Send Chris Arabia to Iraq — Update!
[Editor's note: For some context for this post, read a previous post, where this idea was hatched in the comments.]…
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Send Chris Arabia to Iraq - Comments Page 2
Send Chris Arabia to Iraq — Update!
[Editor's note: For some context for this post, read a previous post, where this idea was hatched in the comments.]…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Chris Arabia
Beep
beep
beep.
Somebody's backing up.
Just kidding! (Or am I?) Jeeze, everyone's so tense.
12-15 days is not the only time frame under consideration, but it's one of them. Regardless, it's hard to put the ball through moving goal posts.
Some of our esteemed colleagues have drawn not altogether reasonable inferences.
That said, the proposal and the responses will eventually have to stand on their own.
27 - Natalie Davis
OK, that makes sense. Well, people will decide to give or not depending upon how worthy they consider the endeavor and what their true motivation for donating is.
28 - Brian Flemming
Nat,
Exactly. The headline at Eschaton was "Send a Chickenhawk to Iraq." That's what brought the vast majority of people to this story.
So...
1) I think people were possibly expecting a commitment similar to what the men and women in uniform have given. (A failure to do that is one-half of what defines a chickenhawk.)
2) Motivations of some (yours truly is in this bunch) include a personal desire to see a chickenhawk put his money where his mouth is, so to speak.
So, realistically, these factors should be taken into consideration (which is not to say, again, that this couldn't morph into a different thing with new donors).
29 - Precision Pete
Wow. This is great stuff. I have known Chris Arabia for 15 years, and I am enjoying this thread immensely. Here's the joke: some of you think that you will raise the money and then Chris will back out! Having seen how quickly Chris obtained funding and cut through miles of Soviet red tape to get back in the USSR, I promise you he will get into Iraq in no time. The real question is, will you blowhards actually cough up the dough?
30 - Natalie Davis
Back to insults again, are we, Pete?
Brian, I get what you are saying. (I generally don't read Atrios [or at least the comments there] much because I don't see the point in left-wingers being mean to right-wingers for the sake of being mean to right-wingers -- even if I would get a certain pleasure out of seeing folks like the Shrub actually do what they are sending others to do [i.e. fixing the mess Bush's murderous mission caused in Iraq]. I will, however, check out the conversation regarding the Arabia effort.)
I certainly do not pretend that a two-week stint is making the same commitment that those there for the long haul are making, and I would hope that Chris realizes this is the case. But in any event, the only goal for me is bringing assistance to devastated Iraqis.
31 - daniel
Natalie: It was this entry
Also note the comments here
32 - Natalie Davis
Thanks.
33 - Steve Rhodes
I also must admit that a couple of weeks seem a bit skimpy (barely time to recover from jetlag let alone do something that will really help) though the year many soldiers are spending is a bit much to expect.
I'm afraid even next year, just being an American there will be dangerous.
While you won't agree with their politics, if you contact Global Exchange, they can probably put you in touch with groups doing volunteer work in Iraq.
As I said, I haven't found even a basic bio, so I don't know if Chris has a day job and will be using his vacation or is a freelancer.
34 - Chris Arabia
No matter how you slice it, Brian's inferences are unreasonable, as are his representations about me.
All I said was I'd go and lend a hand. I'd be the last one to equate that to anything more than lending a hand.
Why are his inferences unreasonable?
It is unreasonable, in the absence of contrary information, to think that someone would drop everything and spend several months in Iraq with no income.
If I had an income in Iraq lined up, I wouldn't have said "would" help.
If I were contemplating an income producing gig in Iraq, transportation would almost inevitably be provided--in any event, it would be unreasonable to assume that under such circumstances I'd be relying for transit on the unsecured assurances of strangers.
Brian seems to have a 2-part agenda at this point: 1) frustrate this effort or at the very least disassociate from it, and 2) blame me.
I am already hearing excuses. Whatever. If Brian wants to spin out of this, let him.
On an aside, Dr. Pete is just sticking up for a friend. He saves lives like it's going out of style. You will never meet a finer individual.
