Conservative bloggers condemn Fox News

[Iangould]

I guess I should start off with the obligatory disclaimer.

I'm certain that the sentiments expressed by the self-proclaimed conservative bloggers to whom I'm about to link aren't shared by the majority of conservatives here or in society in general.

http://jonswift.blogspot.com/

Kidnapped Fox Newsmen Let Us Down By Not Dying

One of the reasons Fox News is the only news that can be trusted is because of the high caliber of the people who work there. Unfortunately, the two Fox journalists who were recently kidnapped, Steven Centanni and Olaf Wiig, did not live up to the high standards of Fox News while they were in captivity. Many in the conservative blogosphere believe that by surviving their captivity, they let us down.

While I'M fairly certain 'Jon Swift' is intended as a parody, I'm equally sure the same can not be said for the majority of bloggers who he links to here.

I wonder if they also worry about what 'message' rape victims send when they don't fight their attackers to the death.

[cactusmaac]

Mark Steyn said the same thing.

I think he's going nuts.

Last time I read something by him, he recommended Western powers rolling over Syria, Iran etc. because whatever instability that would cause would be inconsequential given that they're already unstable now.

[Drew Van T.]

This reminds me of the thread we had here, where the argument was made that journalistic neutrality must be suspended on the battlefield and reporters have a duty to choose sides and start fighting.

If FOX news really thought that way, they would not be able to fill even a single vacancy.

[Valmore]

Did they actually convert at gunpoint? Does that really count as converting if they did? Seriously?

[cactusmaac]

No it wouldn't. You can't compel somebody to become a Muslim.

[Valmore]

That's pretty much the point - most people don't want to die, and will talk completely out of their asses to save their lives, if they think it'll work. They didn't convert anybody - they got two scared guys to say what they thought their captors wanted to hear so they didn't get a bullet in their brainpan or a sword through their throat.

[Shem the Penman]

That's pretty much the point - most people don't want to die, and will talk completely out of their asses to save their lives, if they think it'll work. They didn't convert anybody - they got two scared guys to say what they thought their captors wanted to hear so they didn't get a bullet in their brainpan or a sword through their throat.

And yet, apparently in the eyes of some people, it does count. You'll remember that Jill Carroll got some of the same crap thrown her way after she returned from captivity.

It *is* funny to watch the oh so brave members of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders rush to declare that they would never give in to the evil Islamojihadinazifascistorcs, no, not even at gunpoint.

[OrochiNaga]

No it wouldn't. You can't compel somebody to become a Muslim.

I hate to open a can of worms, but that is the way most Muslims outside Arabia were converted - by warlords, the point of the sword, and taxation of the poor unless they converted.

[thehod]

It *is* funny to watch the oh so brave members of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders rush to declare that they would never give in to the evil Islamojihadinazifascistorcs, no, not even at gunpoint.

That, sir, is a classic. Bravo. :)

[Drew Van T.]

Islamojihadinazifascistorcs

Does the orc stand for Tolkienian Orcs, or is that some other reference?

[Adam Crocker]

Does the orc stand for Tolkienian Orcs, or is that some other reference?

Probably the Tolkienian ones given the point of the statement.

Mark Steyn said the same thing.


He did? Jesus Christ.

[Forefinger]

I hate to open a can of worms, but that is the way most Muslims outside Arabia were converted - by warlords, the point of the sword, and taxation of the poor unless they converted.
Yup. That's why so many Eastern Europeans are Muslims.

[cactusmaac]

I hate to open a can of worms, but that is the way most Muslims outside Arabia were converted - by warlords, the point of the sword, and taxation of the poor unless they converted.

Well, not in India at any rate.

Warlords were far more interested in looting temples than being missionaries. Muslim conquerors frequently put Hindu populations to the sword but converts came from the influence of saints, holy men and the desire to be on the winning team. Unless you were born into the right caste, Hinduism was not an attractive religion for the poor, especially compared to the egalitarianism of Islam.

