad to see it end, despite the fact that I warned Dave from the outset :)

I recreated part of the posting, and comments from Dave's site below:

Thursday, July 07, 2005

Lunatic At Fox News Blames France & IOC
The French and the International Olympic Committee apparently are to blame for the London bombings today. Expect more of this insanity from the right. Just to save you the trouble here is a list of others who surely will be fingered for blame:

Bill Clinton (that goes without saying)
Hillary Clinton (ditto)
"Liberals"
The "Liberal" media
The U.N.
The ACLU
Dick Durbin
John Kerry
Anyone who questions George Bush's policies
The Democratic Party
Gays
Flag burners
and, locally, Jim Leach

It's probably my fault too. I should never have scoffed (well, laughed really hard) at the "flypaper" theory that conteds that by invading Iraq and creating a cool place to fight terrorists they will never attack anywhere else. Because obviously it's working quite well as today's news about the London, Iraq bombings demonstrate.

UPDATE: Two points of clarification.

The linked to article was written yesterday before the London attack. That makes it no less insane and accusatory toward the French and IOC for what (yesterday) "might" happen and it makes my point that the blame for such things from the right is always the usual suspects.

Also, the flypaper strategy only emerged AFTER the WMD rationale was no longer tenable. There was no flypaper strategy going in. It was concocted by a bunch of Bush true believers who had no other rationale to hang their war on. To be clear, I don't blame the flypaper nonsense for the London attack just that it, predictably, was no deterrent.

UPDATE JUST TO IRRITATE THE TROLLS:

This:

Bush’s 2005 budget allocation for train security was just $115 million, equal to what the U.S. spends on eight typical hours in Iraq. (The White House spent $15 billion on airline security, “though as many as 16 times more people ride rail lines than airplanes.”)


NOTE ABOUT COMMENTS BELOW:
JeromeProphet's comments are in red. They were added after the fact. I guess that makes me a wuss too.

Comments:

The attacks in London were likely carried out by Moslem extremists living in London. I'm sorry, but the Republicans have nothing to do with Abu Hamza- whose "racial hatred" trial was to begin today.

http://www.forbes.com/finance/feeds/afx/2005/07/05/afx2123926.html

It's funny that rather than comment on the horror of the London attacks- you spin, by trying to pervert the message of a Fox News journalist.

[Dave, you perverter you! Next thing you'll be wanting your own opinion not spoon fed to you by Rupert Murdoch & Karl Rove]

The radical Islamic elements in Britain have been railing against Western society for a long time; long before Iraq, and long before 9/11. Why do you think that is? Maybe because they hate the West? The society that embraces them allows them to foam at the mouth and incite hatred, and THAT Hatred is what led to todays bombings. NOT Iraq. NOT because they're angry about globalization. NOT because George Bush was elected for a 2nd Term.

The radicals perpetrate violence because they are lashing out against a society which they cannot accept or tolerate; for a MULTITUDE of reasons.

[But not the one's you just listed?]

http://www.babnet.net/en_detail.asp?id=1284
"but the Republicans have nothing to do with Abu Hamza- whose "racial hatred" trial was to begin today"

Who said they did? I'm saying just the opposite: Conservatives are blamming "liberals" as they always do.

The first comment was deleted because I will not be called names on my own blog. Start your own blog and call me names there -Asshat.
You cherry picked a guy who you totally disagree with, labled him Conservative, and used him as an example for how "stoopid" Conservatives are to blame someone for attacks that happened after the article was written.

What??? How does that rationale make sense?

You shouldn't be called names on your blog, but you should try to use logic.

Why don't you find a Conservative who wrote an article blaming the French and the IOC for todays attacks? Preferably an article written After the attacks took place.

I won't blame the French for today, but I will blame the Liberal policies which allowed the Islamic fundamentalists to worship at a Mosque that incited violence and racial hatred long before Abu Hamza was arrested. These tendencies to overlook and forgive the rats in our midst have allowed networks of radicals to form- especially in Europe. I bring up Abu Hamza not just because his trial was set to begin today, but also because he was a key mouthpiece in a drive to recruit Jihadis for the purposes of carrying out Bombing attacks... against Jews, against Westerners, against whoEver.

[Liberals overlooked, and forgave the terrorist in their midst? If Liberals have been negligent, what would be the Conservative's solution to the terrorist problem? Oh yes, begin arresting people for speeches they make.]