I'm with Natalie on this now, the sniping part was like the egg. We are the partidges, like on the Partridge Family TV show.
Watch us wiggle!
35 - Chris Arabia
My personal info is irrelevant. The extended debate and the original offers stemmed from assumptions about me based on negligible information (though Steve, to his credit, has seemed interested in learning more).
I said I'd go if the comments opponents would pay my freight. I stand by my offer.
As I said above, the 12-15 is not yet set in stone.
36 - Dawn
Chris and Natalie,
Eric and I were discussing this situation and I whole-heartedly agree with Eric about Natalie's virtues and her ability to be an impartial and fair middle person, and from what I have read from Chris so far, he seems to be just the right person for such a dangerous and humanitarian mission.
I am going to create an ad on my site requesting donations for his mission and I look deeply forward to hearing about Chris' experiences in Iraq. I am sure his efforts will be greatly needed.
Thanks to both of you for putting your words into action.
37 - Natalie Davis
Where is that bi, old, multicolored bus? "Hello world, there's a song that we're singing..."
Sorry.
38 - Joe
That bus was metro, not bi.
39 - Natalie Davis
Oh, holy hannah. Dr. Freud, my slip is showing. Cheers to all the buses -- homo, hetero, bi, and metro.
That was supposed to say "big," of course.
40 - Brian Flemming
Dawn,
No problem. You're welcome.
B
41 - Chris Arabia
ND,
I send a Freudian hubba hubba in your general direction.
42 - Eric Olsen
I would like to see an agreed upon length of time and any other stipulations stated here and now, or forever hold your peace. I do not want to see a passive aggressive effort to diminish or thwart this effort because one or more criteria are not up to one or more individual's standards of what constitutes an appropriate use of time and funds.
I also should state that it appears to me some of the original impetus behind this was to somehow shame Chris and/or place him in harm's way. If anyone involved is in any way HOPING that harm comes to Chris - simply because his policies do not coincide with your own - I will state unequivocally that you are a twisted fuck.
with all that in mind I would like to see this finalized and we can proceed with the public awareness campaign, ie pimping for funds.
43 - Dawn
Does anyone know what agency Chris will be doing his charitable efforts through? I would like to create a button for campaign purposes and need some info to get started with.
44 - Chris Arabia
Info not yet available.
To do this right means unfortunately falling off the frenetic pace of BC. For that I apologize.
Hopefully, the 12-15 day thing can be expanded as well.
More info will be forthcoming soon...
45 - Chris Arabia
Ethnic slurs and plainly self-impeaching bits of spin reveal more about the attacker than the attacked.
46 - Chris Arabia
Brian, I have again sent to your blog my response to your latest personal attack. You must not have gotten it the last time, or perhaps you are censoring it as part of your campaign to avoid honoring your word.
47 - Natalie Davis
Chris, in fairness, Brian's commenting system is presently on the fritz.
Eric wrote, "it appears to me some of the original impetus behind this was to somehow shame Chris and/or place him in harm's way." That is apparent to me as well.
The bottom line, though, is that help is given to those in need. So, if someone opts instead to donate to the Red Cross or another worthy organization that assists the Iraqi people, I'm still happy. Now, if someone wishing Chris ill drops out and doesn't do anything to help, well...
48 - Chris Arabia
True, but he has said that they go to his e-mail and that he can place them, as he did with my previous comment, one of yours, and several that, e.g., offered me urine to drink.
What you say, ND, about the greater importance of people helping any way they can is absolutely true.
A less significant issue is whether the same people who did the smearing display integrity. Of course, if this part is less important to me and I was the object of scorn, I don't expect others to care very much, but the issue remains.
I have made three inquiries on the actual GOOD part of this, have nothing to concrete to show as yet. Updates at snail's pace, relative to BC...
49 - Brian Flemming
Chris,
Mellow out, dude. You sent that first comment this morning, and it didn't say which post it was responding to. The one you sent forty minutes ago was sent the right way--using the link on the blog entry.
