Saturday, March 18, 2006

Let's Play the "Chicken Hawk" Game!

Well, I suppose that it was inevitable: one of the commenters here (cowering safely in anonymity) has decided to play the "chickenhawk" card. Here's what that commenter said the other day:
I would respect Peace Activist more if they ever wore a uniform and at one time went to war. My dad became a peace activist after winning the Silver Star. He saw war first hand and then dedicated his life towards peace. Many peace activist have rarely left the comfort of a college campus. This is the same reason why I could not vote for Bush. Bush, Rumsfield, Cheney...all chicken hawks..Go McCain! Go Kerry!!! Go Gore!!! Mr. Young...where did you serve your country?
And you know what? I thought it'd be fun, too. After all, why bother actually to address another's arguments? Let's just dismiss his arguments because he or she has never met some arbitrary and capricious --- or better yet, convenient --- standard for authority?

I would respect abortion advocates more if they ever had an unwanted pregnancy.

I would respect Mothers Against Drunk Driving more if they'd ever had to go somewhere with a load on.

I would respect Teddy Kennedy on employee "rights" more if he'd ever had a real job.

I would respect [Lawmaker A] more if he'd ever practiced law.

I would respect pro-lifers more if they'd ever killed someone.

I'd respect tax advocates more if they'd ever actually paid more in taxes than they consumed.

I'd respect anti-globalization advocates more if they'd ever run a business.

I'd respect public welfare advocates more if they'd ever personally aided someone.

You can play, too!

7 comments:

Willis said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mitch Cumstein said...

Hey, I've got one:

I would respect the opinions of [Anonymous Coward] more if I could research their credentials and determine whether or not they have the right to their opinion.

Oops. Same damn thing, if you ask me.

James Young said...

Everyone has the right to their opinion, Pseudonymous Coward. That they probably lack the experience and credentials to back it up, or because their experience and credentials would reveal something about their agenda and/or biases and/or personal animuses, is probably why some choose to remain anonymous/pseudonymous.

Mitch Cumstein said...

"Everyone has the right to their opinion."

I have never seen anything on this, or any other blog, that indicates that you actually believe that statement. If you did, you wouldn't be so hung up on anonymity/pseudonymity.

Your constant railing on people who don't use their real indentities is a clear indication that you believe that credentials dictate the verasity of one's opinions. Which is, of course, diametrically opposed to the notion that everyone has the right to their own opinion.

Now, if I'm trying to convince you that I'm right and you're wrong, that's different. But that has never been my intent, nor the intent of many who comment on blogs. There's a big difference between simply offering your own "two cents" and demanding that someone be right and someone be wrong in every instance. This seems to be the only paradigm you wish to exist in.

And as far as being a "coward," I'll just keep repeating that you, as an individual, don't scare me in the slightest. Why should you? I'm younger and physically stronger than you. I'm just as well connected. So, what are you gonna do? As for hiding my motives and who I support, do you honestly think that anyone who's read my comments would doubt that I support Tom Davis, Sean Connaughton and Marty Nohe? I mean, come on. I've never held back on that. I know you don't have anything major against Tom, but you've been railing against Mary and Sean for years. I don't see where your being anti-Connaughton/Nohe is any more credible than my supprt of them.

It's a shame you aren't willing to exchange in logical discourse, because there is probably an intelligent and agile mind under all of the empty, hostile rhetoric.

James Young said...

Poor Mitch. So ill-educated that he doesn't know the different between a right to an opinion and everyone else's right to judge for themselves whether that opinion is well-reasoned, logical, or even sane. Just because I don't credit every idiotic opinion that I see as somehow valid in L'il Mitch's opinion or meet L'il Mitch's standard for doing so doesn't mean that I don't "believe that statement." But then again, you've apparently ignored more than a decade and a half of a career defending the rights on individuals to preclude others (union bosses) from extracting from the unwilling support for their personal political agendas. But oops! There's one of those nasty credentials that you don't think are particularly valid.

