REDEFINING THE ALREADY DEFINED
New York Times best selling author and famous sock puppet Glenn Greenwald has done us all another favor. In the past, The Great Waldo has given us the benefit of his wit and wisdom regarding all manner of conservative sinfulness, most notably that the right has transgressed by failing to recognize the god-like thunderbolts of truth and logic that sputter and spark from his tireless (and tiresome) pen on a daily basis.
Forgive us, your Puppetress! We are not worthy. And may I suggest that the brown sock matches your eyes and skin tones quite nicely while the blue one makes your hand look rather limp and unattractive?
What has Waldo in a hysterics today is that someone dared try to debunk one of the left’s made up terms that insults, smears, and savages conservatives. Like redefining “racism” to include ethnic groups that are not of another race and are in fact, scientifically speaking, as white as the driven snow (Hispanics, Arabs, and anyone else who wants to piggyback on top of the grievance culture of the left), Waldo is in a snit because Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe wrote an article revealing the “chickenhawk” charge made by the left against people who disagree with their anti-war worldview has nothing whatsoever to do with debating the issues. Rather, by using the term, liberals have every intent of shutting off discussion while at the same time, gleefully savaging their political opponents by creating a narrative that places them in an ascendant moral position.
Goldstein has called out the left on this tactic many times, most recently here:
And controlling the narrative—first by bending it to fit your will, then by repeating it until it becomes provisional “truthâ€â€”is at the heart of a progressive “activism†that, let’s face it, has failed to win people over using an unrigged marketplace of ideas.
Indeed, it is now impossible to have a discussion about racism in America without including Hispanics as a separate “race” and a victim of white oppression despite the fact that there is not now nor has there ever been such a unique racial anthropological designation for Hispanics. It is simply part and parcel of the left’s desire to stand truth on its head whenever they feel it necessary to gain an advantage in dialogue and has nothing to do with reality, science, the ordering of an individual’s genes, or the correct usage of the English language. It is bogus. It is disgusting. And it must stop.
Similarly, Waldo attempts to redefine the word “chickenhawk” in order to dismiss Jacoby’s argument without even addressing its major point; that the use of the term is a slur and is used to shut people up. Here’s Jacoby:
“Chicken hawk” isn’t an argument. It is a slur — a dishonest and incoherent slur. It is dishonest because those who invoke it don’t really mean what they imply — that only those with combat experience have the moral authority or the necessary understanding to advocate military force. After all, US foreign policy would be more hawkish, not less, if decisions about war and peace were left up to members of the armed forces. Soldiers tend to be politically conservative, hard-nosed about national security, and confident that American arms make the world safer and freer. On the question of Iraq — stay-the-course or bring-the-troops-home? — I would be willing to trust their judgment. Would Cindy Sheehan and Howard Dean?
The cry of “chicken hawk” is dishonest for another reason: It is never aimed at those who oppose military action. But there is no difference, in terms of the background and judgment required, between deciding to go to war and deciding not to. If only those who served in uniform during wartime have the moral standing and experience to back a war, then only they have the moral standing and experience to oppose a war. Those who mock the views of “chicken hawks” ought to be just as dismissive of “chicken doves.”
In any case, the whole premise of the “chicken hawk” attack — that military experience is a prerequisite for making sound pronouncements on foreign policy — is illogical and ahistorical.
It should be noted that not all agree with Jacoby’s contention that military service makes one more hawkish. In fact, McQ at Q & O makes a good case that military service actually makes one more dovish. But putting that aside, instead of addressing the meat of Jacoby’s argument, Greenwald once again raises the bar by redefining the term and restructuring the chickenhawk narrative so that it can be applied in as broad a manner as is possible:
That is simply not what “chicken hawk” means, and it is less than forthright of Jacoby to mis-define the concept in order to argue against it. Although there is no formal definition for it, the “chicken hawk” criticism is not typically made against someone who merely (a) advocates a war but (b) will not fight in that war and/or has never fought in any war (although, admittedly, there are those who mis-use the term that way). After all, the vast majority of Americans in both political parties meet that definition. The war in Afghanistan was supported by roughly 90% of Americans, as was the first Persian Gulf War, even though only a tiny fraction of war supporters would actually fight in those wars which they advocated.
