quote: When Condoleezza Rice's confirmation as secretary of state was opposed by 13 Democratic Senators, it did not imply that she was singularly unsuited to serve in the President's cabinet.
It meant that the Democrats in Congress were determined to be brutally partisan ... at a time when our country is at war, and we need to show our enemies a unified and relentless determination to defeat them.
Instead, those thirteen votes had no effect except to encourage our enemies that if they just go on killing Americans long enough, there's a party in America that will vote against continuing the war.
Once the decision to go to war is made, then the actions of members of Congress must be undertaken with consideration of how our enemies will interpret them.
Congress has a responsibility to make sure that the war is waged properly; but meaningless opposition just to show off, when it will certainly prolong the war, is astonishingly selfish. Even if you think a war is wrong, when American lives are on the line, decent leaders do nothing to signal our enemies that we do not have the unity or resolution to win.
Only thirteen Democrats voted against Condoleezza Rice's confirmation. But these weren't thirteen obscure senators. They included some of the most influential or at least well-known: Kennedy, Kerry, Jeffords, and the ever entertaining Barbara Boxer.
(Won't someone please tell Senator Kerry that most Americans voted for somebody else for President? He doesn't get to choose the Secretary of State.)
But it wasn't just those thirteen. We have seen, time and again, that when Democrats really care about something, they absolutely hold the party line in their voting.
The party leadership obviously made no effort to require Democrats in the Senate to show support for our troops. On the contrary, the Democrats in Congress permitted -- and therefore encouraged -- leading Democrats to demonstrate their contempt for our war effort.
Nor did I hear any of the Democratic leadership chastising these Democrats for bad behavior in time of war.
The message is clear: The Democratic Party puts politics ahead of unity, victory, and the safety of our troops. And that makes a Democrat like me furious with my own party's childish, selfish, dangerous behavior. It's time for Democrats who are sick of such shenanigans to speak up and repudiate these clowns.
The Democratic Party isn't the private property of the lunatic Left.
It's time for us moderate Democrats to take the party back.
I thought I was used to Orson's assumptions and confused rationalizations, but this takes the cake. Let's not actually, you know, speak to the reasons the senators opposed Ms. Rice's confirmation, let's play the 'war' card and expect everyone to fall into line behind us. Let's sling mud and call those who disagree with Bush the 'lunatic left'. Let's substitute jingoism and patriotic fervor for reasoned debate. This portion of the essay is pathetic. It doesn't even attempt to persuade.
posted
"(Won't someone please tell Senator Kerry that most Americans voted for somebody else for President? He doesn't get to choose the Secretary of State.)"
I find this comment absolutely baffling. Why DOESN'T the Senate get to approve the Secretary of State, again?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, if you hadn't noticed, for the duration of this administration the Constitution, Judicial Branch, and Legislative Branch have all been suspended. Please don't ask any more questions, or we'll have to take care of you the same way we did that airliner over Pennsylv...I mean...oops, I mispoke, that airliner was somewhere else.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe that only through public and political discord can a democracy survive. The minute everyone agrees, we're doomed. DOOMED I SAY!!
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that's a little harsh, Adam. I'm sure that he loves America, but it's his view of America, not yours, and not mine.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought about posting that particular bit of the column today, with a snarky comment about McCarthyism, but don't you know he talked about it toward the end of the column. Granted, it was in a different context, but still. . .
quote: When our nation is under dire threat, and our enemies are using our very freedoms as a protection for their subversive activities, then we have to make temporary exceptions to those freedoms.
quote: Anti-Communism got a bad name because of the excesses of political grandstanders like Joe McCarthy and some on the House Un-American Activities Committee.
Anti-communism wasn't a bad thing. Who knew? At least he isn't advocating interment camps, though I don't remember him saying anything against the ones we have now. But it does make me wonder if he really thinks that forcing publications to do translations would really work. I mean, if it were me, I'd make stuff up. Not actually translate it.
To make you bleeding liberals feel better, here, go read this. You're souls will feel better. At least not everyone has gone mad.
posted
I have never commented on any of OSC's political views, not really. I figured that he was entitled to have his own views....
What I didn't realize was that he didn't feel I had the right to my own.
