When it comes to double standards, the URQs are outclassed

teh politics… crank up the grain-of-salt meter

I said I was stepping back and using rubber bullets, so much for that… and I guess Stageleft and Balbulican are a little preoccupied, but looks like SL’s back so here goes…

When the former Liberal leader responded to his defeat with a call for donations under the rally cry “Never Again”, Robert Jago attacked him for cheapening a slogan with a strong, if not primary reference to the Holocaust in┬áthis post: Dion appropriates holocaust slogan to fundraise for Liberals. Balbulican considered this ridiculously partisan.

When Stageleft fails to make the weepingly obvious distinction that blaming Hamas is nothing like our government “defending” this, Balbulican…? A different tack. I’m starting to think the term ‘moral equivalency’ doesn’t begin to describe the one sidedness of blame here.


12 Responses to “When it comes to double standards, the URQs are outclassed”

  1. balbulican Says:

    Dude…wanna be taken seriously? Address the substance of an issue, don’t set up tortuous, false non-equivalencies based on what someone doesn’t say. Tired, cheap, and dishonest.

    I deduce from your disquieting silence on the subject of murder by chainsaw that you must wholeheartedly support dismemberment. How vile.

  2. da wolfe Says:

    Fire with fire, fair enough – because there’s no question my post title is seriously inflammatory. I don’t like the heat… but I can’t stay out of the kitchen.

    But there is a substantive point – that blaming Hamas first isn’t defending this. Hamas knows the only weapon they can do serious damage to Isreal with is the children of Palestine. They’ll use them as long as they’re useful. Whether you blame Isreal for playing to that or ‘world opinion’ for causing it, and Hamas for doing it, it’s nothing like defending it.

  3. balbulican Says:

    I’m sorry, could you boil that down to a less convoluted assertion for me?

  4. da wolfe Says:

    nope… My commas are always in the way. *shrug*

  5. balbulican Says:

    Pity. I can’t figure out what you’re trying to say, and I’m not a stupid man.

  6. mahmood Says:

    Good one balbull…heh heh.

  7. da wolfe Says:

    I know that…. but I don’t think you’re trying – what mahmood, no puns?

  8. balbulican Says:

    As Mahmood would no doubt agree, I am extremely trying. But I still don’t get what you’re trying to say.

    Your point one: I suggested that Robert was being foolishly partisan for selecting Dion’s use of the phrase “never again” for a sanctimonious rant, when the same phrase had been used by several prominent conservatives without provoking a reaction.

    Your point two: Stageleft posts a picture of dead child, and suggests that Canada’s government is supporting this. I respond with a statement describing my own profound ambivalence about this conflict, expressing sympathy for Israel’s “Never Again” stance, but also doubts about the efficacy of their tactics in this instance.

    So again…what’s the connection between those two ideas, please?

  9. da wolfe Says:

    dammit, still early in (my) morning and I’m already outpunned.

    My basic point is that by any standard that rates Jago’s post as unnessesarily partisan, Stageleft saying that the government is defending the death of a child more than passes. I think Jago’s post was on mark, and he included the NY Times similar attack on Sarah Palin. (“the gravity of the world escapes her” – ugh)

    I mean, not that I actually thought you should have had the same reaction to SL’s post as Jago’s, but that by the standard of objectivity you applied to Jago you should have. Maybe the secondary point is that demanding perfect objectivity of the URQs/Jago just ends up being a double-standard of your own.

    Of course it would have helped if I could have articulated that in the actual post, huh… Now I’m trying too. (head ed- not even close dude)

  10. balbulican Says:

    I see. So if I criticize Blogger A for his/her stance on issue B, I am obliged to the same level of “reaction” when commenting about a completely different blogger writing on a completely different and utterly unrelated issue. Otherwise I’m a poster boy for “double standards”.

    And that makes sense to you?

  11. da wolfe Says:

    Not a poster boy, but yes.

  12. balbulican Says:

    Well, you’re either reasserting a foolish position because you’re too proud to back down from it, or you really don’t see the absurdity of what you’re saying. Either alternative takes me back to my first assertion – if you want to be taken seriously…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: