Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

[bejarano-korea]

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

Wasn't alot of that money actually money that the US gave to the UN for anti drug efforts?


Ad hominem galore (3/29)

By Bryan Keefer

With Congress out of town on their Easter Recess, some pundits have filled the news vacuum with ad hominem attacks on their least favorite commentators and politicians.

Eric Alterman's latest column in The Nation criticizing Andrew Sullivan provides one example. Alterman's piece addresses very little of the substance of Sullivan's views, instead resorting to personal attacks and inflammatory jargon. Alterman condemns Sullivan's attacks on anti-war dissent (as we have on Spinsanity), but suggests that Sullivan "has set himself up as a one-man House Un-American Activities Committee" and claims his comments amount to "the Sullivan Inquisition". Noting the conservative commentator's distortion of and insinuations about the position of several prominent Democrats, Alterman claims "Can there be a better illustration of the modus operandi of the ideological commissar--the McCarthyite mullah--than this kind of mindreading?"

Sullivan, for his part, has ignored the substance of Alterman's charges (such as they are) in favor of his own set of ad hominem responses. Sullivan claimed that "I'd correct the many factual errors, sly smears, half-truths and innuendo in his hatchet-job. But that would assume that reasonable readers believe Alterman could write an honest piece in the first place."

In the same vein, National Review's Mark Levin attacks Washington Post columnist Michael Kinsley for his piece on an open letter by Virginia Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, published in the Wall Street Journal:

But at the root of Kinsley's rant is his contempt for Justice Thomas. The Thomas-haters simply cannot abide a black Supreme Court justice who does not conform to their racial stereotype but instead adheres to what Kinsley ignorantly dismisses as "a few magic words such as 'judicial restraint' and 'strict constructionism.'"

And Kinsley and his ilk damn a lady with Mrs. Thomas's class, who proudly stands with her husband, while they praise the likes of Hillary Clinton, who exploited her husband's position to fulfill her own ambitions.

None of this refutes the substance of Kinsley's comments about the politics of judicial appointments. Instead, Levin imputes a motivation for Kinley's comments. Finally, in a classic example of implying guilt by association, he attaches Hillary Clinton's name to "Kinsley and his ilk" as a way of discrediting the columnist by association.

Finally, in an article on the National Review Online yesterday, Jack Dunphy goes after Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA). Dunphy reports on the controversy over alleged comments by Rick Caruso, president of the Los Angeles Police Commission, who, according an anonymous letter sent to city officials referred to the Representative as "the bitch Waters." After detailing Waters' political beliefs and commenting on her web site, Dunphy claims:

From accounts I've heard, Rick Caruso is a gentleman of the first order, a man highly regarded by peers and subordinates alike. But, for the sake of argument, let's say that in a fit of pique he was a bit unguarded in his reference to Ms. Waters. The OED offers one definition of "bitch" as a "malicious or treacherous woman." In any action for slander, the truth is an absolute defense. Let the reader decide.

Alterman, Levin and Dunphy all illustrate an all-too-common tactic: attacking the messenger rather than the message. Such vitriol adds nothing of substance to public debate.

[Email this to a friend] [Subscribe to our email list]

3/28/2002 08:37:34 PM EST | comments [0]


McCaslin reign of error continues (3/2

By Brendan Nyhan

Immediately after John McCaslin revived the myth that Ken Lay was an overnight guest in the Clinton White House in the Washington Times, it was repeated by syndicated radio host Paul Harvey. Now the McCaslin claim has been repeated in yet another newspaper - in this case, in a March 19 letter to the editor to the Sun-Sentinel of Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Two days later, the Sun-Sentinel joined the ranks of the many publications forced to issue a correction of this recurring myth.

Also, Robert Wallace repeated the myth (in its original form, not the McCaslin claim that Lay stayed over eleven times) in a March 22 article in the Eastside Journal, a small Seattle newspaper. On March 27, the Journal issued its own correction.

As my co-editor Ben Fritz wrote earlier this week, trying to kill a political myth is almost impossible. It just keeps popping back up. One wonders when the Ken Lay myth will die (if ever).

Note - 4/3/02 10:32 AM: A reader points out that the Eastside Journal circulates in the Seattle suburbs east of Lake Washington, not in Seattle proper.

[Email this to a friend] [Subscribe to our email list]

3/28/2002 08:32:37 PM EST | comments [0]

[Ya-ta Boy]

If it's true, it was a bargain. The RUMOR I heard was W10 billion per hostage ($10 million).

[stevemcgarrett]

Michael Moore is an opportunistic, poorly educated, fat, lying pinko.

[twg]

Why do you believe terrorists Joo?

Aside from political convenience.

[Ilsanman]

Being fat is no reason to try to discredit someone.

[Harpeau]

So, the guy lost some weight. Does that mean that you're gonna cut him some slack? ...Didn't think so.

[idonojacs]

The ransom reports seem to have originated with a Reuters story.

I consider the Washington Post to be a generally reliable source. Here is how they reported it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/01/AR2007090101376.html

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

[bangnangja]

Who can believe that the Taliban went to all the trouble to kidnap these people just to let them go after Korea promises to pull out troops which they already planned to anyway?

Or maybe after they got to know the Koreans they were so impressed with them and decided just to let them go because they were such nice people and gave them kimchi recipes.

It's obvious they paid off the terrorists.

[mindmetoo]

I noticed in this weeks IHT Korean insert that Korean churches are protesting the government ban on further missionary work in Afghanistan. They want to go for a second round of this pathetic hostage stuff? Jesus rogering a leather man, what is wrong with fundy Christians?

[Ilsanman]

My wife said the actual amount is 380억 won, so about 37 million US. But unconfirmed.

Also from this same source, apparently, these missionaries had accepted that they may die on their mission. But when it came down to it, they weren't that brave.

There is going to be a huge backlash over this. Even though the church offered to repay it, I can't see it happening. Tax payers are paying for their stupidity.

[thepeel]

[Vicissitude]