# The Douchebag of Liberty has passed on. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 18, 2009, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-douchebag-of-liberty-has-passed-on/506859 "2009-08-18T16:47:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-douchebag-of-liberty-has-passed-on/506859/161 "2009-08-19T16:13:02Z")
I for one am not looking forward to all the threads that **Bricker** participates in from here on, because to avoid hypocrisy, he will be required to ask of each construct in the discussion (even if he agrees that a given referent of that construct is in fact “X”) whether each other possible referent is “X” or “not X”. ETA: There is still no question to the answer, “Is **Bricker** thick as a brick?” (Oh yeah, the Jethro Tull reference thread was elsewhere.) ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-douchebag-of-liberty-has-passed-on/506859/162 "2009-08-19T16:20:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > ETA: And by the way – there’s STILL no answer. So is Ellsberg a brick? I believe some folks have drawn differences between what Novak did and what Ellsberg did. Like me, for one. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-douchebag-of-liberty-has-passed-on/506859/163 "2009-08-19T16:30:47Z")
> [@Library\_Boy](#): > > When did pit screeds become a sacred thing that must be kept on the pure path? And what is being lost by the “hijack”, a bunch of “yeah, what a douchebag” posts? Such a loss. Shhhh! People are trying to _read_! ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-douchebag-of-liberty-has-passed-on/506859/164 "2009-08-19T16:38:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m not deflecting or redirecting. I’m trying to discover what criteria are used in your definition of “traitor.” Yours seems to come down to whether a person with access to classified information, but without the authority to declassify it, makes a personal decision to make it publicly available. A perfectly reasonable definition of whether one violated the law regarding divulging classified information, I’m sure, but that’s it. You wonder why people ridicule lawyers? There you go. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-douchebag-of-liberty-has-passed-on/506859/165 "2009-08-19T16:42:24Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > I believe some folks have drawn differences between what Novak did and what Ellsberg did. > > Like me, for one. Yes, you have. But you’re not the one that started the thread. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-douchebag-of-liberty-has-passed-on/506859/166 "2009-08-19T16:43:50Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Yours seems to come down to whether a person with access to classified information, but without the authority to declassify it, makes a personal decision to make it publicly available. No. I was trying to see if that’s what HERS was. I have an idea, a personal one, but how is my personal definition remotely relevant to this discussion? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-douchebag-of-liberty-has-passed-on/506859/167 "2009-08-19T16:47:42Z")
[Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason): > [@](#): > > In law, **treason** is the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of disloyalty to one’s sovereign or nation. \ A person who commits treason is known in law as a **traitor**. So the Ellsberg versus Novakula comparison would seemingly come down to which one committed a more serious act of disloyalty to one’s nation. AFAIK, Ellsberg’s release of the Pentagon Papers had no direct negative effects on the U.S. at all; one could claim they tarnished the U.S.’ image, but that’s not the stuff treason is made of. (If it is, then it’s time to hang Bush.) It could be argued - as Ellsberg surely would have - that it was, if anything, an act of loyalty to America itself, even as it was an act of disloyalty to the persons running the country at the time. Novak outed an American undercover agent. I’m not sure that’s serious enough to count as treason, since it didn’t put Valerie Plame at any risk, but it certainly qualifies as an act of disloyalty to one’s nation. Novak wasn’t trying to somehow set America back on the right track, as Ellsberg was; he was simply trying to make partisan hay. Comparing the two is absurd by any reasonable standard. This excludes the standard which **Bricker** came up with, which best serves as a reason to ridicule the overly-lawyerly mind. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-douchebag-of-liberty-has-passed-on/506859/168 "2009-08-19T16:50:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. > > I was trying to see if that’s what HERS was. I have an idea, a personal one, but how is my personal definition remotely relevant to this discussion? Why haven’t you spent any time trying to suss out an understanding of “Douchebag of Liberty” by trial and error of all possible referents? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-douchebag-of-liberty-has-passed-on/506859/169 "2009-08-19T16:52:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I was trying to see if that’s what HERS was. I have an idea, a personal one, but how is my personal definition remotely relevant to this discussion? It’s as relevant as **Biggirl** ’s. More so by now, in fact, since you’ve been pouting away so furiously at having been caught out once again. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-douchebag-of-liberty-has-passed-on/506859/170 "2009-08-19T16:53:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. > > I was trying to see if that’s what HERS was. I have an idea, a personal one, but how is my personal definition remotely relevant to this discussion? > [@Bricker](#): > > Ellsberg: traitor, with an explanation. That is, he illegally disclosed classified document, with a subjective belief he was acting in the best interests of the country. The problem is that people with security clearances don’t get to make that determination independently; they are generally obligated to keep secret what they agreed to keep secret. > > Novak: traitor, with an explanation. That is, he illegally disclosed classified document, with a subjective belief he was acting in the best interests of the country. The problem is that people with security clearances don’t get to make that determination independently; they are generally obligated to keep secret what they agreed to keep secret. And in his case, it may be that his disclosure was not the first – that is, he “disclosed” something that was already public. That’s where it became relevant. And what other definition is extractable from that post? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-douchebag-of-liberty-has-passed-on/506859/171 "2009-08-19T16:55:03Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason): > So the Ellsberg versus Novakula comparison would seemingly come down to which one committed a more serious act of disloyalty to one’s nation. > > AFAIK, Ellsberg’s release of the Pentagon Papers had no direct negative effects on the U.S. at all; one could claim they tarnished the U.S.’ image, but that’s not the stuff treason is made of. (If it is, then it’s time to hang Bush.) It could be argued - as Ellsberg surely would have - that it was, if anything, an act of loyalty to America itself, even as it was an act of disloyalty to the persons running the country at the time. > > Novak outed an American undercover agent. I’m not sure that’s serious enough to count as treason, since it didn’t put Valerie Plame at any risk, but it certainly qualifies as an act of disloyalty to one’s nation. Novak wasn’t trying to somehow set America back on the right track, as Ellsberg was; he was simply trying to make partisan hay. Or he was trying to keep America on the right track by vitiating the claims that the evidence in question was weak. In other words, he acted to perserve what he saw as the correct path: war in Iraq. That it benefitted one party was not the goal; it was incidental. Just as Ellsberg’s determination was not to skewer Nixon, per se, but to stop the war in Vietnam. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-douchebag-of-liberty-has-passed-on/506859/172 "2009-08-19T16:56:03Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > That’s where it became relevant. And what other definition is extractable from that post? OK, fair point. I did offer my view, and made it relevant in that post. Not sure what your last question is getting at, though. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-douchebag-of-liberty-has-passed-on/506859/173 "2009-08-19T16:57:21Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Why haven’t you spent any time trying to suss out an understanding of “Douchebag of Liberty” by trial and error of all possible referents? I’m reasonably certain that that phrase was simply a nod to Jon Stewart’s characterization of Novak. It had no mystery. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-douchebag-of-liberty-has-passed-on/506859/174 "2009-08-19T17:02:49Z")
Well, it’s the Pit, so I suppose the rules of real debate do not apply. But the Ellsberg crap is a hijack and a pettifogging distraction. It is enough of a different situation to merit its own thread. Neither Ellsberg, Novak or Alger Hiss were ever charged with treason, much less convicted. They are analogies that break down pretty quickly. Kim Philby, Aldrich Ames and Richard Hanson were traitors, pure and simple and convicted of the same. The true comparison between Ellsberg and Novak isn’t whether they were traitors, they were not charged as such, nor whether they were despicable, there are groups each way on both. The question is why. I can’t say that Novak’s passing bothers me much, but I can’t say I admired him at all. There does not seem to be a sense of his whole life serving a greater good. Nice that he sponsored a chair for writing at a University. That bit of the obit was news to me. Ellsberg strikes me as a different story. I probably won’t get teary eyed at his passing either. But what he did, publishing top secret reports that showed that the claims that we were winning the Vietnam war were knowing lies was deliberately publishing government secrets. Embarrassing secrets. Apparently great care was taken to remove from publication facts that might have been immediately militarily useful. But a number of felonies were presumably committed in removing these documents from government control. He took the documents and published them (let’s leave out the Post and Times for now) under his own name without going into hiding. It strikes me as different in too many ways from what Novak did and why. Of course, comparing Novak and Ellsberg ignores all the differences in their lives and the various other reasons to like or dislike the body of Novak’s work. I think that the entirely of Novak’s life was a wormy mess of selling out principles and lying. Principles that Novak probably would argue that he didn’t adhere to. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-douchebag-of-liberty-has-passed-on/506859/175 "2009-08-19T17:03:27Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Or he was trying to keep America on the right track by vitiating the claims that the evidence in question was weak. Which he did not by addressing the “weak” evidence, but by trying to discredit and endanger the people trying to expose it. He knew better, and so do you. > [@](#): > > In other words, he acted to perserve what he saw as the correct path: war in Iraq. Possibly, but that would make him a traitor, wouldn’t it? Answer, please. > [@](#): > > That it benefitted one party was not the goal; it was incidental. That would have been completely out of a character developed over an entire career. IOW, you’re full of shit about that too. And you still can’t even consider the possibility. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-douchebag-of-liberty-has-passed-on/506859/176 "2009-08-19T17:38:03Z")
