Conservative bloggers get in a tizzy about Libya getting a rotating seat on the UN Security Council, conservative bloggers don't understand what they're talking about. No surprise there.
« Home Rule Rules | Main | More Like This Please »
Dog Bites Man
17 Oct 2007 10:48 am
Comments (18)
If the Libyans can have a rotating seat, then, by God!, the Americans should have a vibrating barcalounger! We can't stand for some %$#@##% flaunting superior butt-accomodations over our representative!
They're still stuck round about 1983 for their map of "who hates who" in the world. Lybia has been reaching out to the US and the EU since at least 2002 - maybe earlier, but 2002 is when I recall the press coverage getting notable. They still think that Reagan and Gaddafi are fighting with each other, and haven't realized exactly how much Gaddafi has changed direction over the last few years.
They also have a black-white worldview, so when there's a shade of grey the mark it black. Gaddafi is bad. Bad people can't change. Gaddafi is in charge of Lybia. Ergo Lybia bad. The fact that Lybia has pretty much done everything we've asked them to do for the last five years or so is irrelevant if Gaddafi is bad.
People who make less than insightful remarks about officer retention rates in the Civil War or WWII, compared to now, should be a little more circumspect about ridiculing others who don't know what they are talking about. Commenting about matters that one is ignorant of is one of the most common activities within the world of blogs, and it is more tolerable when it is done with a modicum of humility.
The geopolitics are stuck in 1983 too. Libya has been a major driving force for the African Union since Gadafy decided to embrace pan-Africanism, and its having one of the rotating seats essentially brings the AU to the Security Council table in a big way.
But Will Allen -- Matt is right this time, and I take your silence on the actual topic at hand as agreement with him.
I mean, if everybody who had been wrong once were not allowed to talk, we wouldn't have heard a peep out of anyone in the Bush Administration since some time in 2003. Or out of you, for that matter.
Yes, David, I do agree with him, but one can point out that someone is incorrect in their assessment without being obnoxious, and when one blogs that is advisable, since there is an extremely good chance that one has frequently written with certitude about matters that one was entirely ignorant of.
As for my being proven wrong in the same manner as the Bush Administration since 2003, well that's a little curious. I predicted as early as 1998 that George W. Bush would likely be the worst sort of crony capitalist, and in the runup to the Iraq war I predicted that it would likely lead to the Bush becoming very unpopular eventually, since the war was fraught with potential pitfalls and setbacks. Nothing that has happened there was particularly surprising to me at all.
Matt was not that obnoxious, Will. Far less so than the wingnuts who reflexively oppose the UN or countries that are populated by Muslims, whatever the merits of the situation.
And I take it back, you are always right.
Seems like just yesterday that the Right was holding up Libya as a glowing example of the success of the GWOT. Oh, that's right, it was just yesterday
Oh, no, David, I am regularly wrong, but thinking that intitiatives by George W. Bush are likely to to be well executed is not among the things that I normally am in error about.
You just don't get it, do you? He GASSED his OWN PEOPLE!
Oh, wait...
Matt's made mistakes before, to be sure, but pointing out that the conservative blogosphere is deeply, deeply stupid seems like one of those "water is wet" observations.
Is it true that Qaddafi has marble counter tops?
Stu, the error would be in thinking that the liberal blogosphere is markedly less stupid. The blogosphere in general contains massive amounts of stupidity, so much so that I think it unlikely that any large category of it could be accurately characterized as non-stupid.
the error would be in thinking that the liberal blogosphere is markedly less stupid
Obviously, there's a danger in making blanket statements like the one I made above, and I realize Micheal Moore is very, very fat, and Paul Krugman is very, very shrill, but still: until the liberal blogosphere kicks their blind support for ongoing and future disastrous wars up a notch and/or instigates a scorched-earth campaign against sick 12-year-olds, I'd say that, yes, they're markedly less stupid than their right-leaning counterparts.
Actually, the problem with Moore and Krugman is that they are dishonest, and people who have others with whom they share ideology that, to note one example, refer to a sitting Secretary of State as "Aunt Jemima" or "Uncle Tom" have little reason to point to those of an opposing ideology as being significantly more stupid.
Krugman's dishonest? Really? Huh.
Yeah, he is, Stu, which is what makes his accusations and insinuations regarding others' dishonesty or lack of ethics ironic.
Comments closed October 31, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Nothing new about this revelation. They've been on autopilot for the past 7 years.
Posted by Pan | October 17, 2007 11:00 AM