I have plenty of comments from yesterday and today that I need to get to. Since comments went down on my blog, it's been a pain in the ass to insert them manually, and I'll get to it when I feel like getting to it. You're not being singled out for special censorship. Everything points here to BC posts anyway, where you've said the same thing about a dozen times.
Eric,
I don't think there is a rush here. It makes sense that developing a real plan will take some time, and I personally don't see a delay as a dodging tactic on Chris's part--my concern is more that it's going to be a quick sightseeing trip instead of a real commitment.
He'll make his proposal when he makes it, and individuals can decide then if it measures up to what they thought he had meant at the start of this thing. Either way, he can still go, and anyone can contribute money. And I will help publicize the thing no matter how I feel about it.
If it turns out to be a two-week sightseeing trip, though, I think we should have a "The Chickenhawk vs. The Peacenik" fund-raising stunt. I will volunteer to be the peacenik. People can donate money to the person they'd most like to send to Iraq, whatever their motivations.
If we both go, then Chris and I, bitter enemies at the start of the adventure, can discover each other's humanity while enduring a shared hardship, and surprise ourselves by becoming best friends, and shit like that--like a movie (although in the third act I steal his girl and he shoots me and then ends up in an Iraqi prison).
And it would all play out here on Blogcritics, because we'd hook up with that Salam Pax guy and use his computer to send the correspondence.
Think of the hits.
(My movie is playing in Beirut in November, so that could maybe tie in somehow. I'm just saying.)
50 - Eric Olsen
Brian, one of my favorite attributes of yours is your instinct for publicity. All of that sounds fine - I will publicize when things are worked out. I'm not sure I see two weeks working for some relief agency (or whatever) in Iraq as a "sightseeing tour," but I very much like the idea of both of you going, seeing the same (more or less) things and hearing each of your spins on them. I think both of you going would solve a lot of the who-is-doing-what-or-for-whom aspects of this that are giving some of the original drivers of this an out.
It would also remove the underlying "I hope he gets blown up" hatefulness that Natalie confirms was not of my imagination.
I'm willing to make as big a deal of this as you all want it to be, and with the right publicity, it could be very big.
And Brian, I always think of the hits.
51 - Natalie Davis
The movie sounds neat, save for the violence (the moral: don't steal your former nemesis/ new best pal's paramour), as does the notion of "The Chickenhawk and the Pinko Peacenik go to Iraq".
But goose and gander, Brian: If Chris can't pursue freelance reporting while he's abroad, you can't pimp your movie.
A little Bob Marley: "Positive vibrations, yay-uh, positive."
52 - Chris Arabia
Interesting stuff.
The best part would be traveling on the same plane. That way, if it went down, the glee of BF's people would be mitigated by their loss.
I am surprised that someone with such a well established contempt for me would want to spend time with me. If several discrete facts were altered in a certain manner, I'd think we had dated.
You'll have to work on the name. I am not participating in any proceeding that requires me to acquiesce to a highly insulting name such as chicken hawk.
Sweden 1 North Korea 0 - FT
FIFA Women's World Cup
I am taking a pass on the WMD joke.
I'll have to consider added conditions as they are proposed.
53 - Brian Flemming
Eric,
You wrote:
I don't think it was so much a wish to see anyone die so much as to see a chickenhawk converted into a non-chickenhawk. Because the definition of chickenhawk is...
...the pleasure for peaceniks is in seeing someone gain some credibility. I have zero doubt that Chris Arabia would earn the sincere respect of many peaceniks watching this thing if he were to enlist in the Army today. I know he would gain mine.
Admittedly, peaceniks would be far more thrilled to see a chickenhawk cast off the first part of the definition (i.e., stop advocating for war), but any chickenhawk who backs up his desire for others to risk their lives by joining those at risk is immediately no longer a chickenhawk.
Because with such a commitment it becomes apparent that the former chickenhawk really does believe this cause is as important and necessary as, say, WWII. Without it, the chickenhawk obviously feels that the cause is only good enough for others to die for.