[Adam Crocker]

I hate to open a can of worms, but that is the way most Muslims outside Arabia were converted - by warlords, the point of the sword, and taxation of the poor unless they converted.

To add to what Forefinger said: same with Malaysia and Indonesia, the latter of which is the most populous Muslim country in the world. Besides, if we're really going to take this tact, you might as well make the same unfounded claims about Christianity's expansion outside of Europe based on the various conquests by European powers, particularly in Latin America.

[cactusmaac]

Anyone who thinks Christianity was established in Europe without the sword should read up on the Teutonic Knights.

[Forefinger]

Anyone who thinks Christianity was established in Europe without the sword should read up on the Teutonic Knights.
I'm thinking that most belief systems were spread through conversion. And in many cases, the tactics used weren't nice.

[Adam Crocker]

Anyone who thinks Christianity was established in Europe without the sword should read up on the Teutonic Knights.

Or the Reconquista for that matter.

[Noah Johnson]

Anyone who thinks Christianity was established in Europe without the sword should read up on the Teutonic Knights.
Typical bigoted nonsense. I'll have you know that the mace, the pike, the dagger, and a whole variety of missile weapons were at LEAST as important as the sword, Mr. Smartypants. :)

[thehod]

Typical bigoted nonsense. I'll have you know that the mace, the pike, the dagger, and a whole variety of missile weapons were at LEAST as important as the sword, Mr. Smartypants. :)

I've never heard such discrimatory rubbish in my life.

The lance did its fair share too. Credit where credit is due I think.

[Drew Van T.]

The lance did its fair share too. Credit where credit is due I think.

The favored Flemish weapon was a sturdy, chest length wooden staff, slightly thicker at the top, on which an iron pin is fastened, fixed with an iron ring.

It was the perfect weapon for footsoldiers and conscripted peasants...perfect for knocking holier-than-thou "christian" knights from their horses. First you used it as a long heavy club, then you stabbed the bastard with the pin.

http://www.liebaart.org/figuren/goedendr.jpg
http://www.liebaart.org/figuren/goedpunt.jpg

[Samurai]

And yet, apparently in the eyes of some people, it does count. You'll remember that Jill Carroll got some of the same crap thrown her way after she returned from captivity.

It *is* funny to watch the oh so brave members of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders rush to declare that they would never give in to the evil Islamojihadinazifascistorcs, no, not even at gunpoint.
Heck no, I would have done what I thought was needed to save my life. I don't blame the Fox news guys at all for doing what they had to do, and Jon Swift (who I've never heard of before) sounds like an idiot.

I have heard of Mark Steyn, though, and I read what he said... it wasn't the same as what Jon said. Mark agreed that the Fox guys did what they had to do to survive. His article was more of an explanation why the fake conversions worked, why did their captors then release them. Surely they weren't stupid enough to believe they'd really converted in their hearts, right? No, Mark argues, but the point wasn't to actually make them convert at gunpoint, it was to show to their fellow jihadists that the Americans will not die for their beliefs, that they'll do anything to survive. To martyrs eager to die for their God, this is rousing stuff... proof that they are more dedicated than their foes. As Mark said, in their view, a people not willing to die for their beliefs is already dead. (Or at least not willing to do whatever it takes to win). Again, that doesn't mean a kidnapped civilian should sacrifice their life defiantly... IMO, they shouldn't. It's just to help explain the seemingly odd circumstances of this kidnapping and release.

[Grazzt]

The favored Flemish weapon was a sturdy, chest length wooden staff, slightly thicker at the top, on which an iron pin is fastened, fixed with an iron ring.

It was the perfect weapon for footsoldiers and conscripted peasants...perfect for knocking holier-than-thou "christian" knights from their horses. First you used it as a long heavy club, then you stabbed the bastard with the pin.

