Asymmetrical Information

OK, I'm guessing that I'm missing something, but where are reasons 5 and 6?

elided. Click on the first link to RTWT. SO many brilliant new satirists on the web, don't you agree?

You have just described 95% of all blogs on both sides of the isle.

Congratulations you have blown the cover off naked partisanship.

Mindles - First, we appreciate you’re taking note of and your compliment (backhanded?) of our blog Truth and Lies: Blog for A Better America. But we must inform you that in connecting us to the other blog you mentioned (see below) you were dead wrong. We may be clever and ironic and we may use redundant framing (yes, we're smart and we strive to write well) but we want to be clear that we are not associated with the “The Iraq War Was Wrong” web site. We had never even seen it before. We just clicked over and perused that site after we saw your post and some of the views posted on it ar3 anathema to us so clearing it up is important on our end.

First, they express beliefs on that site that are offensive to us and definitely don’t comport with our views. In seeking to psychoanalyze terrorists, they say “WE’RE NOT APOLOGISTS its just that we want to UNDERSTAND the terrorists and FIGURE OUT why there mad about the WRONG stuff we've done (answer is simply, because we were wrong)”.

That’s the kind of nonsense that we don’t subscribe to and don’t want to be associated with. These terrorists are the face of evil. They kill innocent people to aggrandize their own power, gain fame, make money, be heroes…whatever their sick, twisted motivation is. You don’t need to “understand” evil, you need to recognize and fight it. We don’t think the issue is evil terrorist leaders being “mad” at us, so examining why they “might be” is a self-flagellating exercise in futility. Like they’re being evil murderers is somehow our fault? The young people they exploit might (we have no idea) be mad at us but the responsibility for that is on the terrorist leaders for exploiting them and sending them to their death. More importantly, the main source of this great evil is the leadership of the many Middle Eastern countries who sponsor terrorism and who exploit and impoverish their people and then build state sponsored media institutions and madrases (can you say Saudi Arabia?) that spew hatred towards the US and teach children to hate us for the failures of their tyrannical leadership and the difficulties those regions/cultures have had in adapting to the rapid changes of the modern world. That’s the most evil kind of scapegoating. The explanation is not that complex. Evil leaders spread hateful messages and exploit their populations and then try to create scapegoats (the US, the "West" and Israel) to keep their people from toppling them. So, no, we are not only completely unrelated, we couldn’t be more opposed to the views expressed in “The Iraq War Is Wrong” blog.

Secondly, we view the Iraq war as a more complex question than the ”Iraq War Was Wrong” Web Site. Putting aside George Bush’s grave failures in executing the war and the Bush Administration deception involved, we’ve never been completely convinced that anyone can predict exactly what the outcome of our actions their will be. And now that the US military is in Iraq; we’re not part of the crowd that thinks there is an easy “cut and run” solution. War is always tragic but we don’t have a simplistic view of this one. We do believe the Bush administration has prosecuted it deceptively and incompetently and that’s unfortunate because it not only results in tragic and unnecessary loss of life but it obscures the ultimate question which is was it morally, militarily and geo-politically the right step to take. And now that Saddam Hussein, a despicable, evil tyrant, has been removed, will it actually help to achieve the goal of helping to democratize the Middle East? The Adminstration doesn’t help the cause when they spin what is happening there or launch personal attacks or call anyone who questions any aspect of the war unpatriotic. George Bush’s problem is he is not large enough to see the war in anything but political terms i.e. what does it mean to me and my political standing. War is larger than politics. But again, in short, we don’t think the Iraq situation lends itself to simple formulas and we are not in any way related to “The Iraq War Was Wrong” web site. Nor do we view matters of life and death so blithely.

Anti-American terror was around long before the military action in Iraq. Though we only took a short read of the “Iraq War Was Wrong” blog it looks like one that is too blithe and simplistic for us. It also seems to subscribe to the type of moral relativism that results in “blaming America” first and gets people into all sorts of confused states and trouble when they encounter the face of evil.

Finally, in case you haven’t guessed it from reading our post, while we are no fans of this Administration or the less intelligent, extremist part of the right wing, on many issues we tend to be centrist, moderate or even what some would consider conservative.

