« The three rules of political protest: location, location, location | Main | Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners »

Hypocrisy Watch

Ilyka Damen had some rather harsh comments about 2 of my posts.

Dear Every Damn Blogger Speculating About Nick Berg

Please stop it. It's making me sick. And it's proving that the left has no monopoly on tinfoil hat conspiracy theories.

And this sorry excuse . . . ?

Oh God, oh Lord, would this man please fuck OFF.

At the time I thought it was a rough way to word it but I thought the criticism might be fair. Some people genuinely find it distasteful to speculate about the dead. Besides, Ilyka did use me as the example but the post was titled "Dear Every Damn Blogger..." If Ilyka got a little passionate, I (of all people) would not complain about that. I ignored it.

Later, Ilyka updated the post:

It is the sensationalist tone and treatment of the subject which enrages me, and the blame for that can be heaped mainly at the feet of one guy: Paul at Wizbang. Thus, the title of this post probably should not have read, "Dear Every Damn Blogger . . . ."

So, I was public enemy number one when it came to speculating about the death of Nick Berg. Still, I chose to ignore it.

But you can imagine my surprise when I found this comment Ilyka made on Kate's blog about the Nick Berg video:

Damn, Kate, you made me break out the Stedmanís Medical Dictionary. :)

And if Iím reading the diagrams correctly, the carotid arteries (the main arteries supplying blood to the brain) lie deep beneath the soft tissues of the neck, adjacent to the pharynx and anterior to the cervical spine. Severing an artery will produce spurting blood.

But long before you would sever the carotids, youíd sever the jugular veins, which lie nearer the surface (itís what you feel if you take your pulse at the neck, just below the jaw and before the ear). And if it took you a long time to (I canít believe Iím typing this) saw through the entire neck, which by most accounts it did, brain death followed by the cessation of cardiac activity could result before the arteries were breached.

So, according to Ilyka, questiong the odds of the same guy having two encounters with Al Qaeda leadership in 2 years is horrible because we should not speculate about his death and I should earn a tin-foil hat for doing it.

BUT taking joy in the fact that you needed a Medical Dictionary to figure out how much blood should be spurting on the floor when you saw someone's head off to speculate if Nick Berg was really beheaded while he was still alive is perfectly acceptable, normal behavior. No tin-foil hat required.

Nothing like hypocrisy huh?


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Hypocrisy Watch:

» One Fine Jay linked with Grave-spitting? By no means.

» Ilyka Damen linked with Glory Daze

Comments (17)

If it wasn't for double sta... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

If it wasn't for double standards, some people would have no standards at all.

Be honored, Paul -- I COULDA put that in my "Aphorisms" post, but I saved it just for you.

J.

I think you're reaching, Pa... (Below threshold)
Xrlq:

I think you're reaching, Paul. It's one thing to speculate, with damned near zero evidence, that a murder victim had ties to the terrorist organization that murdered him. It's quite another to discuss the likelihood as to whether or not the admittedly innocent victim was murdered on the video tape (as I believe he was) or before it (as Kate believes).

Help me out... Which one e... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Help me out... Which one exactly is NOT speculating about the dead?

Paul,I've been a l... (Below threshold)
Long Time Lurker:

Paul,

I've been a long time lurker at Wizbang and I have enjoyed your work quite a bit. You do have a unique style.

When I read your message about Nick Berg's password I was impressed that you got the information but I was also dismayed that you took it one step too far.

I was greatly heartened that after sleeping on it, you made that second post. We all get excited but you did the right thing.

But none of that is why I gave up my lurker status.

I can honestly say that in all my years reading things on the internet and on BBS's before them I have never seen such a complete and thorough take down as that one. Laser accurate in its precision and elegant in its execution. Kudos.

I'll give you the advice my father gave me many times as a child, "Never let the fools bother you."

John

I would just like to point ... (Below threshold)

I would just like to point out two things:

1. YOU are not a journalist. So posting things and calling them "Wizbang Exclusives" is really just laughable.

2. You do not get paid for your traffic. Sure, the blogads generate a little bit of revenue, but COME ON. Get some frigging perspective here.

You. Write. A. Blog. End of story.

Help me out... Whi... (Below threshold)
Xrlq:
Help me out... Which one exactly is NOT speculating about the dead?

The one that doesn't concern Berg's character. Duh. Speculate all you want about what his evil murderers did, but don't piss on the dead unless you've got solid proof to back up your so-called "exclusive."

