Engaging the Loon Brigade

Before I get to the meat of this, I'd like to make a few points about style.

Unlike a lot of political blogs, I often try to apply a certain sense of humor to my writing. Some people think it's funny. Some don't. That's the nature of humor. I also use harsh language. I understand that some people find that inherently distasteful. I don't care. I'm not offended by the word "fuck". I'm not shy about engaging in a heated debate. There are many political blogs that are more analytically oriented that read like a poli-sci essay. Those are great. Glenn Greenwald is one of the best at creating persuasive essays that exam data and draw conclusions that help define the political climate that exists in the world today. You won't find a "vulgar" word in any of his essays or books. That appeals to a lot of people who are emotionally affected by language. In fact, he's wildly successful in a short amount of time, with 2 best selling books and appearances at think tanks and in the news media. His intent was to further a cause, and his career.

However, between my use of vulgar language there exists.. my point. There are people who understand my style and see that my calling the Loon Brigade "fucking insane" is my conclusury argument. Am I more insulting then Greenwald referring to the current crop of conservatives as "authoritarian cultists"? Am I more insulting than Doug calling millions of liberal Americans "socialists" or "traitors"?

That is the mental block that many people simply cannot get past. I could completely change my style to a more conventional approach, but then I'd simply be just a cheap Greenwald knock-off, just as Doug is a cheap Hugh Hewitt knockoff. Besides.. I like writing this way, and after all, I make no pretense that I'm doing this for any other reason than to hear my own voice. I read my posts, and they make me smile, and that's enough motivation for me to do this... and the 30 or 40 other people that read my blog daily might think it's kind of fun too.

And no.. I'm not writing this to attract an audience, nor do I give a shit if 5 people or 500 read it. It's for me.

Atrios wrote this yesterday;

But I am a vituperative foulmouthed blogger, so I will merely point out that in the accompanying picture Thompson looks like a decrepit, elderly carp sucking on a lemon wedge.

He often writes that sort of thing in order to make the point that "vituperative foulmouthed blogger's" have a valid argument, but it causes some people's heads to explode because they are too fucking stupid to get the point.

See what I did there?

Now, getting to the point. A couple of Doug's readers left comments a couple days ago. I appreciate that. It makes posts like this one possible. It stems from this post on Doug's blog that I've been writing about lately. Thank Gorak for Paul Couturier.

Let's get right into it then;

Jennifer said...
Okay, let's see....Fucking loon, stupid fuckers, Assholes...a lovely vocabulary you have there. I'm not sure what's up your ass, but to go this nuts over one comment I made is a bit extreme. Name calling....I thought we were past the third grade, I guess not. I have never been less than respectful to you and don't appreciate this post. But I guess that just goes to show the level of class we both have. Or in your case, you don't have. I made one comment which you have so conveniently posted for me and all this name calling and insults are the result of this. Are you that unoriginal, that you can't post something that comes from you instead of an other's comments.

Most of that I addressed in the introduction of this post.. but to be clear, I do not "go this nuts". I could re-write the whole thing without the flames, but it's more fun with them, and goes back to that "style" and "humor" thing. I would also point out that I've, quite literally, posted millions of "original" words on my blog in the last 2 and a half years. I just enjoy highlighting the conservative point of view and arguing against it, as I am doing right now.

However, lets go back to the discussion on Doug's blog. I went to great pains to refrain from any of that "name calling" and naughty language, and stuck strictly to the topic in a "respectful" manner. What sort of response did that elicit?

No problem, as soon as you leave your gutless, hate-filled, anti-military interpretation out of it!!!!!!!

Sorry tommy; YOU LOSE!!!!!!!!!!!

And not a peep out of the Loon Brigade, particularly not from Doug who admonished me to behave on his blog. Here we have a loon calling me "gutless" (attacking my masculinity), and essentially calling me a traitor to our own soldiers - which, by the way, has got to be the most horrific insult you can make. I've NEVER attacked the patriotism of any of the Loon Brigade, nor questioned their allegiance and respect for our military.

They do it as a matter of course.

Jennier, and Doug et. all, can't seem to grasp the idea that any insult I throw their way utterly pales in comparison to the most horrible accusations they make towards millions of Americans (that share my point of view) on a regular basis. They simply see the words "fuck", or "assholes" and they instantly have an emotional reaction, without understanding that it's not how you say something, it's what you are saying that has meaning.

Bunch of hypocritical assholes.

Getting back to Jennifer's comment;

You say we don't want reality based reporting but you couldn't be more wrong. The soldiers know reality, they are living it for Pete's sake. But your deluded if you think they continually need to be reminded how much they are failing. How many people have been killed. How would you feel if you were putting your life on the line everyday, and being told that you weren't successful. That everything you risk your life doing accomplishes nothing. What about their morale?

What if you were told you have to stay there even when "nothing is being accomplished"?

The facts of the realities of war are not necessary for the soldiers. They are necessary for the nation's citizens. If we are to make an informed decision in a democracy, we must have all the facts. The soldiers view of it is irrelevant. They are gallantly doing the jobs their Commander in Chief requested of them. To think that having an informed citizenry is anathema to military morale is ridiculous.

The Bush administration tried to censor this photo;



It is vital that Americans understand the cost to our nation. They deserve to know why these young people are dead, and they deserve to know whether it makes any difference. They need to know what the plan is, how it's progressing, and hold elected officials responsible.

In fact, I think every prime time newscast should lead off with a report on the days casualties. They should show the pictures of the soldiers, and give a biography as well as provide some sort of contact information so that Americans could help the families if they choose.

And we need a draft..

Here's a recent report..