I think there should be another pin coming out of the other end of the club, at a right angle to the club. That way when you swing it there's a chance of stabbing someone, as well as knocking them off their horses.

[Adam Crocker]

Heck no, I would have done what I thought was needed to save my life. I don't blame the Fox news guys at all for doing what they had to do, and Jon Swift (who I've never heard of before) sounds like an idiot.

Now, you do realise that "Jon Swift" is a reference to renowned English satirist Jonathan Swift right? And even has his portrait as a personal picture on the blog?

No, Mark argues, but the point wasn't to actually make them convert at gunpoint, it was to show to their fellow jihadists that the Americans will not die for their beliefs, that they'll do anything to survive. To martyrs eager to die for their God, this is rousing stuff... proof that they are more dedicated than their foes. As Mark said, in their view, a people not willing to die for their beliefs is already dead. (Or at least not willing to do whatever it takes to win). Again, that doesn't mean a kidnapped civilian should sacrifice their life defiantly... IMO, they shouldn't. It's just to help explain the seemingly odd circumstances of this kidnapping and release.

No he said; (http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn03.html)

Rather, it confirms the central truth Osama and the mullahs have been peddling -- that the West is weak, that there's nothing -- no core, no bedrock -- nothing it's not willing to trade. In his new book The Conservative Soul, attempting to reconcile his sexual temperament and his alleged political one, Time magazine's gay Tory Andrew Sullivan enthuses, "By letting go, we become. By giving up, we gain. And we learn how to live -- now, which is the only time that matters." That's almost a literal restatement of Faust's bargain with the devil:

In other words he said EXACTLY what Jon Swift was mocking. Just look at the title of his column. But hey, let's defend the indefensible.

[Michael P]

I think there should be another pin coming out of the other end of the club, at a right angle to the club. That way when you swing it there's a chance of stabbing someone, as well as knocking them off their horses.
I'm pretty sure there *was* a weapon like that.

Although not European, the shaolin spade sounds close: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaolin_spade

[Samurai]

Now, you do realise that "Jon Swift" is a reference to renowned English satirist Jonathan Swift right? And even has his portrait as a personal picture on the blog?



No he said; (http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn03.html)



In other words he said EXACTLY what Jon Swift was mocking. Just look at the title of his column. But hey, let's defend the indefensible.
IMO, no he didn't. Take this bit, for instance:

what's the big deal? Wear robes, change your name to Khaled, go on camera and drop Allah's name hither and yon: If that's your ticket out, seize it. Everyone'll know it's just a sham
He's not saying "They should have died for their beliefs", he's explaining the kidnapper's reasons for going along with the sham. "If that's your ticket out, seize it, but understand why it is being offered, and what the Jihadists are getting out of the sham..."

But that's not how the al-Jazeera audience sees it. If you're a Muslim, the video is anything but meaningless. Not even the dumbest jihadist believes these infidels are suddenly true believers. Rather, it confirms the central truth Osama and the mullahs have been peddling -- that the West is weak, that there's nothing -- no core, no bedrock -- nothing it's not willing to trade.

[Adam Crocker]

IMO, no he didn't. Take this bit, for instance:

He's not saying "They should have died for their beliefs", he's explaining the kidnapper's reasons for going along with the sham. "If that's your ticket out, seize it, but understand why it is being offered, and what the Jihadists are getting out of the sham..."

Let's read that statement in context shall we?

ne hundred ten years later, for the Fox journalists and the Western media who reported their release, what's the big deal? Wear robes, change your name to Khaled, go on camera and drop Allah's name hither and yon: If that's your ticket out, seize it. Everyone'll know it's just a sham.

But that's not how the al-Jazeera audience sees it. If you're a Muslim, the video is anything but meaningless. Not even the dumbest jihadist believes these infidels are suddenly true believers. Rather, it confirms the central truth Osama and the mullahs have been peddling -- that the West is weak, that there's nothing -- no core, no bedrock -- nothing it's not willing to trade.

