There's this dude. James. His blog is Right Face. We do not see eye to eye on things. But the guy clearly thinks about what he's saying. This kind of disagreement, I can handle. If I was a drinking man, I could probably sit down with James and have a beer, and shoot the shit. He might wind up taking a swing at me, but I think we'd be friends the next day. I'm going to start reading it regularly, and if my opinion holds, I'm going to blogroll it. For me, blogrolls are the only way for me to remember which blogs I want to check in and read... to see either how those folks are personally, or what they saying politically... depending on the type of blog.
There's this other dude, Clay. His blog is In My Right Mind. While Clay left me a super-nice comment the other day, his blog writing typifies the whole problem with the whole Left vs. Right thing. By classifying those who disagree with him as un-American, by accusing United States Senators of being un-American... well, there's really nowhere to go with that.
The spectrum of Liberalism is as diverse as the spectrum of Conservatism. I think we'd all be better served if we went issue by issue, instead of resorting to the easier-yet-useless option of categorization.
NOW I'm going to clean my office.
Love to all. Even you, the quiet thinker with the grocery bags.
20 comments:
Damn i hate it when people put you in a box.Just because you're against the war you're unamerican.
Bull Crap i say to those phoney
people they all about nothing.
Stop by for a visit.
Rich,
First thanks for the post, and the kind words. I do try to think about how I communicate what I believe. I am usually pretty intractable in my position on issues. But I have been know to change my mind when the facts warrant it. The one thing I cannot stand is those who refuse to recognize it when the facts disprove them. This is the issue I have with another blogger. He will present his opinion and if you show him facts that disprove it he will simply deliete them and resort to name-calling.
James: There's certainly nothing wrong with that... discourse doesn't require giving in.
I'd be interested in looking at this blog you're talking about... if you'd like to post it here, feel free, or email me at rich@championable.com
Rock on.
"I think we'd all be better served if we went issue by issue, instead of resorting to the easier-yet-useless option of categorization." - I hope you don't mind me quoting you.
I just love that! Could you please run for office now? I will vote for you - I promise.
And I'm on your blogroll? I feel so honored. Especially since most of what I talk about is crap and quite insignificant. Thank you.
Really. Make some signs, get some commercials. Perhaps I could work on your campaign?
Okay, I'll finish my earlier comment now. (Had to let my wife on, since she actually makes money with this thing.) Regarding Clay and his blog.
Clay has been my coworker and best friend for about the past 6 years. He is like a brother to me and I am godfather to his daughter.
Clay, is in a word, passionate. Whatever you are discussing, be it music, religion, politics, whatever, Clay probably has a strong opinion. He's not shy about expressing that opinion, usually quite vehemently.
That certainly doesn't make him a bad guy or hard to get along with. We have disagreed on occasion and he has always been most gracious. Unfortunately, in this black and white text world of blogging, his passion and conviction may seem obstinant and fractious.
James,
I believe you when you say that he's dandy in person. But that doesn't mean anything to me at all.
Being "nice" in one context doesn't justify creating unapproachable and pointless enmity in another.
Where you see passion, I see unfocused derision.
And that's my take.
I am an un-american, as are the vast majority of the six billion or so people on this rock.
Those un-americans that I represent, specifically myself, would like it very much if you could please find a different way to insult each other, since we actually think it is pretty neat being un-americans.
Thank you kindly for your assistance in this matter. :)
Ben, that was pretty funny.
Thanks for swinging by.
How about anti-America. I think that's the term I usually use.
(Yeah, I know it's subjective, fortunately my definition is the correct one!)
Rich, since I guess you haven't read my response to your comment on my blog yet, I will reprint it here in defense of myself so that your readers will have a chance to see that just maybe you have misread me. While I dont agree with you like James, I am not necessarily you're bitter enemy:
"Rich,
Thanks for the honest critique of my blog. I doubt that you have read all of it, but nonetheless you have read some of it.
I get it that you obviously don't like the jist of my post. Sorry, but I call it like I see it.
While I most certainly would agree that there are democrats out there who don't necessarily fall into lock step with the radical left who have hi-jacked the party, nonetheless, the majority rules and it is the majority running the democratic party that I take issue with.
By the way, my family used to be democrats. In fact, the first election that I could vote in, I voted for Jimmy Carter against Ronald Reagan (shudder!!!!)
If you find yourself in agreement with communists like the ACLU and Moveon.org then I'm sorry, but I stand against your viewpoint.
Nowhere in my blog have I ever said that you don't have the 1st Amendment right to speak and say what you think. On the contrary, that is very American. But remember, I too have a 1rst Ammendment right to disagree with you. Ok?
Having said all of this, I still like you as a person, at least what you have presented on your blog (afer all the cyber space is anonymous for the most part and I don't really know who you are, only what you present yourself to be, the same goes for me), regardless of your politics.
