« Well, I was born in a small town... | Main | Fair Warning »

I love being effective

Well, the lefty blogs finally caught up to my post "A Partisan Tsunami?".

In it, I compare the coverage of the tsunami on left and right blogs. I must have touched a few nerves by outing them and the libs have gone mad. I've been called "The Worst of the Worst." And some guy stated publicly that ""Kevin Aylward Should Be Ashamed" even though it was me who wrote it. The comments lit up with outraged liberals...

As usual, the left is blind to irony.

Unless you have been living in a cave, you have seen the liberals bashing Bush because he did not interrupt his vacation to speak publicly about the tsunami. The Washington Post called him "insensitive" and the NY TImes said he projected an image of someone who "did not care."

Lefty bloggers all over the blogosphere have bashed him for not caring. (and those links only took about 3 minutes)

So (as usual) it is OK for people on the left to charge Bush with not caring, but if someone on the right actually produces empirical evidence that might suggest something else, they are vilified for making a partisan point. (which BTW was far less caustic that what the left has been spewing.)

My critics are hopelessly hypocritical. If Bush can be bashed for not speaking about the tsunami- so too can people on the left. Goose and Gander you know...

But I love it when that many liberals feign righteous indignation... It usually shows I've been effective.

P.S. Before you guys go mad again, unless you are willing to ALSO rebuke the people on your side bashing Bush for not speaking about the Tsunami soon enough, you will look like total partisan hacks... but feel free. Ditto, the "he's making this political" charge... Condemn your pals on the left and I'll take you more serious... till then you're a hypocrite.

P.P.S. Please note my point is, was and shall always be about the disparity of blog overage. NOT GEORGE BUSH. My initial post did not mention Bush (other than Kevin Drum calling him a criminal) and I only mentioned him this time because the same people who are getting bent out of shape when their compassion is questioned have no problem questioning someone else's. (ie Bush) I am in no way equated the importance of Bush and the blogosphere- that's just silly. If you read the mountain of comments it will be more clear.

I'd like to hear one of you whining lefties give me a reason for the disparity of coverage instead of calling names... Anyone?

UPDATE: at the bottom.

Update: You know I learned something interesting this week. I have, from time to time, referred to "lefty loons" "lefty moonbats" and sometimes made the case that a large number of folks on the left are just delusional. (following the trackbacks on this post will give you one such example)

But by and large, I've never had the lefties attack... But MAN call them "compassion challenged" and you will get it with both barrels. (well- if liberals owned guns) And I think I know why...

The core of liberalism, and the font from which they draw power, is that they care more than anyone else. They care more about the poor, the elderly, the weak etc etc etc...

It is as if their compassion -or their perceived compassion- is the curtain that hides the great and powerful Wizard of Oz. If people (voters) realize that the liberals don't give a shit about them -- that they are pawns in a political game-- the curtain will be drawn back and they will be exposed.

For that reason when they are challenged on their compassion they go postal. Whatever happens they don't want people to see behind the curtain.

(That will generate some heat, mostly because they want to close the curtain.)


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference I love being effective:

» The Moderate Liberal linked with A Quick Response to Paul

» Pandagon linked with Effective?

» Bulldog Blue linked with Suck Compassion, Assholes

» Daily Blague linked with Yikes

» QandO linked with Its more important than that....

» The Pink Flamingo Bar Grill linked with Lefties everyone should have one...for dinner

» PPK Blog (Priest, Prophet, King) linked with "Compassion challenged" liberals (was Re; I love being effective)

» Henry's Idle Musings linked with Partisan Charities

» Frozen Tundra Blog linked with Reason(s) for Disparity of Coverage

» Public Opinion linked with tsunami#3: priorities

» Loaded Mouth linked with You love being a dick

Comments (90)

I'm particularly amazed tha... (Below threshold)
BorgQueen:

I'm particularly amazed that no one seems to care that Kofi Annan and some of his "top officials" are on vacation this week (per an article in the New York Sun on Dec. 30 entitled "A Top Kofi Annan Aide Insults Israeli Leader")

Must be because he's not a conservative American.

Annan was indignant when so... (Below threshold)
cirby:

Annan was indignant when someone asked him about it, saying that he was in touch with world leaders and did his job while on his skiing vacation.

Meanwhile, President Bush was in a house with a high-end communications suite better than most countries could even afford for their presidential palaces, could get full intel from anyone at any time, and he was supposed to be "out" of touch.

Dude... there's a huge diff... (Below threshold)

Dude... there's a huge difference between a few liberals with hobbyhorse websites and the President of the United States of America.

Just think about it for a bit. You'll get it if you try!

Hypocritical as you may see... (Below threshold)
Bill K:

Hypocritical as you may see it, the fact remains that you are just as hypocritical for defending Bush on the subject and then accusing a whole group of people for doing the same thing.

It is especially ridiculous because you are trying to make a point about a whole group instead of individuals (as some on the left did about Bush). I personally have only had only two posts up since December 12, but since the tsunami have had 4 posts up, two praising Americans for their generosity. I think if I wanted to go find bloggers on the right that didn't post things I could, and if I wanted to find bloggers on the left that posted a lot I could.

It was an unnecessary low blow, and in trying to prove others were "wrong" you committed the same fault you accused others of.

Should we all now put up dollar figures at the top of our blog to show how much we personally gave to the cause? Would that prove our compassion?

Discussing the President's charitable and public reaction to a tragedy is far different that that of a random guy behind a computer.

Hmmm...I'm going to call sh... (Below threshold)
stand:

Hmmm...I'm going to call shenanigans on this one. Without conceding anything regarding who is more compassionate in the blogosphere, the fact that a bunch of Comic Book Guys out there may not have jumped quickly enough to express their sadness or whatever doesn't seem that important. But if the President of the United States - our representative to the world - doesn't show the proper respect or sensitivity, for better or worse it reflects on all of us.

You can argue about whether Bush really was insensitive or not, but there is no equivalence here.

Kevin, why I haven't... (Below threshold)
Rae:

Kevin, why I haven't I linked you before this? I have been here before, I know, and I have "seen" you around the 'sphere.

However, henceforth linked.

Attaboy,
Rae

Now Bill don't get ahead of... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Now Bill don't get ahead of yourself.

I mentioned in the post that many mid-level righty blogs did not mention it much.

You don't find the disproportionate coverage interesting?

I did, so I posted it...

I simply found it interesting that the same "compassion fascists" (lefties) who bash the right for not caring (for the poor, the elderly, the homeless, the children et al) apparently did very little caring about this tragedy.

You can't argue that there was not a disparity in the coverage, I documented it.

The fact remains that (at the time) 60,000 were presumed dead and the same people who routinely claim they care about the poor, sick, children etc etc etc didn't have much to say about it.

You of course are free to come up with an alternative conclusion as to why... Just saying "bloggers don't have much to add" is a poor defense... That would apply to both sides.

It should also be noted that (by and large) the lefty blogs had nothing to say about it until they could bash Bush then they suddenly took interest...

You are free to speculate why that was as well.

Again, feel free to disagree with my conclusions... But then, I'd be more than happy to hear yours????????

OOOOOHHH I get it... ... (Below threshold)
Paul:

OOOOOHHH I get it...

Bush is open to the charge because he is President... But the self appointed "compassion fascists" who routinely vilify the right are immune to all charges of hypocrisy...

Who said they had to have equivalent importance on the world stage to define hypocrisy?

You can be a hypocrite and be a nobody.

The fact remains that the same people who routinely trade on the fact they care more about poor, weak, oppressed etc did very little to show it.

You are free to speculate why. Just saying that they are not as important and the President is meaningless...

At the end of the day, nobody can get me a better answer than the one I came up with. If you can, I'm all ears.

