Linkzookery

Friday Linkzookery was shelved until a new and improved Perpetual Linkzookery was launched. Then Perpetual Linkzookery was canceled, leaving Linkzookery fans in the lurch like Marines on a hostile shore calling for naval gunfire support.

Anyway, here are a few interesting links:

For what it’s worth, Murdoc thinks Somalia has gone from “Worst” to “Even Worster”, but I don’t want to split hairs. In any event, Somalia is still not a prime vacation destination.

Linkzookery. Yes? No?

Comments

  1. I walked to the top of the tallest mountain in Australia in about 2 hours. That might put that topograhical map into perspective ;) I started at Thredbo which is not at sea level, but it was during summer and very hot down there. By the time I got to the time there was ice hanging from my beard. It was fun going from hot day to freezing blizzard in the course of a couple of hours on foot :)

  2. Murdoc, I like your ‘regular’ posts best, but Linkzookery is a nice weekly (or so) feature. Keep it up if you would like to! There’s usually at least a few interesting links you post that I haven’t read yet.

  3. I started reading that linked piece about chickenhawks. What a bunch of crap. starting with his ‘misunderestimation’ of what it is. Chickenhawks think that advocating military action makes them brave. period. Advocating military action can be many things: a war crime, pragmatic, something in between. but it doesnt make one brave. Even if you do a photo op in a jump suit. Similary, opposing military action does not make one weak.

  4. Zapper: You define ‘chickenhawk’ as someone who thinks ‘that advocating military action makes them brave’. That is quite interesting, because not only do I not think that’s what ‘chickenhawk’ is supposed to mean, I do not know anyone one else who thinks that’s what it’s supposed to mean, either. I’ve been called a chickenhawk many times. Not once have any of the name-callers suggested that I thought I was being brave by advocating military action. I’ve seen many other people called chickenhawk many, many times. In no cases has the rationale been that the war ‘advocate’ thought he or she was being brave by ‘advocating’ war. Meanwhile, why not address the issue? Do you have to have served in the military to have an opinion about military action? That’s what at least 99% (as far as I’ve ever been able to tell) of ‘chickenhawk’ criers mean when they label someone a chickenhawk. It’s usually because they have no rational argument and have to resort to name-calling. So don’t be a name-caller. Address the issue. If you think my lack of service makes me unfit to discuss the issue, please explain why.

  5. Incidentally, opposing military action doesn’t necessarily make one weak, but resorting to chickenhawk ‘arguments’ does.

  6. Advocating military action can be many things: a war crime,’ Wow, now ADVOCATING military action is a war crime. It’s official. The term ‘war crime’ no longer has any meaning. It can now join ‘torture’, which has been totally defanged by abuse. Good work, Zapper!

  7. In the story about the Navy’s catamaran, if the name of the XO seems familiar, it should. That’s Jerry’s son.

  8. Nicholas, You are indeed correct, I was thinking of dear leader when I wrote that merely advocating for some illegal war does not make one a war criminal. Ordering it does. Murdoc- Check out noted conservative idiot Bill Kristol in the Weakly Standard explaining how those who support war are ‘strong’ and those who oppose it are ‘weak’ http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/468osmmx.asp And in answer to your question, no you are free to advocate for whatever you want. Of course if you are going to argue that this is a war of necessity, such as Iraq, and then be to much of a coward to actually serve, and are also too much of a coward to actually tell someone you know or care about that they need to sign up and fight that war- thats a pretty clear sign that your a chickenhawk.

  9. The last time I checked the US Constitution, the civilians (a.k.a. chickenhawks) were the ones in charge of the military, and were put in that position on purpose. I guess that doesn’t fit in with the socialist’s view of the way things should be, hence the apparent negative connotation with the term chickenhawk. I’ll bet the socialists who make up the leadership of the Democratic party miss the good old days when the the military and police could run the state like they did in the late USSR. I’m sure they wax nostalgic for those days. No wonder it is such a mystery to them that those stupid Republicans want to allow civilians to own guns.

  10. So, like, if you snuck into someone’s country, kidnapped some soldiers, killed some others, then lobbed rockets into that country… would the person who ordered that have been ordering an ‘illegal war’? If so, what should happen to them? It’s purely hypothetical, I’m just just wondering…

  11. Do I need to provide a link to a picture of the Chickenhawk in chief in a flight suit in front of a mission accomplished sign?

  12. Zapper: I don’t know you personally, but from the evidence you’ve supplied in this comments section, I suspect that you’re a moron. I don’t often say that about someone, and I could be wrong, but there it is. Not only do you seem to have no grasp whatsoever about what a supposed ‘chickenhawk’ even is, you then link to a story that has nothing to do with ‘chickenhawks’. Then you use a military veteran to underscore your point. ?!?!?!? I believe that you are a Karl Rove plant. There’s simply no other explanation. Regardless of whether you’re a moron or not, please answer my questions.

  13. Zap: The article you linked doesn’t seem to have anything to do with chickenhawk name-calling one way or the other, so I guess I’m not sure why you bother bringing it up when discussing chickenhawk name-calling. I’m curious: 1) Are you only a chickenhawk if you are in favor of the war? What if you are opposed to the war but haven’t served? In my experiences it [the term ‘chickenhawk’ -ed] only seems to [mean] those who support the war, and is only used by those who oppose the war. Seems that, if it were a legitimate argument, it would work both ways and be used by both pro- and anti-war sides. 2) I support police forces, firefighters, and orthopedic surgeons although I’m not any of those things myself and I’ve never encouraged anyone I know to become one. Does that make me a hypocrite?

  14. The link to the article was clearly showing a similar analogy that was intended to show the scope of chickenhawk syndrome: that the pro war crowd thinks they are making ‘tough’ and ‘strong’ decisions. George HW Bush actually fought in WWII. He was in the action. George W Bush used his family connections to keep out of the fighting. Both advocated how great military action was in vietnam. Both refused to risk themselves or their families fighting the latest ‘just war’. Neither went around telling people they know, their friends and family that they should join the fighting. Both were chickenhawks, despite their service. Bush clearly still is. Bush 41’s position on the last war is unclear to me. Despite

  15. Zapper: If you would like to redefine ‘chickenhawk’, go right ahead. Just don’t expect to get taken seriously. I don’t take you seriously.