Something more than mere support for a war without fighting in it is required to earn the “chicken hawk” label. Chicken-hawkism is the belief that advocating a war from afar is a sign of personal courage and strength, and that opposing a war from afar is a sign of personal cowardice and weakness. A “chicken hawk” is someone who not merely advocates a war, but believes that their advocacy is proof of the courage which those who will actually fight the war in combat require.
That last part of Waldo’s “definition” - “Chicken-hawkism is the belief that advocating a war from afar is a sign of personal courage and strength, and that opposing a war from afar is a sign of personal cowardice and weakness” - is a brand spanking new addition to the word’s meaning. And it was appended to the original meaning by none other than the Great Waldo Sock Puppet himself (or one of his many admirers).
How do we know? This is a cached version of the Wikpedia page defining the term “chickenhawk” from just two days ago (7/23):
Chickenhawk (also chicken hawk and chicken-hawk) is a political epithet used in United States to criticize a politician, bureaucrat, or commentator who strongly supports a war or other military action, but has never personally been in a war, especially (but not always) if that person is perceived to have actively avoided military service when of draft age. The term is a deliberate insult, meant to indicate that the person in question is cowardly or hypocritical for personally avoiding combat in the past while advocating that others go to war in the present. Often, the implication is that the person in question lacks the experience, judgment, or moral standing to make decisions about going to war.
Here is the Wikpedia definition as seen today - after more than 50 revisions to the entry in the last 24 hours:
Chickenhawk (also chicken hawk and chicken-hawk) is a political epithet used in United States to criticize a politician, bureaucrat, or commentator who strongly supports a war or other military action, but has never personally been in a war, especially (but not always) if that person is perceived to have actively avoided military service when of draft age. Many proponents of the term insist on an additional requirement: Chickenhawks believe that their support for a war (or other military action) is an indication of their personal courage and that those who disagree are appeasers and/or cowards. This important point is rarely acknowledged by the term’s opponents when its use is criticized.
(Emphasis mine)
Could the reason the point is “rarely acknowledged by the term’s opponents when its use is criticized” have to do with the fact that Mr. Sock Puppet redefined the term only just today for his own purposes of argument? Give us some time, Waldo! Another day at least before we acknowledge your blindingly brilliant addition to the nomenclature of the word.
Even if Waldo or one of his minions did not rush to alter the Wikpedia definition to reflect his revised, made up definition, the point still stands; when losing an argument, the left invariably tries to change the parameters of the narrative rather than attempt to win on the merits or on logic. They view language with a fluidity that lacks the proper respect for and understanding of the importance of commonality of usage - that we all must use the same reference points when talking with each other. Otherwise, we talk past each other rather than with one another.
One of my commenters “GawainsGhost” - a much smarter and more credentialed man than I - puts the abuse of language by the left in perspective:
But the larger point is that deconstruction best serves the purposes of leftist academics, which are to teach that a poem or text says what they want it to say. This is why other academic fads, like Marxist theory, feminist theory and new historicism, are so prevalent in today’s academy. Deconstruction allows a Marxist or a feminist or a new historicist to take any poem or text and claim that it supports whatever ideology they advocate, even and especially if that ideology did not exist anywhere at the time the text was composed and has absolutely nothing to do with the intention of the author. (Incidentally, the best book on this subject, if you’re interested in pursuing it, is John M. Ellis’s Against Deconstruction, Princeton UP 1989.)
I am an intentionalist, and I agree with Jeff Goldstein. What does a poem mean? It means what it says. What does it say? That is the question. Only by understanding exactly what the poet intended to say can one come to any truth in meaning. Of course, authorial intent goes directly against everything the deconstructionists are attempting to accomplish, which is to rewrite the poem to suit their own ideology. In this way they commit the cardinal sin of criticism–telling the poet what he intended to say, instead of allowing the poet to speak for himself.
