« go forth and ping | Main | on the lighter side: movies »

letters to the clueless

letters to the clueless


I composed an email I am sending to Rachel Elbaum, author of the biased article I posted about this morning. The four websites listed at the end were chosen totally by random. If you would like to add your site or another site to this list, please let me know in the comments. I am headed out to get something really greasy and bad for me for lunch. I'll be emailing the letter when I get back.

Dear Ms. Elbaum,

I write this regarding your article “Iraq Debate Plays Out Online.”

In this article, you link to three anti-war sites and not one site with an opposing point of view. You interview two people who run anti-war sites but not one person who has a site that takes a pro-defense stance.

If this debate is playing out online, as your title suggests, you do not show it at all. The only reference you give to “pro-invasion” sites is to say, “There is a pro-invasion presence on the Net, but it is much smaller and exists mainly on message boards and in chat rooms..”

Had you attempted to do any research on this, rather than submit an obviously biased article, you could have come up with many “pro-invasion” sites. In fact, a quick search on Google would have landed you at sites like Andrew Sullivan or Bill Quick’s Daily Pundit.

To give play to sites like Answer and Move On,and virtually ignoring any websites on the opposite side of the fence, you give your piece a decidedly leftist and biased slant.

Perhaps I could be of assistance to you and offer you a list of sites - besides message boards and chat rooms - all maintained by intelligent, knowledgeable people, to show you that a pro-invasion stance is loud and clear and plentiful on the internet.


Cold Fury
Little Green Footballs
Right Wing News
Steven Denbeste

*I'll add on as many websites as necessary. Not that it will make a difference, but I will feel better for at least attempting to enlighten the author.

Comments

I think your examples kinda prove the author's point. MoveOn.org has raised over a million dollars to help anti-war candidates for congress; nothing done by "Cold Fury" approaches activism on that scale.

It's not as if she linked to any left-wing blogs (in which case I think you'd have a case that leaving out right-wing blogs is unfair bias); blogs don't seem to be on this author's radar at all. Perhaps she thinks - not unreasonably - that blogs aren't a significant form of activism.

I wouldn't go as far as intelligent and knowledgeable for me cause I'm just plain nuts. But feel free to add my site to the Pro-Smash Saddam list if you want to.

Every crazy person's voice must be heard!

It's unfair to compare MoveOn with the blogging movement. They started in the wake of the Monica Lewinsky scandal 4 years ago, building an email list of folks (myself included) who wanted congressional Republicans and other right-wing zealots to get over it and "move on" to real issues.

They raised money back then and continue to raise money now, having morphed into a generic PAC for the Democratic party. No problem with that, but to compare their million dollars with the disorganized, nascent anti-idiotarian movement is ridiculous. AIs come in all political flavors. I consider myself a Democrat and may even vote for the infamous Jim McDermott tomorrow. I pray they retain control of the Senate to moderate some of Bush's naked power grabs.

Frankly, I hope to God that the AI movement doesn't get much political traction because it will only happen if the US endures more and worse terrorist attacks.

I just want you to tell her that I'm ashamed to share a name with her. Ick.

Maybe all she wanted was to write an article about left activism on the net? So why make such a fuss about it?

Iraq debate plays out online : Web-savvy activists use Net to spread their views

The title of the article does not seem to imply that she meant left activism. If that is what she meant, she wouldn't have bothered with the passing reference to pro-war sites.

Maybe all she wanted was to write an article about left activism on the net? So why make such a fuss about it?

Because she claimed there was NO major right activism on the net. She dismisses Free Republic as a "message board"/"chat room" because people are allowed to have their own opinions, instead of just being told what to do by some sort of top-down autocratic organization. She wouldn't even mention FR by name, despite the fact that many rallies and counter-rallies were organized there.

It looks like you have confused "activist" with punditry...

Oliver, I am reacting to this statement:

The anti-administration, anti-war presence on the Web is overwhelming. Type in any term dealing with Saddam Hussein, Iraq or regime change, and hundreds of listings will pop up — on message boards and Web sites and in news stories.

There is a pro-invasion presence on the Net, but it is much smaller and exists mainly on message boards and in chat rooms.

That says nothing about activism.

I went to google and typed in "Iraq". Try it. First entry was Iraq.net, it was almost all in arabic, but the few things in english seemed pretty anti-Saddam. Second was the CIA world factbook. Third was www.iraqfoundation.org, and it was clearly anti-Iraqi-government. The fourth one down was anti-war Idiotarian site( it goes on and on about starvation and suffering in Iraq without once acknowledging that maybe that guy who happens to be absolute ruler of Iraq might have something to do with it.) This "journalist" is clearly a fraud.

