A Blog By The People and For The People

Utilizing a link from CrankyDocs to CSPAN'S blog directory, I decided to "randomly" (based on their catchy titles) select two blogs from which to analyze their comments. The first is Rightwing Nuthouse and the second is Informed Comment. (The links are direct links to the comments on which I am blogging)

The Rightwing Nuthouse post is initiating a discussion regarding the interpretations of "enhanced interrogation techniques" for alleged terrorists. But, I believe, in an effort to elicit comments he attempts to make it a black and white issue:

No such wiggle room exists on the torture issue. You either excuse it or condemn it. You either see the administration as blameless, trying to elicit information that would save us from another terrorist attack, or you believe war crimes have been committed in our name.

Well he seems to ignite a discussion that creates some great comments to be able to analyze. Firstly, I present this "emotional" argument:

retire05 Said:
12:31 pm
Senario:

Your name is Mark Lundsford. Your daughter has been kidnapped and the police have John Cuey in custody and says he knows where she is as he has put her in a dark hole in the ground but won’t tell them where. The police also tell you that there is a possibility she is still alive but unless they find her soon, she will die.

Would you waterboard John Cuey to get the information on your daughter’s location? Or would you stick to your beliefs that waterboarding is torture and not to be used in any circumstances knowing that your daughter will probably die?

I have asked this question many times of those who do not support waterboarding. No one would ever give me a direct answer. Some have told me that my senario is not practical, or that is is not applicable because of our laws.

Taking the moral high ground is a great thing to do, but it will not impress one jihadist whose goal is to see Americans dead. Instead, it is considered a weakness of the “paper tiger”.

Personally, if I were seeking information from a jihadist held at GITMO, I would slaughter a pig in front of them and threaten to pour that pig blood all over them. To defeat the enemy, you must understand the enemy.

This comment is essentially arguing from an emotional perspective. They are not arguing facts, or legality issues, they are arguing on emotion. This is an example of the type of comment one might find on the Rightwing Nuthouse. Various other comments ignore clear legal precedent for the treatment of P.O.Ws and rather argue from an emotional perspective. This might suggest passion for the issue or ignorance as to the law. Regardless, this short post on the issue of torture seems to have elicited a significant response from the blog's readers.

Then you have a comment that seems to really hit the nail on the head and shows that this reader is pretty informed on the effects of this issue:

laura Said:
3:15 pm
Rick,

Thanks for a great article. I too was outraged that our great nation had stooped beneath the level of dignity and sound ethics to employ torture. A land of freedom, liberty, and justice for all became a land of evil at that level. It was EVIL!!

There is NO EXCUSE FOR IT!! If any of those who would like to protest that “all’s fair in war”... it was not war. It was prisoners of war… not active combat in a “fight” against an opponent. It was abuse of power. It was torture.

If you would like to read our Constitution, our Constitution states that we are granted INALIENABLE RIGHTS BY OUR CREATOR. We are not granted those rights by the USA. We are not granted those rights by an administration. We are not granted those rights by a military tribunal. We are not granted those rights by a Supreme Court. We are not granted those rights by US citizenship. No! We are granted certain INALIENABLE RIGHTS by our Creator.

Those who would argue for torture, I say, “Shame on you!!”. You show no respect for GOD when you show no respect for your fellow man. The Bible states, “How can you say you love God who you have not seen when you do not love man who you have seen – made in His image.” So, would ANY OF YOU who CLAIM TO BE CHRISTIAN agree to torture the Lord Jesus Christ?? Well, that’s what you are doing when you torture men made in His image. They are under your power and you show no restraint and no respect for God and their human rights given to them by God. That is becoming an evil empire.

Well, Rick, I’m not certain what to do about it now. It must be stopped. I believe it has been stopped. I don’t know whether it would be proper to go back and prosecute now. Honestly, it would require prosecution of the former POTUS, George W. Bush. If he is not going to be prosecuted, let none in his administration be prosecuted.