When there is no truth and words have no meaning, any text, or any event for that matter, can be turned around and made to say or mean the exact opposite of what it actually says or means.
Turning truth and reality upside down. Travelling to a place where black is white, up is down, and intent doesn’t matter as much as forcing it to fit into a new, interpretive paradigm that bears no resemblance to any sense or significance allowed by the author.
Welcome to Waldo’s World.
Rick- go to the Wiki page and look at Page History. It’ll tell you exactly when the page was updated and, if Glenn was “wise” enough to not sign into Wiki under his name, his IP NUMBER.
Three possibilities:
1. You don’t see any familiar IP.
2. You see Glenn Greenwald’s IP.
3. You see Glenn Greenwald’s name in black and white.
I’ll go check right now.
Comment by Tom the Pooklekufr — 7/25/2006 @ 6:47 pm
IP: 216.13.12.243
Changed: 19:44, 25 July 2006
Anonymous, no talk page.
Whois info:
OrgName: Allstream Corp. Corporation Allstream
OrgID: ACCA-2
Address: 200 Wellington Street West
Address: 16th Floor
City: Toronto
StateProv: ON
PostalCode: M5V-3G2
Country: CA
Maybe Glenn used an anonymizer?
Comment by Tom the Pooklekufr — 7/25/2006 @ 6:53 pm
This is a great honor. To not only be quoted–and on the same page as Goldstein and Jacoby!–but to be praised by the Great Purveyor of Rightwing Nuthouse himself. I am truly humbled. I couldn’t be happier if I got through to talk to Rush Limbaugh.
Of course, now I’m going to have to wake up early and call the Rick Moran Show tomorrow and inquire about my special prize. Something like, oh I don’t know, a free phone call to Wide Awakes Radio, perhaps?
Comment by GawainsGhost — 7/25/2006 @ 7:05 pm
Well, it’s time to put a small army at the disposal of updating Greenwald’s wiki to include the term, “(multiple) iGlentity politics.”
Comment by Dan Collins — 7/25/2006 @ 7:34 pm
Bravo, sir, a beautiful exposition on Douchey LeDoucheBag!
Comment by Verc — 7/25/2006 @ 7:40 pm
And we can now expect GG’s newest book to hit the shelves any day now - “CorrectSpeak”. Be sure to order your copy today!
Comment by SShiell — 7/25/2006 @ 7:41 pm
[...] LC & IB Rick Moran has a great post (that would be Rick of W.A.R.’s “The Rick Moran Show”, Mon-Fri from 7 am - 9 am CDT, by the way) about the loony left and their bad habit of redefining language to mean whatever their current argument requires it to mean. [...]
Pingback by Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler » Blog Archive » Queen Douchewald of Sock Strikes Back — 7/25/2006 @ 8:04 pm
How dare you! Don’t you know that Glenn Greenwald has a New York Times bestseller?
Naives!
Comment by Wilson (not really) — 7/25/2006 @ 8:08 pm
How refreshing. Greenwald is a mile-a-minute, it’s good to break him down.
Comment by Jeremayakovka — 7/25/2006 @ 8:15 pm
Another tactic I’ve seen from the Left is “Heads I win, tails you lose.” Illustrated in a discussion I had on Dr. Sanity’s blog with a liberal commenter. Basically, he claimed that when the United States acts on its own we’re being unilateralist cowboys. But when we go through the UN we’re bullying them to get what we want.
There’s no way to win an argument like that. And there’s no reason to discuss anything further with a person like that. Reasonable people can disagree. But when someone has locked out all possible ways they could be proven wrong, they’re not reasonable at all.
Comment by Cervus — 7/25/2006 @ 8:23 pm
As usual you have hit the nail on the head and we will have to fall back on the less amusing, but no less accurate, “coward” when referencing your crowd.
We hope this meets with your approval…not that we really care since you guys really do have a problem with that whole “connotation” thing.
Comment by tbogg — 7/25/2006 @ 8:25 pm
The Greenwaldesque edit to the Wikipedia article was made by user Crust here.
Looking at Crust’s edit history here, it’s clear that he’s either Greenwald or a Greenwaldite. For example, he uploaded the cover image for the article on Greenwald’s book, as you can see here.
Edits to Wikipedia under a signed-in account, as with Crust’s, will not display an IP address. The IP is displayed only for non-account editors.
Comment by Brian O'Connell — 7/25/2006 @ 8:31 pm
Somehow being called a coward by an anonymous former mail-order underwear salesman (and current czar of touchscreen retail technology) doesn’t quite have the bite you’d expect it would.
Go figure.
Comment by Jeff G — 7/25/2006 @ 8:38 pm
I was just over at Gleen’s, checking out the comments. Something occurred to me, which I posted there first. I’ll post it here. I frankly don’t know an answer to this, let’s see what the both the right and left have to say:
I’m not sure it’s been brought up yet, but how about a take from a Capitalist?
A certain good chunk of my paycheck goes to the government. Some of that goes to the military. Are you suggesting I have no say in how this should be spent? How it should be used, or when?
If one would consider that a wise use of capital would be to utilize it in a war, which by definition will cost lives, is it chickenhawk to spend it, if you think either socially or capitalistically that it will better the world?
For your consideration. I’m not even close to going with that argument, just came to mind.
Comment by Alear — 7/25/2006 @ 8:39 pm
“Somehow being called a coward by an anonymous former mail-order underwear salesman (and current czar of touchscreen retail technology) doesn’t quite have the bite you’d expect it would.”
FEEL. THESE. NIPPLES.
Comment by Verc — 7/25/2006 @ 8:50 pm
Come now, Jeff. The idea of people who actually work for a living needn’t be so threatening or mysterious. Just ask your wife. But if it bothers you so much, perhaps you can ask for a dosage increase…
Comment by tbogg — 7/25/2006 @ 8:52 pm
Update to my previous comment: I’m pretty sure Crust is not Greenwald, unless Greenwald has expertise in math. Example here.
Comment by Brian O'Connell — 7/25/2006 @ 8:57 pm
Nice, tbogg, nice. Why is it you Lefties always feel the need to attack someone’s family members?
Comment by Yoshida Shigeru — 7/25/2006 @ 8:57 pm
tbogg Said@8:25 pm
‘As usual you have hit the nail on the head and we will have to fall back on the less amusing, but no less accurate, “coward†when referencing your crowd.’
And there you have it: no argument. Just “Shut up,” he explained. Looks like T, here, adds fuel to the argument that the American Left has nothing on the merits.
Comment by eLarson — 7/25/2006 @ 9:02 pm
But, tbizzag, working people don’t exactly have a monopoly on courage either. Since you won’t walk a patrol, STFU about courage.
Check out the sale of daisy dukes on aisle 9 and stick to what you know.
Comment by Verc — 7/25/2006 @ 9:03 pm
OK tbogg, I’ll bite…
Am I a “coward” since I back OIF and OEF? Or since I served in OEF I am not a “coward”, and I am allowed to have an opinion?
I’d rather skip the whole chicken-crap insult slinging and judge each opinion on it’s own merits - but that is just my obsolete manner of thinking, I guess.
Comment by Major John — 7/25/2006 @ 9:10 pm
It has now been redefined to be meanless.
Comment by Neo — 7/25/2006 @ 9:12 pm
meaningless, even
Comment by Verc — 7/25/2006 @ 9:14 pm
Wow you chickenhawks sure turned into an army of Encyclopedia Browns in a hurry.
This guy Greenwald is really getting to you…
Comment by Mark — 7/25/2006 @ 9:17 pm
Back at it so soon, Glenn?
Comment by Yoshida Shigeru — 7/25/2006 @ 9:20 pm
Is it Gigli or is it the MAGIC BOYFRIEND WHO LOVES HIM AS NO MAN HATH EVER FELT THE FORBIDDEN PASSION, EVER IN HISTORY? Just can’t decide.
Comment by Verc — 7/25/2006 @ 9:22 pm
Mark - Greenwald gets to people the same way bad pimento loaf does…
Comment by Major John — 7/25/2006 @ 9:27 pm
Check out the sale of daisy dukes on aisle 9 and stick to what you know.