"If that's your ticket out, seize it" isn't Steyn's view here. He's illustrating the views of the western media he's lambasting and this is in the context of him lionizing the example of two tourists who wouldn't go along with a similar sham because they felt they would be giving something up. He even compared the journalists getting out to Faust making a pact with the devil. And if that's still too subtle for you the column is titled "Why abduct us? We cede our values for free." It's blatant sanctimony from an asshat who never had to risk his neck in his life.

[Iangould]

I hate to open a can of worms, but that is the way most Muslims outside Arabia were converted - by warlords, the point of the sword, and taxation of the poor unless they converted.

Not really.

In Syria, the Levant et cetera, they mainly negotiated deals with local rulers that if they converted, they could keep their lands and titles as vassals of the Caliphate. Their subjects were allowed to keep their original religions.

In North Africa, they pretty much worked out a deal with the berbers under which they converted voluntarily.

The issue of taxation is more complex than most peopel realise. Muslims were required to pay a religious tithe called, I think, Wakat which went to the support of mosques and muezzins and alms for the poor. In exchange they gained exemption from most other forms of taxation.

So the tax on Dhimmi was intended to substitute for them being exempt from paying the Wakat.

The taxes on non-muslims became the main source of government revenue that wasn't tied to the specific purposes of the Wakat. Some muslim rulers discouraged or even forbade conversion to Islam in order to protect their tax revenue.

In the malay world, Islam was introduced by traders from Arabia and India who married into the local elites. The general population converted later voluntarily.

[Iangould]

Yup. That's why so many Eastern Europeans are Muslims.

If they were converting Eastern Europeans by force they did a piss-poor job of it seeing as the Turks ruled most ofthe Balkans for four hundred years and about 90% of the people there were still Christian at the end of that period.

[Iangould]

Now, you do realise that "Jon Swift" is a reference to renowned English satirist Jonathan Swift right? And even has his portrait as a personal picture on the blog?


Wasn't Swift Irish?

[Adam Crocker]

Wasn't Swift Irish?

Well Swift was born to English immigrant parents in Dublin, spent much of his childhood in England, went to University in Ireland, and then lived variously in both countries throughout the rest of his life. So probably English, or Anglo-Irish. The circumstances of his life make pegging down his nationality an odd exercise.

[Phrozen]

If they were converting Eastern Europeans by force they did a piss-poor job of it seeing as the Turks ruled most ofthe Balkans for four hundred years and about 90% of the people there were still Christian at the end of that period.

The Ottomons were much more moderate in religious ferver then many of the previous Islamic Dynasties mainly because previous dynasties in the area prefered Islamic and Arab to Islamic to non-Islamic. Still, they treated the Orthodox Christians less then nicely frequently using them as scapegoats. The Armenians were tolerated to some degree as were the Copts in Egypt and the Lebenses Marionites. The Jews were favored in the Ottomon Court due to their connections with European markets.

[spoon_jenkins]

This reminds me of the thread we had here, where the argument was made that journalistic neutrality must be suspended on the battlefield and reporters have a duty to choose sides and start fighting.
That's not how I recall the thread going when I was there. Maybe the tone changed after I left. There was what I consider principled opposition to the notion that journalist must always observe and never act. I saw lots of people, including myself, saying that when journalist see some preventable criminal-type harm, then their moral obligations to do the right thing overtake some notion that they should just watch. That's about as close to "reporters have a duty to choose sides and start fighting" as saying that support for the right trial by jury and the right to an attorney for criminal suspects equals support for child molestation.

[Drew Van T.]

That's not how I recall the thread going when I was there. Maybe the tone changed after I left. There was what I consider principled opposition to the notion that journalist must always observe and never act. I saw lots of people, including myself, saying that when journalist see some preventable criminal-type harm, then their moral obligations to do the right thing overtake some notion that they should just watch. That's about as close to "reporters have a duty to choose sides and start fighting" as saying that support for the right trial by jury and the right to an attorney for criminal suspects equals support for child molestation.