Perhaps you need to read th... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Perhaps you need to read the post again.

The subject was:

"Dear Every Damn Blogger Speculating About Nick Berg"

Do you really believe that Ilyka speculating about which arteries were cut in which order is somehow exempt from that?

If so, you have an odd value system.

Oh, horseshit, Paul. Yes, ... (Below threshold)
Xrlq:

Oh, horseshit, Paul. Yes, technically, she did say "don't speculate about the dead," and not "don't speculate about the character of the individual who was murdered." Non-technically, I think it is clear what she meant. If you can't tell the difference between speculating about a murder victim's character vs. speculating over the specifics as to how he was murdered, then you are the one with an odd value system, assuming you have values at all.

I can see the distinction y... (Below threshold)
Paul:

I can see the distinction you are drawing. And from your passion I expect your argument is genuine. (for the record I treat genuine criticism far differently than hypocrisy and dumb shit.)

Perhaps we simply disagree. I'll leave you with this...

Ilyka already addressed this topic in the update: "I have the clarification itch... It is the sensationalist tone and treatment of the subject which enrages me, ... I am aware of at least two other bloggers who gave the subject the dignity it deserves and exercised appropriate restraint:..." then links the video dissection.

You must think that parsing the video frame by frame, questioning the amount of blood that spews out and looking up to see what order the arteries are cut in is an example of "dignity and appropriate restraint."

I don't.

The US intelligence folks have plenty of people with far more expertise to examine that video frame by frame. I don't see a bunch of amateurs doing it on the internet to be an example of dignity and certainly not of restraint.

That strikes me a hypocrisy pure and simple. You are welcome to draw a different conclusion.

Look, I'm not disputing tha... (Below threshold)
Xrlq:

Look, I'm not disputing that some could find both types of speculation objectionable. I just think they are different enough that reasonable people can object to one, while not objecting to the other. Obviously, Ilka draws that same distinction, even if she didn't state that so clearly in her original message. Otherwise, in the comment that sparked this thread, she would have simply criticized Kate for speculating, rather than responding with her own take on the matter.

(sigh, I thought I was done... (Below threshold)
Paul:

(sigh, I thought I was done)

"Obviously, Ilka draws that same distinction"

OR She's a hypocrite. The latter seems a whole lot more plausible to me especially considering the update.

And certainly Xrlq, even if that razor thin distinction is what she wants to cling to, than her post for more over the top than mine. Telling me to "Fuck OFF" for doing what is arguably less than her is rather disingenuous.

THEN her post...... (Below threshold)
Paul:

THEN her post...

No, Paul. Ilyka is not a hy... (Below threshold)
Jim:

No, Paul. Ilyka is not a hypocrite. You called this murdered man "dirty", point blank. That is what pissed Ilyka (and she's not alone, either - not by a long shot) off. You traded coincidence for causality and determined that Nick Berg was tied to the terrorists. You did it with conjecture and intimation but you did do it. That is WAY different than examining physical evidence.

Let's talk hypocrisy, Paul.... (Below threshold)

Let's talk hypocrisy, Paul. You lambast me in the comments to your "mea culpa sorta" post, then close the comments so I can't respond.

Way to go, Scoop. We're more and more impressed with your professionalism every day.

What a hell of a job we're ... (Below threshold)

What a hell of a job we're doing teaching reading comprehension these days . . . .

Paul, I believe you're aware that my comment at Kate's was written in support of an explanation Jim Peacock made at his site, in response to Kate's (not mine, not Jim's, and, hell, I can't even blame you for this one, drat the luck) question asking why there was not more blood.

It is also evident from this sentence:

And if it took you a long time to (I canít believe Iím typing this) saw through the entire neck
That I am taking anything BUT joy from my remarks.

I'm sorry it hurt your feelings to have about half a dozen people point out to you that you are not a journalist, and never will be so long as you try to pass off sensationalistic rumormongering as "reporting"--but taking that resentment out on me only makes you look small.

Particularly when you have to take things out of context to do it.

Meryl, comments were closed... (Below threshold)

Meryl, comments were closed to stop the nutjobs hijacking any Nick Berg post. They were getting overrun.

SPEAKING of reading compreh... (Below threshold)
Paul:

SPEAKING of reading comprehension...

point out to you that you are not a journalist

You and others keep pointing this out. Can you tell me exactly when I claimed I was?

You're full of shit. I pointed it out. Get over it.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright ¬© 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy