This is a good one. Non-hyperbolic and precise.
I used to really admire Glenn as a thoughtful, balanced libertarian, one I frequently disagreed with but who stuck to a moral code and was generally fair.
No more. I was amazed when I browsed recently to see the links to WorldNetDaily and other “sources” that he just has to know are sensationalist and mediocre. And look at his postings this week — somehow, that distant little country known as “Iraq” appears to have evaporated from his consciousness altogether. Amazing, now that it’s clear we’ve lost Glenn isn’t posting all those pictures of grinning Marines and loving Iraqi children in front of Halliburton-built schools.
1
By Michael
I’m surprised no one has asked him how much he gets paid for writing TechCentralStation columns. And MSNBC?
Does he do this stuff for free, or is he a paid columnist?
And how exactly does that differ from the Big Media he rails against?
September 15, 2004 @ 1:02 am | Comment
2
By ACB
As any good historian or journalist knows, if you want to get all sides of a story you have to look at all sources, even those that you know to be sensationalist or mediocre.
Sometimes a sensationalist source will contain something useful, even if it is only used to discount its self. Bias propoganda and third party sources are all useful, are all useful in their places as long as we don;t over use them or fall for ‘discrepancies’.
Even the ‘big media’ has its place in information sourcing.
I know that I’ve used Newsmax as a source before and we all know what kind of stories they publish, but they have their place and it was right to use them for the article that I wrote because a balanced sorce wouldn’t have worked quite so well.
Wait till somebody slides completly to the right before critisicing them. There are a lot of people who would critisise you for being too liberal or using liberal sources. For the right, right is right and for the left, left is right.
Let the poor guy have his opinions.
September 15, 2004 @ 2:48 am | Comment
3
By Matt
he’s a stooge!
September 15, 2004 @ 8:55 am | Comment
4
By rosignol
That is what you consider ‘non-hyperbolic and precise’?
Sorry, it’s one of the lamest fiskings I’ve ever seen. It’s a pile of insults that fails to refute or expose hypocrisy on the part of the fiskee, but makes it abundantly clear what the biases of the fisker are.
It’s a pointless waste of time, IMO. Do lefties think all you have to do is call an assertion ” transparently ridiculous” and -viola!- it’s refuted?
September 15, 2004 @ 6:25 pm | Comment
5
By Kevin #1
I totally invent all of my sources so as to make sure they bear no hint of partisan bias. This may be really hard work, but my journalistic integrity is worth it, if you ask me.
September 15, 2004 @ 9:51 pm | Comment
6
By vaara
I finally and irrevocably lost patience with “Mr. Indeeds” when he posted this:
Nuking France. Tee fucking hee. And he wrote this almost a year before the occupation of Iraq began.
September 16, 2004 @ 11:18 am | Comment
7
By Michael
vaara, ugh. So the US restrains from using nuclear weapons “mostly for diplomatic reasons”? Well, that’s reassuring.
September 16, 2004 @ 7:17 pm | Comment
8
By ACB
If the US were to use nukes then the rest of the world would announce that their nuclear programs are puerly for self defence, and with good reason.
America is currently using a lot of other weapons that are barred by internation treaties, like anti personel landmines, and clusterbombs, and has refused to let UN inspectors into its chemical and biological weapons facilities or to sign a UN convention that bars their use.
Nuking another country would give Iran and north Korea ever reason to push into high gear on their nuclear DETERANT for genuine fear that Ameirca would attack. Remember that the US still has not signed a treaty with Korea saying that it won’t launch a preemptive strike.
Man if America nuked anybody I would right up there petitioning my governent to transform our peaceful nuclear program into a fully fledged arsinal just to make sure that America wouldn’t feeling inclined to turn on us. I’d also start kicking up a fuss about the missile defense screen that he wants our government to help with.
On the up side, if America were to nuke the french, then there’s little chance of the French not nuking America right back into the stone age in return, I’d watch for ships with French names docking in manhatten if I were you.
September 16, 2004 @ 7:56 pm | Comment
9
By richard
ACB, only countries that revere Jesus and Jehova have the right to nukes.
September 16, 2004 @ 7:59 pm | Comment
10
By rosignol
Actually, richard, it’s “countries that didn’t sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty and say they wouldn’t develop nukes shouldn’t be building nukes”. Pakistan, India, and Israel never signed the NPT, Iran and Iraq *did*.
ACB: yes, the US uses landmines, which are banned… by a treaty the US isn’t party to, and I don’t know of *any* treaty banning clusterbombs. Exactly what is your point?
September 16, 2004 @ 11:12 pm | Comment
11
By rosignol
Urg. sub […countries that signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty and said they wouldn’t…]
I hate it when that happens.
September 16, 2004 @ 11:14 pm | Comment