I didn't say that it was the only argument made, or even the dominant one. The issues raised were similar enough, is all.

[BlairH]

Getting back to the topic. If some guy has me at gunpoint, and will release me upon my "conversion" to Islam, I'll say whatever it is that they want me to say. I don't have what it takes to kiss my ass goodbye before I get thrown to the lions, and neither do the big-mouthed bloggers (or so I'd expect). I live in the real world, and in the real world, living is better than dying.

[Justin Davis]

Getting back to the topic. If some guy has me at gunpoint, and will release me upon my "conversion" to Islam, I'll say whatever it is that they want me to say. I don't have what it takes to kiss my ass goodbye before I get thrown to the lions, and neither do the big-mouthed bloggers (or so I'd expect). I live in the real world, and in the real world, living is better than dying.

"Yes, I suck Satan's toes! I suck'em! Can I go free now?"

Wouldn't bother me in the slightest. They’re just words. The thing is, whether Samurai is accurately describing Steyn’s point or not, the point he makes in his first post is still valid. It’s not the message given to the U.S. and our allies that’s important, but the one taken by supporters of the kidnappers. Samurai’s point is good on its own even if it doesn’t match the point made in Steyn’s editorial.

[Forefinger]

If they were converting Eastern Europeans by force they did a piss-poor job of it seeing as the Turks ruled most ofthe Balkans for four hundred years and about 90% of the people there were still Christian at the end of that period.
I think that this got a bit twisted, due to my (again) not explaining myself fully.

The Turks granted more rights to the Eastern Europeans that converted so there was an incentive/pressure to convert.

Many people converted back to their original religion after the Turks left, so that may be a factor as well.

[Adam Crocker]

"Yes, I suck Satan's toes! I suck'em! Can I go free now?"

Wouldn't bother me in the slightest. They’re just words. The thing is, whether Samurai is accurately describing Steyn’s point or not, the point he makes in his first post is still valid. It’s not the message given to the U.S. and our allies that’s important, but the one taken by supporters of the kidnappers. Samurai’s point is good on its own even if it doesn’t match the point made in Steyn’s editorial.

Except that's the point that Steyn was making in his article too, that the message that the journalists' false conversion to Islam sends is important, and that it shows weakness to the enemy which can't be allowed. And Samurai was simply trying to defend this sanctimonous nonsense by slightly softening the last part. There's no validity in his point at all.

[Justin Davis]

Except that's the point that Steyn was making in his article too, that the message that the journalists' false conversion to Islam sends is important, and that it shows weakness to the enemy which can't be allowed. And Samurai was simply trying to defend this sanctimonous nonsense by slightly softening the last part. There's no validity in his point at all.

There's a difference though. While they both said the enemy takes that as a sign of weakness, Steyn’s point was that the journalists should feel ashamed for giving the enemies that sign. Samurai said that while the enemy may take that as a sign of weakness (and I agree that many terrorists may because of how valued martyrdom is to them), he’s not saying the journalists should feel ashamed for choosing to live even if the enemy takes it as a sign of concession.

I think Samurai’s misstep here is trying to apply the little logic Steyn displays in his editorial to the whole written piece. It may have been subconscious, but he cherry-picked what he liked about Steyn’s article and made it seem as if the whole piece portrayed the same sensibility when it didn’t.

Samurai can tell me that I'm wrong and to shove it if he wants.

[Adam Crocker]

There's a difference though. While they both said the enemy takes that as a sign of weakness, Steyn’s point was that the journalists should feel ashamed for giving the enemies that sign. Samurai said that while the enemy may take that as a sign of weakness (and I agree that many terrorists may because of how valued martyrdom is to them), he’s not saying the journalists should feel ashamed for choosing to live even if the enemy takes it as a sign of concession.

