Blue Crab Boulevard

On Arrogance And Intolerance

It would appear that William Arkin simply cannot resist digging himself a deeper hole after hitting bottom. I purposely did not pile on him yesterday as so many had already done a grand job of it. Arkin does one decent thing in today's post, that is to withdraw and apologize for his use of the word "mercenary" to describe American soldiers. From there, however, he is off and excavating like a gopher on crack.

Well, one thing's abundantly clear about who will actually defend our rights to say what we believe: It isn't the hundreds who have written me saying they are soldiers or veterans or war supporters or real Americans — who also advise me to move to another country, to get f@##d, or to die a painful, violent death.

Contrary to the typically inaccurate and overstated assertion in dozens of blogs, hundreds of comments, and thousands of e-mails I've received, I've never written that soldiers should "shut up," quit whining, be spit upon, or that they have no right to an opinion.

I said I was bothered by the notion that "the troops" were somehow becoming hallowed beings above society, that they had an attitude that only they had the means - or the right - to judge the worthiness of the Iraq endeavor.

I was dead wrong in using the word mercenary to describe the American soldier today.

These men and women are not fighting for money with little regard for the nation. The situation might be much worse than that: Evidently, far too many in uniform believe that they are the one true nation. They hide behind the constitution and the flag and then spew an anti-Democrat, anti-liberal, anti-journalism, anti-dissent, and anti-citizen message that reflects a certain contempt for the American people.

What I've heard ever since my article "The Troops Also Need to Support the American People" was published on Tuesday are a lot of people telling ME to shut up and be grateful for the sacrifices others are making.

I never said we shouldn't support the troops. I just lamented that "we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?"

Arkin presents a lot of hand picked quotes from a number of people who have left him comments or sent emails. I will only say this about his complaints about those people's words: some were harsh, ill considered or needlessly nasty. Welcome to the blogosphere, Mr. Arkin. That is not an uncommon occurrence. It isn't a particularly good side of this medium sometimes, but the ones he quoted were significantly less abusive than some that I get here if I happen to skewer one of the left's sacred cows. I presume he left off the obscene ones. I am quite sure he got a few of those.

But regardless of whatever points Arkin's original post made, some of which are legitimate points to discuss, he chose to use an inflammatory, ill considered and outright hostile term against the troops. And it surprises him that the use of that word incites extreme reactions? How long has he been in the journalism field? Yes a few people went overboard in replying to him. That does not negate the criticism of those who did not go to extremes. I notice he did not try to quote some of the people who methodically destroyed the bulk of his original post. He only mentioned people who were extremely angry with him.

Arkin has an obvious and blatant dislike for the administration as he again shows in the close of his post. That's his right, one which the soldiers he maligned have secured for him. But that does not give him the right to shut down other people who do not share his opinion. Nor does his opinion bear one bit more legitimacy than other's opinions. He appears to be arguing that his opinion is correct because many people share it. Many people once thought the Earth to be flat, too. There is also the fresh, overbearing insult he levels at the troops in the last sentence of his post. That one will elicit even more abuse, that I am quite sure of.

I again invite readers to peruse Arkin's latest screed and then compare it to the words of my son, who is serving his second, extended tour in Iraq. Readers may judge for themselves who is arrogant and intolerant.

UPDATE: Oh, man. If Arkin thought he'd gotten bashed around before, this one just poured a tanker full of gasoline on the fire. Others, already (Note: I tried pretty hard to round up a lot of different blogs on this and the last post, some are new to me, but quite interesting. Take a look if you get a chance.): Simply Kimberly, Blackfive, Sister Toldjah, Andrew Olmsted, AJ Strata, PJM, How Deserted Lies The City, Java Zen, Candy Slice of Life, Rick Moran, LGF, A Jacksonian, Villainous Company, bRight and Early, CDR Salamander, QandO, Zen Pundit, Brandodojo, Confederate Yankee, Jules Crittenden, Pink Flamingo Bar, Urban Grounds, Transterrestrial Musings, Leaning Straight Up, Don Surber, Redstate, Mac's Mind, GTL, Wake Up America, Ray Robison, Jammie Wearing Fool, 7.62mm Justice, Texas Rainmaker, STACLU, Winds of Change, Blue Star Chronicles, Decision 08, American Pundit, The Eyrie,

Bad Ideas, Blogosphere, Media | Gaius Thursday, 1 February , 2007

By Lars Walker, Thursday, 1 February , 2007 @ 11:59 am

I’m somewhat amused by the liberal’s constant complaint that when people criticize him they’re “telling him to shut up,” i.e., censoring him.