I think as a whole there is... (Below threshold)
Bill k:

I think as a whole there is probably just as much compassion and caring on both sides of the aisle.

That is not the point really though. You tried to the defend the President's actions by point out others inaction. Unless the "others" part of that equation was another government, your point is without merit.

What Daily Kos does is in no way on the same level with what the President does.

The President has an expectation to live up to in regards to responding to a tragedy. He can't just internalize, click on Amazon, donate, and then go on with his day. Individuals can though.

I think Ezra had a good quote that get's lost by you in the mix: "Compassion isn't frequency, and it's not show."

Do you not miss the hypocri... (Below threshold)
Bill K:

Do you not miss the hypocrisy of you defending the president for inaction and then calling out the left for the same thing?

Paul -- yes, there's a bett... (Below threshold)

Paul -- yes, there's a better answer. This whole discussion is moronic. Go read Crooked Timber right now. They've got a whole series of posts on how to help flood victims through Amazon purchases. It may not be the most effective effort around, but they obviously put a lot of thought into it, and it's pretty clear that they care. If your only point is that they didn't get on this quick enough, then whatever.

At any rate, I don't think you understand what hypocrisy is. The bloggers criticizing Bush are all faulting the president for shirking his duties as world leader. If those same bloggers were to shirk their own duties as world leaders, they would indeed be hypocrites.

But I suppose if you haven't grasped the difference between hobby website and president by now, you never will...

"You tried to the defend... (Below threshold)
Paul:

"You tried to the defend the President's actions by point out others inaction"

No I did not. At that snapshot in time he had not received any criticism for not speaking out yet... or at least I did not hear it if he did.

If you note in the post, I linked back to a similar walk thru the blogosphere I did after Nick Berg. I was interested in the phenomenon then as I am now. (I often follow stories thru the left and right blog world but I don't always post it... This time I did.)

Conclusions could be drawn from either "walk." I drew some. If you don't like my conclusions you are invited to provide your own.

Your whole thesis is fatally flawed.

Further, for all your protestations about my post, you have failed to provide an alternative conclusion. If I am wrong, surely you can tell me why?????

Nine times out of ten when ... (Below threshold)
Mark:

Nine times out of ten when someone calls someone else a hypocrite they are being equally hypocritical in the opposite direction. Perhaps Paul is the tenth.

Is it important that the outside world thinks Bush showed compassion and action in response to the tsunamis? If yes, did Bush achieve the desired result?

I guess only hypocrites would ask such questions.

Brad, I gotta tell ya - and... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Brad, I gotta tell ya - and this is high praise coming from me - you make some of the best arguments I hear from the lefties... Assuming you're a lefty.

You are wrong on this one, but at least you make decent intellectual points... (not that you don't Bill ;-)

But I digress...

Here is my point Brad.

THE SAME PEOPLE who routinely criticize the right for not caring invite themselves to be held to a higher standard in the "caring" department. (sorta like preachers who sleep around get extra condemnation)

Certainly you can appreciate that if liberals want to PREACH how much they care for the victims of the world then perhaps their behavior should back it up, lest they be charged with hypocrisy.

Your defense of them is; "Sure, they don't give a shit about the victims but the President is more important."

That's fine and dandy... But then those same people lose all right to criticize others for not caring.

KnowhatImean?

By the way Paul, the link u... (Below threshold)

By the way Paul, the link under the word "bashed" in your original post leads me to a Daily Kos page in which someone named "Armando" simply offers coverage of the tsunami. (And he updates it at several points during the day, making it essentially the equivalent of three posts.) No Bush-bashing whatsoever.

Hmmmm...

I disagree with you whole h... (Below threshold)
Bill K:

I disagree with you whole heartedly, but even if I didn't I would think it was a crass and unnecessary way to try to make your point.

well, crud Brad-- I linked ... (Below threshold)
Paul:

well, crud Brad-- I linked it wrong... It was one of the commenters being a jerk... tell ya what, you read the thread and tell me which one I missed and I'll link it. LOL

In all seriousness, I could give you 10 more examples. And if I went to DU 50 more. BTW- Read my DU post... It's a riot.

Paul, I do see what you mea... (Below threshold)

Paul, I do see what you mean. The problem is that I don't think Kevin Drum has been accusing anyone of not caring, so he's not really a hypocrite. Neither has Josh Marshall. So these people aren't hypocrites. MyDD seems to mostly talk about technical details surrounding political horseracing, so I think it's a bit unfair to bash that site. They don't seem to accuse conservatives of anything.

In order to prove hypocrisy, you'd have to do this.

1) Find a specific instance of a lefty blogger accusing someone else of not caring about something because that someone neglected to post on an important topic. (Which is very different from accusing the president of shirking his duty.)

2) Show that this exact same person neglected an important topic, like the tsunami victims.

Now in order to show that this is true of "the left" in general, you'd have to find a LOT of such examples. You haven't really found any.

Okay, fair enough. But you ... (Below threshold)

Okay, fair enough. But you do have to admit that Armando's post was updated three times, which effectively makes it equivalent to three or four separate posts. So bump up your Daily Kos total!

It's also a bit weird to say that commenters are doing all the accusing while the bloggers themselves aren't doing enough posting. If Joe says "X is wrong" and then Bill does X, that doesn't make Joe or Bill a hypocrite.

yikes... one at a time....<... (Below threshold)
Paul:

yikes... one at a time....

The problem is that I don't think Kevin Drum has been accusing anyone of not caring, so he's not really a hypocrite. Neither has Josh Marshall.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong and furthermore you are wrong.

Go to Kevin Drum's site and search for "income disparity" Not only will you see meaningless statistics skewed to make points they can't support but you will see him bashing the right for not caring about the poor. (alt search: minimum wage) BTW he doesn't have to say "I CARE ABOUT THE POOR." Saying that "Republicans want to steal from the poor" qualifies. As for Josh, I'll confess I don't read him that often so I can't give you an example without looking... But come on... Generically speaking ALL liberals play the compassion card. I'd bet 20 bucks I can find something on his site to back up my assertion. (and you know it)

MyDD seems to mostly talk about technical details surrounding political horseracing, so I think it's a bit unfair to bash that site.

OK you might have a point on this one... I actually had only been there once before. I was thinking of big lefty blogs and he came to mind. In my original post I mention he was the new guy on the block.

BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER. Even if you prove that one guy escapes my exact point the larger point stands. Lefties trade on compassion but in this example it appeared they had none. There is a term for finding one small point of error and using that to throw out a whole argument... I forget what it is, but that is what you are doing. Even if we give mydd a pass, my larger point stands.

In order to prove hypocrisy, you'd have to do this.

1) Find a specific instance of a lefty blogger accusing someone else of not caring about something because that someone neglected to post on an important topic. (Which is very different from accusing the president of shirking his duty.)

NOPE! You are putting words in my mouth. I simply said that liberals claim a monopoly on compassion but here they (or at least as represented by lefty bloggers) apparently were behind the curve. The hypocrisy is that the "compassion fascists" who are quick to claim they care for the victims of the world didn't really give a shit. Prior posting is a completely separate argument that I did not make.

2) Show that this exact same person neglected an important topic, like the tsunami victims.

See above, mine is a meta point.

Now in order to show that this is true of "the left" in general, you'd have to find a LOT of such examples. You haven't really found any.

Golly gee whiz Brad-- Can you tell me with a straight face that the left does not play the compassion card???? Come one, I gave you kudos for making intellectual points, don't make me call you a moonbat.

"Tax cuts for the rich"

"Big drug companies"

"Big insurance companies"

Medicare, minimum wage the list goes on and on and on. The whole liberal platform is that they -- get this -- are liberal.

