Richard,
It seems from one of your other posts that I have been unofficially dubbed the Richard Watchdog (or some such thing) on this website, and must respond to your arguments. That being said, I rather can't resist doing so, and while I hope this constant onslaught of argument doesn't just annoy people around here, I feel compelled to continue. And while I can't touch on everything I want to, here's a sampling:
>I'd apologise if you find my `directness` distasteful or >unnerving - but then I know life becomes very boring if we >all start acting like sisters in agreement.
I don't think it's directness that caused the reaction (though I may be wrong). I think it's your general (and pardon my directness in saying so) strategy (conscious or unconscious) of responding to an argument with various rants on unrelated topics, while never quite addressing the question. Also, there's a big difference between directness and name-calling. I think that some of what you feel is direct is often just calling people "hacks," "morons," and the like. I hope this paragraph doesn't come off as being too obnoxious, I just wanted to clarify what I think the argument being made against you was, and perhaps help you to realize what it is in your posts which alienates some people (or at least me, occasionally) on this website.
>It's interesting that the left (forgive the >generalisation) expect to be able to judge the private >life of a right-wing politician. Yet when the right->leaning hacks start harping on the compromises in the >lives of Bill/Hill/Gore/Jesse Jackson/Sharpton all of a >sudden it's a debate that's based on the `supposed` >racist/sexist/mean spirited (delete as applicable) >leanings of the said hacks.
The thing is, I don't think the left (in general) does expect to judge the private lives of right-wingers. I haven't heard a single attack on GWB's home life or family yet (except for that stupid cocaine thing, which was fortunately dropped quite quickly). What I have heard are numerous attacks on the policy he has made, the things he has said, and his political record. Somehow, many of the right-wing media people have construed any attack which brings up W's past as personal, while they were actually just attacks on his politics. What many leftists (me included) are reacting against is PERSONAL attacks on Clinton, where media folks make fun of his relationship with Hilary and Chelsea, talk about what a sleazy human being he is (which I happen to agree with, though it has no effect whatsoever on how he performs his job), and other such personal slander. No-one has made any disparaging remarks about Laura Bush, because the left media on the whole is just not that mean.
>I could also point out that as my wife teaches high-school >in Texas I know some of the politics behind schools >closing, I would be willing to bet that the school's were >just not performing. What is the rationalization?
>Or would your conscience feel appeased to know that >average schools were being bankrolled because "we don't >want to upset or offend the people of color.
Just not performing? What does that mean? That they did poorly on meaningless standardized tests? That you compared the students who were in those schools with their identical twins who stayed home and saw no real difference? The schools which tend to close are those that are in poor neighborhoods, which often happen to be "racial" neighborhoods. Generally, those schools are given far less funding. So, with less money with which to work, and students who have grown up in horrendous neighborhoods, of course they don't do as well on standardized tests. But that's why they should get MORE money. So they can improve and become great schools. Do you thing that by closing a poorly-funded school, the money to open a really good school for those underprivileged children will magically appear from somewhere? It seems from your argument that you want to close schools that "don't perform" to build more schools that do. But the reason that the "non-performing" schools are closing is that there is no money to fund even a poor school. So why would there possibly be money to fund a better one and start it from scratch?
>The (projected) fact that the mainstream media is 70% plus >Democrat makes me spew because it just isn't >representative.
"Projected", noun: Entirely Made-Up.
>I know you don't want to talk about Aschcroft, but why are >Pentecostals in governement a `big threat` to all free->thinkers yet when certain Muslims show up in DC mob handed >advocating inverted *apartheid* the same (supposed) free->thinkers bleat `freedom of speech`?
Ashcroft can say whatever he wants in DC, just like "certain Muslims." But "certain Muslims" are not being appointed to insanely powerful posts like Attorney General. I have no problems with Ashcroft making public statements, giving speeches, etc. Hurrah for him! But I have problems with someone who is so outspoken against established laws (e.g. Roe v. Wade) being appointed to uphold the law. If "certain Muslims" were appointed Attorney General, I'd be angry about that too.
>Finally Mick Hume (also from the New Statesman) said, in >reviewing the book `Trust No One` "Conspiracy thinking is, >in essence, an intellectual endorsment of ignorance, fear >and powerlessness".
So then, will you finally admit that the conpiracy thought behind the supposed "liberal media" is an endorsement of ignorance? That many right-wing folks ignore anything they don't like in the media by attributing it to a conpiracy-based "liberal bias"?
>So much is made of `free speech` and the gifts it brings, >I would suggest freedom of thought is far more important.