I cannot see prosecuting George W. Bush because what’s done is done. But it comes down to that. The ERROR was in not impeaching him for the sake of torture. That was sound reason to impeach a standing President. I voted for him. I voted for McCain also. But if he had been impeached on the basis of legitimating torture in his administration, I would have accepted that – and would have allowed prosecution of all in his administration who engaged in this.

To me, it’s too late. It sullied America – and it produced the winning election of Barack Hussein Obama. That is the punishment to the unthinking persons from the right who agreed with torture. McCain could just as well be a Democrat in his platform. Had he run on the Democratic ticket, I would have voted for him in my protest against torture. That’s how powerfully most Americans were against torture.

It’s cost Republicans their hold on the White House. That punishment has been rendered. I’m not certain what more can be done at this point without being hypocritical if GWB himself were not prosecuted – and I think that completely inappropriate, myself. His job is done. We do need our reputation restored. McCain stood against torture. That’s why he had my support in the primaries.

The failure to stand against torture cost the Republicans a lot in 2008. I hope they learn from it.

God bless.

So there are two quotes that I think show the various types of opinions that exist on this blog. I will analyze them in more depth after presenting some quotes from the next blog.

The second blog that I chose was informed consent. Here a post was made describing the blogger's experience at a Muslim Public Affairs Council Event at which Pastor Rick Warren, the Pastor that will be speaking at the Obama's inauguration spoke. The blogger, Juan Cole, discusses the interesting dichotomy of Pastor Warren, a pastor that is known to be anti-gay, on the same stage as Melissa Ethridge, an openly gay singer. It is this paragraph of his post that seemed to have generated the most concern:

Warren took the stage, friendly and ebullient, and implicitly complained about the bad press he has gotten since Obama announced he would read the invocation. He said that the media likes conflict, and where there is harmony there is nothing for them to report. When there is no conflict, he said, the media will create one.

Warren said, "Let me just get this over very quickly. I love Muslims. And for the media's purpose, I happen to love gays and straights."

He explicitly mentioned meeting Etheridge, and explained that he has been a long time fan of hers, beginning with her self-titled first album of 1988. "I'm enough of a groupie," he said, "that I got her autograph on the Christmas album."

Pastor Warren wanted to make it clear (or at least make it seem) that his reputation was untrue and perhaps even unfair. Heres what some commenters had to say:

At 5:48 AM, Shirin said...
"I love Muslims. And for the media's purpose, I happen to love gays and straights."

That sounds like the Standard Christian Bullshit that goes something like "hate the sin, love the sinner". No thanks. And what is that "for the media's purpose" part supposed to mean?

And what is this "spiritual emptiness" he thinks needs addressing? Who is he to assume anyone is spiritually empty?

Ok, another emotionally charged argument. And perhaps something a bit more fact based:

At 2:32 PM, Anonymous said...
We're not only concerned about Prop 8, but as well Warren's support for policies that criminalize homosexuality in Uganda, including the arrest of HIV/AIDS workers who have called for prevention campaigns targeting men who have sex with men. His words in the US do not match with his actions in Africa, and his approach to HIV/AIDS directly contradicts the proven methods adopted by global public health officials and all the communities touched by the epidemic. Warren is allied with those who persecute and imprison homosexuals and deny much needed programs to fight the HIV/AIDS pandemic.

Here is the point that I am trying to make by using two VERY different blogs and finding comments that fit similar ideas. Every blog will have those that visit that are intelligent and interested in the idea and those that want to feel that they have spilled their emotions onto the pages of a blog, sometimes presenting great arguments, and sometimes presenting weak ones. I believe that it is difficult to draw conclusions from the pages of comments of a blog because those posting are so diverse. I could find my way onto a blog of presumed "ignorants" and post something intelligent just as easily as a very intelligent blogging community could have its comments ruined with a few "ignorant" comments. It would be dishonest to say that any level of analyzing of blog comments would produce any conclusive information.

I would however argue that these two blogs are representative of any other blog in that you have a diverse group of people posting, each with unique opinions on both sides of an argument.


Enjoy the first 1:20 of this video, it provides a great critique of the blogging world. (It won't embed, I will try again later)