He was saying that was the point of Steyn's article. Which is obviously wasn't. His post isn't really anything more than an apologia for Steyn's fanatical sanctimony.

[Justin Davis]

He was saying that was the point of Steyn's article. Which is obviously wasn't. His post isn't really anything more than an apologia for Steyn's fanatical sanctimony.

Like I said, I think Samurai’s misstep here is trying to apply the little logic Steyn displays in his editorial to the whole written piece. It may have been subconscious, but he cherry-picked what he liked about Steyn’s article and made it seem as if the whole piece portrayed the same sensibility when it didn’t.

Even though I obviously agree with the FOX journalists’ decision in this case, I can still say that there are organizations out there who will try to use this as an example of the weakness of Americans. Unfortunately, it seems that Steyn agrees with these terrorists. To me, it came across as Samurai trying to use the one legitimate point of Steyn’s to make the rest of the nonsensical editorial come off as equally valid.

C’mon, Adam, this is hard enough for me as it is to agree with something FOX journalists did and Samurai said. My soul became a shade blacker simply writing that sentence out.

[Adam Crocker]

To me, it came across as Samurai trying to use the one legitimate point of Steyn’s to make the rest of the nonsensical editorial come off as equally valid.

C’mon, Adam, this is hard enough for me as it is to agree with something FOX journalists did and Samurai said. My soul became a shade blacker simply writing that sentence out.

I'm still failing to see your point here Justin. Even if the terrorists did take something away from their fake conversion why does it matter to begin with? This isn't like debating withdrawing from Afghanistan or Iraq, or the overall usefulness of negotiating with Hezbollah over the kidnapping of soldiers. It has NO discernable affect whatsoever on terrorist activity. This shouldn't even be a matter for debate. But it is because neoconservative political commentary has become so debased after trying to portray opposition to the invasion of Iraq and criticizing the Bush's administration's treatment of terror detainees as encouraging terrorism. Samurai's point has no validity whatsoever because it's completely dishonest and based on defending this insane mentality based on teams rather than ethics.

[Pinball]

Say whatever they want you to say to get out of being tortured?

Okay, then surely you'd expect other people to do the same if you torture them.

[Samurai]

There's a difference though. While they both said the enemy takes that as a sign of weakness, Steyn’s point was that the journalists should feel ashamed for giving the enemies that sign. Samurai said that while the enemy may take that as a sign of weakness (and I agree that many terrorists may because of how valued martyrdom is to them), he’s not saying the journalists should feel ashamed for choosing to live even if the enemy takes it as a sign of concession.

I think Samurai’s misstep here is trying to apply the little logic Steyn displays in his editorial to the whole written piece. It may have been subconscious, but he cherry-picked what he liked about Steyn’s article and made it seem as if the whole piece portrayed the same sensibility when it didn’t.

Samurai can tell me that I'm wrong and to shove it if he wants.
Nah, I'm a nice guy!

You have my position correct... While the enemy may take your conversion video as a sign of weakness, if that'll get you home alive, I don't blame you one bit. (If you voluntarily join up with the enemy to provide that video, as Adam Gadahn with Al Queda or Jane Fonda in Vietnam did, that's a totally different story.)

I still disagree that Steyn is saying the same thing Swift did... Swift came right out and said "They should have died before giving in." Steyn, IMO, doesn't feel that way... the feeling I get from his piece is one of education ("Here's what they are getting out of it, and why they accept it...") mixed with some disappointment (maybe not the right word) that Americans are willing to give in on such fundamental beliefs as their religion in order to preserve their lives. Think about the US soldiers held by the VC in Vietnam. They tried many things to get them to speak on the radio or TV, condemning fellow soldiers and the war, admit to war crimes, etc. Many POWs died before giving in, and many held resentment or disappointment (mixed with sad understanding) for those that did crack and give in to their captors' wishes. These guys were just reporters, not soldiers, but I think Steyn (and Swift) and others are feeling a bit of that mixture of emotions, each to different ratios and extremes. Many of us want to believe that we wouldn't compromise our principles very easily. Some see it as more important than life itself.