It's easy for you to characterize support for a real, substantive commitment (i.e., something approaching equivalence to what he's asking from the troops) from Chris as bloodthirst, but it's not accurate.
It's a demand for a display of credibility, and if honored I have no doubt you'll see attitudes turn around and pocketbooks open.
My idea for a "Chickenhawk vs. Peacenik" stunt was only a backup plan if Chris chooses to trivialize this by asking for a paid vacation. If he gets one, hell, I want one, too.
54 - Al Barger
People, people. All of this hatefulness, all this unnecessary sniping. Please.
I am the officially designed BC VRWC White Devil. Please discuss your trip plans nicely, and direct your anger towards ME. That's what I'm here for.
55 - Eric Olsen
The entire "chickenhawk" concept is beneath contempt. One is free to advocate what he/she feels is best for the country as a whole without directly participating in the execution of that policy. Do space writers have to leave the planet to be worthy, sportwriters take to the field, fashion writers walk the runway - what an absurd notion.
We live in a specialized society. The military is all volunteer and professional: they are highly trained and do their jobs exceedingly well, they don't need the help of anyone and everyone who happens to feel the War on Terror - including the Iraq phase - is in the best interest of the country.
The entire "chickenhawk" concept is a ruse and a diversion from the real issues at hand: what is best for the country? What is best for our children and grandchildren? How to make our country and the world as free and peaceful as possible? Neither Chris nor anyone else who believes the war we are in is just and necessary has to enlist in the military to gain your respect - that should be willingly granted based upon the intellectual cogency of his argument, and to suggest otherwise is vile and disgraceful.
56 - Chris Arabia
All I read from Brian are excuses, hatred, and an alarming lust for the word "chickenhawk." excuses, hatred, and an alarming lust for the word "chickenhawk." excuses, hatred, and an alarming lust for the word "chickenhawk." &c.
57 - Dawn
I have the greatest sense of sadness and pity for Brian.
All I wish for is his finding joy in some small aspect of the world, for there are some things that are truly worth not being so ANGRY about.
58 - daniel
Maybe we should concede that the term 'chickenhawk' applies to those who advocate war but either dodged the draft or deserted the military.
59 - Eric Olsen
That sounds reasonable
60 - Brian Flemming
It's an interesting question, Daniel.
Looked at from one angle, George W. Bush has less credibility on this issue than, say, Chris Arabia. Not just because President Bush has more power to make war, but also because he not only failed to serve but specifically maneuvered to dodge a military conflict. As Eric points out (probably without meaning to) the pressure of the draft made it easier to identify the chickenhawks, as it flushed them out (and, in GWB's case, forced his father to leave an evidence trail about the special favors gained for his privileged son).
The interesting thing is that the hypocrisy is separated in time. Back then, Bush was not a big proponent of the war (apparently). He didn't oppose it, but didn't advocate for it either. Only now is his cowardice then relevant to his current military enthusiasm. 1972 + 2003 = chickenhawk.
This same rough formulation, of course, applies to Dick Cheney, Tom DeLay, Newt Gingrich, Trent Lott, Rush Limbaugh, Brit Hume...
Many of these chickenhawks, however, had the decency to keep quiet about the conflict they were dodging during that conflict. Only later did they beat the drums for a different war, when most would probably be "too old" to enlist (which is no doubt why they aren't enlisting).
But what about someone who advocates for others to go off and fight and die when that person reasonably could enlist right now this minute and make the same sacrifice?
"Super chickenhawk"?
"Brazen chickenhawk"?
This would all be a specious debate, of course, if not for the fact that people are fucking dying so these mice can feel like men.
61 - Leon Sparx
Does this guy Chris even have a passport?
62 - Brian Flemming
Eric,
On a non-chickenhawk-related note, I'm not sure the that front page link to this page is the best way to maximize interest from donors.
If I had no idea what any of this was about and I clicked on this link
And then arrived at the top of this page...well, try reading it imagining you have no idea what's going on. It looks incoherent (to a new visitor). The body of this post is mainly specific responses (without context) to individual comments that most new visitors will not have seen.