If Abu Hamza would have been arrested as soon as he preached violence, maybe todays incident wouldn't have happened. Freedom of Speech doesn't extend to those who incite harm against others. Why was Freedom to Incite Violence allowed Abu Hamza for so long? Was it because it is politically incorrect to challenge Moslem Imams in politically sensitive areas of London?
I do have my own blog, Dave. It's called File it Under. And I wasn't calling you an asshat but those that thought 9/11 is some kind of conspiracy theory by our and/or Israel's governments.

Feel free to delete this comment, too since apparently poking holes in your idiotic blame post offends you.

Your knee-jerk post has so many holes in it, I can understand it being picked apart line by line might frustrate you to no end.
The linked to article was written yesterday...

Which totally destroys your own heading for this post. Did you even read the article you linked?

That makes it no less insane and accusatory toward the French and IOC for what (yesterday) "might" happen and it makes my point that the blame for such things from the right is always the usual suspects.

I'd argue that this post lacks a little sanity, Dave. The author accuses the French of being soft on terrorism and letting it fester within France. He'd like to see them have to clean it up or face the risk of an attack at an Olympics in Paris.

France isn't even on your "list of the usual suspects," Dave. You should add it to add validity to possibly the worst post I've read on your blog.

[That's because the article attacking France was just a list of old myths which are used to attack all of those listed by Dave in his post. Your man at Fox is so incredibly lame he just copy-pasted the same old crap he always scarfs up.]

Plus the article is an opinion piece and is no less "insane" than op-eds in the New York Times or Washington Post.
Good lord, Hoodlumman, take a pill.

France isn't on the list because the list (tongue-in-cheek as it may be) was in addition to France. That's why I said "Just to save you the trouble here is a list of others who surely will be fingered for blame." Get it!? Others. O-T-H-E-R-S. If you weren't frothing so much foam from your rabid conservative mouth you would have been able to see to read that part of my worst post ever (EVER, I tell you!).

If you don't like the NYT or WP editorials, post about them on your blog. Shine the light of truth on those losy terrorist-loving, traitorist, baby-killing commies! Go for it! That's what I do.

You called me rabid! RABID!! Delete your comment, sir! Delete it!!

Shine the light of truth on those losy terrorist-loving, traitorist, baby-killing commies!

Very Durbinesque hyperbole, Dave. I like it.

That's what I do.

Though not very well in this case. Not at all.

More rabid frothing here. Manual trackback...
Worst...post...ever, I tell ya!

And thank you for the Durbin comparison. We both call Springfield home ya know!

And you're not really rabid I guess, just cute when you're angry.

Have a good day!
I'm not afraid of Commies, but Here are some that like to get into frequent protests with police...

http://www.infoshop.org/blackbloc.html

I don't think these guys have any correlation on the Right. These Black Bloc anarchs are about a step away from the Islamic terrorists in my book.
Hey Darius, how about real life rightwing terrorists like Eric Rudolph and Tim McVeigh? The second and third worst U.S. terrorist attacks in the last decade weren't brought to us by from anyone on the left.

Be careful before you start throwing stones brother.

And what does your comment have to do with anything anyway? Go troll elsewhere. I'm done.
Dave ... you're wrong.
Diana's point is very persuasive. I concede.
Ahem, hey Dave. In case you DID NOT get it, which apparently you didn't. Jacques Chirac has been a terrorist butt-kisser for MANY YEARS. He OPPOSED, underminded and did everything possible to block the war in Iraq, not because he thought Saddam was an innocent man, but because Saddam was stuffing his pockets with BILLIONS of dollars in oil contracts! The French haven't done jack squat in the war on terror, and that editorial was aimed to blast the corrupt as hell Chirac administration for their sh***y conduct. Why do you think there's a UN Oil for Food scandal and investigation Dave? Have you been asleep? Don't be rushing to cover Chirac's arse, unless you're prepared to defend their actions for the past several years which are quite indefensable.

[A Conservative's Mantra (they take this with them wherever they go): "French Companies Bad, Haliburton Good, French Companies Bad, Bush Family's Profiting Off Of Bin Laden Family Connections Good"]

Bleh, underMINED.
Oh God, the insanity continues. MCC, I think Leach just posted something very liberal. You better go see.
Dave said, "Hey Darius, how about real life rightwing terrorists like Eric Rudolph and Tim McVeigh? The second and third worst U.S. terrorist attacks in the last decade weren't brought to us by from anyone on the left.

Be careful before you start throwing stones brother.

And what does your comment have to do with anything anyway? Go troll elsewhere. I'm done.
"

I'll take this point by point.

1. Regarding Rightwing Terrorists- these are individual nutjobs acting alone. Leftwing Terrorists organize into cells similar to Radical Islam, and they coordinate their efforts via the internet while maintaining a public face. Look no further than the Earth Liberation Front. There are plenty of nutjob Leftists too- Ted Kaczynski, Mumia Abu-Jamal, and plenty of self-labeled-Leftwing cop killers to more than counter your pseudo-rebuttal.

[Yes, imagine that, left wing terror cells organizing on the Internet right in plain view! I say it's too dangerous, it needs to be shut down! Shut down the Internet! That way only ideas, like those presented on FOX will be available.]

2. Be careful about throwing stones? Do you consider what I've said to be a personal attack? Clearly you view me as a troll, not interested in rational discussion, I didn't accuse you of being a feces-spewing pseudo-intellectual, so you shoulnd't accuse me of being a troll.

3. What does my comment have to do with anything? You stir up accusations against conservatives- accusing us of blaming the French and the IOC for a bombing that hadn't took place when the article you cited was written, and you ask me what MY comment has to do with anything? My comment was meant to draw a parallel between the bombings in London and the leftist motivated anarchist-on-police violence taking place in Scotland right now. It's funny that you accuse conservatives of bias, when it's not conservatives marching through the streets of Scotland throwing rocks at police. It's not conservatives giving license to Islamic fundamentalists to foment violence against the West- it's the Liberals who promote a stance of non-Judgemental-tolerance for all brands of Anti-Americanism and Anti-Westernism. Why did I post my comment? To see how you would handle the inclusion of silly Leftism into a debate you created by referencing some silly conservatism into the London bombings discussion.
Oh God, the insanity continues. MCC, I think Leach just posted something very liberal. You better go see.

Dave, you couldn't counter an arguement, it appears, if your life depended on it.
>Oh God, the insanity continues. MCC, I think Leach just posted something very liberal. You better go see.

Dave, you couldn't counter an arguement, it appears, if your life depended on it.

Yeah no kidding...big wuss out if I ever saw one.
This post has been removed by the author.

5 comments:

Dave said...

You always knew when I was getting got into a bad relationship (which has been most of them).

Anyway, you've made your way over to the evil blog so you know just how lame they are. I just let them be but adrenalin fueled confrontation is a way of life for those people. It had to happen sooner or later.

Oh, and good rebuttals. After a while, it just wasn't worth my time to counter the nuttiness anymore (where to even begin?). I tried a bit of levity but that wasn't giving them their fix.

Thanks, you always got my back bro!

Darius said...

You couldn't actually rebutt any of my comments.

What's this, "If Liberals have been negligent, what would be the Conservative's solution to the terrorist problem? Oh yes, begin arresting people for speeches they make."

Do you really think that zealots of any color should be able to incite violence against their enemies? You'd support incitement?

Dave, if you really wanted to defend your points- you should be able to use logic to have a rational discussion. I never called you names, but you grouped me with people who did. Isn't that proof that you weren't interested in having a civil debate? The only reason I posted was to discuss the issues and see if I could challenge you, but you apparently weren't up to the challenge.

JeromeProphet said...

Darius,

I don't speak for Dave, but perhaps the whole four to one, (or however many bloggers are associated with fileitunder), ratio issue was bound to cause this "ganging up effect" problem.

When I say "ganging up" it doesn't need to imply intent on the part of all posters.

Maybe just effect, or even only that it just looks that way would be enough to cause problems - in the long run.

And again, I don't speak for Dave, but I could see if he ends up with several responses from one of his post, each of which he would respond to - that the amount of time, and effort to sustain that would be more than if it were the other way around.

So that the blowup, misunderstanding, whatever, was bound to happen.

Perhaps if FileItUnder enlisted more "Sister-Blogs" of differing poliitcal opionion it would have a higher chance of working in the long run?

I wouldn't be interest, simply because I'm not all that politically interested. I have interest that are political, but I'm burned out on politics itself.

You'll see from my postings that my post don't generate a lot of comments - as I stick to rather non controversial subjects - that may interest few people.

