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.)
I believe some folks have drawn differences between what Novak did and what Ellsberg did.
Like me, for one.
Shhhh! People are trying to read!
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.
Yes, you have. But you’re not the one that started the thread.
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?
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.
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?
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:
That’s where it became relevant. And what other definition is extractable from that post?
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.
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.
I’m reasonably certain that that phrase was simply a nod to Jon Stewart’s characterization of Novak. It had no mystery.
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.
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.
Possibly, but that would make him a traitor, wouldn’t it? Answer, please.
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.
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.
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).”
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.
whoosh
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.
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.
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.