You know- hence the name "compassion fascists." [Which BTW is a term I don't routinely throw around but here it describes what I mean. They "feel our pain" and "evil republicans" don't.]

Okay, fair enough. But y... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Okay, fair enough. But you do have to admit that Armando's post was updated three times, which effectively makes it equivalent to three or four separate posts. So bump up your Daily Kos total!

hmmm

OK should I go back and include every update on the righty blogs??? LOL We had one post with like 5 updates... We are updating so much we started using server side includes. (besides *I think* most if not all of the updates were after my post.)

It's also a bit weird to say that commenters are doing all the accusing while the bloggers themselves aren't doing enough posting.

Well-- I would see your point if those were the only examples. (admittedly those are the ones I linked) there are plenty of others... Atrios did it... Kos himself did it though I did not dig up the link. (OTB has the links if you care) It is all over the blogosphere. I selected that one post because I had read it and remembered it.

You can pick nits but lets get down to brass tacks. Lefties love to play the compassion card. But in this case it appeared that many of them didn't have much.

Once again.... You can draw whatever conclusion you would like for the noted disparity. So far, you have not given me any.

and if you want my meta met... (Below threshold)
Paul:

and if you want my meta meta meta point... Which I had not said before but it is what I truly believe....

90% of all "big name" liberals couldn't give a shit about the little people. They strictly use them to gain power... Political or otherwise.

See also: John Kerry pretending to eat at Wendy's but in reality they had lobster delivered from the local yacht club.

or Jessie Jackson showing up on camera is a $2000 suit to talk about how blacks are oppressed.

or John Kerry complaining about tax cuts for the rich but dodging taxes in his home state.

or or or or or

(BTW I'm probably off to bed after this one)

Paul, the only person you h... (Below threshold)

Paul, the only person you have "outed" is yourself for being a heartless asshole who doesn't care a damn for the hundreds of thousands of families who have lost loved ones in this tragedy other than that you can pretend to score political points from their suffering. Before you attack the humanity of others, you had better have some humanity yourself.

David- That nerve I hit a l... (Below threshold)
Paul:

David- That nerve I hit a little sore buddy?

David, if you want to hit P... (Below threshold)
Mark:

David, if you want to hit Paul's nerve just mention how often the right pushes the emotional buttons:

Bush, acting all normal by clearing the brush at the ranch.

Ending the "death tax" to save the family farm.

How Republicans seem to own the American Flag, "freedom", patriotism and "the power of pride".

How any criticism of Bush's handling of Iraq isn't supporting the troops.

The list of incomplete sentences could go on and on.... :-)

I'm sort of loathe to get i... (Below threshold)

I'm sort of loathe to get involved here at all, because the whole discussion seems absurd. I read every comment in this thread I read, I have in the back of my head the image of a flood victim looking for his family's bodies in the remains of his house, and not really having time to figure out what the hell a "blogosphere" is.

That said, I want to make a point that I don't think has been made here. Stand made the good point that between Bush and a bunch of bloggers, there is no equivalence - the president of the United States clearly has a higher moral high-jump to clear than the 101st Fighting Keyboarders on both sides. But there's also a prudentialist argument to be made: Bush actually represents America abroad. He is, for better or worse, our face. When he is kind and compassionate, the American vision strengthens abroad; when he is cold and removed, the American vision weakens. Aside from the moral, quasi-aesthetic question of what you'd actually like to see your president do, the point is that the president's performance has real-world political implications that the blogosphere's do not. I can accept a range of opinions about how Bush's performance has actually been. But in this case, charges of hypocrisy are completely nullified - at least to me - by the proportionally tremendous impact Bush's performance has. There's a very, very strong prudentialist case to be made for being very concerned with the quality of Bush's performance and not at all concerned with the quality of the blogosphere's.

I make this point partially because it gets so often ignored in conservative-leaning circles. (Or, more properly, RNC-leaning circles.) Good diplomatic relations are not, as Bush so often likes to deride them, a matter of "popularity." They are, in fact, useful and a good idea. Especially in the midst of what is overwhelmingly an ideological conflict like the War on Terror, there may not be a stronger weapon America has than the strength of its vision abroad. On this score, Reagan had it right; he understood the value of an America that was militarily strong enough to physically dominate any other nation, but the paramount value of an America that was morally strong enough that it could lead the community of nations, not just hijack it by bureaucratic fiat. That may be getting harder these days; certainly, countries like France and Germany are getting no less intransigent. But from "Old Europe," to Abu Ghraib, to baffling impertinence at the UN, to the International Criminal Court, to Kyoto, liberals have spent the last four years watching Bush dismantle our greatest resource piece by self-righteous piece.

So, approve or disapprove of Bush's performance; that's subjective, and probably mostly a product of whatever you thought of Bush before this terribly tragedy struck. It's not just shady to morally raise the import of the blogosphere's performance to that of the president's - it's also prudentially absurd to lower the import of the president's performance to that of the blogosphere's. Liberals are critical of the president, for the most part, because they take deeply seriously the stakes at play when a president portrays the spirit of his nation in the global community. In that light, whatever you think of Bush, comparing him to the blogosphere strikes me as deeply unserious.

Do you not miss the hypo... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Do you not miss the hypocrisy of you defending the president for inaction and then calling out the left for the same thing?

Posted by: Bill K at December 31, 2004 02:37 AM


This entire line of word attack -- it happens nearly consistently by the same reappearing leftists when they try to 'correct' Wizbang -- is based upon the false premise, false assumption that "Bush was inactive" and/or "Bush failed to act" and/or "Bush behaved poorly/badly/wrongly and therefore is being defended" and the like.

No where has it been established, as in, PROVEN, that Bush acted in any way that any one could or should be complaining about, much less in any way that anyone who is confident in Bush should be or is "defending." There's nothing there to defend.

So, the entire attack language that the left wedges yet again and again is simply that of usery: liberals seizing upon any and all significant or even noticable moments in which Bush is featured or appears or even speaks -- but in this awful case, liberals seizing upon one of the worst human catastrophes and tragedies of massive proportions to once again make it all about how 'bad America is' and about "defending Bush (based upon the false assumption that there's been a bad thing happen that needs to be defended, when, what the rest of the world is focused upon is upon the massive catastrophe and trying to help out survivors) -- anyway, liberals seizing upon this awful time to make it again and again about liberals, about how bad liberals perceive President Bush, about "defending" America and all that line of pained, reprehensible rhetoric that is, entirely, liberal authored.

So the news arrived while President Bush was at his home in Crawford on Christmas Holiday. He was riding a bicycle and photographed doing that, while, perhaps, he had ten, fifteen minutes or thereabouts (I am conjecturing here in good faith, trying to be realistic) to wait for some further information from dozens of sources.

So, the liberals everywhere decry that Bush was seen on his bicycle on his Holiday at his home when the news of these terrible catastrophes became apparent. What they don't report is what Bush was doing, had already done, was soon to do, had in place already, had planned, had already set in motion, all of that.

But, to make a horrific disaster as has happened another event upon which liberals can denigrate President Bush, denigrate the United States, even Christians from what I read on a few of those links, well, what it messages to everyone else is that liberals are people with bad attitudes who seem to hate nearly everyone and everything and use human tragedies to wage poltical destruction, or try to.

I was just curious how quickly Clinton or any other Democrat would be able to launch a huge aid response, and I bet that what's been done by President Bush and Cabinet and others affiliated or at least coordinating with them has occured nearly as quickly as possible.

I don't see any "liberal" battle ships and aircraft carriers and massive relief organizations, by the way, who showed up in Southeast Asia ahead of anyone else. Just saying.

