November 12, 2002
More On 'Hesiod' I

My brother 'Steevil' and others keep telling me to ignore the evil troll who calls himself 'Hesiod Theogeny' (sic sic sic) and runs 'Counterspin Central'. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that that would be a mistake, since he is both more and less than a common troll. Readers of this site who agree with 'Steevil' are welcome to skip this entry and the next two.

Today 'Hesiod' writes (11/12, 2:02:19 PM):

Once again, Professor Reynolds insults everyone's intelligence by totally misrepresenting and spinning the "chickenhawk" debate.

No one ever said that those who are INCAPABLE of military experience cannot pronounce an opinion on a war with Iraq. It's those who, while CAPABLE of putting ther own butts on the line for a cause they [presumably] believe in, choose not to do so, who's opinions one should take with a shovel full of salt.

This is an obvious lie. 'Hesiod' himself has repeatedly said exactly that, for instance calling me a 'chickenhawk', though it has been many years since I was eligible for service in any branch of the U.S. military. Nor did I ever evade or avoid service: the draft was canceled before anyone in my age group was called up. (People like 'Hesiod' often use weasely words like 'failed to avail himself of the opportunity to serve' to conflate non-volunteers with actual draft-dodgers. They are not the same thing at all.) He has applied the same offensive epithet to many others for whom it is equally inaccurate.

Just yesterday (11/11, 10:24:06 AM), 'Hesiod' marked Veterans Day by linking to the 'Chickenhawk Database' at the New Hampshire Gazette. (Sorry, I won't give them a link either.) Others have already pointed out that the database lists Charles Krauthammer as a 'chickenhawk', though he has been confined to a wheelchair for over 30 years, since he was 20 or so. (People have been known to cut off their trigger fingers to avoid the draft, but I don't think Krauthammer's paraplegia was intentional.) That one name is enough to utterly discredit the whole project. The post linking to it is typical 'Hesiod': he pretends to care about Veterans Day and displays a waving flag, but seems more interested in trashing Republicans than celebrating veterans.

I ask again: why do Ted Barlow, Max Sawicky, and Eric Alterman include links to 'Hesiod' on their blogrolls? Are they unaware that he is as stupid, vicious, and dishonest as the average writer for WarbloggerWatch? Do they not care? Is the left so short of bloggers that it must welcome such as 'Hesiod' to swell its ranks?

Posted by Dr. Weevil at November 12, 2002 11:38 PM

No kidding. I saw that tripe too, and just had to respond. Hesiod's use of the terms chickenhawk, chickenblogger coop, etc. is wide spread and indiscriminate. He uses it to apply to all those who think war with Iraq might be a necessity.

He is a disgusting sleazy jerk.

Posted by: Steve on November 13, 2002 01:21 AM

From the "mind" of Heesey:
"HOW DO YOU SPELL IRONY?: Today, President Bush scoffed at the vote by Iraq's parliament. He called it, now get this, "nothing but a rubber stamp for Saddam Hussein."

Well, he should know. He's an expert on "rubber stamp" legislative bodies."

I'd call him a dumbass, but I wouldn't want to insult the dumbasses.

Posted by: Russell on November 13, 2002 01:56 AM

I was in the Australian Army during the Vietnam war and volunteered for service there and I think we should wipe Saddam off the face of the earth. But so what?

Posted by: Dr John Ray on November 13, 2002 09:47 AM

Well, that answered the question I asked over at Steve's -- Hesiod has NEVER bothered to determine the ability to serve of those he calls "chickenhawks".

What a (s)tool.

Posted by: Robert Crawford on November 13, 2002 10:26 AM

Addlepatted (Hesiod) has comments up on his blog. Go have some fun.

Posted by: Steve on November 13, 2002 12:57 PM

Besides the fact that the chickenhawk argument is inherently sexist, as women are not allowed to serve in combat positions.

But I digress: Doc, when Hesiod linked to one of my Hulk posts (for which I called him a poseur for mentioning the tv show instead of the comic book), I got over 100 hits, fairly quickly. A lot of people read his site.

Don't stop. They need to know what a liar and hypocrite he is.

Posted by: Meryl Yourish on November 13, 2002 04:57 PM

Don't forget that "chickenhawk" is also is a homophobic slur, insofar as openly gay people who support the war cannot serve.

Posted by: Kieran Lyons on November 13, 2002 05:38 PM

I guess to be consistent, Hesiod must either be a policeman or else refrain from opposing crime. And I presume he either spent time in the peace corps or else refuses, on moral grounds, to oppose world hunger. Wouldn't want to be a hypocrite here.

Posted by: Doug Turnbull on November 13, 2002 05:49 PM

I also seem to recall that "Chickenhawk" is a pejorative term for older men that cruise for young male prostitutes. MOre homophobia.

Posted by: billhedrick on November 14, 2002 09:36 AM

The thing I find most offensive about the whole "chickenhawk" argument (Hesiod being but one of the many who mouth it) is that the same people who now claim that only those who've served are qualified to call for it:

1. Proposed and supported the nuclear freeze movement, despite the overwhelming OBJECTION of the military;
2. Ignore the military when it calls for things like increased funding (since, presumably, they have some idea of what they need and what the shortfalls are);
3. Backed Albright (who's never served) against Powell (who was in 'Nam) on the subject of use-of-force against Serbia, both in Bosnia AND Kosovo.

I also wonder just how many military people those who use the term know? Because it's my experience that most political opinions within society (albeit very few of the Hesiod type) are actually reflected within the military. I've met extreme liberals who tend to oppose the use of force, middle-of-the-roaders, raving conservatives, NRA and NARAL types, etc.

Finally, on the specific issue of Iraq, there's been, AFAIK, NO scientific poll of the military to determine what most people in the military, or even military retirees, think. The closest was a poll of readers of Defense News/Army Times/Navy Times/Etc. I don't have the URL anymore, but the results were strikingly slanted IN FAVOR of war w/ Iraq, beyond the general public. Not sure what that means (readers of these newspapers tend to be officers, usually fairly to very senior ones), but it certainly does NOT suggest that the military, as a whole, is different from the stance of "warbloggers".

Posted by: Dean on November 14, 2002 09:55 AM

If you think Hesiod's bad, check on some of the other crapweasels Alterman links to. Here's a link to a post on my blog about one of the worst, at "Bush Watch":

(Sorry, not sure how to turn that into a working link).

Posted by: Baseball Crank on November 14, 2002 01:18 PM

As far as I'm concerned, the best answer to Hesiod is from the WB: "I'm a chicken hawk and you're my victim - are you gonna come quiet, or do I have to muss ya up?"

Posted by: Andrew S. on November 14, 2002 06:24 PM


Instapundit had a link to hezzzzzzod's site that day, as well as someone else (don't recall), so he had a highly increased amount of traffic that day, pointing folks to that hulk reference which in turn had a link to your site. I know because that's how *I* read about it.

When hezzzzzzod had your basic slam with a link to my site, I got about 20 hits (total), or what I get from Henry Hanks in about two hours.

Posted by: Ricky West on November 14, 2002 07:10 PM

I dare say that if folks to the right of Jim Jeffords stopped going to his site, he'd lose the vast majority of his linkage.

Posted by: Ricky West on November 14, 2002 07:11 PM


Oh. In that case, then Doc, keep on doing it because it's fucking hilarious.


Posted by: Meryl Yourish on November 14, 2002 11:02 PM

Well, fwiw, Hesiod appears to have decided to just stop talking about the state of the Chinese banking system and state-owned enterprises. I was never very clear about what he was getting at, especially when he linked it (somehow) to the Bush Administration.

But the pity of it is that it really IS an important issue, one that deserves more attention, from all sides of the spectrum.

Posted by: Dean on November 15, 2002 01:04 AM