Well, I see what you're saying, but free thought is an implied freedom of which free speech is an extension. We can think whatever we want. Nobody has the technology yet to read minds, and no government force exists to go inside our heads and stop us from pondering issues. But to express those ideas to the public and share them with others, that's where things get dangerous, where the government is always on the brink of intruding, and where we need protection. Thoughts don't ever leave your head, so they're really well protected until you say them out loud.
Well, I hate talking in abstractions, so that's enough of that. Hope this gives you some things to chew on.
-Scott
my job?
Scott
location: Canada
listening to: Brooks Williams
registered: 2009.07.04
posts: 89
[view all posts]
[view all posts]
S
Scott
(view)
Richard,
It seems from one of your other posts that I have been unofficially dubbed the Richard Watchdog (or some such thing) on this website, and must respond to your arguments. That being said, I rather can't resist doing so, and while I hope this constant onslaught of argument doesn't just annoy people around here, I feel compelled to continue. And while I can't touch on everything I want to, here's a sampling:
>I'd apologise if you find my `directness` distasteful or >unnerving - but then I know life becomes very boring if we >all start acting like sisters in agreement.
I don't think it's directness that caused the reaction (though I may be wrong). I think it's your general (and pardon my directness in saying so) strategy (conscious or unconscious) of responding to an argument with various rants on unrelated topics, while never quite addressing the question. Also, there's a big difference between directness and name-calling. I think that some of what you feel is direct is often just calling people "hacks," "morons," and the like. I hope this paragraph doesn't come off as being too obnoxious, I just wanted to clarify what I think the argument being made against you was, and perhaps help you to realize what it is in your posts which alienates some people (or at least me, occasionally) on this website.
>It's interesting that the left (forgive the >generalisation) expect to be able to judge the private >life of a right-wing politician. Yet when the right->leaning hacks start harping on the compromises in the >lives of Bill/Hill/Gore/Jesse Jackson/Sharpton all of a >sudden it's a debate that's based on the `supposed` >racist/sexist/mean spirited (delete as applicable) >leanings of the said hacks.
The thing is, I don't think the left (in general) does expect to judge the private lives of right-wingers. I haven't heard a single attack on GWB's home life or family yet (except for that stupid cocaine thing, which was fortunately dropped quite quickly). What I have heard are numerous attacks on the policy he has made, the things he has said, and his political record. Somehow, many of the right-wing media people have construed any attack which brings up W's past as personal, while they were actually just attacks on his politics. What many leftists (me included) are reacting against is PERSONAL attacks on Clinton, where media folks make fun of his relationship with Hilary and Chelsea, talk about what a sleazy human being he is (which I happen to agree with, though it has no effect whatsoever on how he performs his job), and other such personal slander. No-one has made any disparaging remarks about Laura Bush, because the left media on the whole is just not that mean.
>I could also point out that as my wife teaches high-school >in Texas I know some of the politics behind schools >closing, I would be willing to bet that the school's were >just not performing. What is the rationalization?
>Or would your conscience feel appeased to know that >average schools were being bankrolled because "we don't >want to upset or offend the people of color.
Just not performing? What does that mean? That they did poorly on meaningless standardized tests? That you compared the students who were in those schools with their identical twins who stayed home and saw no real difference? The schools which tend to close are those that are in poor neighborhoods, which often happen to be "racial" neighborhoods. Generally, those schools are given far less funding. So, with less money with which to work, and students who have grown up in horrendous neighborhoods, of course they don't do as well on standardized tests. But that's why they should get MORE money. So they can improve and become great schools. Do you thing that by closing a poorly-funded school, the money to open a really good school for those underprivileged children will magically appear from somewhere? It seems from your argument that you want to close schools that "don't perform" to build more schools that do. But the reason that the "non-performing" schools are closing is that there is no money to fund even a poor school. So why would there possibly be money to fund a better one and start it from scratch?
>The (projected) fact that the mainstream media is 70% plus >Democrat makes me spew because it just isn't >representative.
"Projected", noun: Entirely Made-Up.
>I know you don't want to talk about Aschcroft, but why are >Pentecostals in governement a `big threat` to all free->thinkers yet when certain Muslims show up in DC mob handed >advocating inverted *apartheid* the same (supposed) free->thinkers bleat `freedom of speech`?
Ashcroft can say whatever he wants in DC, just like "certain Muslims." But "certain Muslims" are not being appointed to insanely powerful posts like Attorney General. I have no problems with Ashcroft making public statements, giving speeches, etc. Hurrah for him! But I have problems with someone who is so outspoken against established laws (e.g. Roe v. Wade) being appointed to uphold the law. If "certain Muslims" were appointed Attorney General, I'd be angry about that too.