DanielIronically, ... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Daniel

Ironically, you guys are doing EXACTLY what Bill accused me of -- but in reverse.

You are saying it is OK for liberals be be hypocrites because President Bush did not speak soon enough.

The two are completely unrelated.

If you notice -if you read the initial post- I never mention Bush. (other than Kevin Drum calling him a criminal)

The discussion was never, "Bush speaking vs Blogs speaking" until the people who did not like what I was saying had no other retort so they tried to change the debate.

The observation was that the same people who always claim the "compassion high road" showed little compassion after (then) 60,000 people died.

That was the debate.

People who don't like that fact tried to lump George Bush in. The reason I mention him in the second post was to illustrate the hypocrisy of may of my critics. ie: They get huffy when people question their compassion but they have no problem doing that same thing.

The relative importance of the blogosphere vs the President of the Untied States is a red herring created by people avoiding the original point.

Why do you think the lefty blogs mostly ignored the story?

I gave my guess but after dozens of people attacked me, not a single one has offered a credible alternative. (In fairness The Moderate Liberal offered 3 but none of them held water.)

If you have an alternative theory, I'd love to hear it.

Another thing, however, is ... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Another thing, however, is that we now know with a high level of assurity that, although Clinton in the Presidency made good camera and often, that the good camera made was what was impressive to liberals and Democrats, not what Clinton did. Same thing applies to the performance earlier referenced here -- Kerry, wife and Edwards and wife performing thier faux Wendy's meal, satisfying liberals as being "real people" while entirely enacting that (and thus being quite unreal, in reality), and same and same and same time and again with highly polished performance artists that impress liberals so long as they pass this strange evaluative process of giving good camera, maintaining big box office, looking good, so to speak.

Funny, but even Michael Moore assumes that everyone will vote for certain celebrities because they have established presence in the media that the left accepts and enjoys.

A lot of this "offense" by liberals about conservatives and Bush and related is based upon the indignity that liberals experience when too many other people in society aren't so vain. Liberals get offended, get 'outraged' and such, just the very idea that everyone isn't fascinated with liberal icons and liberal icon adulation...and there's Bush, not doing the Clinton performance dance, and liberals get angry about that.

Meanwhile, I do agree with Paul's overview about this issue and that is that liberal blogs have been about politics and denigrating President Bush and conservatives and Republicans in the face of this disaster, while those conservative blogs that have covered the tsunami and earthquake disasters have been about the tsunami and earthquake disasters.

Ha, Kevin Drum calling ANYo... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Ha, Kevin Drum calling ANYone a criminal...something about that seems so wrong.

Anyone who has as much time on his hands as does Kevin Drum has a problem. Among other things.

BTW- If you guys want to di... (Below threshold)
Paul:

BTW- If you guys want to discuss when Bush should have said what -- that's fine-- but it is completely unrelated to my post.

Methinks the libs doth prot... (Below threshold)
CrankyOldConservative:

Methinks the libs doth protest too much.

you noticed?... (Below threshold)
Paul:

you noticed?

Paul, I think you're missin... (Below threshold)

Paul, I think you're missing my point here a little bit.

First, though, let me offer my hypothesis as to why liberals haven't posted on their grief quite as frantically as you'd like to see: It's fucking obvious. It's the same reason we don't appear outraged whenever an Iraqi insurgent beheads an American hostage: Outrage requires surprise, and to be vocally surprised that Iraqi insurgents engage in complete moral depravity - or that the sudden death of hundreds of thousands of people is a tragedy - requires a very, very special love for the sound of your own voice. I watch CNN, and frankly, I just have nothing to add. Most lefty blogs I frequent have prominent links to give money, and as you noted, a few have posted more substantively on the tragedy. If you're arguing that the left-leaning blogosphere is shirking some kind of reportorial duty inherent in the medium, well, I guess that's reasonable. But the idea that the left's silence indicates a lack of compassion is just ridiculous.

Now then, let me address the bulk of your comment. In your original post, you quickly compared a few major left- and right-leaning blogs, and from that comparison, implied strongly that liberals care less about people than conservatives. The moral emptiness it takes to even consider this kind of argument is sort of breathtaking, but I don't really care what you said in your first post, because I wasn't responding to it. I was responding to the second post, in which you said:

"My critics are hopelessly hypocritical. If Bush can be bashed for not speaking about the tsunami- so too can people on the left. Goose and Gander you know..."

In that instance, you were plainly engaging the "Bush speaking vs Blogs speaking" debate. If you really thought it was a red herring, I don't know why you didn't just say so in the first place, and stick with your assertion that liberals as individuals are personally lacking in human compassion. But since you did explicitly address that argument, I did too, and my point was this: Assume you truly believe that liberals couldn't give a sweet fuck about flood victims, and that Bush is deeply concerned about them. (Incidentally, I only think one of those statements is false.) If that's the case, then it may be fair to say that liberals are being hypocritical by not living up to the moral standard they set for someone else. What I pointed out was that, if you look at the case on prudentialist grounds, this hypocrisy seems to fade, because: Moral standards are universal; if you think someone ought to act some way, you ought to act that way, too. My behavior, yours, the president's, and the pope's all carry equal moral weight. But prudentially, it does actually matter a lot more what the president does than what you and I do, and so yes, it makes perfect sense to criticize the president for not doing what you also fail to do. I haven't been a very good steward of the American economy. Neither has the president. But it only matters for one of us. See my point?

Incidentally, getting back ... (Below threshold)

Incidentally, getting back to your original post, I conducted my own study of some major liberal blogs that you, deliberately or not, omitted from yours:

Matt Yglesias: Seven fairly extensive posts, mostly updates on foreign aid.

Oliver Willis: Was on hiatus; upon return, put relief link in first post.

Pandagon: Despite their liberal cold-heartedness, managed ten posts, mostly on the subject of foreign aid.

TalkLeft: Thirteen posts. Now that's compassion!

Altercation: Two very long posts on the current front page. (For some reason, I can't get the archives.)

Brad DeLong: Two posts, mostly aid-related.

Corrente: Two posts, about aid.

There's more, but I don't want to do your research for you. In the meantime, these seem to mostly support my hypothesis: Most liberals posted a link to aid organizations, and couldn't think of much more to say. One important point is that, implicit in your first post was the assumption that liberal blogs are blogging every feeling they have about this tragedy. My blog, for example, has exactly one post on the tragedy, not counting my response to you. The reason isn't that I don't give a fuck. It's that between watching shocking video on CNN and talking about the nature of tragedy with my friends and family, I've been a little to busy to google for MPEG's of people's houses falling into the water. I'm not saying that this isn't a good or valuable way to spend one's time, but I think it's more than a little presumptuous to attack anyone for not mourning publicly enough. People are not their blogs.

Geez- the attempts of the L... (Below threshold)
DaveP.:

Geez- the attempts of the Left to excuse themselves and to attack Paul in these quotes would be hysterical if they weren't so sad. What makes these clowns think they have ANY credibility left after the last few years? ESPECIALLY on the topic of ethics?

Very true DaveP ... all tha... (Below threshold)
SteveM:

Very true DaveP ... all thats left in the Left is a horde of ranting neo-puritans.

Paul...I responded to that ... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Paul...I responded to that issue about Bush saying what and when, albeit briefly, because it looks like that's among the great mishmash of liberal nuttiness in the blog entries that do exist. Such as they are. But I bet you realize that already.

Is it important that the... (Below threshold)

Is it important that the outside world thinks Bush showed compassion and action in response to the tsunamis?

No.

What's important is whether... (Below threshold)

What's important is whether or not he did show compassion and action. What "the outside world" thinks only tells us about "the outside world."