Iraq has failed to meet all but three of 18 congressionally mandated benchmarks for political and military progress, according to a draft of a Government Accountability Office report. The document questions whether some aspects of a more positive assessment by the White House last month adequately reflected the range of views the GAO found within the administration.

The strikingly negative GAO draft, which will be delivered to Congress in final form on Tuesday, comes as the White House prepares to deliver its own new benchmark report in the second week of September, along with congressional testimony from Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker. They are expected to describe significant security improvements and offer at least some promise for political reconciliation in Iraq.

Every American needs to know what's going on.. and understand that this is never going to end, and more and more of America's best will die because of these policies.

So yes, "The soldiers know reality, they are living it for Pete's sake." They are also dying for it. And you would call me anti-military because I don't believe there is any need for more to die.

I would also point out that my point of view is shared by a majority of Americans, yet you call me "extremist". You, my Loon Brigade friends, are clearly the extremists.

And please, if you seriously think CNN and other MSM is not biased you are the one not in touch with reality! And I can see from the amount of comments that you have, people are hanging on to your every word.

I don't just assume bias, there would need to be some substantive documentation. For example, Media Matters is quite good at juxtaposing MSM reporting versus reality. You just made a factual assertion without any supporting evidence. Doug does it constantly. It's meaningless.

And again, I don't do this in order to elicit comments. Besides.. all the comments on Doug's blog are of the "you're absolutely right!" variety. Meaningless. He chased off all the contradictory points of view, and I'm quite shocked the last 2 times I did, he left it there.

Do you support the troops? Do you send cards, packages, letters, etc? Do you encourage them and let them know you appreciate the fact they put their lives on the line everyday for people like you. You tell me I don't know the meaning of supporting the troops, but unless you said yes to the above questions, don't preach to me about what it means to support our troops.

Yes, on the support the troops. No on the cards, packages, letters.

You probably don't know this.. but I work on a contract in support of the Veterans Administration for a living. My work is used in the surgical units of hundreds of hospitals around the country. I take a great deal of satisfaction from that.

What is more supportive anyway.. sending packages, or pushing to get them home? You call me anti-military, or claim I do not support the troops because I do not believe the war is just, and I do not believe our interests, nor that of our military, is served by having them deployed in the Iraqi meat grinder for longer than the entire second world war.

Here's a question for you Jennifer... of the "shoe on the other foot variety". Suppose President Hillary Clinton ordered our military to deploy to some African nation for what you consider to be unjust reasons. Suppose they were bogged down for 4+ years, and nearly 4000 were dead. You might object.. and quite heatedly so.. because you think so many fine Americans have lost their lives for bullshit reasons.. and when you object.. when you raise your voice.. we simply call you an anti-military traitor who does not support the troops...

You might get a little pissed off, wouldn't you? You'd know that you are desperately trying to support the troops by getting them the hell out of there, but we've simply labeled you a traitor. Any time you try to make an argument, or point out some evidence, or try to raise awareness of the injustice, we call you a socialist traitor that hates America, and suggest you move to another country because you are un-America by not supporting a war (any war).

And that's the world you and Doug and Paul, etc. have created for millions of Americans. And that's why you disgust me.

You have your own opinion and I have no problem with that. But when you drag my name into a post and then insult me, you crossed over the line!

And I don't care.. because you will never understand the insulting conservatives do every single day and how vile it is.

"Crossing the line" implies some sort of consequence. Funny.

Now.. moving on to the next loon that commented...

Robert said...
We want honest journalism, not one sided, partisan spin. No one ever said that we should ignore the negatives, but some balanced reporting of good news is expected.

"Some of the recent bloodshed appears the result of militant fighters drifting into parts of northern Iraq, where they have fled after U.S.-led offensives." It would seem that the philosophy of the surge is working. Take ground and hold it, therefore causing militants to flee to other places. Seems as if this is a good thing.

No one? Jennifer just did. She said it would harm troop morale.

Above, I gave you your balance...

Iraq has failed to meet all but three of 18 congressionally mandated benchmarks for political and military progress, according to a draft of a Government Accountability Office report.

The three they met is your "good news". Happy now?

I can't imagine how you can "balance" the deaths of human beings to a school getting a new paint job. There is no question that our military is doing their best effort, and they are wildly successful at what they set out to do. They can drive insurgents out of an area.. but they will regroup, and strike somewhere else.. The military cannot make the Iraqis meet benchmarks.

It's not a fucking military issue.. Jesus fucking Christ on toast.. is that so hard to understand?

It's been 4 and a half years and somehow you think the "surge" is a magic pony that will make all your wishes come true? The problem with your sort of thinking is that in another 6 years, we can have this same conversation.. and I'll bitch about the Iraqi disaster, and you'll claim the media isn't telling us about the "good" things, and meanwhile another 4000 Americans and countless Iraqis will be dead.

Good god.

Fortunately, Americans have had enough and it will end sometime in 2009, is my estimate.

I need to go find out the number of attacks. The number of deaths in and of itself is not a good basis to determine the level of violence. The number of attacks is. For example, 1,000 bombs could kill 10,000 people. But 100 bombs could also kill 11,000 people if they were large enough and in the correct venue. With the Iranians supplying military hardwarre to use for attacks, it will of course be more efficient.

That sounds exactly like Robert McNamara describing Viet Nam. He eventually came to the realization that is was a horrific failure. Meanwhile, the statistics are actual dead people.

And yes, I know that if our military leaves Iraq, many Iraqis will die. They are dying every day now. That is their issue to sort out, and having our military there, or not, will not change that reality. Iran is next on the wish list of the death parade.

No need for the sophomoric and juvenile language and name calling. We adults can discuss these things civily.

You don't know what civility is. That is the whole problem.