April 10, 2002

Hey! I'm a warblog!

Hey! I'm a warblog! While I'm pleased to be included with the likes of Glenn Reynolds, Rand Simberg, the Sarge, and the others on this list, I really have to point something out. I blog what interests me, and what I think other people might be interested in. In case the fellow behind 'wrongwaygoback' hasn't noticed, there is a war on, one that could very easily become global. That seems to me to be a pretty big story, and worthy of attention.

Neale Talbot proceeds to critique the warblog community, speaking from the perspective of an old time blogger, one who existed before 911, and the warblog explosion. Let's take a look at his critiques, and see if they are valid

1. Warbloggers Do Not Respond Well To Criticism Even though Alex Beam made an error that completely ruined his argument, one result was clear - criticise the warblogging mass and they will respond like pit vipers on crack. All sense and reason seems to go out the door, and the warbloggers sink to the same level as usenet trolls - petty insults and a focus on irrelevant details (such as spleling mistakes) become the order of the day. To paraphrase an e-mail I received, "If you make spelling mistakes and grammatical errors, your entire argument must be invalid". Warbloggers can't see the forest for the trees.

Critiques we can handle, particularly when the critic is at least semi knowledgeable about the subject. Insultingly ignorant condescension, like the Beam article, will be given the trashing it so desperately deserves. As for your charge about warbloggers descending to "petty insults and a focus on irrelevant details," let's check out this post you approvingly link to, criticizing your favorite target, Glenn Reynolds. It's a good thing G Beato doesn't descend to such levels of petty sarcasm and personal attack. I'm glad you were here to show us the error of our ways.
By the way Neale, spelling and grammar are hardly irrelevant when you are communicating in print. When you print stuff like:

  • John Hiler responds to my war profiteering charges, with some interesting counter-arguements. It would be nice a response from Sullivan and Reynolds as well.
  • 6 months ago this was have been unheard of, but it seems that the "blog/borg queen" (incidentally, a title given to Brig Eaton over two years ago) has managed to capitalise on the deaths of 3000 innocent civilians and turn a profit.
  • I challenge either Reynolds or Sullivan to put to their readers some truly alternative views to their readership.
  • Because, just like CNN or MSNBC, it's easier for them to tell their audience what to think, then ask them to think for themselves.
  • Now that a profit is being achieved, these journalists are falling to the same models they've seen so successful elsewhere, and which their trying to be perceived as following.

it determines how people will approach your ideas. If you don't take your writing seriously enough to do some basic proofreading and editing, why should we? It's like getting dressed up for a job interview. The way you present yourself colors how people react to you. In a print media, using good grammar, proper spelling, and an appropriate vocabulary is the equivalent of dressing for success. (Just so you know, disseminate means to spread information. I think the word you were looking for was dissect. But don't worry, I will continue to dissect your argument as well as your grammar. See? "Dissect" works much better.)

2. If You're Not With Us...

Warbloggers seem to think that if you criticise someone on the right, you're a tree-hugging, beret-wearing, pinko leftist scumbag. Or if you ask a warblogger to logically and unemotionally look deep into the heart of an event like 9/11, then you're a terrorist-loving, Jew-hating, fascist bastard. Or maybe just part of a vast, right wing conspiracy. With this attitude it's no wonder political parties and opinions stagnate.


So warbloggers now shape the opinions and policy planks of political parties? That's some kind of power there! We better be sure and wield it only for good. Your first sentence shows that you don't really read any warblogs. Your buddy Glenn Reynolds has criticized conservatives fairly frequently on his blog, and I haven't heard anybody calling him a pinko leftist scumbag. Maybe you just missed the flap about Bush raising tariffs on steel. Warbloggers made a much bigger issue out of that decision than did the mainstream media, and most of them castigated (I'll wait while you look it up) the President for his decision.
. Some can see a logical progression from the events of 9/11 ?¨ the rise of warbloggers ?¨ the increased traffic numbers ?¨ the growth of the tip jar. And some don't have a problem with it. If you don't have a problem with it either, why not donate to one of the following 27 warbloggers who have tip-jars on their site? But before you spend that dollar, just bear this in mind - if each of these warbloggers makes a dollar a day, after a year they'll have collectively made almost $10,000. $10,000 that could have gone to the victims of 9/11.

In another post:
What I'm also saying is that the warbloggers have taken a personal vehicle and are attempting to use them for personal profit from some rather serious and tragic events.

No, we are trying to recapture some of what we have invested in time, effort and money. Your misunderstanding springs from your belief that all we write about, all we care about is 9/11 and its consequences. Had you actually read some of the blogs you list, you would know otherwise.
Here's the deal, Neale. Some bloggers spend a considerable amount of time and effort creating their blogs. They scan the web for interesting stories, then link to them saving other surfers hours of time. Other bloggers link to one or two stories, then provide analysis and commentary from their own areas of expertise. Still others share parts of their lives with us, reinforcing the commonality of the human experience. In any case, they devote considerable time and effort to their blogs. Some of them go even further and spend money to keep their blog on-line, paying for server fees and web design and the like. It amounts to a significant investment; one which we like to think might one day be defrayed in some small way by the folks who enjoy what we do. Of course, I know you understand this whole thing. After all you have your own tip jar, don't you?

OK, now for the more egregious logical errors in your original post. First, you say that Reynolds and other warbloggers are not doing the job they should be because they are merely parroting what the man on the street is already saying. Then, in your conclusion, you say that it is the other way around, and that they are telling the man in the street what to think. Well, which is it Neale?

Next you say that warbloggers don't ask why, just how and when. Tis one is really simple, Neale. If you want to know why, just take a look at some of the pictures and video from 9-11. Watch the bodies fall through the air. Watch the planes crash into the towers, and see them collapse. See the horror on the faces of the witnesses, the anguish of the firefighters and rescue workers. See the joy on the faces of the people of Palestine, dancing in the streets as they got the news. Then you'll know why.

As for a 'long critical look at why the 9/11 attacks occurred', any critique which attempts to justify the actions of those murderers by faulting US policy is wrong on its face, and here's why. The people who died on those planes, and in the towers did not set or carry out those policies. They were not targeted for their complicity in US policy. They were not combatants nor should they have been considered such. However, in an animalistic devaluation of human life, al Qaida used these people as payback against US foreign policy, most specifically our support of Israel. If the terrorists attacked a military target, if Osama bin Laden had convinced the Taliban to declare war on the US, instead of acting as a rogue agent of terror, then perhaps we would still give some consideration to their issues. But, they chose instead to attack civilians, to strike down innocent people, and for that, their arguments and causes are rendered irrelevant. They acted like animals, and will be put down like a rabid dog. Maybe the next group will be prepared to act in a civilized manner, and we will be able to resolve our differences amicably, or at least in a limited engagement where not every man, woman, and child is considered a legitimate target.

Well, having reviewed the argument presented by Neale extensively, I probably should have just sent you to this link, from Sgt. Schultz. It says the same thing, only it doesn't take as long to read.

Posted by Rich at April 10, 2002 1:38 AM