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.
]]>< 
“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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 — 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 to you… Stick to the point. If you want GP Bush bashing, I suggest DU.
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 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 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 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… 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. That’s why I’ve never posted about them.
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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:
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 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 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 a great job reporting on this stuff, keep up the good work!
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 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.
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 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 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 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’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 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 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 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.