Revolutionary Moderation

We love feedback



I've been peer-reviewed. Well, at least inasmuch as the author of brock on the attack qualifies as a "peer". I've been featured in the Liberal Blogger BashFesh 2004. Yay, me!

Revolutionary Moderation is a well written blog, but lacks any intelligence. It follows the traditional liberal formula of passing off all conservatives as crazy zealots of one form or another (usually religious).



The author of this particular site also on several occasions demonstrates regular liberal idiocy by presenting relativistic and circular arguments against the war in Iraq. For example: North Korea is a bigger threat than Iraq, so why not attack North Korea instead of Iraq. Simple: Attacking the weaker enemy first makes you even stronger! Geopolitical guerilla tactics, baby, yeah! I actually talked about this is a very serious fashion at some point a while back. I'll let you search through the archives.

Iraq again? Jebus - even the White House doesn't want to talk Iraq.



Let's start from start. I'm described (not specifically in this passage) as Liberal, witha capital "L". I'm going to keep saying this, because I think it's important you know what perspective I'm writing from: I'm not a "L"iberal. I'm a New Democrat - card-carrying, in fact. I ran once as a candidate provincially, as a New Democrat. I think Brock spent too much time south of the border, because he's a huge fan of the liberal - conservative dichotomy so much more meaningful there than here.



"Well-written" - hey, too kind.



"lacks any intelligence" - and yet well-writen. I would have called this a contradiction in terms. But let's pass on his ad hominems (ad homeni?) and press on.



"...passing off all conservatives as crazy zealots..." So, you mean like here, where I say complimentary things about Bush's former Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O'Neill? Or here, where I quote and refer a scathing critique of the NDP's communications strategy? And that's just scanning through a lightly-blogged February. Honestly, I can't think of a post where I suggested a conservative is also a religious zealot, except in circumstances where the conservative in question has presented compelling evidence in that direction. And even then, I'm unlikely to be critical of a person's faith on that basis alone. But don't ask me, ask Rev. JS Woodsworth, or Rev. Bill Phipps. Eitehr way, I'm not sure what blog Brock was reading, but I don't think it was this one.



"Why not attack North Korea instead of Iraq" - quoted as a regular "liberal circular argument". I don't know anyone on the left who was at the time, or now, advocating a military assualt on North Korea. The argument, as generally used at the time, was meant to illustrate the thinness of the rationale used to attack Iraq. "Iraq poses an immenent threat? how about those guys over there - the ones with the spankin' new nukes? Charter members of the Axis of Evil? That looks more like an immenent threat to me - why aren't you getting all shock and awe on their asses?"



(Also, I'm not sure what "geopolitical guerilla tactics" are, but it seems from the context they work something like the quickening - kill one country, and get stronger. I'm not comforted by the thought that There Can Only Be One, but there's little to fear. In fact, my own observations and study suggests geopolitics has very little to do with Highlander. Except for the part where there's a lot of Queen music)



But finally, honestly. Do we need to explore these arguments again? Don't the lack of weapons, the mounting evidence of a lack of after-Saddam planning, and the general cluster-fuck Iraq has become suffice as compelling arguments of their own? I don't post much news from there any more, because I find "nyah, nyah, I was right and you were wrong" rather tiresome on blogs. Please don't make me say it.



If you're going to critique my left-right positioning, perhaps it would be simply fairer to take a representative sample of something that was written at a less obviously divisive time. But I suppose "brock on the attack" is more likely to attract readers than "brock engaged in Socratic considerations of the human condition." So, hey, good luck with that.