Congress has a duty to the nation to represent the views of their constituents, and a large number of people in the USA don't feel this war is just, or that it was necessary, or that the administration (including Ms Rice) told anything resembling the truth about the reasons for going to war.
It has nothing to do with supporting the troops. I should know, as I was one of the troops.
Were you, Mr. Card?
I have been very supportive of the troops so far, although I am not sure if this war is just, because it isn't the troops fault, it is the commanders fault. I think that we need to do this right now that it has started, regardless of if we should have done it in the first place, because now a lot of Iraqi's are depending on us to help them get it right.
I am a moderate, and I have never voted a party line on any ticket.
You have insulted me, and millions of people like me, and I doubt you even realized it.
Or that you care.
You are suggesting that Americans no longer have the right (or duty) to speak out against decisions they don't agree with.May God have mercy on us if people like you ever do gain complete control of this country.
We would make Nazi Germany look like roller derby.
quote:Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Note that comfort is required.
It is quite bad enough, however, that he is saying that expressing dissent is aiding the enemies of the US.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, he has. He's accusing them of aiding the enemy, and the penalty for being accused of aiding the enemy is prison without the right to due process.
If that's what you're taking from it, then you obviously are reading way more into it than he intended.
And you're right Kwea, if OSC and people like him took over, they'd try to kill 6,000,000 Jewish people and several million others.
quote:The Supreme Court decided last year that they are entitled to trial, whether or not they are US citizens.
No, it didn't. It decided they were entitled to some form of hearing to determine their status. Very different than a trial. And, again, if you think OSC is advocating throwing these 13 Senators in jail, then I can safely say the absurdity quotient has swung over to you.
posted
The notion that it aids the enemy in any substantial sense is pretty hard to defend; the aggregate of such dissent might aid the enemy in the sense you suggest, but the individual act of dissent contributes little to that. Furthermore, dissent on issues which are of little direct relevance to the enemy, such as who is Secretary of State, doesn't seem to do even that. There are plenty of Secretaries of State whom at least some of those voting against Rice would support, for instance, who would push with a similar level of aggression against most of America's enemies (including OBL).
But even in cases where the aggreggate matters, that I suggest Bush's policies are in many cases repulsive does not aid the enemy in any noticable amount more than suggesting that spinach is delicious fresh.
Also, the value this country receives from dissent is huge; suggesting that dissenters should stop because they are aiding the enemy seems to reflect either an amazingly totalitarian viewpoint (arguably considerably more anti-american) or at least just an amazingly biased one.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good grief, people. If you are seriously accusing OSC of would-be genocide (genocide in his heart, maybe), then you need to back it up. If you're not, please stop with the ridiculous hyperbole.
posted
No, that's not treason. Fugu gave you the link on that.
I'm not asking how it could be interpreted. Do you think that's what he actually intends to say? To jail these 13 Senators? Because he could have said it quite easily: "Those 13 Senators need to be imprisoned." Seven words, took me less than three seconds to type. I bet he could do it in two.
posted
Yeah, and I don't think this is one of the sometimes. That doesn't mean I agree with the ridiculous overgeneralizations from his detractors in this thread either.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find it amusing how OSC talks about Democrats holding the party line to support his position, but in this vote it was the Republicans who toed the party line exactly.
Of course, his response would likely be along the lines of "but the Republicans were voting the right way!"
Also, his argument reflects an ignorance of how voting works in the Senate. First, in the Senate individual Senators go against what the party says relatively regularly, unlike the house, because each individual Senator holds more power. Second, even excluding those cases, there are essentially two kinds of votes from the perspective of each party: votes important to the party and votes not important to the party.
(Generally speaking,) On votes important to the party, party members are pressured to vote the party line. On votes not important to the party, party members are allowed to "vote their conscience".
This does not constitute an encouragement to vote against the issue, if the Democrats really wanted members to vote against Rice's nomination, they'd tell them to. By OSC's tortured logic, any vote in which the Democrats don't tell their people how to vote is one where they're really telling their people to vote no.
I don't think a government led by OSC's ilk would be one that killed a lot of people. I do think it would be one where saying a war was wrong would result in being hounded as a traitor (assuming I was any sort of public figure), and it would quite possibly be one where the degree to which crimes were pursued would depend to a large extent on the politics of the one committing them.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag: I was somewhat confused by the ambiguity introduced by this statement:
quote:Doesn't mean that dissent shouldn't occur. But it's useless to pretend it doesn't aid the enemy.