If I clicked on that front-page link, then arrived here at this page, I'd read a couple paragraphs and feel like I'd walked into a room where people I didn't know were screaming about things I didn't know about.
63 - Joe
Thanks for the info on Chickenhawks, so does that make Howard Dean a .5 Chickenhawk then? What with his back injury that scored him a deferment, but didn't keep him from becoming a ski-bum? I'm more interested in coining a term for someone who would attempt to bait a person into a potentially life threatening situation and then try to back out once his bluff was called. Chickenshit will do.
64 - Brian Flemming
Eric,
Here's the text of the front-page promo you put up on the site today:
So, when you said, one whole day ago, "I will publicize when things are worked out" (#50), I guess what you really meant to say was, "I'll throw this into a front-page promo right away as if it's a done deal even before anyone knows what's going on"?
I know things are tense here and you want to do what you can to help Chris out of his commitment, but we don't even know yet what Chris will propose. Even Chris doesn't know yet (and, as I've said, I don't consider his taking time to form a plan to be a delaying tactic).
As much pleasure as you probably got from unilaterally jumping the gun and helping Chris turn this into a journalism trip instead of what he really committed to, the escalating pissing-contest aspect of this could erode its credibility pretty quickly, I think.
To take my suggestion for a backup plan (#49) and Chris's non-agreement/non-disagreement to it (#52) and rush it into a front-page promo as a fait accompli is just stupid marketing. And the confusion you're creating (do you really think an uninitiated visitor can come to this blog entry have have a clear idea of what is going on here?) may detract from whatever publicity there is to get in the future--when there really is a plan.
Your original idea to "publicize when things are worked out" was the right idea. Wait until Chris submits his proposal. If something like this is appropriate, we can do that, and I'll publicize the hell out of it. (I'll take that page down later, so people don't think it's the final plan.)
If you think you've cleverly roped me into something, okay, ya got me: If Chris proposes a two-week jaunt, I'm in. Now, can you stop fucking up the marketing of it to score cheap points?
65 - Al Barger
Brian, do you ever have ANYTHING but hatred and malicious vindictiveness in your heart? EVER?
Chris is obviously absolutely ready to get on a plane and go to Iraq as per the challenge, so now you are clearly utterly determined to queer the deal- and piss all over Chris and Eric for their efforts.
What the hell is wrong with you, anyway?
66 - TDavid
Firstly, I don't know any of you people personally or professionally and have no bias toward anybody in this situation. I spent the last twenty minutes or so reading through this situation and the following is my reaction and opinion:
Brian Flemming - I think my comments in #3 pretty much summarize the reaction that most people who come to this situation cold are going to have -- and reading through the provided links hasn't changed much.
Personally, I think this whole thing is going to prove rather unproductive. If Mr. Arabia wants to go to Iraq simply to prove something, shame on him, however if he wants to go there to genuinely provide help and support then I'm also of the opinion that two weeks isn't enough time to do that much.
For that reason and at the present time, I wouldn't donate to this effort because IMO there are far better donation options (needy children and diseases for example) or as Natalie suggested in Brian Flemmings blog: a donation to the Red Cross directly.
No offense to Mr. Arabia, who seems like an alright fellow, making a genuine offer of help, but this whole drama seems of rather limited scope and impact to the situation, except to those directly involved. Two weeks in Iraq by any one person just isn't going to do much, unfortunately, I think. I would rather sponsor a group of folks going over on some humanitarian effort than any single individual (again, no offense).
Of course I could be completely wrong with my limited understanding and review of this situation, so someone feel free to fill me in on pertinent details (but please do not send me email unless it is of a business-oriented nature, even though my email address listed here is good, it is an open firehose)
It seems with the prime link on blogcritics that this is an effort that Eric wholeheartedly supports. Nothing wrong with that, but I do question what impact this is really going to have. It might be more of a publicity gig for those who cover it, not necessarily doing much for the situation over ther.