Hey pal, unless you’re willing to get in those retail trenches and program that barcode scanner, you’ve got no business telling someone’s Daddy to go in there and do what you won’t do for yourself! Besides, shouldn’t you be busy doing Marine stuff?
Back to Waldo, Wikipedia may sanitize quickly enough, but Google is going to take a lttle more work.
Comment by Pablo — 7/25/2006 @ 9:29 pm
“Wow you chickenhawks sure turned into an army of Encyclopedia Browns in a hurry.”
When you say “Chickenhawk”, what do you mean by that, “Mark”?
Comment by Pablo — 7/25/2006 @ 9:31 pm
I think Mr. Greenwald is channeling Josef Stalin. From the Encyclopedia Britannica article on marxism:
From these principles may be drawn the following inferences, essential for penetrating the workings of Marxist-Leninist thought and its application. No natural phenomenon, no historical or social situation, no political fact, can be considered independently of the other facts or phenomena that surround it; it is set within a whole. Since movement is the essential fact, one must distinguish between what is beginning to decay and what is being born and developing. Since the process of development takes place by leaps, one passes suddenly from a succession of slow quantitative changes to a radical qualitative change.
The truth, you see, is the truth only when it is politically true. And as a progressive, Mr. Greenwald is best able to determine the political truth of anything.
Comment by Terry — 7/25/2006 @ 9:33 pm
I much preferred the Great Brain series by J.D. Fitzgerald to Encyclopedia Brown, FWIW.
Comment by Major John — 7/25/2006 @ 9:33 pm
Okay, I Think I Got It
I’ve been struggling with this whole Chickenhawk thing. But Right Wing Nut House helps clear it up.Similarly, Waldo (aka Glenn Greenwald, apparently) attempts to redefine the word “chickenhawk†in order to dismiss Jacoby’s argument without even …
Trackback by Riehl World View — 7/25/2006 @ 10:25 pm
The Wikipedia entry has been fixed, and links to Jacoby’s piece has been added.
It’s on my watchlist, so if anyone messes with it, I can revert their vandalism.
Comment by The Monster — 7/25/2006 @ 10:37 pm
have. PIMF
Comment by The Monster — 7/25/2006 @ 10:41 pm
Help me out here. Jacoby’s definition is the only one that applies, or does Greenwald’s definition have no merit because he says it shouldn’t apply to people who support wars they don’t fight in?
Comment by politically lost — 7/25/2006 @ 10:49 pm
Jacoby used a definition of chickenhawk accepted by everyone on the planet including Greenwald…Until today when Greenwald decided to “massage” the definition of the word in order to win an argument.
It has nothing to do with one definition being “better” than another. Greenwald simply redefined the term on his own in order to make a point that shut down the argument in his favor.
The Wikpedia thing was just symptomatic of the left hijacking language and meaning for their own purposes.
Comment by Rick Moran — 7/25/2006 @ 10:55 pm
By “working for a living,” Tbogg, are you doing that Greenwaldean redefining thing whereby “working” means only, say, “making sure the counter tops are ergonomically situated so that the wage-slaves working the cash registers at Gap stores cannot later sue for instances of carpal tunnel”? Or will you allow working to include self-employment — which, in my case, allows me to spend entire days with my kid and still make a decent living while you are stuffing yourself into a starched white oxford and a sport coat each morning so that you can provide the final word on where best to place thermal scanners at Old Navy?
Incidentally, you seem inordinately concerned with my use of prescription drugs. But you needn’t be. Truth is, I just kinda dig what they do to me.
Which, if it helps you wrap your mind around it, picture yourself in your salad days, surrounded by freshly-shipped low-rise briefs and garters.
Comment by Jeff G — 7/25/2006 @ 10:56 pm
The chickenhawk piece by Jacoby was great, but missed a point that I have personal experience with.
