Comments on: CONOR FRIEDERSDORF AND HIS ABOMINABLE STRAWMEN

By: Elizho

Elizho — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 01:26:23 +0000

“I have given up trying to understand why conservatives place such importance on what comes out of the mouths of pop righties like Levin whose shtick, while entertaining, is taken far too seriously by way too many.”

You admitted yourself: there are just way too many impressionable minds being horns-woggled into wave after wave of talk radio hokum while having no intellectual accretion to show for at the end of the day other than an exhaustively rehearsed set of malapropisms to hector their feigned counterparts. I might agree or disagree with his approach to construct an effective defense against these pop culture pundits to shock the lost generation of Right back to life but at least his effort will not be futile.

“But really now, must we elevate to hero status people whose claim to fame is that they can savage the opposition in more colorful and amusing ways than some other shock jock?”

You can take a parallel analogy from the ever popular “rap battles” performed as a ritual to earn “respect” by disrespecting your little-known opponent. I could not agree more with you on this matter.

By: Chuck Tucson

Chuck Tucson — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 15:11:19 +0000

Gayle Miller said:

I firmly believe that Hugo Chavez Obama…

Hey Gayle, when you use clever-to-you names like “Hugo Chavez Obama” or other such derogatory conservative monikers, it delegitimizes everything you say. It detracts from the potency, message, and salience of your posts, and only serves to distract from the points raised when you write.

If you’re trying to influence others who either haven’t formed an opinion, or are receptive to different approaches on a topic, then this is the worst possible way to go about doing it.

And yes, the same goes for liberals who do it as well.

By: Gayle Miller

Gayle Miller — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 12:18:49 +0000

Murder is utterly indefensible - whether the person killed be a moral cripple like Dr. Tiller or an innocent infant in utero (49 million since Roe v. Wade just to keep our numbers straight here) or whether you are an Army Recruiter, minding your own business, like Pvt. Long. ALL diminish us by the brutality and senselessness of the act and the victims ALL deserve our prayers. Dr. Tiller played the political game to perfection for many years - major contributions to many, many Democratic politicians and causes. HHS Kathleen Sebelius received a great many contributions, which may explain why the many investigations into the illegalities of his abortion mill were often begun and then stalled. Pvt. Long was simply going about his lawful business and the media isn’t even honest enough to give the name of his attacker - they consistently refer to him by his original name instead of his newly adopted Muslim name! Now there’s some dishonesty for you!

I firmly believe that Hugo Chavez Obama can and will do almost anything, whether legal or not, in his quest to reshape America to his owners’ own weird desires. Our only hope is next year’s midterm election! Let’s get rid of the leftists insorfar as we are able and elect some sensible representatives with spines!

By: Conor Friedersdorf

Conor Friedersdorf — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 18:31:17 +0000

“I think Friedersdorf’s point is that the ‘terrorist hawks’ are blinded by the particular instance of Islamic terrorism, and that they would think differently if police state tactics were used against free people who are more like them just because some of these people like them have committed terrorist acts.”

Yes Mike, I don’t think Obama will do this — though we have safeguards for extreme situations, and you never know — and I do think that “terrorist hawks” are blinded in just the way you suggest (or you suggest I suggest, actually).

By: mike farmer

mike farmer — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 18:24:26 +0000

Whoops, I wrote too soon.

By: mike farmer

mike farmer — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 18:23:19 +0000

I don’t think he was making a moral equivalence argument between the two, or even suggesting that Obama would do something like this, but, rather, asking IF this happened, would the “terrorist hawks” be as supportive of it as they are civil liberty violations in the name of fighting Islam extremist terrorism. I think Friedersdorf’s point is that the “terrorist hawks” are blinded by the particular instance of Islamic terrorism, and that they would think differently if police state tactics were used against free people who are more like them just because some of these people like them have committed terrorist acts.

By: c3

c3 — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 18:19:33 +0000

This is another fine example of an internet/blogsphere “discussion” (and I use that term with severe reservations)degenerating into an “insult fest”. Maybe I should go back to watching wrestling.

PS the initial Levin comment was despicable, period

By: Conor Friedersdorf

Conor Friedersdorf — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 18:04:59 +0000

Perhaps you are right that the hypothetical terrorist campaign I describe is so improbable that it isn’t worth discussing. I worry about various kinds of domestic terrorism, whether committed by religious extremists or Tim McVeigh style anti-government folks or radical leftist environmental or anti-war activists — like the 9/11 attacks, it only seems improbable until it happens, at which point the warning signs seem clear in hindsight — but it’s a reasonable criticism nonetheless, since I may well be wrong to worry.

But when you state that my arguments are “based on the notion that there is equivalence between a terrorist attack carried out by trained cadres hell bent on killing as many of us as possible and, historically speaking, lone wackos or small groups of untrained fanatics attacking small targets,” you are incorrect — I DO NOT mean to assert any such equivalence. Indeed, I share your conviction that Al Qaeda is almost infinitely more dangerous, and that opposing them ought to occupy almost infinitely more resources.

The fact that I do not find them equivalent, however, does not mean that some future president won’t draw a false equivalence, using the fact that both groups can be termed terrorists — and powers he’s been given to fight terrorists — to commit abuses we’d both regard as abhorrent.

Like you, I’m not particularly worried that President Obama is going to commit such abuses. Then again, I never imagined circa 2000 that President Bush would end up overseeing a program of torture.

You write, “Friedersdorf is trying to make a point about the danger of right wing religious nuts being equal to that of the jihadists…” But that’s not so. Jihadists are demonstrably MUCH MORE DANGEROUS. You go on, “…not only as a threat but that tactics used to fight the jihadists would be used to violate the civil liberties of anti-abortion fanatics. That dog don’t hunt.”

But why not? Once you give a President unchecked power to use against one kind of very dangerous terrorist, why do you assume he can’t or won’t use it against another kind of less dangerous terrorist?

By: smitty

smitty — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 17:37:04 +0000

Piling on, Friedersdorf deserves ridicule for ignorance of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_war, and the legal circumstances under which enemy combatants were interred in GITMO.
If Friedersdorf is a result of No Child Left Behind, then perhaps we should request an exception.

By: Chuck Tucson

Chuck Tucson — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 17:13:59 +0000

Yes, yes, I know that Rush, Levin, and the rest do more than simply make liberals look like idiots, and even dangerous idiots at times.

It’s not just liberals. It’s also conservatives who have a different take on an issue. It’s easy to make people look like idiots when you’re the one who controls the mute button on the call-in line.

It’s frustrating as a listener to hear someone get muted when they’re trying to make a point or counter point.

However, if I had my own radio who, I’d prolly do the same thing.