Here's a friendly suggestion: why not write an article or entry describing briefly, succintly why someone who isn't directly involved in this drama should want to donate to sending Mr. Arabia to Iraq -- and what exactly this trip is going to accomplish?
I don't particularly like Brian Flemming's tact in how he seems to deal with things at times, but I find myself in this situation agreeing with the basic foundation of what I interpret he is trying to say (the venom aside) about the situation.
That's my 2 1/2 rusted pennies on what I'm reading into this.
67 - Natalie Davis
I would agree that it seems Eric jumped the gun on the front-page promo. No funds will even begin to be collected until the details are firmly in place; both Chris and I have stated that already. Chris is still in the process of communicating with a number of humanitarian groups as we speak. And I haven't even discussed Brian's participation with him yet on anything more than a hypothetical level.
I think TDavid's idea is a good one: Perhaps the travelers could come up with reasons they believe folks should support their efforts, why their journey is as worthy as giving to the Red Cross or elsewhere. And perhaps Eric could provide testimony as to why BC is supporting this effort and why he believes it is worthwhile.
68 - Eric Olsen
For those apparently not paying attention, this post has been linked on the front page since the first day, before we even knew Brian was involved. I didn't know anything about his involvement until after the fact because he did whatever he did from his own site. Pay fucking attention.
I added his name to the front page link when it became clear he was going to be involved, when the involvement of two people from radically different perspectives seemed to solve some of the problems, and when he himself proposed this line of action.
I said I wasn't going to publicize until the facts were worked out: I haven't and won't. I have not contacted any other blogs or media organizations, have done nothing to promote it. As I said, this post was linkedon the front page from day 1 - nothing new there.
I am all for people taking initiative - it was my impression that Brian took initiative to try to make this work and to help broaden its appeal. I assume this is still the case.
My interest and support for the concept stems from the journalistic importance of having fresh eyes and ears on the ground - note the discrepancy between what my friend Stephen has been reporting from the Middle East and what we hear from other media.
If in the course of that first-hand observation the project can also contribute to the humanitarian and rebuilding efforts in Iraq, so much the better.
That is my perspective - I do not believe anyone has to prove anything, test their manhood, put themselves in harm's way, nor do I expect anyone to reach an epiphany. If those who originally proposed to "send a neocon to Iraq" were insincere or had nefarious underlying agendas, then this endeavor is built on sand anyway.
I believe it is time for all involved to examine their motivations and make up their minds before we go on.
69 - Eric Olsen
I reiterate: the link to this post has been on the front page since the morning of the 25th, the second name was added the morning of the 26th. Pay attention or fuck off hard.
70 - Dawn
Brian and anyone else who deems themselves knowledgable as to what Eric's motives are: please shut up.
You know nothing of how he feels or thinks and to speculate is asinine.
Just do your fucking thing, get your shit worked out and stop being an asshole. IF you can't handle the commitment, then just be a man and back out.
71 - Eric Olsen
I have cheerfully removed this embarrassing mess from the front page
72 - TDavid
Eric - I thought my comments were of a professional nature and then you come back swearing ("pay fucking attention"). That's not the actions of an educated man, which I perceive you to be, but an emotional one.
This site is for critics, yes? And I was being critical of this whole situation, so if you don't want comments then remove that function so nobody can be critical.
However, instead of spending energy on things like this, how about making sure all the pages on blogcritics actually work? I've emailed you privately twice (the first time also to Phillip on the 17th and last night to only you) about one particular article (with no response to date): http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/09/07/220956.php
Considering that I've spent some amount of time contributing comments to this site, I'd like to think that a private email pointing out something that was broken would be addressed or at the very least be worthy of a quick email response acknowledging that you received it (I'm guessing that nobody received either of my emails because I don't think you guys are rude).
However, I understand that everybody is really busy, so if you guys want to give me FTP access to this site then I'll go fix this page and PHP parser error myself ;) Since I only have a mere 6 posted articles, having one of them completely inaccessible is a high percentage of them, lol.