[Adam Crocker]

Steyn, IMO, doesn't feel that way... the feeling I get from his piece is one of education ("Here's what they are getting out of it, and why they accept it...") mixed with some disappointment (maybe not the right word) that Americans are willing to give in on such fundamental beliefs as their religion in order to preserve their lives.

Dude, he compared their actions to a Faustian pact and titled the article "Why abduct us? We cede our values for free?" How much more plain can his point be?

...but I think Steyn (and Swift) and others are feeling a bit of that mixture of emotions...

Did you actually read the post where I pointed out that "Jon Swift" is nothing more than a farcical persona created for the purposes of a satirical blog? Did you even read it?

[Samurai]

Did you actually read the post where I pointed out that "Jon Swift" is nothing more than a farcical persona created for the purposes of a satirical blog? Did you even read it?
That's the (false) name on the blog... I know of no other name to refer to him by, so I call him Jon Swift, the way you refer to me as Sam or Samurai, when my real name is Tom (Not to be confused with T'Omm). So what?

[Wesley Dodds]

Sam, you do get the reference, right? A Modest Proposal? Jon Swift, the satirist?

[Adam Crocker]

That's the (false) name on the blog... I know of no other name to refer to him by, so I call him Jon Swift, the way you refer to me as Sam or Samurai, when my real name is Tom (Not to be confused with T'Omm). So what?

Sam, you're treating his opinions as though they are meant to be serious. The blog is a farce. An intentional farce. I've been trying to point this out repeatedly. Just look at the description of the author at the top of the blog itself.

[Justin Davis]

Say whatever they want you to say to get out of being tortured?

Okay, then surely you'd expect other people to do the same if you torture them.

There's a simple and obvious point no one's made yet. Good job.

[Wesley Dodds]

Although I'll bet this Jon Swift guy is pretty happy that he got someone to take his satire seriously.

[Samurai]

Although I'll bet this Jon Swift guy is pretty happy that he got someone to take his satire seriously.
Enough for someone to start a thread about his blog here...

But yeah, looking it over again, and the newest post over there helps a lot too, it definitely is a satire. (I'm not even sure the guy is a real conservative... maybe he's a lib trying to make us look bad! ;))

[Shem the Penman]

Although I'll bet this Jon Swift guy is pretty happy that he got someone to take his satire seriously.

The fact that anyone can take him seriously is just proof of how hard it is to satirize right-wing thinking in the first place.

[Iangould]

Enough for someone to start a thread about his blog here...

But yeah, looking it over again, and the newest post over there helps a lot too, it definitely is a satire. (I'm not even sure the guy is a real conservative... maybe he's a lib trying to make us look bad! ;))

Actually Sam I pointed out in the first post that "Jon Swift" was a pseudonym and that his comments were tongue-in-cheek but that the conservative bloggers he linked to appeared to be completely serious.

[Samurai]

Actually Sam I pointed out in the first post that "Jon Swift" was a pseudonym and that his comments were tongue-in-cheek but that the conservative bloggers he linked to appeared to be completely serious.
Except, as I pointed out, Steyn didn't say what Swift said. Swift took it to the whole next level. What they said was not identical.

[Iangould]

Except, as I pointed out, Steyn didn't say what Swift said. Swift took it to the whole next level. What they said was not identical.

You wrote that I "took [Swift] seriously" when the specific post you're referring to demonstrates I knew it was a satire.

[Samurai]

You wrote that I "took [Swift] seriously" when the specific post you're referring to demonstrates I knew it was a satire.
No, you said it could be a parody, but that you were equally sure that other conservatives with similar messages were completely serious. Which is why I pointed out that the other messages were not the same, or IMO even really close.

But enough of this, we've each repeated the same thing several times now, let's drop it.