First, though, let me of... (Below threshold)
Paul:

First, though, let me offer my hypothesis as to why liberals haven't posted on their grief quite as frantically as you'd like to see: It's fucking obvious. It's the same reason we don't appear outraged whenever an Iraqi insurgent beheads an American hostage: Outrage requires surprise, and to be vocally surprised that Iraqi insurgents engage in complete moral depravity - or that the sudden death of hundreds of thousands of people is a tragedy - requires a very, very special love for the sound of your own voice.

WOW!!! 600,00 dead in a single day and you guys are not surprised??? Boy you liberals types are unflappable!!! Cool hand luke got nothing on you...

That is the stupidest thing I've ever read. (sorry but it is)
-
But the idea that the left's silence indicates a lack of compassion is just ridiculous.

OK then TELL ME!!! What does it indicate?????? Unflappability? You'll have to do better than that one. Gimme another theory if mine is so obviously flawed!
-
[you] implied strongly that liberals care less about people than conservatives

hmmm lemme quote myself.... "We are continually told how much more liberals care about their fellow man than conservatives, yet 60,000 people are presumed dead and many of the liberals hardly mention it... The numbers don't seem to tell the same story."

Implied strongly??? OK I thought I was offering on reason for the disparity of coverage. And your reason is......
-
In that instance, you were plainly engaging the "Bush speaking vs Blogs speaking" debate.

Nice try but NOPE: read my P.P.S. "I only mentioned him this time because the same people who are getting bent out of shape when their compassion is questioned have no problem questioning someone else's. (ie Bush)"

In other words, I'm making a SECOND claim... Not only is the left dispassionate but my critics are hypocrites. (2 different things) When they get their compassion questioned they fly off the handle--the title of your post being a prime example-- YET the can they can question someone else's compassion all day long. (in the case GWB's) Hypocrisy.

NOW if you want to make the case that Bush should ALSO held to a higher standard because he is President - THAT'S FINE- but you'll never see a post from me claiming that was not the case.! (duh!) That is a comply separate argument and one I have not made! You can also make the case he walks funny and talks funny... again things I have not discussed. (get it?)
-
See my point? I think. (and I mean that literally)

But I'm not sure it matters... Bush was not in my post and I only mentioned him to compare how my critics acted when their compassion was questioned vs how they questioned the compassion of others. (in this case it happened to be Bush)

I read your last graph 3 times and I'm not sure I get it... Certainly it doesn't really come into play because was never part of my point.
-
But I'll leave you with this thought... There was a well documented disparity in coverage. For all your name calling and complaining, you still have not offered a different explanation for it. That is the point you refuse to address.

Incidentally, getting ba... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Incidentally, getting back to your original post, I conducted my own study of some major liberal blogs that you, deliberately or not, omitted from yours:

OK you actually have to go back to the Nick Berg post to understand who I picked... I tried to check in with the same set of left and right bloggers... Sort of a control group if you will.
-
That is why Matt got kudos, he had 3 posts up at the time. I was fair. (I think it was Matt)

As for your list, your methodology is DEEPLY DEEPLY flawed. You are looking at what they posted in the last 3 days! You have to go back and see what they posted before I did... We've posted 20 more things since then! Get it???
-
Most liberals posted a link to aid organizations, and couldn't think of much more to say.

So we're just smarter than you guys? That's the first reasonable theory I've heard yet! (sorry I had to take that shot)
-
but I think it's more than a little presumptuous to attack anyone for not mourning publicly enough.

I never asked anyone to mourn.... Kevin Drum found time to mention the label in the back of a shirt he got for Christmas but didn't mention (then) 60,000 people dead. Dude, I find that odd to not even mention it.

Further I did not attack anyone (in stark contract to the way you attacked me) I posted observations. I gave a possible reason for the phenomenon. YOU (and a few dozen others) went nutz over my theory..

THEN OFFER YOUR OWN.

Until you do, you really sound like you doth protest too much.

Paul, old boy, what's even ... (Below threshold)
CrankyOldConservative:

Paul, old boy, what's even more fascinating than the premise of your original post, is the mad scramble of the tinfoil hats to explain themselves. I do think you nailed it with your analogy to the Wizard of Oz hiding behind the big, black curtain of liberalism: "we feel your pain, and we feel it more than the other guys do". When we peek behind the curtain, the ole wizard is exposed and goes crazy for fear that someday everyone might really know he's a fake.

What do your expect from th... (Below threshold)
Jim:

What do your expect from the Left and from the MSM. They will continue bashing Bush and the GOP and conservatives. It's their schtick. And the Left and MSM will prop up any degenerate Leftie who's running for a political office. For instance:

This morning while listening to ABC Radio News, they ran back-to-back Hillary stories. The first was about how she's looking into why wounded military personnel aren't getting money from the VA. A Hillary soundbite claims she will investigate the "roadblocks" in Washington to make certain soldiers get their fair share.

Then ABC Radio News followed that story with one about Hillary and Slick Willie visiting a Jewish temple in Queens, NY to raise money for the Tsunami victims. In the soundbite, Hillary says, "People hit by the Tsunami are in need of food, medicines, clothing and shelter." My reaction was, "Duh, you think?"

My point is that the MSM are already building up Hillary's image and Bush hasn't even started his second term. By the time 2008 roles around, the MSM will be canonizing the bitch as Saint Hillary. Meanwhile, they will create as many stories as possible to denigrate Bush and the GOP.

Daniel-- lemme make a confe... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Daniel-- lemme make a confession. You are playing in a game with a marked deck.

I am extraordinarily careful about what I say and how I say it. Since I am the one making the posts, I frame the debate how I choose. In other words, if you want to remain intellectually honest AND not resort to straw man attacks OR name calling, you can't win a rhetorical debate on the merit of your arguments because I have left no openings. Consider my points:

1 I documented a disparity in coverage.

2 I offered a theory as to why it was such.

To "win" this debate you have to prove:

1 My sample (which was offered in good faith) was skewed so the phenomenon did not exist. [To your credit you tried this]

or

2 You have another reason for the phenomenon.

Anything else you say is just noise. I don't mind the mental sparing but my point is, since I've been careful to not make points that can be refuted, you are at a decided rhetorical disadvantage. We can keep up the sparring all day but it is meaningless.

BTW there is another option-- You could agree my theory is the most plausible. Absent another, it seems the logical choice.

Notice also, how the Left a... (Below threshold)
Jim:

Notice also, how the Left and their propaganda arm -- the mainstream media -- have turned the tragedy of the Tsunami into a vehicle to bash Bush. Perhaps Michael Moore will produce a sequel to his first Bush-basher. In it, he will accuse Bush of knowing the earthquake would create a Tsunami, but he decided to keep that information to himself.

Also, when the first attack on the World Trade Center occurred in 1993, does anyone remember the MSM complaining that President B.J. Clinton never even visited the scene of that deadly terrorist attack?

Paul, you are of course an ... (Below threshold)
Sam Snead:

Paul, you are of course an asshole, but it should also be mentioned that you are a terrible writer. Only idiots find it necessary to use multiple question marks. And you do it all the time.

Of course, I'm a liberal who knows the rules of syntax, grammar, and punctuation, so you'll ignore me. But you should go out and buy a copy of The Elements of Style, by Strunk and White. If you read it and take it to heart, you'll still be an asshole, but you'll be a better writer.

Sam 'Osama' Snead may hate ... (Below threshold)
Ripper:

Sam 'Osama' Snead may hate people, but he knows question marks cold. His tiny cold heart can't concern itself with suffering, but Strunk get's him drooling like Word does Burkett.

Sam,Is that the be... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Sam,

Is that the best you could do?????