Recently, I had an pro/anti argument with a close friend about Iraq. I was pro, he was anti. He raised the chickenhawk argument about George Bush. The main thrust was that GWB avoided military service. I said this was rubbish. People didn’t become a fighter pilots during the Vietnam era to avoid combat …. on and on and on …
Anyway, he said people without military experience couldn’t take a pro-war position (but could take an anti-war position, of course). I explained to him that since I had been in the military, I could! As it turns out, I was mistaken: I was in the Air Force during the first gulf war. I wasn’t in theatre, and saw no combat as such. Since I hadn’t experienced combat, he explained, I wasn’t included.
That got me to thinking …. so the only people who can advocate a pro-war positon had to be in theatre and actively engaged in combat during a war.
What a great way to shut down the pro-war arguments … We all know that zillions of people have been in the military, but few have been involved during times of active combat. Even fewer have been in theatre, and fewer still are trigger-pullers on the ground. If you want to go a step further, the number of soldiers who have pulled extended, prolonged periods tough combat is statistically very small, as a percentage of total active duty strength. They’re brave beyond belief, and that’s why we stand in awe of them.
On a related note, similar thoughts crossed my mind during the last presidential campaign, but didn’t get focused until I read this article: John Kerry used the chickenhawk slur a few times, as I recall. Without getting into the whole swiftboat / medal scandal, Lt. Kerry based his whole presidential campaign on a relatively brief period of combat activity. That shows bravery, and the ability to get himself and his men out alive. I’ve known people who were in combat like this, and they’re usually modest to a fault.
But Kerry sounded to me like he was calling everyone else pussies because he was “in the s**t”. Is it possible he alienated people who had an uncle who was a cook in the Navy during Vietnam; and didn’t see any action?
My grandfather served in WWII as an airplane mechanic. He was in theatre, but didn’t see combat. Was he a chickenhawk?
Comment by flea — 7/25/2006 @ 11:11 pm
Okay, I Think I Got It
Riehl World View
I’ve been struggling with this whole Chickenhawk thing. But Right Wing Nut House helps clear it up.Similarly, Waldo (aka Glenn Greenwald, apparently) attempts to redefine the word “chickenhawk†in order to dismiss Jacoby’s argu…
Trackback by Blog-o-Fascists — 7/25/2006 @ 11:15 pm
Then I sauntered over to Greenwald’s place (it was also linked to off Wikipedia, apparently by his sock puppet) and left this comment:
Let’s see if that one’s allowed to stand very long
Comment by The Monster — 7/25/2006 @ 11:15 pm
I am sorry, but Terry above just wrote the most stupid sentence I have ever read–”The truth, you see, is the truth only when it is politically true.”
WRONG! What is true is that which is real, eternal, unchangeable, and immutable. What was true 10,000 years ago is still true today, because what is true does not change. The truth transcends time, place, culture, ideology. It is itself, and is not dependent on any other.
This simple fact eludes the simple-minded like Terry, who wish to reduce all things to the politically expedient. If the truth were an agreed upon fiction, simply because it was political, there would be no Truth. That is, if a majority agreed politically that 2 + 2 did not equal 4, then 2 + 2 would equal 5. That would be political, but it would not be true.
Let us examine the statement “There is no truth” logically. If the statement is false, then its opposite is true, in which case there is truth. If the statement is true, then no statement could be true, including the statement “There is no truth.” Therefore the statement contradicts itself and must be false. Quod erat demonstratum (the thing demonstrates itself): there is truth.
Obviously, elementary logic is far beyond the intellectual capacity of simple minds like Terry’s. And this goes to the larger point of Mr. Moran’s post. The Left constantly tries to reduce all things to the political, as long as they get to define the terms, without any regard to the truth.
Rereading Terry I am reminded of a quote from William Blake: “The mind that composed this sentence must have been a pitiable, a pitiful imbecility. I thank God I am not like [Terry].”
Comment by GawainsGhost — 7/25/2006 @ 11:28 pm
bravo, flea. The GWB thing is the whole crux of the chickenhawk deal. The Left cannot stand to part with it, at all. They’d lose too much.