Technically, I think you can say that what she said is accurate about activism; practically, it's nonsense when it ignores the whole warblogger phenomenon, which has gotten so much press of late and obviously draws a much larger crowd to several individual sites. Of course the warblogger side doesn't compare for activism-- you don't have to agitate to get this administration to pay attention to the prowar argument! But looking at "activism" as the only measure and then blithely announcing that the other side doesn't exist online is willfully deceptive.

It looks like you have confused "activist" with punditry...

Then why link to Jay's "Progressive" (Read: Communist, right down to the little red stars) Links Directory? Why can't spreading information online be a form of activism?

It looks like you have confused "activist" with punditry...

Then why link to Jay's "Progressive" (Read: Communist, right down to the little red stars) Links Directory? Why can't spreading information online be a form of activism?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Saddam+Hussein+Iraq+regime+change&btnG=Google+Search

It's easy to do her job. Is she stupid, biased or just lazy.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Saddam+Hussein+Iraq+regime+change&btnG=Google+Search

It's easy to do her job. Is she stupid, biased or just lazy.

I wonder if any of you warmongers are willing to strap on an army-issue rifle, grenades, etc and go with the invasion force you so vociferously advocate? When you find out that this will be about blood and splintered bones and exploded heads and thing like that, you may want to reconsider your war stance. War should be entered into solemnly, with a formal declaration by Congress and the willful backing of the people ( thats you and me ) as opposed to this blind fury over 9/11. Did Saddam Hussein organize 9/11? If so, then I am for invading. If not, then you have no right to just pre-empt a war. You tickle the dragon and play havoc with the fate of the U.S.A if you do so.

Finally, my experience tells me that those quick to jump up and fight are the least brave. The cowards and wimps are the loudest while the strong warriors are sitting back in cold reflection upon the chaotic destruction that may lie just ahead. When they do act, though, playtime is over. In the cold night of a nuclear winter, I hope you can still tap your keyboard with cold trembling hands because that is what your are unknowingly asking for.

Peace,
jazzmonn

Although warbloggers have convinced themselves that the their blogs are the most important thing to happen since sliced bread maybe that article is a wake-up call that warblogs are not centre of the internet universe, but instead a fringe phenomenon that 99.99999999999% of the world is unaware of, or if they are, couldn't care less about.

I don't even like white bread.

Hey Jazz,

I WAS in DS. I DID strap on a rifle and grenades. I also worked in ops on 3 other continents. I do know exactly how it feels to kill and maim...and get shot at for that matter. By the way, I was in the intel field as well. I mention this because I have some idea of how the intel gathering procedure works. If there is evidence to show that Saddam either helped train, gave aid or monetary support, or any form of weaponry (and our government says there is) by telling us anything about HOW they got the info could compromise the source of that info, thereby leading to death of the source.

No soldier worth his salt wants war. However, if the need arises, soldiers are trained to win. That means killing the other guy. If a nuclear exchange can be pre-empted by a decisive conventional war, fewer people (civilians) die. To allow Saddam to gain or retain WMD, if nothing else, allows him to hold the region hostage. Leading to a much broader eventual military operation.

Congress has twice now given W. approval to do what needs to be done. We as a country vote tomorrow. Your voice will be heard with that vote. If you want SW Asia to be a pit of vipers, vote against those who support the president.

I also will sign off with "Peace", but that is said in fervent hope that those who dare disturb it will soon be eradicated off the face of the planet.

"War should be entered into solemnly,"

So there are state-of-mood requirements for starting wars? Nobody ever told me, that's for sure...

"with a formal declaration by Congress"

Formal declarations of war went out of fashion some time ago - in newspeak it's called "authorization for the use of force", etc, but the meaning remains.

"and the willful backing of the people ( thats you and me ) as opposed to this blind fury over 9/11."
Why is it that I suspect that any opposition to war will be designated as 'willful' in this framework, while a pro-war stance will be dismissed as 'blind fury' by defintition? (Hint: you rarely go to war if you are pleased with the state of the world.)

"Finally, my experience tells me that those quick to jump up and fight are the least brave."

So the fact that the army is a Repub bastion, and hardly a recruiting ground for the Workers World Party counts for nothing, compared to your 'personal experience'? Yea, sure...

"The cowards and wimps are the loudest while the strong warriors are sitting back in cold reflection upon the chaotic destruction that may lie just ahead."

