The Washington Post's resident military "expert," William Arkin, has reaped a certain amount of attention for his recent comments in print. What Marc printed here in "William Arkin, anti-chickenhawk", however, is just a small slice of his soldier-hostile thinking. Some quotes from "The Troops Also Need to Support the American People":
"...the recent NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer - force that thinks it is doing the dirty work."
Nice to finally get an admission of his opinion. By the way, you blithering windbag, the troops are American people, and the choice of whom to support is theirs. Then, of course, comes the topper, his hilariously-titled: "The Arrogant and Intolerant Speak Out" - later pulled off the blog's front page, but still available for now at this link:
"These men and women are not fighting for money with little regard for the nation. The situation might be much worse than that: Evidently, far too many in uniform believe that they are the one true nation. They hide behind the constitution and the flag and then spew an anti-Democrat, anti-liberal, anti-journalism, anti-dissent, and anti-citizen message that reflects a certain contempt for the American people."
Uh-huh. Those who believe the war is necessary but haven't served can have no legitimate opinions about the war, as the liberal-left is so quick to remind us. Should anyone heed this message and volunteer wear to the uniform, serve on the front lines, and believe the reality they see is poorly-depicted by a liberal-left media - or just disagree with the anti-war line - then they are "mercenaries" displaying "contempt for the American people" - and their opinions are illegitimate.
The answer is that our opponents' positions are not just wrong, but illegitimate. The questions will be changed without any regard for truth or consistency, in order to get that answer. While calling our opponents anti-dissent, in a nice Big Lie type twist. An opponent with this mentality is immune to civic debate or persuasion - and as I've described elsewhere, that has significant and often violent real-world consequences for any polis/civis in which this kind of warfare mentality becomes widespread.
There is not one shred of honesty in Mr. Arkin's writing, or in the Left's position. Not. One. Nor is there room for civic society. What there is, clearly displayed in abundance, is a totalitarian impulse that would rather silence opponents than debate them. Something the liberal-left have managed to impose on their madrassas in various universities via speech codes et. al., but not yet on society at large. In all this, they are at one with their frequent allies and co-belligerents the Islamists. Arkin again, in his now-pulled clarification "The Arrogant and Intolerant...":
"As the debate about the Iraq war demonstrates, war-making is a shared endeavor and the arrogant and intolerant few who think they are above the people seem to be those who are wearing the uniform."
Something they generally do not believe... though this is the exact idea that large sections of the Democratic Party base, Kos, Andrew J. Lazarus here, et. al. have been arguing with their "chickenhawk" meme for some time now. Perhaps I missed the column where Arkin took them to task for this.
Back to Arkin, in his now-pulled "clarification" that sounds like nothing so much as Michael Fumento's mirror image:
"An army Major with the 1st Cavalry in Baghdad writes: "there is no way to accurately opine about the war unless you've been on the ground."
KJ (and many others) adds that I am just "sitting in the lap of luxury that is the United States."
Again, I understand the frustration of those in uniform and the supporters of the war. But these are not the only people who have a valid opinion, and there is great danger for the nation - as Bush-Cheney and company have already demonstrated - when people arrogate to themselves the sole determinant to make a judgment about national security."
They aren't questioning your right to make those judgements. They're questioning your accuracy (note the word's use by the Major; were you taught English at Michael Fumento's high school, or what?). What's more, they're doing it from a position that allows them a much more personal and in-depth view of the situation than you possess. That's an argument from expertise - and 100% valid.
Arguing that they have no right to voice such criticisms, as Arkin does, is NOT valid. Indeed, it faithfully enacts every single trope he accuses his opponents of. As a commenter reminded him. Since Arkin pulled the post, I'll reproduce it here so their work isn't lost by Arkin's fiat:
"The Arrogant and Intolerant..."
Look in the mirror.
"I've never written that soldiers should "shut up," quite whining, be spit upon, or that they have no right to an opinion."
No, you generously granted that "even" soldiers had the right to an opinion, and then proceeded to openly wish that their commanders would tell them to shut up, because it's "not for them" to disapprove of... your opinion.
" they had an attitude that only they had the means - or the right - to judge the worthiness of the Iraq endeavor."
Please explain how you spun the poll results you were replying to into the absurd notion that soldiers questioned your "right" to judge the worthiness of the Iraq endeavor, or anything else. They were asked their opinion about war critics, and they gave it. All of this rot about troops saying you don't have the "right" to criticize the war exists only in your imagination.