I thought "silence=assent" ... (Below threshold)
ddd:

I thought "silence=assent" as in "Silence=could not care less" not "silence=everybody knows this is such a big tragedy so it goes without saying."

Or do the armies of inclusion and diversity mean "Silence=assent" for some people and not for others?

OT, but aren't the soreheads who complain at Christmas about the horrors of Organized Religion kind of quiet now about the immediate, massive relief offered by OR? I would be curious to know if the anti OR websites (I suspect mostly lefty, BTW) are posting/noticing any support for the victims or offering help. They wouldn't direct people to contribute to the Red Cross, or Catholic Relief or the Salvation Army. Where would they send their readers?

"I've been careful to not m... (Below threshold)
frameone:

"I've been careful to not make points that can be refuted"

Paul, I think it's plenty clear that the whole premise of your first post can be and has been refuted. You begin with the assumption that the best way to measure the compassion of people on the left and the right is to count the number of blog posts they devoted to this tragedy.

Let me ask you: How does counting the number of blog posts tell you anything about the amount of money someone may or may not have donated or the amount of time they may or may not have devoted to working with one of the organizations helping in the relief effort? It can't. I'm a liberal, I donated money and I didn't post anything on my blog about the tsunami. So where does that put me?

Seriously, how many people on the left or right have posted about puppies lately? Does that mean no one in the blogosphere likes puppies? According to your logic -- number of posts equals amount of concern -- yes, it does. And what about all those millions upon millions of people who don't even have blogs? Why those uncaring, heartless bastards must not feel for anyone or anything.

Face it, your claims are groundless because your methodology is seriously flawed. You only compound your stupidity by then claiming that your post proves that everyone on the Left is just a hypocrite and doesn't really care about anything or anyone.

A flawed and failed "experiment" mobilized to back up an empty, rhetorical talking point. Brilliant.


Factoid: in round numbers, ... (Below threshold)
Ric Locke:

Factoid: in round numbers, an aircraft carrier costs ten billion dollars and lasts thirty years. Working it through, that comes to ten bucks a second just to pay it off -- not counting fuel, people, etc.

Refugees from a tsunami can't realize any noticeable fraction of benefit from that, of course, but the point is to ask: what actually constitutes "compassion?" Sending a carrier battle group and a Marine expeditionary force, plus additional ships to produce clean water and electrical power, plus food, blankets, helicopters, medics, medicine, and money -- or emoting on TV?

Maybe the Libs are right. Maybe Bush should have immediately gone on TV and explained how sorry he was for the misfortune, with a little sobbing catch in his voice and just the right compassionate head-tilt (Hey, he could have been coached.) A little hand-lettered sign would have been a point-getting touch. Then he could have gone to his office, called in an aide, and indulged in a little self-congratulatory fellatio. Good job, dude!

You have to admit, it would have been a lot cheaper than actually arranging for real life food, water, blankets, housing, medicine, and people to provide those things. The Liberal thing to do, in other words.

Regards,
Ric Locke

Only idiots find it ne... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Only idiots find it necessary to use multiple question marks. And you do it all the time.

Oh Sammy boy- Only idiots start a sentence with the word "and."

Asshole.

Paul, I think it's plent... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Paul, I think it's plenty clear that the whole premise of your first post can be and has been refuted.

HOW?

You have not given me a credible reason for the disparity.

Until you do, I'll add you to the list of people protesting too much.

My problem (distain) with l... (Below threshold)
Wilky:

My problem (distain) with liberials is that at the heart of every position they have, is money. It is masked many ways, but still, boiled down to the bone, its money. Its their need to seperate the money from those that have it to give to those that don't, whether they deserve it or not. There are times that their postion is right, but they always over reach. In the end, they deny those that have the money the opportunity for spiritual growth. A good example is the liberial view of corporations, yet this morning I heard that US corporate donations exceed 100 million dollars for this disaster. Not bad for a bunch of greedy bastards.

Paul The whole res... (Below threshold)
frameone:

Paul

The whole rest of my post explained how. Let me try again. Let's say I wanted to prove that the right wing hates puppies. How could I do that? Well, I could go around and count the number of posts at right wing websites that relate to puppies. Guess what the result of my "analysis" would be? Right wingers hate puppies because they don't blog enough on them. Now as if that wasn't illogical enough on its face I'll add, now you prove I'm wrong.

My question to you is did you evey consider another possibility for the disparity or did you jump straight to lefties don't care. Now be honest, seriously, how long did you consider other options and how seriously? If your analysis is as rational and logical as you say it is you must have tested your hypothesis right? Where's you're control group and subject? Where's your independent verification of your hypothesis?

Ultimately, why on earth should anyone have to offer a "credible reason" for the disparity when the whole method of your investigation is uncredible? You cannot measure compassion -- or puppy love -- by blog posts.

Essentially what your sugessting is that liberals aren't as compassionate as they say they are because they don't say it enough. Uh?


Paul, you are an awesome bo... (Below threshold)
tee bee:

Paul, you are an awesome bot. you never sleep, hence your prolific posting.

makes me wonder: if comparison is our framework, then what are Kerry et al. (the losers in 04) doing to show their compassion in a more presidential, liberally acceptable way that makes us look good in the eyes of the international community? did they do it right away on Christmas day, putting the kids' bikes and toys away and becoming appropriately somber in front of the cameras, and make appropriate speeches?

me? I'm not interested in showmanship at every event; that's for debutantes and campaigners, not presidents. anyone staking the claim that Bush has any emotional frame based on the actions he hasn't taken is akin to accusing people of murder because they don't act distraught in front of cameras (this doesn't include calling your lover from a vigil for your missing wife, btw) or assuming a woman could not have been raped because she was dressed in a certain way and was flirtatious.

people in glass blogs and all does apply.

Ric Locke:You are ... (Below threshold)
space:

Ric Locke:

You are a jackass.

The question is not and never has been whether you send assistance or whether you bite your lip on TV. You do both.

You post stupidly implies that Bush couldn't be bothered to make a public statement because he was too busy doing the real work of organizing the response. This is complete bullshit. According to Bush's own press secretary, Bush was busy clearing brush instead of responding. He was clearing brush. And mountain biking. Not making a public statement. Not calling foreign leaders. And not meeting with his advisors to coordinate the response. He is a piece of human garbage.

The whole rest of my pos... (Below threshold)
Paul:

The whole rest of my post explained how. Let me try again. Let's say I wanted to prove that the right wing hates puppies. How could I do that? Well, I could go around and count the number of posts at right wing websites that relate to puppies. Guess what the result of my "analysis" would be? Right wingers hate puppies because they don't blog enough on them. Now as if that wasn't illogical enough on its face I'll add, now you prove I'm wrong.

No no no

You missed it.

If the left posted on puppies daily and the right never did, it would be a fair assumption that the left like puppies more than the right.

It's comparative, not absolute.

So tell me... (again and again I ask) Why the disparity?

The irony of Bush's no-show... (Below threshold)
space:

The irony of Bush's no-show is that the defining moment of his presidency was entirely symbolic: Standing at ground zero with a megaphone declaring his intent to strike back at the terrorists who struck us (did someone coach him to act emotional?).

3+ years later, bin Laden is of course still free. Bush's actions never matched his rhetoric. Fortunately for Bush, enough people still remember his post-9/11 lip biting to compensate for his numerous blunders.

OK FOLKS NEW RULES -- Re... (Below threshold)
Paul:

OK FOLKS NEW RULES -- Read this

Believe it or not, I do have to actually get some work done. I've answered all my critics. (at length)

But I gotta run so I am instituting new rules for this thread.

If you can't (or won't) offer an alternative theory as to why the lefties (mostly) ignored the story then I'd ask you to hold your tongue.