Defeatism is the strongest outside of the military, not inside it - that's a pretty safe bet. Add to that the fact that much defeatism is merely an ill-disguised wish of the US losing, and...

"In the cold night of a nuclear winter..."

Yup, the Russians are going to Nuke the US any day now... . Seriously, who is going to do the nuking? Replace your cold-war vintage agitprop doomsday scenario with the actual situation at hand, and you might be off to a better start. Still, you could just sit on your hands for a while and let Mr. Hussein aquire a few 'devices'. Could prove interesting, and it might just make, say, Israel somewhat less hospitable to human life. Or we could see an Iraqi army, operating under a nuclear umbrella, making the middle east real interesting. Will make for some great live TV, unless you happen to live there...

Inaction is not a guarantee for security.
Repeat 100 times. Inaction is not a virtue in itself. Repeat 100 times. Etc, etc.

Regards / Arvid Malm

-Stabil som fan!

Cold Fury-can't read the font.
RWN-not sure it's all that intelligent. Humorous at times-not very informative. I prefer Junkyard Blog for truly intelligent conservative views.

Those blogs that can argue their point without having to resort to insults as they are above that schoolyard behavior-those are the intelligent sites worth noting.

Sylvain, notice I didn't include a link to my own site.

And I just used whatever came up in Google first, to prove that all she had to do was look.

Michele,
You're correct. That title leads one to believe that the author is actually writing about discussions taking place on the internet when in fact it's just a puff piece for appeasement creeps, fifth columnists, and traitors.
That BC prof towards the end claims that W can merely call a press conference for instant coverage and yet the President just gave a major speech this fall on Iraq which none of the three major networks carried!
Jazzmonn--if you called me a coward to my face for supporting this war to defend everything that is decent and humane in this world, I'd put you in a coma! My age rules me out of this fight although I think the age limit frankly is stupid as I can obviously run a computer or weapons system despite not repelling down a rope as fast as some 20 year old kid. I can still beat up hippies and coffee house commies though!
Arvid--Stabil som fan, visst! Gora slut pa alla terrorister!
Sylvain--Cold Fury Rules! Bite Me!

Yeah, well, you should have. Included a link. To your own site.
It is by far more entertaining and informative than the ones you mentioned IMO.
But I get your point.
You don't seem like the lacy anklet type-perhaps something functional and warm? Or saucy and sexy?

I'm all about the warm, fuzzy socks.

Too funny! You get tons of comments, but not many URLs! hehehe... Well, I'm not ashamed to leave my site address! You GO girl!! :o)

It's quite possible that she didn't write the headline for the article - it's common to hear authors complain that they don't like the headlines editors stick on their writings.

Jazz,
You can add me to the "me too" chorus along with "BlueCoyote." I went to DS and also to Somalia – 3 times, I apparently kept getting it wrong and had to repeat it . I also strapped on a gun (well, a rifle and a pistol) although I didn't take any hand grenades, in the USAF we considered hand grenades "low speed, low drag" plus, well, they're tacky.

I was involved in counterintelligence as opposed to BC’s involvement with positive Intelligence. The easiest way to define the two is Intel tells ya what they got, CI tells ya what they plan to do with them.

I have shot at people and have had them shoot back. It's scary and puts most things in your life into a unique perspective e.g. most things we tend to worry and mope about are trivial.

What pains me most, however, is that I remember I wrote to a lot of school children during the Gulf War; I told them about the boredom of waiting, the heat the bugs, the nasty sounds shrapnel and ricochets make – trust me, you NEVER forget any of those sounds! – In fact I told them everything that was ugly and wasteful and cruel and nasty about armed conflict.

I also let them down. I told them that I – along with help from that Schwartzkopf guy, Norm was it? – was going to make the U.S. a safer place for them to live. Yeah, I know, I know, I should feel bad about not making the “world” safer, but ya know, for one thing, my oath was to the U.S. Constitution , not the UN Charter and for another, well, the U.S. was about as much as Norm and I felt we could handle.

So, some of those kids are probably in uniform now, waiting, volunteers all – gods bless ‘em, but none the less I, and Norm, and maybe even BC, let them down a lot more than we should have.

O.K. I’ve been cute, but by all that we hold dear and special lets ENDS this whacko now so we can get to the other things that are also important? Like the fact that North Korea now holds 100,000 American men, women and children hostage north of the Han river??

We got things to do, let’s get them done right this time, please?

jim hogue, CMSgt, USAF, ret.