"The situation might be much worse than that: evidently far too many in uniform believe that they are the one true nation."
Again, that's not "evident", that's your fever dream. Nothing in the poll you were responding to suggests that.
" They hide behind the constitution and the flag and then spew an anti-Democrat, anti-liberal, anti-journalism, anti-dissent, and anti-citizen message that reflects a certain contempt for the American people."
It really sounds as if you were simply hurt that soldiers disapproved of you, or at least, people with your opinions. Are you going to get over it?
"I never said we shouldn't support the troops. I just lamented that "we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?""
That's just it - who said you need to "give up your rights"? who said you should "play dead"? You say that we (which includes you, I presume) "support them in every possible way". How, exactly? What, exactly, have you done to "support the troops"? What has been asked of you? What have you contributed? What gives you the gall to adopt this tone as if the troops' existence is a huge imposition to you? (Is it really the money for their salaries and such that you complain about? Are you a "liberal" or not, since when do "liberals" whine about their tax dollars going to $30k salaries for generally lower-middle-class folks?)
And besides, despite your whining, I'm sure you're doing just fine financially, Washington Post writer/NBC analyst William Arkin. On any tangible level, they are asking nothing of you. And still you can't take it if they're not happy with your war criticism. You sound like a spoiled child. "It's not fair, why don't they like my important thoughts??"
"As the debate about the Iraq war demonstrates, war-making is a shared endeavor and the arrogant and intolerant few who think they are above the people seem those wearing the uniform."
Huh?
Do you really get paid for your writing?
Anyway, yes, war-making (at least in a democracy) is a shared endeavor, but given that on any tangible level you have contributed approximately ZILCH to this war-making, and (I hazard a guess here) the Iraq endeavor hasn't affected your life tangibly one iota (expect perhaps to indirectly help your career!), I think the least you could do is to stop acting like you're doing soldiers a huge favor by declining to spit in their face; and that your opinion-from-afar regarding what they are doing is so important yet, paradoxically, fragile that no soldier must breathe a hint of disapproval on it, lest it wilt.
Posted by: xmath | February 1, 2007 11:02 AM
Link added for reader convenience. An interesting personal history, indeed. One entirely backed up by his actions. I'll echo Xmath: does this guy really get paid for his writing? On the subject of government and the military? In the Washington Post?
There are hundreds of equally skilled, and better qualified, individuals in the USA. People who can do this job without an inherent bias that US soldiers are evil mercenaries, understand basic American civics, and can apply real expertise to work that revolves around their subject matter, rather than their radical-left political viewpoint.
That the Washington Post has proven itself incompetent to find one of those people, and hire them for this task, is a telling indictment.
Useful corrective here, regarding Arkin personally - have no problem with that, myself. Kick that Arkin guy one from me as well, ok? Soldiers have the freedom to speak their minds, period.(by the way, so do ex-generals, despite how some of the right try to shut them up. But, I don't think this has been done here at WOC.)
HOWEVER - look how you use this as a propaganda tool -
"Should anyone heed this message and volunteer wear to the uniform, serve on the front lines, and believe the reality they see is poorly-depicted by a liberal-left media - or just disagree with the anti-war line - then they are "mercenaries" displaying "contempt for the American people" - and their opinions are illegitimate."
THAT, buddy, is a strawman.
"There is not one shred of honesty in Mr. Arkin's writing, or in the Left's position."
THAT is an example of false equivalence, or shoehorning the "left", into a valid (and quite righteous) pounding of Arkin. As well, your commentary on WaPo having better people is valid.
But get it - no need, reason, or valid point to do tar and feather this amorphous "the left", to piling on to Arkin.
This goes back to our exchange a couple of posts ago.
Continue the piling on Arkin - all good! But leave the propaganda about "the left" out of it.
>>But leave the propaganda about "the left" out of it.
First the Left states:
"You don't have any combat experience, therefore your opposition to our positions on withdrawal from Iraq are illegitimate."
Now the Left states through Arkin:
"Those who have served in combat in Iraq and report reality differently than we want to hear on positions we hold, therefore they are 'Mercenaries' and everything they say about it is illegitimate."
The common thing here isn't who is saying what. It is the Left holding all opposition to them as "illegitimate." From the Left turning universities into their multicultural PC madrassas to the War in Iraq, the one thing we see is the Left's totalitarian impulses on display.
Unless you are actively denouncing this crap, "hypocrisyrules." You are just a plain hypocrite. Just like the whole of the Left you let people like Arkin define.
The Ace of Spades blog just made this arguement far better than I:
I would say YES to that.
It also makes the Left the very hypocrites they claim to hate.
Trent,
Here is a proposition for you - try it on:
Arkin "does not equal" the left. He represents Arkin.
Okay?
Also:
_First the Left states:
"You don't have any combat experience, therefore your opposition to our positions on withdrawal from Iraq are illegitimate."_
This is not a position of the left - not even the position of Kos, just a bizarre version of it. Kos's position is a bit more valid, because it is the soldiers who are asked to sacrifice. So it is unbecoming when fata&&es like Jonah Goldberg start criticizing people, mocking them for "being French", and cowardly, when those same "french" have been in combat. As far as I'm concerned, that same logic says it is also unbecoming when William Arkin to criticize soldiers.
THAT is the problem - that a non-military fat guy tells a former or current military guy, he is cowardly, or he should shut up, for disagreeing with said fat guy's foreign policy position. When these people have fought, bled, killed or in the line of fire, for their nation.
"Unless you are actively denouncing this crap"
Did you miss what I said - what part of "Kick that Arkin guy one from me as well" did you not read? Indulging in some selective reading there now, are you? A bit dishonest, I'd say.
who is this left person? I haven't met them yet. It certainly wasn't me, who did not necessarily like Rumsfeld at the Helm, but stated adamantly several years ago that an armed conflict requires alot more people than just soldiers with combat experience. I certainly am not in charge of the PC Madrassas's, though I certainly work at one; though I would guess both the left and right are indifferenct to iron macrocycle chemistry.
There is no LEFT as a single identity. Will Rogers famously said 100 years ago: "I don't belong to an organized political party. I'm a Democrat." Not much has changed. There's the academics, the "hippies", the commies, the "greenies", the "social-programs liberals", the " conservative foreign-policy liberals", the minority liberals, atheistic liberals, the libretarian liberals and finally (you're personal fav) the media liberals. I'm sure I've left a few groups out.
Alot of people wander in and out and between these groups. But they do not all speak for the same voice. Just because Daily Kos makes an argument, does not mean you can paint us all with the same brush. I don't read that page. I don't give them money. I don't support their candidates.
The Republican party has a number of groups as well, which is why McCain is unlikely to be elected. IF you like, I can set up my own straw men from the Republican subgroups, and say things like "Well, Pat Robertson says....", "Well, Limbaugh is the Republican Party..." it's not very nice, and the point of having an online discussion basically falls through the floor.
The MSM isn't left-leaning. Your assertion about an imaginary left media undermines your legitmate points about Artkins's piece. The real offense in your piece, however, is the baseless linking to "the Left". That's dishonest. It is clear that you would like to feel victimized by people spitting on soldiers or calling soldiers babykillers and I get it that you are disappointed that it isn't happening. You have to take the Arkins piece, conflate it with the "liberal" media and "the Left" in order to feel sufficiently victimized. The Arkins piece has its flaws--lots of them--but your response to it is childish and intellectually dishonest.
But enjoy. Clearly it is just what you have been yearning for.
Here's the interesting problem with the arguments above - they're not new, and this is an issue that persists.
We're talking about politics and social movements, which are - by definition - composed of groups of people, a few of whom have a legal relationship (there is a legal entity that is the Democratic Party. Because I declare myself a member of that party to the county registrar, and donate money to the party, the legal entity and I have a relationship, and in certain very constrained arenas, it can speak for me. Outside those arenas, what we have are ever-changing clusters of people.
Now people cluster rather neatly, in many dimensions - otherwise collaborative filtering wouldn't work (it does) and retail chains would go out of business (they don't).
So we talk about these movements as collectives - even though they may not have a formal existence, and even though their composition may change. The anti-abortion/pro-life folks are such a cluster - even though they also have legal entities who may act as collective representatives. Environmentalists are such a cluster. Etc. Etc.
The "he's not one of us because us doesn't exist" is kind of a silly argument. We're not art critics here, and the subject of interest is necessarily collectives or clusters. If you aren't comfy talking about those - go play in another arena (than politics or social commentary). If you think someone has sliced the 'cloud' of individuals into clusters badly, suggest a better slicing, and offer an argument as to why yours is better than theirs.
Not much else to say about this...
A.L.
mycat,
The MSM is absolutely left-leaning, and there are surveys over the last 20 years that back the contention up decisively. The ratio isn't even close, nor does it reflect the US population at large.
Since 1962, there have been at least 11 major surveys of the media that sought the political views of hundreds of journalists. In 1971, the results were 53% liberal, 17% conservative. In a 1976 survey of the Washington press corps, it was 59% liberal, 18% conservative. A 1985 poll of 3,200 reporters found them to be self-identified as 55% liberal, 17% conservative. In 1996, another survey of Washington journalists pegged the breakdown as 61% liberal, 9% conservative. The 2004 study by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found the national media to be 34% liberal and 7% conservative.
This is not a matter of opinion - or rather it is, but it's a matter of closely documented opinion over time.
mycat,
The MSM is absolutely left-leaning, and there are surveys over the last 20 years that back the contention up decisively. The ratio isn't even close, nor does it reflect the US population at large.
Since 1962, there have been at least 11 major surveys of the media that sought the political views of hundreds of journalists. In 1971, the results were 53% liberal, 17% conservative. In a 1976 survey of the Washington press corps, it was 59% liberal, 18% conservative. A 1985 poll of 3,200 reporters found them to be self-identified as 55% liberal, 17% conservative. In 1996, another survey of Washington journalists pegged the breakdown as 61% liberal, 9% conservative. The 2004 study by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found the national media to be 34% liberal and 7% conservative.
This is not a matter of opinion - or rather it is, but it's a matter of closely documented opinion over time.
A.L.,
"If you think someone has sliced the 'cloud' of individuals into clusters badly, suggest a better slicing, and offer an argument as to why yours is better than theirs."
In this case, that's an easy one. Katzman and Telenko simply say "the left".
Very little analytic power in that, right? Not much "slicing" going on. So, while your comment is a great topline analysis of clustering and grouping, you've pretty much agreed with my criticism of Katman's post.
Thanks!
So I can easily do better -
1. You've got the DLC - that "centrist" group of Wall Street Democrats.
you've got a couple of Netgroups -
2. The Kos and MyDD guys, MoveOn, Democracy Underground - progressive partisans before anything
3. The Drums and Josh Marshall types - liberal, but more practical.
4. You've got the labor groups.
5. You've got Greens/Naderites.
6. You've got individual populists.
7. Then you've got the various fringe wacko groups - and really, most of the hate/fear/derision of the right FITS some of the wacko groups, such as ANSWER.
That's seven - a lot better than "the left".
Not to mention, that all of Europe - even though Europe is divided into many segments - gets thrown into "the left" soup, while being very different.
So, hypo - 1st - points for making a substantive comment.
Next - that's a taxonomy within the "left", isn't it? Is that the whole universe of opinion?
A.L.
hypocrisyrules,
I'm going to start by saying that I appreciate your forthright willingness to say "Arkin is a creep." He is.
See Marc Danziger's post re: Arkin's background. Arkin's affiliations over the year have been consistently mainstream left. He is not a random sample, he is a representative case and a prominent member of that organizational mainstream over the years. He is not the first person to come up with the "mercenaries" trope, or to display anti-soldier sentiments. I am reminded of Eason Jordan, certainly... and also of the readiness to convict US soldiers accused of actions unbecoming before any opportunity to give their side in court (hello, Jack Murtha), whereas in contrast recall Howard Dean saying he couldn't declare Osama guilty of 9/11 without evidence.
Arkin, like Eason Jordan and others before him, simply has the bad manners to display his hostility openly. It is not at all unreasonable to note that Arkin is simply displaying out loud in a more public forum the same tendencies and views that many of his allies in the so-called "anti-war" movement have been offering sotto voce for some time.
Or to note the double-prong his arguments create in conjunction with the widespread "chickenhawk" meme, of which you clearly approve. When coupled with clear evidence of a tendency to forcibly suppress dissent in the areas the liberal-left controls, it is perfectly reasonable to point out the larger pattern this creates.
On to a more direct question for hypocrisyrules.
Your personal kicking of Arkin is appreciated. It does, however, raise an interesting question or two in combination with your approval of the contemptible "chickenhawk" meme....