All the rest is noise.. noise I'll be happy to cut thru when I have time but now I don't.

So it's "piss or get off the pot" time. Give me a reasonable reason the lefties ignored 60,000 dead or please give this thread a pass.

NOTE: I could close the comments but I won't... Compliance is voluntary. But if you don't offer an alternative theory at this point you will make arguments look very weak.

Frameone you just got here so while I'd like you to comply I'll respect your right to expand on your point. (ain't you special) But at some point if my theory is wrong, you have to produce a better one. No?

Space that double applies t... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Space that double applies to you... Stick to the point. If you want GP Bush bashing, I suggest DU.

PaulYour methodolo... (Below threshold)
frameoen:

Paul

Your methodology is still flawed. You can't measure compassion or concern by number of blog posts.

I know a lefty website that posts pictures of its owners ferrets. By comparison, I've never seen a ferret picture posted on LGF or Hugh Hewitt's website. Hence those right wing bloggers must not care about ferrets hence conservatives in general hate ferrets. That makes sense to me. Now you prove I'm wrong.

Do you hate ferrets? If you don't why don't you post on them more?

You want to know how else you could explain the disparity? Right wing bloggers have posted a lot about the tsunami in an effort to overcompensate for their true lack of compassion. They really don't care about the dead, injuried and displaced, but they don't want to look heartless for fear of being attacked by the left. To avoid that they overcompensate in order to turn around and attack the left without actually having to do anything compassionate. How's that? It's just as silly and utterly unprovable an explanation as yours.

You can be a hypocrite a... (Below threshold)
Ignoto:

You can be a hypocrite and be a nobody.

That must be your motto, Paul. Maybe you won't be a nobody any more if you keep using 120,000 tsunami dead to make a cheap political point.

Paul,Who on earth ... (Below threshold)
Norah:

Paul,

Who on earth told you that mentioning the tsunami the most times means you care the most SO THERE!?? Are you seriously trying to start a pissing contest over 100,000 dead people? Do you think you'll win a prize if you post more than 10 times on the tsunami?

This is why I think many conserva-types are compassion deficient: They have something to prove, dammit. Let's go count up every word everyone with a blog has written, then award ourselves a medal because we wrote the most. No. It doesn't work like that. Where's your ad? To let concerned readers donate to tsunami relief efforts? Like the one Pandagon has? You know them , right?

p.s. your comment system is too long and too slow.

I'll side with frameoen's t... (Below threshold)
space:

I'll side with frameoen's theory. Overcompensation.

I looked at a few of wizbang's posts. Wow! Links to tsunami footage. You must really feel their pain.

Paul:

I responded directly to Ric Locke's post. If mine was off topic, then so was his. In truth, neither of ours were. Posts about Bush's response ARE posts about the tsunami.

In any case, I'm sure that in short order I could go prove that the ratio of "whining righty" blog posts criticizing Kofi Annan and the UN vastly outnumbers those dealing directly with the crisis. I won't hold my breath waiting for your outrage.

Norah you are an idiot... l... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Norah you are an idiot... look around.

Frameone you MAKE my point.

If one guys posts about his ferret and another does not, it's pretty clear the guy posting likes ferrets more!

If I said a sampling of French blogs had a lot of posts about wine and a sampling of German blogs did not, you would say it is because the French care more about wine!!!

It really is simple-- if you are intellectually honest.

gotta go

And yes-- I hate Ferrets. T... (Below threshold)
Paul:

And yes-- I hate Ferrets. That's why I've never posted about them.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha hahahaha!... (Below threshold)

Ha ha ha ha ha ha hahahaha!

What a trip!

"No, guys, see, I was...um...just kidding! Please don't hit me! It was a joke... Seriously. Guys. Put down that bottle!"

I thought that a total inability to admit fault or error of any sort was unique to President Bush. Turns out that at least one other member of the radical right thinks they can spin bullshit into gold.

If one guys posts about ... (Below threshold)
space:

If one guys posts about his ferret and another does not, it's pretty clear the guy posting likes ferrets more!

Well then, it follows that if one guy posts about thousands of people being killed by a tsunami and another does not, it's pretty clear that the guy posting likes thousands of people being killed by tsunamis more! Q.E.D.

Dude, are you really that c... (Below threshold)
frameone:

Dude, are you really that chickenshit stupid?

After you asked for alternative theories as to the disparity of posts you completely ignored the one I offered. Overcompensation. How bout it?

As to your methodology, AGAIN, you are trying to prove that the left DOESN'T care remember? To do this you selected a bunch of blogs to be compared as if one can't skew the results of an analysis by selecting the blogs that will give you the results you want.

Second, again, you're trying to prove a negative: that liberals don't care about the tsunami victims. You claim this can be proven by what they DON'T post. It's entirely specious.

The ferret example is entirely relevent here. The lack of ferret photos on conservative blogs is in no way proof that right wingers don't like ferrets or don't care about them. For all I know Hugh Hewitt runs a ferret farm but chooses not to post about it on his political/cultural website because he doesn't think it's appropriate. So again, his lack of posts about ferrets is in no way indicative of whether or not he doesn't like ferrets.

BTW- If you guys want to di... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

BTW- If you guys want to discuss when Bush should have said what -- that's fine-- but it is completely unrelated to my post.

Posted by: Paul


"The irony of Bush's no-show..."
Posted by: space


Why was this false meme about Bush being a 'no show' or 'he wasn't compassionate enough,fast enough' even started? It's because the anti-America Lefties (like Space) will use anything to bash Bush.

Quick! Who is more compassionate about AIDS, Clinton or Bush? The lefties answer 'Clinton, of course!' What did singer Bob Geldof, organizer of LiveAid (who is no right winger), have to say about it? "Clinton talked a good game, but he did fuck-all about it." He then went on to praise Bush's help concerning AIDS.

Is this all off-topic? Maybe. But so is the manufactured myth that Bush was a no-show?

BTW, why no criticism for Kofi Annan for not cutting HIS vacation short? Hypocrites.

BTW, do you post pictures o... (Below threshold)
frameone:

BTW, do you post pictures of any animals or pets on your site? If not, does that mean you hate animals in general or does it just mean you don't own a digital camera or a scanner?

Les: Because Kofi ... (Below threshold)
frameone:

Les:

Because Kofi Annan did cut his vacation short. And just prove I'm not being partisan, here's a link to an asshat NewsMax article:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/12/29/201806.shtml

Look, it's clear Paul has l... (Below threshold)

Look, it's clear Paul has listened to me a great deal. How do I know? Because I make assumptions about people that may or may not be true, then generalize that the fringe kooks are representatives of the whole, and argue against these strawmen to make my point. Then, if anyone criticizes my intellectual dishonesty, I tell them I was joking all along. That kind of stuff gets you invited on Tim Russert's show

Paul and all: I th... (Below threshold)
epador:

Paul and all:

I think you set yourself up for this morass by ending your post with the gauntlet thrown down regarding hypocrisy.

The real foul is that vitriolic opponents of the President, his staff and his policies will appropriate ANY newsworthy incident, spin a derogatory tale, and slander away uninhibited by any moral or ethical conscience. They don't have the corner on that market - you can see the same behavior in some "conservative" sphere. I don't see it at Whizbang.

You are simply picking on MSM and bloggers a little. The "lefties" you are complaining about [and some responding in these comments] aren't just "picking" on the President.

The "vitriolic opponents of the President" are not hypocritical, but they are exhibiting behavior that is vicious, fascist, and sadly immature.

Les Nessman: Wh... (Below threshold)
space:

Les Nessman:

Why was this false meme about Bush being a 'no show' or 'he wasn't compassionate enough,fast enough' even started? It's because the anti-America Lefties (like Space) will use anything to bash Bush.

Go fuck yourself. Don't call me anti-American you jackass. I love America. I hate scumbags like you and Bush making it look bad.

If Bush wanted to get credit, he could have cut his vacation short. He didn't. He could have called the leaders of the affected nations. He didn't. He could have immediately pledged significantly more money, instead of taking 4 days to get around to it. He didn't. He could have directly addressed the people in the affected regions and pledged American support. He didn't. He could have put his petty squabbles with Democrats and the UN aside for a moment. He didn't. He took cheap shots at Clinton and the UN.

And because he did not do these things which he should have done and were entirely within his power, I criticize him. I bash Bush because he doesn't do his job.

The question is why Republicans insist on defending this boob's every screwup.

epador:If by "any ... (Below threshold)
space:

epador:

If by "any newsworthy event" you mean the President taking four days to respond publicly to the greatest global natural disaster in my lifetime then you have a point.

Space sez:Ric Loc... (Below threshold)
Ric Locke:

Space sez:
Ric Locke:

You are a jackass.

And your point is?

The question is not and never has been whether you send assistance or whether you bite your lip on TV. You do both.

Bullshit. This is the trouble with newspeak -- you have to keep reinventing it, because the real denotations catch up with the euphemisms.

Daniel Munz, and others, have gone into detail, sometimes excruciating, to make the point (perhaps without intending to) that the size, effectiveness, or even existence of the actual aid is irrelevant. All that matters is the public weeping, wailing, gnashing of teeth, and haircloth-wearing. Money quote: Bush actually represents America abroad. He is, for better or worse, our face. When he is kind and compassionate, the American vision strengthens abroad; when he is cold and removed, the American vision weakens.

No mention AT ALL there of aid, right?

Of course I did leave something out. To make the perfect compassionate intervention, he needed to get the Air Force to blow something up with cruise missiles. Having DONE SOMETHING, he can then retire with good conscience, right?

You post stupidly implies that Bush couldn't be bothered to make a public statement because he was too busy doing the real work of organizing the response. This is complete bullshit. According to Bush's own press secretary, Bush was busy clearing brush instead of responding. He was clearing brush. And mountain biking. Not making a public statement. Not calling foreign leaders. And not meeting with his advisors to coordinate the response. He is a piece of human garbage.

Which is simply a reprise of the "seven minutes" bullshit from 9/11. Like any sane and effective manager, Bush's response was almost certainly along the lines of "that's terrible. figure out what we've got that can get there in time and help." And while subordinates are gathering that info, the manager's job... is to stay out of the way while they do it and present him with alternatives. Your problem here is that you've never encountered an effective manager, so you don't know what one looks like and end up insisting on the "FIRE! uh, ready, and maybe we might think about aiming..." paradigm used by the political buttheads.

Regards,
Ric Locke

Kevin, I think you're doing... (Below threshold)

Kevin, I think you're doing a great job reporting on this stuff, keep up the good work!

Well, it was late la... (Below threshold)
Rae:

Well, it was late last night when I responded. Sorry about the name confusion, Paul. Still liked the post.

You know, it matters not what the president does, the lefties are still gonna whine and complain because they aren't driven by a desire to unity as they so loudly proclaim, but by pure hate of W. Write away and piss 'em off all the more :)

From Libertarian Girl's blo... (Below threshold)
space:

From Libertarian Girl's blog:

American taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay for Tsunami relief. It's not our responsibility to help those who refuse to help themselves.

It must be nice to be on the side of the angels, Paul.

SpaceYou are done.... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Space

You are done. Please leave and come back when you grow up.

I'm asking nice... Don't make me use my magic admin powers.

P


And frameone you are intentionally being intellectually dishonst. You stick to your flawed ferret example but ignore a much better ananolgy in the Frenceh Wine example.

Sigh-- Guess it was too much to ask.

'"'Why was this false meme ... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

'"'Why was this false meme about Bush being a 'no show' or 'he wasn't compassionate enough,fast enough' even started? It's because the anti-America Lefties (like Space) will use anything to bash Bush.''

Go fuck yourself. Don't call me anti-American you jackass."

Little boy, you hate America. Why don't you just admit it and go somewhere where you won't be so unhappy? Your nitpicking and anklebiting do nothing to help the disaster or even advance the discussion about the disaster. You are grasping for straws and it makes you look immature.


Wow. Has everyone noticed how vitriolic and crude the posting becomes when the DUers, Mooreites and other Lefties start commenting?

You really touched a nerve here, Paul.

frameone"Because Kof... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

frameone
"Because Kofi Annan did cut his vacation short. "

AFTER he was criticized for being on vacation.

For the record, I think it is equally foolish for the leader of ANY country that wasn't affected or is in the region to immediately run for the cameras and start the symbolic, useless, teary-eyed lip biting.

Let's just cut to the chase, shall we? This is how it is going to go:
The U.S. pledged an INITIAL 35 mil. That was just the start. Before it is over, Uncle Sugar will be one of the biggest (if not THE biggest) providers of money, food, medicine, troops, logistics, clothing etc...and that's just from the U.S. gov't. Private U.S. donations will be in the tens of millions, at least. Apparently, though, the U.S. won't be an official exporter of tilted heads, bitten lips and teary-eyed speeches.
Generous grownups to the rescue, yet again, even when it won't be apprciated in some places.

The most sane discussion of... (Below threshold)

The most sane discussion of the whole issue of the Tsunami can be found from the conservative perspective. The Ayn Rand Institute has, perhaps, the most reasonable take on it:

"The United States government, however, should not give any money to help the tsunami victims. Why? Because the money is not the government's to give."

If Bush were a real conservative, instead of placating the UN he would look out for the country's best interests. Bush's hidden liberalism fools nobody.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10688&news_iv_ctrl=1021

Whoops! Looks like U.S. gov... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

Whoops! Looks like U.S. gov't aid is at $350,000,000.00 now. Three hundred and fifty million, and that number will grow as time passes.

Amazon.com is at 8.5 million. From private donations.


'yeah, but it's much more important that we LOOK compassionate. More important what we SAY, not what we actually DO.' (snort. heh)

I'm disturbed at the logica... (Below threshold)

I'm disturbed at the logical fallacies displayed by you Paul. I stopped reading after the first ten comments.
I'm sorry that I feel this way, but I don't think turning the "blog coverage" of the disaster into political fodder. I did find your original post interesting, and I didn't think much more about it. Why people still want to keep discussing it, including you, is beyond me.

frameone"Because Kof... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

frameone
"Because Kofi Annan did cut his vacation short. "

Well:

"I'm particularly amazed that no one seems to care that Kofi Annan and some of his "top officials" are on vacation this week (per an article in the New York Sun on Dec. 30 entitled "A Top Kofi Annan Aide Insults Israeli Leader")

Must be because he's not a conservative American.

Posted by: BorgQueen at December 31, 2004 01:16 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Annan was indignant when someone asked him about it, saying that he was in touch with world leaders and did his job while on his skiing vacation.

Meanwhile, President Bush was in a house with a high-end communications suite better than most countries could even afford for their presidential palaces, could get full intel from anyone at any time, and he was supposed to be "out" of touch.

Posted by: cirby at December 31, 2004 01:26 AM"


Second verse, same as the first.

OK folks, It's been real an... (Below threshold)
Paul:

OK folks, It's been real and sorta fun.

I asked a rhetorical question and rather than have it answered, I got attacked.

I'll note that not a single person was willing to come forward with an explanation for the disparity of coverage... But a whole bunch were willing to call me names.

That old line about protesting too much seems to be applicable.

The show is over, none of you lefties have anything meritorious to say it it would have been said. Comments are closed.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

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