Also, I wanted to take you up on your kind and generous offer to the more interactive blogcritics (thank you), which I would qualify for I believe (yes?) based upon your criteria. You didn't explain in that email how to take advantage of that offer, so if there is a different way then please post back or reply to my email so that I can take those necessary steps. Unless of course that offer has been revoked.
As for my comments above, if you were speaking to me, then my point was pretty obvious: if you are going to promote something asking for donations, then it is reasonable to suggest that there should be lots of details -- which there were not as evidenced by my initial comments above.
I see that you've now taken down the front page link, which seems like a good idea, so it's all sort of a moot point now.
When I originally came to this article there were not even any links made to what this was about. I don't read every article here like you do and I am sure that 99.9% of other readers don't read everything here so my comments can't be for a situation taking place in multiple places without links. So it's not a matter of paying "fucking attention" it is a matter of being thorough and detailed before folks hold their hands out for $$$.
And there is no reason to be dropping f-bombs when folks are trying to have a civil discussion, is there? Or maybe there is, I don't know.
I didn't think we were sinking down to that level. Maybe some others were, but I didn't think we were. That's unfortunate :(
73 - Brian Flemming
Hee hee!
I guess since Eric didn't feel comfortable with the insincere, "Aha! Now Brian is backing out!" tactic, Dawn (Olsen) had to step in and do it.
Thanks, Dawn. And I'm sure your husband thanks you, too.
Let me be clear: As TDavid points out, I am filled with venom for chickenhawks. I have contempt for the neocon chickenhawks who designed the Iraq disaster, and I have contempt for their cheerleaders, too.
As these Bush Admin chickenhawks and their cheerleaders fail to admit their mistake and take responsibility, my contempt grows.
So when a comment here on Blogcritics suggested that
and Chris Arabia responded,
I saw an opportunity to force a neocon chickenhawk cheerleader to take some responsibility. And, no, I wasn't thinking of the little babies in Iraq. I was thinking about forcing a chickenhawk to agree to be "sent to Baghdad to clean up the mess they made, with instructions not to come back until we send the last plane" or admit that he really didn't feel like doing that.
My purpose has been to ridicule a chickenhawk for hypocrisy, and I think that was pretty obvious from the beginning through now.
Eric, on the other hand, has been struggling from the start to mask the original context of Chris's hypothetical agreement to be "sent to Baghdad to clean up the mess they made, with instructions not to come back until we send the last plane," and has tried to position this as, Hey, I'm just trying to do something good here. Bullshit, Eric-- you've been playing games.
Which is why I have sent out a press release to my list of 1000 reporters and editors in the national media announcing that "BLOGCRITICS EDITOR ERIC OLSEN AGREES TO ENLIST IN THE ARMY AND GO TO IRAQ."
74 - Eric Olsen
Read comment #64, that's where the uninformed stupidity begins - all subsequent comments take the misinformation of that comment for fact and go from there.
As far as language goes, it is in direct response to language, assumptions, and the blinding, numbing hypocrisy of that comment. Perhaps I should have been more clear toward where my ire was directed. I thought it obvious - guess it wasn't.
T, re the rest of your issues - I am extremely unclear what the various matters discussed have to do with each other, but I just got the advertising email now and responded to it, I fixed the broken post which I either never got the original email for, or completely forgot about if I did - if the latter is the case I apologize. Errors like that are virtually always an Amazon link problem, FYI.
If I sound disgusted, I am
75 - TDavid
Thank you for taking care of those issues, Eric.
As for what it has to do with this situation? Not really anything I suppose, except some basic management of the site, I guess. Perhaps if this is a common occurence an interface could be allowed so that some (trusted) folks could fix these errors themselves in the future?
Also, it appears that comments here are more reliable and faster to get a reaction than email (not your or my fault necessarily), just the way it seems to be.
Now I will swear: those fucking virus makers and distributors have ruined the usefulness and reliability of email!
If you have another way that proves to be more reliable or perhaps a forum internally for blogcritics that is not in the public, I would be happy to use that in the future.