Patterico's Pontifications

10/19/2006

Rick Ellensburg’s Curious “Logic”

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:04 pm



Rick Ellensburg pretends to be Mr. Spock, the very king of logicians, in a post patronizingly titled Introduction to Logical Reasoning 101. In it, Ellensburg claims that I personally have “no standing” to voice any complaints about the treatment of Larry Craig, because some people in my “political movement” have made references to opponents’ sex lives.

Of course, this is simply attributing others’ arguments to me, which is a logical fallacy itself. All Ellison/Ellers accomplishes is to show that, if you personally tar a blogger with every sin committed by people in the same party that the blogger most often agrees with, you can justify any old illogical attack on that blogger. Dishonestly painting the right portion of the blogosphere with a wide brush is Greenwald’s favorite tactic.

But it’s not very “logical.”

If it were, then “logically,” Glenn Greenwald would have “no standing” to complain about any Congressman pursuing underage boys, or even screwing them. After all, Gerry Studds had sex with a 17-year-old boy. Yet when Studds died recently, people in Greenwald’s “political movement” — liberal Democrats — did not condemn Studds, but rather praised him. Ergo, therefore, and thusly, Glenn Greenwald personally has “no standing” to say a word about Congressmen chasing underage boys. Accordingly, I expect that from this point forward, Greenwald will shut his festering yap on the subject of Mark Foley.

To think otherwise would be . . . illogical.

P.S. I love how Wilson/Ellison/Ellers/Ellensburg won’t tell us whether he’s for outing or against it. That way, he can let his followers believe he’s for it — a logical conclusion, based on his apparent defense of outing (given that he harshly and unfairly criticizes those like me, who are against it). At the same time, should anyone on the right actually have the gall to note that he seems to be for it, he can claim that — for all we know — he might be against it.

To recap: Ellensburg is weaseling this issue. How very unlike him! Don’t make us guess, Rickie my boy! Muster some courage and tell us what you actually think.

UPDATE: In the same post, Greenwald derides Kirsten Powers as someone who “giggles” with Michelle Malkin and Bill O’Reilly about those crazy liberals, thus playing the role Fox News wants her to play as token but non-dangerous liberal. For a mere giggly girl, Powers makes a pretty good point about Greenwald: for all his suggestions that he may very well be against outing, his lengthy screed contains not one line that clearly says so.

Pretty sharp girl, that giggly KP.

13 Responses to “Rick Ellensburg’s Curious “Logic””

  1. Did Glenn (Rick?) change the title of the blog post?

    [I used the wrong link. It’s fixed now. — P]

    Psyberian (9b3c88)

  2. Ah, but you see socialists leftists liberals progressives think independently and dispassionately, unlike right-wing nutjobs who all live in a giant echo chamber powered by Rovian Noise and attack machines.

    Everyone on the right thinks alike, unlike the glorious independent left-o-sphere. So of course every blogger is tarred with what any other conservative/libertarian/Republican has ever said or done. And that includes Joe Lieberman. Since the left is independent and logical, the argument can’t be reversed, as Patterico, operating in lock-step with Karl Rove, has clumsily attempted to do.

    And in case there are irony-challenged readers, yes, I’m being sarcastic. Or channeling Ellensburg. I’m not sure which.

    -Holmwood.

    Holmwood (76cebf)

  3. You can find the post here . It is a followup of the post that Patterico linked to.

    Stashiu3 (404f9e)

  4. Thanks. I have now fixed the link in the post.

    Patterico (de0616)

  5. Would it be possible to ask Senor Sock Puppet to make his point in 7500 words or less ? Is there any blogger more long winded, self indulgent, pompous, and overtly condescending that Ellison ?

    JD (e15e05)

  6. So, if “some people” in his political movement are former KKK’ers, he has no right to talk about racial issues?

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  7. Why the @$%&ing @$%& does anyone still link to or read this clown?!

    David Ross (353ed7)

  8. Is there any blogger more long winded, self indulgent, pompous, and overtly condescending that Ellison ?

    There are several. Wilson, Thomas Ellers, Rick Ellensburg . . .

    Patterico (de0616)

  9. Accordingly, I expect that from this point forward, Greenwald will shut his festering yap on the subject of Mark Foley.

    ….you do?

    OK, ok, I get it. You’re kidding us.

    Dwilkers (a1687a)

  10. Pat, you really need to update your archives! They only go back to February of 2003 on the sidebar, but it’s just obvious that you were online, excoriating the Clintons during the mid 1990s!

    But, you know, my main gripe with Mr Greenwald’s site is that a wealthy man like him uses a cheap, free blogspot account and that lame haloscan commenting feature.

    If someone as poor and as cheap as I am can pay for my own site, without even having PayPal contributions, can’t Mr Greenwald?

    Dana (3e4784)

  11. Why the @$%&ing @$%& does anyone still link to or read this clown?!

    It’s the same fascination as watching the tv show/movie jackass. How much pain can a person deliberately inflict on themself?

    There are several. Wilson, Thomas Ellers, Rick Ellensburg . .

    Let’s not forget:
    http://wuzzadem.typepad.com/wuz/2006/07/greenpuppet.html

    liontooth (178098)

  12. But, you know, my main gripe with Mr Greenwald’s site is that a wealthy man like him uses a cheap, free blogspot account and that lame haloscan commenting feature.

    If someone as poor and as cheap as I am can pay for my own site, without even having PayPal contributions, can’t Mr Greenwald?

    You’d think he could – I mean, after all, he’s got a “NYTimes bestseller”, had writing appear in the NYT, and has been quoted by Senator Russ Feingold on the Senate floor.

    😉

    Sister Toldjah (75c495)

  13. for all his suggestions that he may very well be against outing, his lengthy screed contains not one line that clearly says so.

    I’ll go ahead and make the assertion myself then, using Greenwaldian logic: Greenwald is pro-outing gay folks for purely partisan political purposes. Based on his writings and his own asinine methodology that is undeniable.

    Dwilkers (a1687a)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2834 secs.