Letters to the Editor
lupercus
Published Letters: 170
-
golden slumbers fill your eyes
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You have to love a post that begins "I doubt I will be able to post today..."
I generally don't praise Our Host because it seems he gets enough "great post" comments already (and, I hasten to add, well-deserved). However, tonight I feel moved to say this:
Glenn is better on days he doesn't post then 99 44/100% of all the bloggers out there are on their best days.
Sogni d'oro, tutti voi.
-
Trivial question on a non-trivial day
[Read the article: Posting news]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I thought this guy pronounced his name puh-DILL-uh. When did he become puh-DEE-uh? Was that after the waterboarding, or before?
Sorry, but between this and the spy-satellite news, it's not a good day for me to thnk deeply about consequences and ramifications. I don't have my dual citizenship yet...
-
"anti-American"
[Read the article: The Padilla verdict]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That expression has always perplexed me. You never hear about someone in Italy being called "anti-Italian," for instance, and if a French-speaking Belgian has ever been referred to as "anti-Walloon," the fact has escaped my notice.
If the term were to have any meaning at all, it would have to refer to the ideals and institutions that bind this particular set of immigrants together as a nation. Foremost among these would, by any reckoning, be the United States Constitution, which reads in part
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
and
No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
One who stands against such principles would have to be called "anti-American."
Yes, nauseating.
-
"say what you will about rights and such"
[Read the article: The Padilla verdict]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You say what you will; I for one am not giving up a right guaranteed since the Thirteenth Fucking Century for something that killed as many people as choked on steak in 2001.
-
@Jared
[Read the article: The Padilla verdict]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I can't imagine how you could read Glenn's post as an "effort to salvage a silver lin[]ing" even on its own, but especially when viewed in the context of all Glenn's posts on the subject.
-
@Jared Lessl, sorry
[Read the article: The Padilla verdict]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Magic City Harvard Lawyer"s real name, from his blog, appears to be Jared, and I chose that rather than his longer handle.
http://tinyurl.com/3bhto2
Apologise for the confusion.
-
the Republicans never seize to entertain
[Read the article: Larry Craig's bathroom behavior and the right wing -- then and now]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Don Sherwood did his share of seizing:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2005/05/congressman_mike_sherwood_choking_scandal/
Or, "back rubbing," as he likes to call it.
-
@vastleft
[Read the article: Warrantless surveillance and the new Coretta Scott King disclosures]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The best way to clear the air about the "process dodge" of which Lambert speaks is to document what they did and shouldn't have and what they could have done but didn't.
Well, for starters:
What makes this all the more appalling is that it was so easily avoidable. All Democrats had to do was offer legislation to fix the only real gap in FISA and then demand that the President sign it or risk a Terrorist attack. They could have gone on the offensive ahead of time by crafting the legislation and then made it their own cause to demand that the President sign it immediately in order to fix this problem and protect us from the Terrorists.
But they did none of that. They waited around, as always, with no aim and no strategy and no principle and no belief and allowed the President to dictate their behavior and control the debate.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/08/06/fisa/
-
<i>tu quoque</i> yourself
[Read the article: National Review's new tough guy, Mark Hemingway]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It is tactically superior to make more effective arguments rather than joining in the childish name-calling of your opponents.
This is an obvious point; however, why do you insist that Glenn posted the picture "rather than" making an effective argument. This is a completely counterfactual assertion, and so much worse than ad hominem tu quoque, rhetorically speaking...
You can be fat and point out to others that they should lose weight for health reasons. You can be a murderer and point out that murder is wrong and that other people shouldn't commit murder.
Absolutely true. You "can" be a hypocrite. You "can" also point out this fact when responding to such a hypocrite.
Other than sheer contrariness, just what is your point in repeatedly making this flawed argument?
-
@Orson
[Read the article: National Review's new tough guy, Mark Hemingway]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Where did I say that?
Um, right there, in the quote that I posted:
It is tactically superior to make more effective arguments rather than joining in the childish name-calling of your opponents.
...unless you define "rather than" differently than I do.
Here's an example for you:
A: Bush lied about WMD in Iraq.
B: You have lied before, therefore you are just a hypocrite for pointing that out.
A: That's a pointless ad hominem argument.
You seem to think B has a winning argument there and that A is just being a "contrarian."
You "seem to" think you can conflate all sorts of things and call it an argument. If you want to assert that me lying to my wife about how much the HD cost is the same as lying the country into a war, but it's not a particularly compelling case.
-
tu quoque
[Read the article: National Review's new tough guy, Mark Hemingway]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Wikipedia, Orson's source:
Not all uses of tu quoque arguments involve logical fallacy. They can be properly used to bring about awareness of inconsistency, to indirectly repeal a criticism by narrowing its scope or challenging its criteria, or to call into question the credibility of a source of knowledge.
<>You-too version
A legitimate use of the you-too version might be:
A makes criticism P. A is also guilty of P. Therefore, A is either inconsistent to criticize P, or the criticism is confused because it does not reflect A's actual values or beliefs.Example:
"You say that taking a human life is wrong under all circumstances, but support killing in self-defense; you are either being inconsistent, or you believe that under some circumstances taking a human life is justified."