Also, I was arguing the notion that even where in aggregate it might "aid the enemy" in some way, in particular instances the aid to the enemy was effectively nonexistent.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We disagree on whether it aids the enemy. I've got nothing more to add except that failure to recognize the harm of individual acts whose impact is miniscule in the specific yet harmful in the aggregate is why we have global warming, ozone depletion, deficit spending, obesity, and a host of other ills.
As to the confusion - even if it aids the enemy, it still might be right to proffer the dissent. And, of course, I think that it's the right and the duty of each individual to make that decision for themselves. Just as it's the right and duty of each individual to decide whether they need to be accused of aiding the enemy.
posted
I predict we could have a long discussion on the natures of aggregate and individual responsibility.
BTW, for a good reason why government as OSC envisions it would be quite unstable, I suggest Veto Players by Tsebelis. I'm navigating through it myself, and he has a very persuasive position that the stability of a government depends little on the details of the institutions, but more on the number of "veto players".
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"BTW, for a good reason why government as OSC envisions it would be quite unstable, I suggest Veto Players by Tsebelis."
You don't even need to go that far. OSC, in this article, has essentially proposed that America should revert to a one-party political system in times of war. *shrug* At this point, his opinion starts tripping my "self-evidently stupid" meter.
posted
Dag, I don't concede that dissent, on this or any other point, is necessarily aiding the enemy. I think there is a "Third Way", and maybe a Fourth and a Fifth, to stop widespread global terrorism, which wouldn't coincide with the current plans, and might even be more successful.
posted
On the "aiding the enemy" thing, Condi Rice is not an essential element in the war on (whatever).
The only reason that not confirming her represents "aid to the enemy" is that in neocon hyperbole, anything that doesn't tow the party line is "aiding the enemy." The argument is circular.
As far as any constitutional argument is concerned, the first amendment implies that dissent is expected, so it's pretty ridiculous to think that the framers would consider dissent to be "aiding the enemy." Again, the neocons are trying to make something out of nothing.
Aid means aid. It doesn't mean agreeing with your (country's) enemy's viewpoint. Whatever happened to "I may disagree with what you say but I will defend with my life your right to say it." (?)
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
[shakes head] Man, some of the reactions to this article make it look almost sane ...
Honestly, I suspect that Dag and I would both argue against some of the implications of this article ourselves if so many of you weren't going twice as far to oppose it Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, I don't concede that dissent, on this or any other point, is necessarily aiding the enemy. I think there is a "Third Way", and maybe a Fourth and a Fifth, to stop widespread global terrorism, which wouldn't coincide with the current plans, and might even be more successful.
I said in some situations. Especially in situations which involve an element of bluff or showing resolve. If the enemy thinks we're one bad news day from folding, they'll take risks they might not otherwise take to achieve that bad news day.
I've already disagreed with the central, specific premise of the quoted portion of the article.
quote:As far as any constitutional argument is concerned, the first amendment implies that dissent is expected, so it's pretty ridiculous to think that the framers would consider dissent to be "aiding the enemy."
A signigicant number of the framers supported the Alien and Sedition Act. Beyond that, I'm against banning such dissent, and I concede that in some situations such dissent would be aiding the enemy. So these are clearly not incompatible views.
quote: Honestly, I suspect that Dag and I would both argue against some of the implications of this article ourselves if so many of you weren't going twice as far to oppose it.
Tell you what, Geoff. Rather than playing contrarian and letting wackos on the Left dictate your behavior, why don't you just tell us where you think your dad's reasoning is flawed?
----------
quote: I concede that in some situations such dissent would be aiding the enemy.
I think a vital component of aid is intent. If I drive a president out of office whose only concern was the destruction of communism -- to the point that he bankrupted the country to fuel that measure -- then it is certainly the case that I have eliminated an obstacle in the way of communists everywhere. However, if my motivation was to get someone in office who would pay some attention to, say, Medicare policy, it is a distortion of my motivation to classify this as "aid" to "communists" when in reality they are incidental to my reasoning.