One possibility is that you believe folks in uniform do have special status, and you simply disagree with Arkin's attack on this concept on his way to slagging American soldiers as mercenaries and criminals. If so, please let us know.
The other option is kicking Arkin on the basis that all Americans are entitled to express their opinions outside of standard security restrictions or limitations under legal declaration of war. If so, however, the "chickenhawk" argument you enjoy runs somewhat afoul. If that's what you believe, then calling a particular national policy cowardly is simply an opinion - one expressed on issues of national policy and therefore not logically countered by proving personal courage in the person advocating it.
Indeed, the "advocate has shown courage before" response wouldn't even work on a personal level. If a Medal of Honor winner told you to run from a bully or do anything they asked to avoid being beat up, their past bravery does not save an assessment of their advice from questions of cowardice or turpitude. At best, it gives them a grace space to explain why this circumstance is so exceptional that the normal charge shouldn't stick (for instance: "After all, Joe, you believe has a gun; so don't create a situation until you've evened the odds and prepared your ground.") But they still have to enter the situational argument; and if they don't have a persuasive follow-up criticism should be expected for both the weak argument and the deflective tactic. Especially when the deflective tactic is used as an irrelevant personal slur against opponents.
That's what you supposedly oppose in argument. Right?
And of course the "chickenhawk" argument does not, as you claim, speak to expertise, but attempts quite blatantly to shut up dissent from the left's opinions du jour. It would be possible for veterans opposed to the war's conduct to criticize missed aspects of coverage and point to the gaps. Or to bring their experience forward in specific debates and speak to specific points, thereby claiming a persuasive edge. But you know full well that has not been the "chickenhawk" argument's use, either here on Winds or in the larger public square - and it is a lot less than honest of you to pretend otherwise.
I have, of course, dealt with the more contemptible aspects of this tactic from a civic point of view in other pieces. As has Winds of Change.NET more generally. So far, however, I am confining this particular discussion to the purely logical and honesty-related grounds hypocrisyrules says he respects.
Fair point AL, my point is that Joe has claimed that the left as a body is deeply flawed because it believes in 2 incompatible ideas. Except Joe has not demonstrated that the 'Left' beleives in Arkin's ideas, and I strongly suspect that a majority of 'the left' do not share this writer's view. Therefore, it is disengenious (at best) to claim that Arkin speaks for 'the LEft'. IF he was speaking on half of the party, fine, if this were at a democratic function, definately. But declaring one random ediorial as the 'voice of the democratic party' is deeply misleading.
If one person can delcare what an entire party thinks than fine:
"I alchemist, as speaker for the 'Left', completely disavow all statements made Arkin, as he is both a nutcase and a douche. From this point on, may he lose his job and live on the streets. This I decree".
alchemist - here's an interesting (if not dispositive) indicator. Go do a Technorati (which sucks!!) search for Arkin ... here's the one I use
Response to Arkin from the mainstream left? The blogs, The American Prospect, New Republic, etc. etc. ?? crickets...
That's not dispositive - we're too partisan and each 'team' insists on pushing the points that make them look good - but it does mean something...
A.L.
My main problem with Arkin is how a man manifestly unqualified in all respects to comment on Military Affairs (Combat, Procurement, RMA/Technology, etc) managed to get that job not just for the WaPo.
But ALSO the LAT and NBC.
My view is that this is a stunning indictment of the pervasive anti-Military, anti-American, hard-left bias in the MSM.
No other explanation covers why a man with no military experience AND a hard-left Stalinist background gets the job for three different news organizations.
HR, kudos also from me for being willing to criticize a guy purportedly on your side of the political aisle for writing something idiotic, and also for intelligent and courteous discourse in general.
But.
The concern I have with your position as stated (#10 above, cloud slicing) is that it seems to me you are unevenly applying your standard of evidence, and this is undercutting the foundation of your argument.
If monolithic characterization of loosely connected political entities is wrong in principle, and that is why you object to its application to "the Left," then it should be equally objectionable when it is applied to "the Right."
In the first six categories you listed above (the DLC centrists, progressive partisans, practical liberals, labor groups, Greens/Naderites, and individual populists), you have with admirable terseness supplied a simple descriptive label each group would presumably not find too offensive.
And then there's group seven.
"Then you've got the various fringe wacko groups - and really, most of the hate/fear/derision of the right FITS some of the wacko groups, such as ANSWER."
Doesn't that amount to a blanket criticism of "the Right" of just the sort you are objecting to when it is levied against "the Left?" If we have to drag "the Right" into this discussion at all, why, given the thrust of your argument, is it reasonable to do so only in the context of a broadly negative characterization while making no similar mention of its more reasonable subdivisions? A simple "Of course, the serious elements of the Right could be similarly classified" after your first six would have balanced the picture sufficiently.
Such an omission, when coupled to your passing negative mention of "the Right," only gives credence to those who would say your objection is partisan rather than principled, and I for one would certainly prefer to believe that is beneath your style. Sauce for the goose, my friend.
Piercello
Piercello,
Actually, that didn't translate well - what I meant is, some of the arguments made by Katzman and others ABOUT the horrible left, ACTUALLY DO apply to wacko groups like ANSWER.
I hate those guys, and those like them, for their narcissistic, simplistic, warped view of the world.
So, I wasn't bringing the "right" into this, at all.
Also, if I'm being nice and polite, then something is happening to my style, and I should be worried. Usually I'm bombastic, rude, and annoying. Maybe I'm growing up, or something..
They are not hypocrites, but intellectual cowards who manipulate language and logic to exclude any view other than their own.
If you want to know what's really bugging people like Arkin, it's the fact that troops in Iraq are not aping John Kerry and the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. That was what was supposed to happen, and the fact that it hasn't is most inconvenient. This is why Arkin feels the need to rebuke and delegitimize them.
hypocrisyrules (#17). Fair enough. On the other hand, this religious view within the left is proliferating rather quickly. They may be narcissistic, simplistic, and warped, but their viewpoint is growing in number and significance across the left. Arkin, for instance, seems to share a good part of it; note his mainstream credentials despite this.
Before I deal with the taxonomy - and there are at least 2 groups there that should be merged, with major consequences for your argument - I return to my comment #12. Both for its defense of my position, and for my question to you re: the chickenhawk meme and your own honesty in argument.
We'll start here: WHY is Arkin deserving of a kick, in your view?
Is it because people in uniform on the front lines ARE above other citizens when discussing issues of war and peace, and Arkin is wrong to criticize this?
Or because all Americans are entitled to express their opinions outside of standard security restrictions or limitations under legal declaration of war?
So ok, I'll give. Apparently the far left is way worse than I imagined. I usually just ignore them, and had no idea that they would be stupid enough to protect a guy who verbally challenges solders. I kindof freaked out earlier, because I really don't wany myself or my ideals associated with... THAT. I work hard to try and understand both sides of an argument, which is why I stay here at winds; and because there usually is a good point-counterpoint which is interesting and informative.
This whole thing has kindof blown me away though. I'm going to have to think about this over the weekend.
In answer to Joe's question in 19 (which is not intended for me, but I'll bite), I would agree with the second part more than the first: I beleive everyone has the freedom to speak openly, and if you abuse that right you will be tried in the court of public opinion. I beleive that when you are preparing for war, soldiers voices/opinions/input should be heavily considered. Of course, soldiers will have the best front-line assesment of any engagement; however most wars (and especially in nation-building missions) have a number of other non-military factors that need to be weighed as well: cultural issues, regional issues, pollitical issues, humanitarian & refugee issues, reconstruction issues etc.
Although soldiers would be most informed about the actual conflict, input is needed by civilians who are experienced in these other areas in order to gauge all the problems at hand. In this way, soldiers cannot be sole voice in determining our strategy.
I don't know if answered that the way you intended, but that more or less explains my thinking on the matter.
alchemist - if we've got you thinking hard, we've done our job. Thank you...
A.L.
Oh Christ - what, now I'm supposed to accept the shallow frame and cherrypicking that you guys accept?
No, I am NOT going to accept your narrow frame for these things.
When I see you demanding the heads of those who smeared Obama on Fox, THEN we can talk.
When I hear you calling out Glen Beck for lies about spitting, THEN we can talk.
When I hear you talk about Limbaugh getting cited on ABC as a "race advisor", those this is the guy who calls Halle Barry and Obama "halfrican americans", THEN we can talk.
Not to mention Matthews, who again and again talks crap about Clinton and Gore, again and again and again and again and again...
So, before I answer any questions, guess what - I can use any of these circumstances to claim that the "There is not a shred of honest in Fox Network's, and the right's position."
guess what? A hell of a lot more influential that washingtonpost.com.
Now, to answer your questions, you've misstated my positions, and the way you've worded your questions are also slanted. "Believe soldiers have special status"? Is that what I was saying? In some ways, soldiers have special statuses, in some ways, not. Only soldiers get VA care, and I'm fine with that, as an example.
Now, on general principle, should people be able to say what they think? Of course! That isn't related to the "chickenhawk" argument, however. Though you attempt to tie them.
Now, talking about the chickenhawk argument is FAR AFIELD from the points of this post. So to bracket this discussion, it doesn't impact the "don't tar all liberals and lefties with your brush", as propaganda.
And not something to get into on this thread.
And again, this is WAY off the point of the post. You guys continue on for 6 posts on Arkin, while of course, not mentioning anything about some of the others "issues" the press has had. I'd like you to call for the hosts heads on Fox, like you guys called for Rather, or you are calling out Arkin.
hypo - I missed it; what happed w/Obama on Fox?
A.L.
One of the talk shows on Fox discussed an article from the online Insight magazine which pointed out that Obama had attended an Islamic school in Indonesia. The great sin of Insight magazine was that it referred to the school as a madrassa, and the great sin of Fox was that it allowed the talking heads on one of its opinion shows to discuss the article at all.
Really, A.L., I can't understand why you wouldn't spend as much time being outraged at a brief discussion of a facet of Obama's childhood on a Fox opinion show as you do on the multiple articles from the Washington Post's national security expert in which he calls U.S. soldiers mercenaries and fascists. They're practically the same thing!
Actually, it was a dual attack. First, the morning show 'hosts' (they don't even call them anchors) said that Obama came from a strict muslim school (yes, a madrassa). Secondly, when that was shown to be false, they blamed the report on a supposed link from the Hillary Clinton camp. That story is also false. Both came from insight magazine, and the story was not investigated prior to coming on air.
This is where I pay for not having TV...altho it's pretty outrageous, and I'd assume there would have been more buzz about it on places like MyDD (which I do read).
A.L.
The Obama incident has a different smell about it. An internet news magazine called Insight ran a thinly sourced story called Hillary's team has questions about Obama's Muslim background A few days later, Fox & Friends gossiped about it, a couple of other shows mentioned the story, including one on CNN Headline news. Then someone, in this case CNN, decided to treat the story like news and send a reporter to check it out.
This is about the illustrious MSM failng to provide news, but providing hours of idle chit-chat about things people hear.
BTW/ Obama wasn't smeared. It's a long way to Iowa, let alone the national election. This rumour was clearly falsifiable. Hillary OTOH can't disprove an allegation that someone in her camp has been spreading the rumor.
"BTW/ Obama wasn't smeared. It's a long way to Iowa, let alone the national election. This rumour was clearly falsifiable. Hillary OTOH can't disprove an allegation that someone in her camp has been spreading the rumor."
Yep, gotcha...it's not a problem because it was "clearly falsifiable".
Well, then, I guess we should shut up about other such matters, including about half of what appears on Fox news.
Interesting standard, PD. Are you applying it equally to both sides....(rhetorical question)?
Excuses, excuses....
Andy X, you're projecting an argument on to me that I didn't make. I pointed out the problem -- gossipy newslike shows that make up the bulk of cable news programming. Apples and oranges. Fruit perhaps.
As to my postscript, I pointed out what has to be obvious. Obama wasn't hurt by the rumor; he has possibly been helped. Hillary has been hurt. This would have been foreseeable beforehand.
Oh, piffle, Joe! I expect better of you.
In a deeply polarized society, there is a handy syntactic rule one can safely use to avoid wasting time on useless arguments. If someone on either side of an issue says that there is no validity to arguments on the other side, then you can safely ignore the rest of that argument.
The only reason for spending any time at all on this is that I had expected better of you.
And I will continue to expect better. I can hear the anger in what you wrote, but that doesn't excuse losing rhetorical control and undercutting what you are trying to accomplish here. Not fatally, certainly, but every chip is damaging.
Criticize all you want, providing evidence. Summarize your opponent in terms your opponent would agree with. Understand the core of truth that makes your opponent's argument have the power that it does, and address it explicitly. Then, if you have a devastating critique, it will be more effective.
The Web is full of people building straw men so they can set them on fire. You can probably even get more eyeballs on the screen if that's the sort of place you want WoC to be. But you don't. I know you don't. You actually want people to discuss positions on their merits. And that's a very good thing.
