Is this payback?
Seriously, Chuck is pretty funny (sorry Chuck, I know you have us blogrolled, and thanks for that, but...):
When Glenn links to me, it's like being published in the JAMA or some other scientific journal published on paper. Only the audience is much vaster.
Which is almost as good as the argument that links are akin to footnotes, and some medical papers are mostly footnotes, therefore, a blog is scholarship. Holy moly, I'm not sorry anymore, Chuck. (But thanks for blogrolling us.)
And I'm waiting for Chuck to tell us how much Scaife and Moon have given to tsunami relief.
Y'know, I wandered around Chuck Simmins' site this afternoon, arriving from the CT link.
Man. That is some wickedly funny stuff, but I don't think Chuck is in on the joke. Don't forget his cats' webpage at which Tonstant Weader fwowed up.
When Glenn links to me, it's like being published in the JAMA.
When I was on Cops that time, it was like winning an Emmy.
Damn! I wish I *had* been writing out of spite-- it'd make that guilty qualm go away. But I'd forgotten about MT scholarship.
When JAMA published that paper about why I'm this way, it was almost like being a coauthor.
When I climbed Mount Rushmore, it was like being a great president, only much more mobile.
Wowza. This post is happy-making. Cripes. I've been chuckling for the last hour about the post and ogged's comment.
Oooh, I'm getting a fauxrection [laughs, then retches]
(Can you really climb Mt. Rushmore?)
I think Chuch ought to have titled his Model Gallery, "Variations on Linda Hamilton." Hott.
Can you really climb Mt. Rushmore?
Yes, apparently, but only the back, which is funnier.
Or, it could have been called, "Some Girls Next Door; Why Chuck Keeps Having to Move."
So none of you actually have anything to say about Chuck's post, or the point therein. Gotcha. You're not concerned with what people who talk big about the supposed dearth of American decency and generosity do when it matters, but Chuck's cats are worth your time. I'm guessing there's nothing in your private lives that would be good for a laugh if we all examined it, right?
Prove otherwise (it's not as if people who crave publicity would hide their generosity to tsunami victims) and you've got an argument. Don't, and it's nothing but logical fallacy and behavior you should be ashamed of.
Mikey, I can assure you that it's simple politeness and good breeding that has kept us from engaging the substance of Chuck's post; it's much nicer to make someone look like a goof than to make him look like an idiot. But here you are, and I can't say no.
First, there's Ted Barlow's simple point: we don't know who has given, nor how much, and the assumption that if some famous person had given, you would have heard about it, just isn't sound enough to go condemning people. Is it likely that famous person x would have issued a press release? Yes. Is the fact that x hasn't issued a press release proof that x hasn't given. No. Not by a long shot.
Second, there's the assumption that anyone not giving to the Tsunami relief effort right now is a bad person, or a hypocrite, or doesn't really care about the good of mankind. But a bit of perspective tells us that right now, given the global outpouring of aid for tsunami victims, other causes and charities will probably go begging. Those causes are no less worthy or important. And the threshold for being assured that one's money will be well spent is much higher for someone considering giving $1 million than someone giving $100, so it makes sense for the rich to wait to see where their money will be needed most.
Third, there's the perspective-bending effect of a massive, well-publicized disaster that makes every dime spent on anything else seem frivolous. You gonna eat that ice-cream cone? That's three bucks that could save some kid's life in Bandeh Aceh. You really gonna take the subway today, and not ride your bike? That's a buck-fifty that could pay for some kid's medicine in Phuket. There's no end to this kind of criticism, but most of us realize that humans just don't behave this way, and people who have charitable foundations and make a habit of philanthropy don't need to apologize for not diverting a bunch of money to the latest tragedy.
Finally, there's what I mentioned in that first comment. If Chuck was really "just saying," then he might also have mentioned prominent rich right-wingers who don't seem to have donated. But he didn't, which makes the whole thing a partisan whine, which is tiresome, and not nearly as funny as his cats and neighbors.
And if you're wondering about our embarrassing private lives, stick around, pull up the archives, knock yourself out.
Chuck has responded, after a fashion. And he's also working the liberals are racists angle. But I'm not worried, because 15 seconds of googling tells me that right-wingers don't have the cojones to make cock jokes.
If Glenn doesn't make a cock joke soon, some people might wonder if he's gay.
No loafers? If Glenn Reynolds is gayer than Ben w-lfs-n, I imagine some of his friends on the right are going to have questions for him.
gee, Ben, I know we're feuding and all, but you're really getting picked on, I almost think I should help out..but then I noticed that you're implying that you're too fashionable for manly loafers....so, so gay. :(
From Chuck:
"This is a new media, and as equal as any of the old media. Perhaps more equal because bloggers like me, BS Management, get to argue with Glenn, and win some of the arguments because we have the data right at our fingertips. Glenn is the owner and operator of the largest and most respected Internet scholarship site. By linking as he does, the hard work of dozens of bloggers is recognized world-wide. People become recognized as experts in a field or a topic without the ass kissing and drudgery of higher education."
(picking self up off floor ...) Ahhh that pretty much says it all! What a riot . ..