There are very, very few Americans out there who oppose Bush's agenda because they're rooting for terrorists.
posted
Because frankly, there are things posted in this thread I find more wrong than what was in the original article.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
wouldn't in some situations the scenario you described be doing harm to the enemy? That is, due to taking a risk that they would not have taken if we had showed more "unity", might they not be caught sooner?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, there is a distinct difference between saying stuff in an article such as OSC wrote and casual posts on a message board. One might argue both that the writer of the article has a greater accountability, and that the content of the article, particularly that of a series of articles known to be moderately influential, should be weighed more heavily than the contents of the posts of virtual unknowns (not weighed in importance, weighed in importance of reaction).
That is, while reacting to a bit of off the cuff posting on a message board is all well and good, saying that one might as well react to that as an article such as OSC wrote is perhaps overemphasizing the importance of those posts and underemphasizing the importance of the article.
I'm not saying anyone here is doing exactly that, but its something to think about.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:wouldn't in some situations the scenario you described be doing harm to the enemy? That is, due to taking a risk that they would not have taken if we had showed more "unity", might they not be caught sooner?
Certainly. I'd just prefer that happen in the form of carefully planned disinformation.
quote:Of course, there is a distinct difference between saying stuff in an article such as OSC wrote and casual posts on a message board. One might argue both that the writer of the article has a greater accountability, and that the content of the article, particularly that of a series of articles known to be moderately influential, should be weighed more heavily than the contents of the posts of virtual unknowns (not weighed in importance, weighed in importance of reaction).
Yes. But the types of comments echoed here are also echoed in the mainstream media and in the more influential alternative political dialog.
Bush as Hitler ain't exactly new. Throwing OSC into that pot is a continuing trend, not an isolated event.
quote:Tell you what, Geoff. Rather than playing contrarian and letting wackos on the Left dictate your behavior, why don't you just tell us where you think your dad's reasoning is flawed?
Ha ha, very patronizing, thank you. Hope you feel better about yourself now
Honestly, what would be the result of posting criticism of the article in a thread where everyone has already gone WAY overboard in that direction? I'll tell you — I'd lend credence to the wackos and accomplish nothing new in refuting the article.
I honestly think that Card has taken a legitimate gripe of his (that congressional Democrats have lately been using the nomination-approval process as a bludgeon to punish their political enemies, rather than as a bipartisan means of ensuring that we get good appointments) and found an extreme (and probably indefensible) means of combating it in print. It's nothing we haven't seen before, and it certainly doesn't spell the end of the world, the resurrection of Hitler, and the beginning of a new age of genocide and goose-stepping.
He's done the same thing with his public positions on gay marriage and the Muslim religion. In person, he is actually incredibly agreeable and open-minded towards the people who become the subjects of his articles, and has an admirably tolerant attitude towards everyone that he knows and interacts with personally. He just seems to feel that while the pen might be mightier than the sword, a flaming, venomous skewer is mightier than the pen
quote: Honestly, what would be the result of posting criticism of the article in a thread where everyone has already gone WAY overboard in that direction? I'll tell you — I'd lend credence to the wackos and accomplish nothing new in refuting the article.
And this is the same problem I have with your position on global warming, Geoff. You concede that the science probably IS there, but because a lot of wackos think we should go overboard in our response to the alarming conclusions of that science, you argue that we should avoid doing anything at all to avoid encouraging the wackos.
It's like saying that because people blow up abortion clinics, everyone should be pro-choice.
I submit that your refutation of the article would be especially notable, and would accomplish something important: it would demonstrate that even people who aren't "liberal wackos" find the article troublesome and/or disagree with its conclusions. I think that's actually a rather important point.
posted
I'd also remark that sometimes lack of dissent can "aid the enemy," too. This is a complicated matter.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm starting to think that posting late at night is a really bad idea. I can't believe I actually let you goad me into making a semi-negative post by saying, "Don't let leftists control your agenda!" Sheesh, I must have been out of it
In any case, as fun as it might be to set up a Card vs Card debate that coincidentally promotes your personal stance, I'm not really in the mood to open up that can of worms right now. I think I've already made it clear about where I stand, and it really doesn't serve MY agenda to push this particular issue any further.