So stick with it. Don't pee in your own pool.
For what it's worth, a couple of valid points I'll admit, regarding #14.
"Crickets on this story, from the left".
That's true, I will say that up front, that is true.
But the reason why has been missed. The net left, of both the party left and the pragmatic left, doesn't identify the media "as us", but instead as an enemy, as "them". In fact, we have a WHOLE host of issues with the media, mainly regarding both the dumbing down of the news, the "Heathers" character fixations of the main TV pundits, and the underlying HUGE corporatism slant of the news.
In that sense, since those are some of the pressure points, Arkin's article doesn't feed into it. If I'm a typical resident of the net left, I see Arkin's article, and say, "huh - that's stupid - soldiers can say what they want to say, they are the ones sacrificing their lives, and on the front line. What an idiot!".
But then I drop it, because there are a whole host of more important subjects, like the current administration playing chicken with iran, that have to be dealt with.
So its a matter of priorities.
Yes, this invites an opening of what you consider "right" priorities, but if you think it's more important than the small steps that Bush is taking to make conflict with Iran more inevitable, well, you are wrong.
But places like Kos, definitely engage in some propaganda techniques. One example - probably the one and only time Kos has linked to Winds of Change, is the Michael Fumento story, when Katzman revealed Fumento as a lying prick. Why did Kos do so? While I'm not in his head, I would think it would be because, one, it's a funny story, and another example of dishonest wingnuts, who have way too much representation in the national media. So evidence and confirmation of a pre-existing stereotype.
Would there ever be another Kos link? If this site does a mea culpa on Iraq, then maybe. But that's about it. So that one post, admirably done by Katzman to expose Fumento, becomes fodder for what Kos is doing.
Two things about this however - one, Kos IS a partisan site, open and honestly so. You would expect some steering of stories, and I expect the same thing out of Redstate.
Two, that propaganda function, is EXACTLY the type of use the Arkin story is being put to - to "discredit" the left, by way of Arkin. And this continues, for 5 posts now. Even though, Arkin isn't associated with any "left".
So Marc and Jose are just as guilty as Kos for that steering, but with less obvious connections between the two, AND with a much more tenous "meta-point", about the press, and the left.
Beard - you're right, although I'd cut Joe some slack for being torqued. This fits - a bit - into a question I'm wrestling with which goes to "What's Winds for?" I don't want to see this place become a Kos or a Redstate (hence my pleasure at seeing Fumento's eggless ass on his way back to his place).
And hypocricy - you're right and wrong about the media and Winds, I think. You'd doubtless be shocked to hear that I think the media are far too corporatist and Establishment-protecting, and that the fundamentally disrespect their audience by feeding them pablum. I don't think that contradicts my narrative of opposition to American interests, because I think they owe their allegiance to a broader interest-a corporate and class interest that transcends nationalism. And I think that the false "being against America is being for the left" meme is horrible for - among other reasons - the fact that it allows for a smug Skybox liberalism that really entrenches existing elites at the expense of the less powerful.
Lots of fun stuff to think about and discuss.
A.L.
There's a truth out there that we are all grasping for, and we haven't quite got. Like the famous children's poem, The Blind Men and the Elephant.
If I want to get hold of more of that truth, I've got to listen to contradictory things, and try to discern what fragment of the truth might lie behind what people say, and skim away the crap.
In pursuit of this strategy, I spend a fair amount of my blog time alternating between Winds of Change and Talking Points Memo, both of which have some respect for the truth, and a reasonable amount of humility about their own monopoly on it.
I don't read Kos, because the ratio of information to certainty is too low, even though I agree with lots of it. Likewise for Redstate, except for the agreement part. Both of them seem to appeal to audiences who want to confirm and enrich their own current opinions, rather than questioning and exploring them.
I would say that Winds is for searching for the answers to certain questions, starting with points of view in a certain quadrant of conceptual (or political?) space. The operative word here is searching.
In politics, like religion, a group that is certain that they already have the whole truth, and just want to yammer about the infidels, is not where I want to spend my time. Among the better and clearer voices here, I hear the same motivation.
I think you guys have a few pieces of the puzzle, not the whole picture, and what Winds is for is to work on putting them together, and perhaps even finding a few more. That's a pretty worthwhile thing.