Here’s my problem with **Bricker** ’s approach to this thread (or at least a slightly different one than others which have already been mentioned): The Ellsberg and Novak situations obviously have a few key similarities (revealing classified information, a war). But they also have MASSIVE dissimilarities. And yet Bricker basically stakes out the position “well, they have some key similarities, and thus anyone who doesn’t take the same position on them is a hypocrite. Hypocrite, hypocrite, hypocrite! Now, defend yourself”. In other words, he’s basically making anyone who thinks worse of Novak than Ellsberg guilty of hypocrisy until proven innocent. He’s basically put all the burden on everyone else, and staked out the easiest possible position for himself. > [@Bricker](#): > > Some time back, several posters undertook to point out an inconsistency in positions I held with respect to same-sex marriage, and after pages of debate, I realized I had been wrong in my earlier views. What a good thing that this method of argument was not simply dismissed as an attempt to point out my hypocrisy, eh? Except that I’m fairly sure people’s objective during that discussion was not “ooh, let’s expose Bricker as the hypocrite that he is”, it was “This issue is incredibly important to us, and we firmly and openly hold a position on it. This Bricker chap seems like a smart guy but disagrees with us. Let’s honestly try to change his mind (even though that happens so rarely in SDMB-land).” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-douchebag-of-liberty-has-passed-on/506859/177 "2009-08-19T17:42:00Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > Well, it’s the Pit, so I suppose the rules of real debate do not apply. But the Ellsberg crap is a hijack and a pettifogging distraction. It is enough of a different situation to merit its own thread. Neither Ellsberg, Novak or Alger Hiss were ever charged with treason, much less convicted. And neither was Novak. If your intent was to list dissimilarities between them, this one needs to be removed from the list. The rest of your analysis is certainly solid. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-douchebag-of-liberty-has-passed-on/506859/178 "2009-08-19T17:48:35Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > The thread never mentioned Ellsberg. That was BRICKERS hi-jack. The thread was about Novak ,the traitor. Ellsberg had nothing to do with it at all. He did a quick and bad job of shodanizing. whoosh ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-douchebag-of-liberty-has-passed-on/506859/179 "2009-08-19T17:49:21Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Here’s my problem with **Bricker** ’s approach to this thread (or at least a slightly different one than others which have already been mentioned): The Ellsberg and Novak situations obviously have a few key similarities (revealing classified information, a war). But they also have MASSIVE dissimilarities. And yet Bricker basically stakes out the position “well, they have some key similarities, and thus anyone who doesn’t take the same position on them is a hypocrite. Hypocrite, hypocrite, hypocrite! Now, defend yourself”. In other words, he’s basically making anyone who thinks worse of Novak than Ellsberg guilty of hypocrisy until proven innocent. He’s basically put all the burden on everyone else, and staked out the easiest possible position for himself. Yes, that’s true. I crafted the terms of the discussion to impose the burden of proof on the other side. That is a perfectly legitimate tactic in debate. That said, your characterization of my position lacks a great deal. > [@](#): > > Except that I’m fairly sure people’s objective during that discussion was not “ooh, let’s expose Bricker as the hypocrite that he is”, it was “This issue is incredibly important to us, and we firmly and openly hold a position on it. This Bricker chap seems like a smart guy but disagrees with us. Let’s honestly try to change his mind (even though that happens so rarely in SDMB-land).” You really think that the issue of same-sex marriage deserves some special place in the debate pantheon because it’s incredibly important to some people? That’s a blatant appeal to emotion. I am honestly trying to change the OP’s mind. Well, OK, that’s not completely true. I would LOVE to honestly change the OP’s mind. From previous interaction, I don’t honestly believe that’s likely. But the purpose of posting on a message board, rather than PMs or e-mail, is to sway the readers of the thread, who may well be more open to logical persuasion, especially when it takes the form of confronting them with examples of their own cognitive dissonance. If the reader can browse this thread and ask himself, “Why do I think Ellsberg’s a hero and Novak’s a traitor?” he may well reach the correct conclusion: that while he may still regard Novak as a dick, he might not be a traitor. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-douchebag-of-liberty-has-passed-on/506859/180 "2009-08-19T17:52:25Z")
> [@](#): > > …Let’s honestly try to change his mind (even though that happens so rarely in SDMB-land)… I do. Have publicly declared so, I am pleased at his stumbling steps away from the path of political error, and look forward to his further progress. I have a standing order with Fatted Calfs 'R Us, just waiting for the prodigal son party. The man is hopelessly addicted to reason. And progress is reason. He writhes, he wriggles, he squirms, but sooner or later…he’s ours. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-douchebag-of-liberty-has-passed-on/506859.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-douchebag-of-liberty-has-passed-on/506859.md?page=10)