Though I will take issue with your characterization of my past positions. My strategy is NOT to adopt an extremist view that opposes whatever extremist view I hear on Hatrack, as you seem to describe. That's a convenient way to dismiss my opinions, but what you've actually seen me do is adopt positions that are skeptical of left-wing "common knowledge", and which gradually become less skeptical as I'm actually shown some convincing evidence of the position, rather than the screaming, red-faced rhetoric that is apparently the style these days.
But in the end, I usually end up thinking that the strategies proposed by the left are inappropriate to the problems they are citing, even if I start to accept the problems themselves.
So that's a really far cry from "Eco-crazies are big nutjobs! We better not adopt any pro-environment policies!" or "Everyone should be pro-choice because right-wingers blow up abortion clinics!" And the amount of contempt it must have taken for you to misread me as much as you have is kind of enlightening.
For one thing, I never tried to say we should do NOTHING about the environment. I said that we shouldn't enact the immediate strategies proposed by a particular brand of single-minded environmentalist. That's a far cry from doing NOTHING. In fact, I repeatedly said that I thought the extremist global warming crusade was detracting from other environmental efforts that would probably be more effective.
Not to quote Michael Crichton or anything, but being against the death penalty doesn't make a person pro-crime. Nor does being against a specific environmental policy make a person anti-Earth. I'm starting to wonder if you really buy into the Al Gore debate strategy. "If you really care about X issue, will you support X bill? You won't? Well, then you must not really care about X issue!"
posted
For what it's worth, and I hope this doesn't sound patronizing, I feel for you, Geoff. I know that I wouldn't want to be in a position where I had to constantly hear attacks against what my father had written. I probably wouldn't be as objective as you are trying to be.
posted
Thank you, Storm, that means a lot to me. And don't worry, the patronizing trophy has already been won Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel like the Right is tired of hearing the dissenting view, and they would do anything within their power to silence it.
I have to question, however, the whole idea that by speaking out against the abuses perpetrated by my government (in my name, mind you) I am aiding and abetting our enemies. Or giving them hope.
Personally, I know that we cannot leave Iraq now. I don't expect or even desire a troop pullout given what I think would fill the vacuum we leave behind. And I do sincerely hope that the military program in Iraq is successful. I hope the recent elections signal the start of a turnaround in that country and the region.
And if Bush manages to pull it off without significant disasters or long-term negative consequences, I will be happy to praise him for doing a great job in Iraq.
So, in the context of all of that, I retain the right as an American to demand that we conduct ourselves in accordance with the highest principles. The principles we hope the rest of the world will learn through our example.
And therefor, I say that the treatment of prisoners in Guantanmo is dead wrong. The suspension of protections, even to non-citizens, is wrong. The abuse of prisoners is wrong.
And, the methods used to decide to go to war were wrong as well.
And, frankly, Condoleeza Rice was a major player in that. Someone needs to hold our own people accountable for misdeeds, lies, deceptions, and even mistakes (if they are important enough), even if there's a war on.
The fact that she got appointed anyway sends a message to allies and foes alike. One of the messages it sends is that we care more about winning than upholding our own rules.
That should scare some, give hope to others, and bother the heck out of most Americans, IMHO.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
To append to Bob's note on Rice, Rice has also verifiably lied to Congress at least once (though not under oath).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"But in the end, I usually end up thinking that the strategies proposed by the left are inappropriate to the problems they are citing, even if I start to accept the problems themselves."
*nod* The reason I was all sarcastic at you, Geoff, is that you and Dag -- and a few others out there -- have a tendency to use your skepticism of the wackos (a skepticism that, mind you, I wholeheartedly agree is a perfectly valid one) to ultimately advocate inertia.
There's a value in policing the debate, sure. But when that's ALL you do, the debate itself never gets resolved. And if you're going to say that policing the debate is itself a virtue -- and, again, I agree that it is -- then I don't see how you can in the same breath even pretend that your father's writing doesn't need to be "policed" in exactly the same way. On an empirical basis, it's considerably more influential and considerably more harmful.
Heck, you basically concede that he's playing Demosthenes with his poisoned "skewer." But you choose to concentrate instead on the marginal and powerless "Bush is like Hitler" fringe, which seems to me like a waste of time. You wind up mentally classifying the recommendations of thousands of scientists as "hasty strategies" advocated as fringe groups -- ignoring the fact that those strategies have in general evolved over several decades of research, considerably more than we put into, say, Social Security privatization -- because there are fringe groups associated with them.