We’re glad you noticed our blog (we work hard on it) and are left with mixed feelings: (1) we thank you for noting our “clever use of irony” and redundant framing; (2) on the other hand, we found the “Iraq War is Bad” blog to be a bit sophomoric and overly rhetorical, while we have some more sarcastic/irreverent pieces and do at times express frustration with the dishonest part of the right wing, we think our blog is more thoughtful and focused on getting at the truth irrespective of party affiliation, and (3) we think that the “Iraq War Was Wrong” blog is often poorly written and are not sure how we could be confused with them.

We continue to focus, as always, on our task. You should come back and check out more on our site. Again, while we’ve admittedly focused lately on our frustration with the arguments/behavior of the Administration and parts of the far right wing, we’re not reflexive liberals, partisans or Democrats. We’ve even fiercely criticized Bill Clinton and the Democrats. You might enjoy it. Let’s hope that the people of all political stripes can maintain a respectful dialogue; we’re all Americans and though partisan emotions are at a fever pitch right now, most of us seem to be people of conscience who are lucky to be living in such an incredible country (even if we sometimes disagree). Keep in touch.

PS - We saw your posts on Corporate Fraud. A few of us having securities, corporate, financial and legal backgrounds ourselves we’ll probably be back to weigh in there.

PPS: We also noticed that the “Iraq War is Wrong site” has this quote posted on its blog, “The Capitalists, Imperialists, and Zionists need to be exposed, as you have been doing, by showing that the Iraq war was wrong." That’s just ignorant, evil and dangerous. That’s not our crowd for sure.

rmg

Truth and Lies: Blog for A Better America

I commented as follows on the site re the post about "conservative" blogs: "Do you realize that your post is nothing more than one long ad hominem attack? It is based entirely on opinion rather than fact. Hence, it is pointless and irrelevant, except to the extent that it may have propaganda value (which this doesn't since it is written to preach to the choir rather than to the persuadable middle)."

Ok, now we had a chance to check out that Iraq War blog in more detail.

Come on? That's like comparing the Major League to the Minors. We're much better at "redundant framing" and more clever than them.

Truth and Lies: Blog for A Better America

You've got to love the royal "we." Goodness, but some people are impressed with themselves.

Mike - Hey. Should we have said "I"? We're kind of out of the loop on that new Strunk and White rule. Let us know.

rmg

Truth and Lies: Blog for A Better America

Iraq War Wrong has replied.

I got a lttle confuse with this (ok ALOT, but). Is that other blog saying it is that one other one? (Or not(Not relly clear.) Anyways, I guess I'm glad you linked IWR's blog. It should be one of the main blog's. (I thinkso) PRetty sure your not saying it's whiney jsut that other one. (

Anyways.

There is a certain undefinable similarity between the two. It is certainly not related to the technical aspect of writing however. Mr. Truth and Lies has every right to be offended by the comparison. I spent some time at IraqWarWrong and frankly, I conjured the caricature image of extremely rural, deep-south, home-schooled inbreds based on their massacre of what passes for English. Mr. Truth and Lies can proudly stand apart from that at least.

What did resound between the two was a well crafted vacuum of political ideas. There is a protective veil of well rehersed and often repeated liberal talking points and absolutely nothing behind them... or tieing them together that permeates both sites. The exact species of blind political allegiance that draws a growing number of very smart people to blogs like this one. Mr. (or Ms, I suppose) Truth and Lies runs commentary like "conservatives are obviously wrong because they are geeks or stupid" and then leaves it at that. It may be written better and spell checked but it is just as childish and imature. A string of shallow, one-line, politically-aimed sketches may pass for intellectualism in liberal circles and the popular media, but the rest of the country likes a little more to chew on. (Except, of course, for those on the extreme far-right who can string a series of bible verses together and call that political discourse.

If the two sites are related, the Iraq War Wrong site might be Truth and Lies's little brother or sister using a suitably less mature vocabulary to cavil and pule meretriciously for a waning extremist ideology who's only perceivable platform is: we don't like Bush.