Comment by Verc — 7/25/2006 @ 11:29 pm
Uh . . . gawainsghost . . . I was being ironic. I was trying to make the point that a lot of leftists who would never consider themselves to be Stalinists are echoing Stalin’s belief that the truth can only be defined politically. Kind of like O’Brien trying to explain to Winston Smith that the Party’s fluid view of reality was the only “real” reality in 1984. Except I was using irony.
Comment by Terry — 7/25/2006 @ 11:45 pm
Incidentally, you seem inordinately concerned with my use of prescription drugs. But you needn’t be. Truth is, I just kinda dig what they do to me.
If I lived your reality, I’d probably enjoy the alternative too.
And really now… two hours to come up with the snappy retail banter? No wonder you’ve never been published.
Comment by tbogg — 7/25/2006 @ 11:46 pm
Oh Christ on a crutch, Gawain, Terry was talking about…oh never mind. If you cannot figure out context, Gawain, stop preening like you graduated middle school.
Comment by Verc — 7/25/2006 @ 11:48 pm
As usual you have hit the nail on the head and we will have to fall back on the less amusing, but no less accurate, “coward†when referencing your crowd.
Considering the state of both political parties of late, I think boss would be more descriptive. Then again, you seem to be misinformed enough to think we didn’t already know you were calling us that. So you can be forgiven for not knowing that that likelihood that anyone would care what you think on the subject is small.
Comment by Defense Guy — 7/26/2006 @ 12:28 am
Jesus, every f’n time I hear about Wikipediatrics I get a headache from the eyerolling. It’s the refuge of the desperate Left and their history revisionists. I don’t even know why they bother; it’s not like ANYONE but they themselves take Wikipediatrics seriously. I guess they ASSume they’ll fool all the unsuspecting ig’nint folks just blindly wandering around the internets searching for information.
It’s kinda cute how they take it so seriously.
Monster #33 - Good on ya. It must be maddening, hanging out there–I tried it for about five days and got so disgusted by what I saw I figured it wasn’t worth the effort.
Comment by Beth — 7/26/2006 @ 5:53 am
And really now… two hours to come up with the snappy retail banter?
Tbagg, you’ve spent your entire life coming up with the source material and you expect people on the internets to give you their undivided attention?
Leftists are funny!
Comment by Pablo — 7/26/2006 @ 6:09 am
Greenwald wrote: “The war in Afghanistan was supported by roughly 90% of Americans, as was the first Persian Gulf War,”
This is the bottom line. This is why we have a debate about Iraq. Settled wars have a funny way of re-writing history. The first Gulf War was not popular, 64% of Americans opposed it. In fact, the resolution authorizing it was not agreed to until AFTER the mid-term elections in 1990. Many top Democrat presidential hopefuls for 1992 openly opposed it. The reason Bill Clinton was able to win the nomination in 92, was because he had been on both sides of the issue. The Left’s goal is to settle Iraq as a failure.
Comment by Fritz — 7/26/2006 @ 7:39 am
I guess this means tbogg won’t answer any of my questions. He’s too busy sniping at Jeff. Sigh.
Comment by Major John — 7/26/2006 @ 8:37 am
“As usual you have hit the nail on the head and we will have to fall back on the less amusing, but no less accurate, “coward†when referencing your crowd”
Takes an especially brave man to call another a coward from behind a keyboard. Wonder if Teabagg would have the same fortitude face to face? I mean, if they’re really all cowards, then there would be nothing to fear, right?
Comment by docob — 7/26/2006 @ 9:01 am
Couldn’t this same argument be applied to the Left’s hijacking of the meaning of the Constitution? Especially activist judges?
Comment by lakestate — 7/26/2006 @ 9:52 am
For the last time, people who have not served in the military have NO RIGHT to have any opinion on what the military does.
For God’s sake, what do you think this is, a democracy or something?
Comment by TallDave — 7/26/2006 @ 10:21 am
House of Cards
I’ve long held, as you see above, that “liberalism is a persistent vegetative state,” but at no point could I ever have predicted that it was as inbred and corrupt as the story unfolding around Sexion, an American blogger living…
Trackback by Confederate Yankee — 7/26/2006 @ 11:11 am
Yeah, it sucks playing with my kid all the day while you’re off positioning cash registers and flirting with teenage sales girls who smile perfunctorily (you’re the boss, after all), but who secretly find you kinda creepy.