Which is part of why I felt the idea of a sister blog was a good idea since it builds into it confrontation.

But there needs to be ground rules for that to work like anything else.

And in written form communication is both fantastically precise, yet open to constant misunderstanding.

A disarming tone of voice, a wink of the eye, a gesture of respect simply can't work it's way properly into a paragraph (despite the use of emoticons).

Also, there's a problem with obtaining accurate, and timely feedback. If anyone does present a higher than acceptible level of disrespect how does one ever know - exactly. So such things can build until bambo - it's already gone to far.

So those "not attacking the person" rules are extremely important.

A lot of people don't get it - but there are lots of congressmen/women who despite their working on opposite sides of the isle actually play golf together, or see each other after church. Rhetoric stays on the floor. That's happening less, and less these days - but it was common in the past, and still takes place today.

On debate oriented shows we'll see people really going at it - but if you look real close you'll see in moments right before the segments end a smile, or a quick look - these folk work together on a project - they don't hate each other just because they see things differently.

Look at Bob Novak, he's gone through some tough times with his health, has converted to Catholicism, has mellowed out - and was invited to join, and joined, the church of one of those he debates on his show.

This tends to happen with age. I've seen it before. Bush & Clinton, Ford & Carter. Sellouts! I think not. Life is only so long, and there's far more we hold in common, and could work to achieve in common than what divides us.

Again my words are not Dave's, but I know Dave well enough to say that he's always interested in debate, as long as it's healthy, refrained, informed, debate.

************

If I give a speech saying that people should get up, and leave the theater, and they do - that's my right.
If I yell "fire", and there is a fire, and people leave, that's my right. If there isn't a fire, then I'm in trouble.

But, "inciting" is a troubling word - it's not so clear cut as the example given above. I'll leave that up to the prosecutors, legislators, and courts.

Certainly if they're planning a terrorist attack that would be a crime, but what if they're just saying an attack would be moral?

Consider that our churches were used by rebels during our war of Independence. The British would burn the churches down, or take them over. Or bring soldiers into them during service while riding atop their horses.

It was intimidation.

You can not allow the state to creep it's way into the matters of the Church.

I thought you were a conservative?

That doesn't mean we can't have FBI agent's attend the service, or to infiltrate the ranks of a church suspected of funding, or organizing terrorism.

But the "incite" problem is much more difficult isn't it? Which is a problem for all free societies - and isn't a Conservative vs. Liberal problem.

The populist response would be to arrest a cleric for a speech, but the conservative response would be troubled by the encroachment of the state in Church matters.

Again, it's a real problem in how to approach it wouldn't you agree?

Hoodlumman said...

I'm disappointed in seeing Dave end the sister blog relationship. This wasn't the intent, by any means.

It's hard to defend yourself from comments that have been deleted but I've said if I inadvertently called Dave a name, I apologize.

I can only vouche for myself and Darius posting on Dave's comment thread. Ganging up was not intended.

The problem was that we couldn't tell if Dave was being funny with that post. It sure didn't come off that way. I, personally thought it was a poorly conceived post and called it as much. Dave's updates sure didn't imply as much either. They acually did the opposite.

Again, the outcome was not intended. Dave seems very cordial and pleasant (which is why we selected him - our last sister blog was a stark-raving loon).

Sister blogs like Dave's aren't that easy to come by. A lot we come across do like to curse and scream and are very uncivil. We are fairly laid back in our content. We cover some big political stuff (a lot of GWoT issues) but also a lot of random stuff and a good dose of humor.

If you want, Jerome, and if Dave agreed we could list you both as sister blogs (maybe diluting the "gang effect") and take precautions not to let this happen again.

If not, I understand and good luck to you and Dave.

Darius said...

Jerome,

It's very cool to see your post and to know that you're interested in a dialog.

It's not a crime to rail against someone or something, but Hamza was actually calling for Moslems to rise up and commit crimes of violence. I think that's wrong, and it actually is a crime here and in Britain.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/05/britain.terror.ap/

If he had called for civil disturbances or to vote for a certain candidate- that's within his rights... but when he helps create an environment that threatens people...

I'm not going to continue to hit the point... but that's where I was going with my point.

Best of luck to your Jerome, and to Dave. I'm sorry we weren't able to continue our relationshipo.

email jp

  • jeromeprophet@gmail.com

archive

visitors

evworld

Slashdot

Wired News: Top Stories