So you can argue for consideration of writing style but not content. For all we know you DO author both sites, one sober and the other wasted?

Are you certain the "The Iraq War Was Wrong Blog" isn't a parody site? I'd love to see what they did with a statement like "to cavil and pule meretriciously for a waning extremist ideology".

Kell - First, regarding our use of the words "geeks" and "dorks", you take it out of context and try to hang us on use of those words. We've commented on using those words on our site. In case you didn't get it, we agree the words are loaded and childish.

Truth and Lies: Blog for A Better America: The Whiny Right Wing - Part III - Why It Matters

Read our post, we're not as dumb (or childish) as you think. Apparently you didn't catch the "clever use of irony" in our post that Jane was talking about.

Lots of criticism can be directed at our site but if you read it even briefly, it's not shallow, it's not comprised of one liners and, as Jane noted, its informed and written intelligently (ok, she used the words "clever use of irony" and "redundant framing" albeit in a vaguely ironic sort of way).

You're simply wrong that we "make [one-liner] commentary and leave it at that". Our original article that Jane posted here cites a thesis and lists at least 10 characteristics that we identified as supporting this thesis. See it here.

Truth and Lies: Blog for A Better America: The Whiny Right Wing

You may not like the fact that many (too many) right wing pundits and politicians have become whiners whose political commentary lacks substance but it's true. We know, the truth can be painful.

(Note we have never directed our criticism at those who have actually demonstrated substance and write intelligent pieces e.g. Hugh Hewitt, even if we often disagree with him).

And as for talking points, we don't have them and we don't use them. We simply call what we see and, like it or not, live or die based on our own take on things. We've posted on that separately as well. Like it or not, it's the right wing who have a few well organized blogs and then a network of "me-too" copycats who simply regurgitate what the leading conservative sites have had to say (can you say George Bush/White House/Karl Rove to Roger Ailes to Fox News minions). To the centrist and liberals credit (or discredit), they unfortunately have never built that network up.

Correction: The permanent link to our article listed in the comment above "The Whiny Right Wing - Part III: Why It Matters" appears here

Truth and Lies: Blog for A Better America: The Whiny Right Wing - Part III - Why It Matters

You might have been a little out-Beamed yourself.

D'oh! ROTFLMAO.

B dunk

I tend to look on any site with "TRUTH" in it's title as being inherently suspicious in the first place.

"Truth" according to whom?

Objective "Truth"? Subjective "Truth"? Verifiable "Truth"? Binary "Truth", all one or the other, or gray area "Truth", with shadings of "Truth"?

"Truth" with a limited subset of facts taken into account? Or "Truth" with everything tossed into the mix and boiled for a few days so concentrated "Truth" rises to the top while condensed "Lies" sink to the bottom?

Is it "Truth" which must be forced on unbelievers? "Truth" which must silence all other opinions and allows no dissent? "Truth" which must be presented in a 'particular' way so the reader will get the 'proper' opinion inculated into their minds?

Is it "Truth" which has to be spun, or twisted, or selectively edited? Is it "Truth" with a slant, a bias, a leaning toward a particular point of view that's inherently the only proper one for someone believing the "Truth"?

If you call it "Truth", does that mean all other viewpoints are lies? Are your "Truths" self-evident and can stand on their own, or do they need a shoring of selectively culled and out-of-context quotes and remarks?

If I'm looking for "Truth", I'll take what I find for "Truth" from
these guys. I KNOW what to expect from THEIR version of the "Truth". But I don't search for someone to tell me what to think - I search for information, and decide for myself what the "Truth" is. If you present 5 samples of "Truth", and I know one is immediately "False" but don't know about the others, I'm going to be suspicious about the quality of "Truth" used to craft the other four. Sorry - but that's the way it is.

Thank yew fer de rant-space. I'll go back to my blindered knuckle-dragging now...

J.