I think there's a need for us to point out when people are getting carried away with their generalizations. You and Dag in particular are very good at it. But I'd like to see you do more of it on the other side of the aisle, frankly.
posted
Why? There's plenty of people here doing that. Sometimes, if Geoff or I don't post in these topics, nothing is said about the worst generalizations. It becomes a self-righteous bitch fest with horrible, unsupported allegations.
I didn't see you posting a lot of "This is what's wrong with Kerry" posts during the campaign, although you did acknowledge some criticism of him when others made it.
This is more of the same, and I think it's legitimate. Certainly, the opinions from "your" side of the aisle aren't failing to get out in the political conversation on the board. I doubt anyone here expresses everything they think, nor should they feel they need to.
I've come down on some of the worst abuses by people on "this" side of the aisle when they're posted on this board.
In fact, I'm trying to remember the last time I posted an opinion piece to disagree with it. I'm sure it's happened, but it's certainly not something I do often. So why should I do that with OSC's pieces?
quote: I didn't see you posting a lot of "This is what's wrong with Kerry" posts during the campaign, although you did acknowledge some criticism of him when others made it.
My criticism of Kerry -- that he was a ruthless self-promoter, a colorless and stiff speaker, and a rudderless pol -- remained pretty consistent, actually, to the point that I was already tired of reiterating it during the primary. I don't think you'll find a single post in which I called him principled, or suggested that he was in any way someone I liked for the job.
In fact, I was pretty forward about the fact that I was only voting for Kerry because Bush was pretty close to a worst-case scenario for the policies I support.
Did anybody not already know that? I mean, despite what you're suggesting, I recall making that clear in pretty much every thread that talked about the guy.
------
The distinction that you're making, Dag -- that you feel the need to address overgeneralizations on this board, but not among pundits -- is a perfectly sensible one. But since this whole thread is about policing a pundit, it puts you in the odd position of criticizing people for exaggerating about someone else's exaggeration. That's not inconsistent with the principle you're applying, but it makes it look like you're ignoring the forest for the trees.
posted
Tom, I have no real problem with how you spoke of Kerry during the campaign. My point wasn't that didn't criticize him, but that you didn't initiate the criticism. And in threads that were chiefly about criticizing Kerry, you defended him, and made no more than passing acknolwdgements of your problems with him. That's not meant as a criticism of you, nor do I think it's dishonest, assuming, as I do, that your defense of him was based on your honest beliefs.
quote:The distinction that you're making, Dag -- that you feel the need to address overgeneralizations on this board, but not among pundits -- is a perfectly sensible one. But since this whole thread is about policing a pundit, it puts you in the odd position of criticizing people for exaggerating about someone else's exaggeration. That's not inconsistent with the principle you're applying, but it makes it look like you're ignoring the forest for the trees.
I can see that. Won't make me change how I react, but maybe I'll be more careful to state upfront my general agreement or disagreement with the article in question.
posted
Tom, I'm not sure why you think it's your job to determine how I should spend my energies in a debate. I post about what interests me and what I care about. I'm under no obligation to give equal time to any two sides, or to put my skills to better use, and certainly not to skew my efforts to more closely match your agenda.
I'm also not sure why in any reasonable universe, you could possibly think that publically denouncing my own father or his work could be in any way comparable to slapping down the occasional crazies and hacks. "If you do one, you should do the other?" Hardly.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I'm also not sure why in any reasonable universe, you could possibly think that publically denouncing my own father or his work could be in any way comparable to slapping down the occasional crazies and hacks."
Believe it or not, I recognize the difficult position you're in here. And I certainly don't expect you to "denounce" OSC; leaving aside all other considerations, he is more reasonable in person, and you of all of us are most able to see that on a regular basis.
That said, this is yet another thread where you've basically said "I agree that these people would have a valid point, if these other people who agree with them weren't raving nutjobs." My point here isn't (and never should be) that you owe it to us to rip your dad a new one, but rather that -- IMO, of course -- it would be more interesting to hear from you an analysis of the topic.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