Sure, if by “never” you mean “I meant to leave out ‘never’”.
And why would you think it took me two hours to come up with that response? Because two hours passed before I responded?
Let me ask you, do you use the same logic to brag to your friends that you can go at it in bed for, like, days at a time?
Anyway, off topic, but — if I’m nice to you from here on out, what do you say about maybe hooking me up with your GAP employee discount? I’m in the market for a couple of scarves and maybe a sweater vest.
Comment by Jeff G — 7/26/2006 @ 12:12 pm
Several years ago, I read the book “Chickenhawk” by Robert Mason, a helicopter pilot who flew in Vietnam. It was a nickname the pilots gave themselves to distinguish them from the hunter/killer teams. The chickenhawks flew insertions, extractions, and medevacs, lots of it under fire. Fascinating book and I’d recommend it to anyone.
Comment by Bill — 7/26/2006 @ 12:27 pm
Using the left’s logic, TBogg and Greenwald(o) and his army of sock puppets cannot be against the Iraq war as they are chicken doves. They have never been human shields for Saddam in the early days of OEF, so their imagined air of superiority have dissapated as fast as a fart in a windtunnel.
Does being on a navy ship that launched numerous tomahawk missiles during the beginning of OEF qualify me as a “chickenhawk” by the way? Or getting my request to go boots to the ground in Iraq qualify me?
Comment by CTT1 Daniel — 7/26/2006 @ 2:08 pm
err my request denied to go boots to the ground denied I mean.
Comment by CTT1 Daniel — 7/26/2006 @ 2:09 pm
“When I use a word,†Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.†“The question is,†said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.†“The question is,†said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.â€
Comment by Jabberwocky — 7/26/2006 @ 5:18 pm
The “bravery” of opinion
This is gonna be a long one, so bear with me.I saw this post at Right Wing Nut House yesterday, and plenty of peopl …
Trackback by The Brea Canyon Monument — 7/26/2006 @ 8:28 pm
That contemptable fool will not be criticized in public by his peers. They only do that to conservatives. But his hysteria and dishonesty doubtless will make the rounds of the rumor mill and may do serious damage to his reputation.
Thanks for your attention.
Comment by Bleepless — 7/26/2006 @ 10:01 pm
Proud to Be a Chickenhawk
Jeff Jacoby in the Boston Globe attacked the use of the epithet “chicken hawk.” But is it really an insult?
Trackback by Jon Swift — 7/27/2006 @ 12:03 pm
In defense of crust
This user does appear to follow Greenwald (ie. probably a reader), but does not seem to be particularly ideological wrt wikipedia. The edits I have seen for Glenn Reynolds and Greg Mankiw, for example, though perhaps not always sympathetic, stick to the truth and appear to me to be a genuine attempt to describe things factually.
Comment by anomdebus — 7/28/2006 @ 5:39 pm
quik cash quik cash
Comment by quik cash — 9/12/2006 @ 11:03 am
Anyone hear from Lee Siegel lately?
Comment by Mark — 10/23/2006 @ 7:43 pm
[...] Glenn Greenwald has a history of redefining terms to suit whatever argument he is making at the moment. This is not unusual – for a liberal. Language and definitions acquire a certain elasticity when in the expert hands of liberal wordsmiths like Greenwald. Hence, his idea of just what constitutes “hate speech” could very well mean one thing in one context and an entirely different thing in another. Would Alex Pareene writing at Wonkette referring to Malkin’s “ping pong balls” cross Greenwald’s threshold of hate speech? Since he failed to take that site to task for their infamy, one would have to assume that particular racist reference gets a pass from the New York Times Best Selling Author as, I imgaine, would other bigoted comments on blog posts directed toward Malkin [...]
Pingback by Right Wing Nut House » A RESPONSE TO GLENN GREENWALD — 7/26/2007 @ 2:47 pm