A few days ago I blogged about the badly reasoned attacks of “hypocrisy” from Las Vegas City Life blogger Steve Sebelius. He found my post, and yesterday attempted to justify his initial argument with some more bad analogies and a dirty joke. Apparently the Las Vegas City Life website doesn’t do trackbacks, so I’ll do the heavy lifting and point you to that conversation here.
Strike Two
February 28th, 2009 · 9 Comments
Tags: Nevada Politics
Great job taking on Sebelius. Lovin’ it.
Just let the highway go right through the middle of the environmentally sensitive land, Steve. That’ll show ’em.
Is this a game of who can come up with the most asinine analogy?
If my governor could refuse the stimulus money therefore reduce the total amount of the stimulus bill, I could agree with it.
But that’s not what would happen. The total amount would stay the same, so I’d end up giving up even more of my money for things which give me no benefit. Since the total is fixed, I want as much of my money back (or, at least, back in my locale) as possible.
On the other hand, some of the strings that seem to be attached to the privilege of getting our money back might make it a net loss to accept it. But otherwise, I agree.
I’m glad we have the most powerful member of the Senate representing us, so we are SURE to get at least our fair share back.
Is that some sort of slam on my state’s Senator-less status? Jerk.
Considering the two contenders, maybe you’re better off with the current state of affairs…
Orrin,
Great job pointing out the speciousness of Sebelius’ agrument. Here’s what I posted in case you didn’t see it. Nice blog btw.
Wow! Way to avoid the real question Steve. The oldest trick in the book is “Kill the messenger.” Guess you really paid attention that day at propaganda school.
Easier than seriously contemplating that 1,100 page monstrosity that literally none of its proponents read.
What’s the real question Steve? “Why did Nevada end up dead last of all 50 states for funds distributed by the stimulus package?” You seem to think that’s fine. It’s clearly more important to foment mindless hatred for Republicans.
To use your twisted logic: Barack Obama had no right to criticize the war in Iraq since he didn’t vote for it.
Just because you lose doesn’t mean you have to shut-up. That’s neither reasonable, nor American.
Why is it so hard for you to understand, that if the money is going to be appropriated from citizens of Nevada for the stimulus bill anyway, isn’t it better to get a fairer share back? Perhaps especially if you disagree with the appropriation.
Contrary to the smarmy spin that you and Jon Stewart put on the issue, no Republican criticized that the package should have been bigger so their state could get more, just that of whatever package got passed, it should be fair.
You’re no hypocrite, if, after being robbed, you want as much of your stuff back as possible. To use your logic, if you don’t volunteer to be robbed, you have no right to ask for anything back.
BTW, just why aren’t Nevada Democrats asking Harry Reid why Nevada came in dead last in the stimulus sweepstakes? But better to keep Republicans down than build Nevada up.
Thanks, Daniel! I did see that, and loved it as well. I see Sebelius soonafter mysteriously went on “vacation.” I am very certain that it was our combined barrage which drove him into hiding…
Glad you like the blog – I hope to see you back often!
Orrin:
You flatter yourself. My vacation was long scheduled. I only recently came across your most recent reply. It amuses me that you (and your adherents) seem to believe you can both participate in a thing while at the same time denouncing it, without being at all hypocritical, but then it is always easier to behold the mote in another’s eye than to see the beam in one’s own.
From what I read elsewhere, the tide of opinion is running against you. But, as a principled person in search of a true conservatism, that should not matter to you, correct? In either case, thanks for reading my blog. (Oh, by the way, the response you labeled as “strike two” was actually a column in my newspaper, CityLife, not a follow-up on the blog.)
Best wishes,
Of course you can participate in a thing and at the same time denounce it. When that thing is a duly passed law in a nation founded on the rule of law, you have no choice BUT to denounce a thing you wish to have changed while at the same time participating in it. Such is the obligation of living in our society.
Welcome to a Republic.
You, for example, lived under the umbrella of safety our actions in the GWOT provided, but then decried the way that protection was executed. Such is your right. That doesn’t make you a hypocrite. It just means we disagree, and you wish to improve upon what you think is a flawed policy. It amuses me that you are incapable of fathoming such a basic foundation of a free society, but then, it is always easier to quote scripture to sound profound when you can’t actually put a logical argument together than to admit you made a stupid argument in the first place and were called out on it.
The “tide of opinion” is far more fragile than you might believe. But you’re right – opinion polls mean less to us than principle. (Or did your rag become conservative in years where the GOP controlled Congress or the Presidency?) In the meantime, we’ll see how things sit in 2010. And ’12.