As for my "constant railing," or being "hung up," you can complain about it as much as you please (far be it from me to stop you), just as I am perfectly entitled to make judgments based upon it. I no more "constant[ly] rail[]" or am any more "hung up" on that than you are on your cult of personality for Chairman Sean, and desire to belittle anyone with well-reasoned and justified complaints about his conduct and policies. 'Course, you have good reason to belittle, since that's the only strategy left for someone who refuses to concede the basic facts.

Finally, I am certainly entitled to my opinion that anonymity/ pseudonymity demonstrates something to hide. And don't flatter yourself by assuming that, because I believe you to be acting cowardly, you are somehow "scared" of me. As for your other assertions, what is the purpose? You are "younger and physically stronger" than I? So?!?! When have I ever physically threatened anyone, or even attempted to do so? Given my physical prowess --- or woeful lack thereof --- I long ago concluded that any desire that I might have to do so would be an exercise in self-destruction. I suppose that I compare favorably to your hero in that regard, at least from some things I've heard (such as an aggressive driving charge that he tried to hush up). And "well connected"?

Sadly, "Mitch," all we have to rely upon on that score is your unsupported and doubtlessly self-inflated comments on those scores. More interesting, I'm sure, is what knowledge of your identity would reveal about your personal biases/demons/record/loyalties which would explain your fixation on discrediting me.

And equally sadly, you confuse an ability to weave facts about individual's records and/or failures with an unwillingness "to exchange in logical discourse." Nice try, "Mitch," but an individual's record is entirely relevant to assessing their current proposals. We should no more ignore Chairman Sean's tax-and-spend record as BOCS Chairman than we should ignore the fact that Liberals have been consistently wrong on virtually every foreign policy issue since 1968 in judging the "wisdom" of their current foreign policy prescriptions. As someone else noted in the blogosphere, there is a large difference between Jay/Hamilton/Madison publishing under a pseudonym to prevent the crediting of their arguments based upon hero worship than a self-important boob publishing under a pseudonym because he or she fears what their record would reveal about them, or the consequences flowing from having their name attached to outlandish attacks.

Mitch Cumstein said...

Jim:

What you fail to realize is that this isn't about Connaughton and my perception of or relationship to him. This is about you. Yes, much of what you comment on is directed at Connaughton, so that would explain your belief that I am some Connaughton lackey. But the truth is rarely talk to Sean. And, while I agree with and appreciate much of what he's done in PWC, there is also much I disagree with.

No, this isn't about protecting Sean or anyone else. This is about you being undeservedly arrogant. Yes, on right to work issues, you have very solid credentials. I don't remember ever questioning you on that particular issue. Quite frankly, I don't really care a whole lot about it one way or the other. I find other issue more important. And on those issues, such as government responsiblility, taxation and social issues, your credentials don't seem to be any better than mine or anyone else. Anyone who pays taxes and uses government services has the right to judge the value of them, whether a lawyer with a "Supreme Court practice" or a public school teacher.

I guess I just have a problem with arrogance where I feel it is unwarranted. And I think this entire discussion is useless and, quite frankly, is only helping to boost your blog's numbers, which again are more a reflection of those who oppose your views and your tone than anything else. So this is it for me. I won't be coming back for a while. But feel free to keep coming to TC.

James Young said...

Mitch, sweety, you have no authority challenging my credentials while hiding yours. As for whether I have credentials "better than [yours] or anyone else['s]" to comment on "government responsiblility, taxation and social issues," please feel free to cite chapter and verse where I have claimed that they are.

You can't, because I don't. But facts don't stand in your way. That is, as opposed to myself, who points out those inconvenient facts that you consistently ignore and/or shade --- like the fact that Chairman Sean has raised taxes --- rather than respond to. The only "arrogance" that I've discerned is your arrogance in claiming that your reflexive defense of Chairman Sean's tax-and-spend ways is somehow "responsible," implying that those who disagree with you are "irresponsible." Now, that's "arrogance." It's a personal attack launched in lieu of either: (a) conceding the point; or (b) defending the massive tax increases suffered by PWC taxpayers under Chairman Sean's tenure.

As for my authority to comment, I was a leader in the PWC GOP while you were... well, who knows? I was hired to write a political column while you were... well, who knows? I, among others, helped lead the GOP to dominance in PWC while you were... well, who knows? That gives me whatever meager authority I possess.

That, and the fact that I speak the truth.