Your description of the love that you have for your daughter (comparing it to a rush of wind) was fantastic! And I would agree with the person who commented and said that you have a distinctive writing style and could quite possibly stand to get paid for what you do. No kidding.
Rich, when it comes to politics, I will stand firm on my ground and dare to debate those on the opposite ground, but, I would like to point out that the whole person is not necessarly defined by his or her political point of view, nor his/her Christian denomination, nor his/her religion, or lack thereof.
In other words, I can fiercly bicker with you politically and yet still admire you as a person.
Understand?"
"Unfocused derision" is how you judge a person who stands true to his convictions?
And to think I thought you were above that level of mudslinging.
Say it isn't so!
Clay, you're provably a hypocrite.
"Unfocused derision" is MUDSLINGING? Do you honestly mean that, or am I missing the joke? If you're serious, I certainly hope more people adhere to that standard of mudslinging.
Frankly, I suggest you read a blog entry you wrote called "Pathetic Liberal Tactics When You Dare To Challenge Their Viewpoint" and apply the principles to yourself. Although I found the Anti-Christian aspects of your post fairly insulting.
If you weren't so two-faced, I'd ask you to explain how the ACLU or Moveon.org could possibly qualify as "Communist," but I no longer respect you enough for that.
You come over here and talk semi-nice about how you can like people as a person and disagree with them elsewhere, and then you go to your own blog and hurl insults at me in the comments of the above-referenced post.
Ick, ick, ick.
Take care, Clay. Good luck fighting all those Communists out there. They're a real swarm.
Heh.
Rich,
Ok. Looks like I misjudged you. You apparently aren't much different than you average liberal blogger I've encountered after all. (At least not when it comes to political discourse. I still like your other comments though). Apparently it's your way or no way.
It's interesting that you tell James that discourse doesn't mean giving in, and yet you call me a hypocrite and chide me for defending my political viewpoint whole heartedly. To quote Monty Python in one of their skits, "Look, if I argue with you then I must take up a contrary position".
Rich, I don't half believe in my convicions I believe in them totally. So I don't make half arguments. I don't half defend the conservative point of view. And on the other hand, I don't half disagree with the liberal viewpoint, I completely disagree with it. In other words, I am a conservative and all of my arguments come from the conservative point of view. If that bothers you that an opponent really stands behind his convictions then so be it.
You don't respect me, that is too bad, but I guess that's your perogative. You may not respect me, but I didn't just make up that the ACLU is a communist organization and the same is true with Moveon.org.
I seemed to have misjudged you. You apparently expect your opponents too not really espouse their views whole heartedly. You are offended when someone actually has the nerve to attack the liberal viewpoint or expose ludicrous tactics.
It's too bad that you are unable to see a person beyond just their political viewpoint. I can and the view is much more interesting.
I will always fight hard to defend my political convictions but I assure it is nothing personal. It is a battle ground of ideas and how they are presented, not a battleground of personal character or worth.
Apparently with you it is. I hope I am wrong.
Clay,
You and I have fundamentally different views of what "standing up for your principles" means.
You can say that as much as you want, because it sounds fabulous. But if the execution is utterly flawed, it's meaningless.
If you ever write an article about how the ACLU and moveon.org are actually Communist organizations, please shoot me an email. I'd love to read it.
Best,
R
Rich,
Fair enough.
Best regards to you and yours,
Clay
At the risk of looking like goof, what is your e-mail address? I need to talk to you privately regarding an issue you might want to be aware of concerning your blog (and no, I'm not talking about your viewpoints).
You can delete this comment for continuity if you like, as it doesn't actually pertain to anything regarding your post.
Clay
Has it occurred to any of the more sensible people here that many of the people who spout out all of that "ACLU is Communist" crap don't know what Communism is?
I don't really want to turn Rich's post into an "anti-ACLU" standoff but according to the record of the 87th Congress in 1961:
"Roger Baldwin, founder [and] member of the National Committee of the ACLU ... has a record of over 100 communist-front affiliations and citations (documented in detail, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD May 26, 1952)."
"Dr. Harry Ward, first chairman of the ACLU ... has a record of over 200 Communist front affiliations and citations ... [and] is the author of "Soviet Democracy" and "Soviet Spirit," two pro-Communist books which clearly show Dr. Ward's love for the Soviet system of government."
The testimony goes on to list at least 6 other prominent ACLU members who were Communists or had strong ties to Communism.
James @ Right Face!
That's all fine, and I don't intend to argue that... but it seems like perhaps you're ignoring the fact that Roger Baldwin LED the purge of Communists from the ALCU, after he completely changed his stance.
You are absolutely correct in stating that the origins and early history of the ACLU had very strong communist leanings.
It is absolutely incorrect to say that this is still the case.
Things change. If you need an example, read this:
Carter
Reagan
Bush
Clinton
Bush
Is that enough variety for you?
:-)
Post a Comment