Reliant, rmg, or whatever you're choosing to call yourself this morning,

Its pretty clear from glancing at your blog that you're lying through your teeth. You're not a moderate/centrist based on your choice of topics and positions stated (Hint: You might not be a centrist if you find yourself linking to Think Progress and using the combination of centrist/liberal.). Reviewing your defense of your use of the terms "geeks and dorks", your argument doesn't really provide much defense other than "Bush is a rich kid prep school boy". Maybe its me, but where I was taught, thats not exactly called an argument. The closest thing to context you provide is an argument that, well, the conservatives in question are ivory tower types, popular pundits, or rich kids (hmmm...so they are smart, popular, and rich...sign me up for geek and dorkdom any day.). Bluntly, you sound like the fat girl who didn't get an invitation to the prom telling everyone how she didn't want to go to that dorky old prom and hang out with those jerks.

No soap. Radio.

as in "No soap..radio!"

Reliant/RMG: Friendly suggestion: Do a little more homework. It's not enough to assert that this or that talking head is a dork, no matter how self-evident that may be from their tone of voice. You need to give examples of dorkiness in action.

Al Franken is good at this sort of thing. He does not just assert that someone like Bill O'reilly is a self-aggrandizing fraud, he gives you evidence. He points to the colloquy in which Franken said that O'Reilly's show Inside Edition was tabloid journlism. O'Reilly said, on air, words to the effect of, "What do you mean tabloid? I won two Peabody awards for that." Franken researched it and found that O'Reilly had never won a Peabody award. The show, Inside Edition, won one Polk award -- a year after O'Reilly had left it. Confronted with this, O'Reilly called Franken a "jihadist" who was out to get him. His next line of defense was, Polk Award, Peabody award, what's the diffference? His next line of defense -- an O'Reilly classic in my view -- was to deny that he never claimed to have won two Peabody awards.

See this link: http://www.alternet.org/story/16157/

See what I mean? Franken is persuasive. You're not -- yet.

c'mon, Mindles. You know how hard it is to consistently type badly when you know better. Ergo, unlikely to be the same author. Unless "reliant" runs tex through a filter ... hmmm ...

OK, maybe you're right.

Umm, RMG - people who write lenngthy tomes as comments are moonbat losers full of themselves.

Earth to RMG: YOU LOST THE ELECTION, GET OVER IT.

Folks - look at the bread crumbs above. We been punked.

It takes a special mind. Consider the target of this satire - blogs in general? kneejerk centrists? People who go on and on about other bloggers lack of 'substance' and 'real issues' while providing/addressing neither? Or just bloggers in general?

I'm still chuckling.

I used to do this on Lefty sites but I tip my hat to this. Well done.

Your reality check, has bounced. B'Nups. Check age requirement at door.

">Truth and Lies: Blog for A Better America

www.reliantmedia.blogspot.com

Truth and Lies: Blog For A Better America

(corridors with no end in sight)

Posted on T & L

I would have more compassion if Ms. Sheehan weren’t acting as a lioness who just consumed her cub.

I read your post on AS, until I reread it I thought you were speaking about liberals. Who knew the right and left had so much in common?

Truth, Lies, Eye of the Beholder.

TNT

Redundancy is not good writing.

No Soap Radio - and has anybody ever seen the author of Iraqwarwrong blog and Jim Treacher in the same room?

I`m not familiar with the Imperial "Truth and Lies" blog, but I've known about IraqWarWrong for some time and I've always viewed it as a joke site.
Kell nailed it with this line..."What did resound between the two was a well crafted vacuum of political ideas. There is a protective veil of well rehersed and often repeated liberal talking points and absolutely nothing behind them..." , and I think that`s why I visited the IWW blog for a while, the humor.
The writer(s) obviously go through some pains to get it NOT QUITE RIGHT.
The mis-spells. Talking points. Never straying from a predetermined line of topics, questions or answers.Non-sensical "facts"
Everything about it is designed to make you think..."hmmm...is it is, or is it ain`t serious?"
I say it ain't, but it's good for a laugh every now and then.

"...has anybody ever seen the author of Iraqwarwrong blog and Jim Treacher in the same room?"

Mmmm. Treacher gud, reale gud.

Although I have to say that Truth and Lies: Blog for A Better America (pompous tagline: Strength. Truth. Faith. Justice. Dignity.) is almost as funny, but in a different kind of way.

Dam good posting. I like this.
Jack

Comments are Closed.