I’d be more amused if that attitude didn’t seem to be working its way into the laws of the land.
By TC@LeatherPenguin, Thursday, 1 February , 2007 @ 12:30 pm

This clown has no idea the depth of the ditch he’s sitting in. Instead of hunkering down and weathering the fallout, he stuck his head back up… and now it’s gonna be “whack the mole” time for quite some time.
By guy, Thursday, 1 February , 2007 @ 12:42 pm

He knows exactly what he’s doing - getting attention and page views.

He can simultaneously preach to the choir and rile up those on the right. All the while his name is getting shouted all over.

Troll
By TC@LeatherPenguin, Thursday, 1 February , 2007 @ 1:21 pm

GUY: “He knows exactly what heâ€™s doing - getting attention and page views.”

You know, that rubric: “there’s no such thing as bad publicity” does not cut it when it’s aimed at a major news organization. Effectively, it’s the direct opposite.

Ask the AP, after they were busted for making stuff up about destroyed mosques and torched Iraqi citizens, whether they’d really want a mulligan on running those stories. This guy is alleged to be an “analyst” in the employ of the WaPo and he’s put out a piece that makes a mockery of every other thing titled “analysis” by any other scribe the WaPo publishes on their pages, be it dead tree or digital, regardless of topic.
By guy, Thursday, 1 February , 2007 @ 1:40 pm

“Ask the AP, after they were busted for making stuff up about destroyed mosques and torched Iraqi citizens, whether theyâ€™d really want a mulligan on running those stories.”

Busted by whom? I know, I know, I read all the blogs that busted them, but who else does? Right now I would LOVE a nice crystal ball to see what the majority of the American public actually sees/hears/believes. And no, I don’t want to see a poll. I have yet to see one that isn’t horribly biased in either direction.

Right now I’m cynical as hell - the left owns the schools who mold many minds when young, they own the media that shape the opinions of probably the majority of the adults. The instances of “letting the mask slip” we’ve been seeing I think is just a sign that they believe masks are no longer necessary.

The only rays of sunshine I see are the New York Times tanking finances and the likes of Air America circling the drain. Are those signs that people are seeing through the crap, or just a few examples of poor management?
By TC@LeatherPenguin, Thursday, 1 February , 2007 @ 2:09 pm

“Busted by whom? I know, I know, I read all the blogs that busted them, but who else does?”

Everyone I talk to, when the topic turns to politics, Iraq, and all of that. I make it a point to aim people at those stories, and tell them to stop accepting what they hear or read from the MSM sources as the absolute truth.

One friend who is about as close to “hippie” as anyone I know was blown away when I gave him a bunch of milblogger URLs and told him to go check them out. (He also thinks Gaius, and his “Animal Uprisingâ„¢,” constistutes prima facia insanity.)
By Candy Slice, Thursday, 1 February , 2007 @ 2:18 pm

Gopher on crack - perfect. Thanks for making me spew coffee.

I see WaPo still has not relinked the first page of “Early Warning” (http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/) to this morning’s travesty of a blog entry by Arkin (The Arrogant and Intolerant Speak Out). The article was on the front of Early Warning this morning - but what happened? Is the WaPo ashamed or something? What could it be…
By Gaius, Thursday, 1 February , 2007 @ 2:37 pm

I wish I could take credit for “gophers on crack”, but it was actually a commenter at Patterico’s. I did the photoshop, though. One of my earliest ones.

I noticed that WaPo appears to be hiding it as well. Interesting.

And you can tell your hippie friend we are not crazy. We developed these traits early enough to be considered eccentric.
By TC@LeatherPenguin, Thursday, 1 February , 2007 @ 3:27 pm

Gaius? he went off on me one afternoon–in the middle of a barbecue–about how “vegan” is the natural way to go, so I called over the dogs, had them sit down in front of us, and said, “what about them?”

Hippie: What do you mean?”

Me: “They’re pretty natural, right?”

Hippie: “I guess…”

I held up three fingers, arched; all the dogs immediately bared their teeth and let out a growl.

“They’ll consider you an appetizer if I say so it’s feeding time.”
By TC@LeatherPenguin, Thursday, 1 February , 2007 @ 3:29 pm

so
By Gaius, Thursday, 1 February , 2007 @ 3:32 pm

Heh. “I tried a Vegan diet once. They were too tough and stringy.” Can’t remember who said that.