>Finally Mick Hume (also from the New Statesman) said, in >reviewing the book `Trust No One` "Conspiracy thinking is, >in essence, an intellectual endorsment of ignorance, fear >and powerlessness".
So then, will you finally admit that the conpiracy thought behind the supposed "liberal media" is an endorsement of ignorance? That many right-wing folks ignore anything they don't like in the media by attributing it to a conpiracy-based "liberal bias"?
>So much is made of `free speech` and the gifts it brings, >I would suggest freedom of thought is far more important.
Well, I see what you're saying, but free thought is an implied freedom of which free speech is an extension. We can think whatever we want. Nobody has the technology yet to read minds, and no government force exists to go inside our heads and stop us from pondering issues. But to express those ideas to the public and share them with others, that's where things get dangerous, where the government is always on the brink of intruding, and where we need protection. Thoughts don't ever leave your head, so they're really well protected until you say them out loud.
Well, I hate talking in abstractions, so that's enough of that. Hope this gives you some things to chew on.
-Scott
It seems from one of your other posts that I have been unofficially dubbed the Richard Watchdog (or some such thing) on this website, and must respond to your arguments. That being said, I rather can't resist doing so, and while I hope this constant onslaught of argument doesn't just annoy people around here, I feel compelled to continue. And while I can't touch on everything I want to, here's a sampling:
>I'd apologise if you find my `directness` distasteful or >unnerving - but then I know life becomes very boring if we >all start acting like sisters in agreement.
I don't think it's directness that caused the reaction (though I may be wrong). I think it's your general (and pardon my directness in saying so) strategy (conscious or unconscious) of responding to an argument with various rants on unrelated topics, while never quite addressing the question. Also, there's a big difference between directness and name-calling. I think that some of what you feel is direct is often just calling people "hacks," "morons," and the like. I hope this paragraph doesn't come off as being too obnoxious, I just wanted to clarify what I think the argument being made against you was, and perhaps help you to realize what it is in your posts which alienates some people (or at least me, occasionally) on this website.
>It's interesting that the left (forgive the >generalisation) expect to be able to judge the private >life of a right-wing politician. Yet when the right->leaning hacks start harping on the compromises in the >lives of Bill/Hill/Gore/Jesse Jackson/Sharpton all of a >sudden it's a debate that's based on the `supposed` >racist/sexist/mean spirited (delete as applicable) >leanings of the said hacks.
The thing is, I don't think the left (in general) does expect to judge the private lives of right-wingers. I haven't heard a single attack on GWB's home life or family yet (except for that stupid cocaine thing, which was fortunately dropped quite quickly). What I have heard are numerous attacks on the policy he has made, the things he has said, and his political record. Somehow, many of the right-wing media people have construed any attack which brings up W's past as personal, while they were actually just attacks on his politics. What many leftists (me included) are reacting against is PERSONAL attacks on Clinton, where media folks make fun of his relationship with Hilary and Chelsea, talk about what a sleazy human being he is (which I happen to agree with, though it has no effect whatsoever on how he performs his job), and other such personal slander. No-one has made any disparaging remarks about Laura Bush, because the left media on the whole is just not that mean.
>I could also point out that as my wife teaches high-school >in Texas I know some of the politics behind schools >closing, I would be willing to bet that the school's were >just not performing. What is the rationalization?
>Or would your conscience feel appeased to know that >average schools were being bankrolled because "we don't >want to upset or offend the people of color.
Just not performing? What does that mean? That they did poorly on meaningless standardized tests? That you compared the students who were in those schools with their identical twins who stayed home and saw no real difference? The schools which tend to close are those that are in poor neighborhoods, which often happen to be "racial" neighborhoods. Generally, those schools are given far less funding. So, with less money with which to work, and students who have grown up in horrendous neighborhoods, of course they don't do as well on standardized tests. But that's why they should get MORE money. So they can improve and become great schools. Do you thing that by closing a poorly-funded school, the money to open a really good school for those underprivileged children will magically appear from somewhere? It seems from your argument that you want to close schools that "don't perform" to build more schools that do. But the reason that the "non-performing" schools are closing is that there is no money to fund even a poor school. So why would there possibly be money to fund a better one and start it from scratch?
>The (projected) fact that the mainstream media is 70% plus >Democrat makes me spew because it just isn't >representative.
"Projected", noun: Entirely Made-Up.
>I know you don't want to talk about Aschcroft, but why are >Pentecostals in governement a `big threat` to all free->thinkers yet when certain Muslims show up in DC mob handed >advocating inverted *apartheid* the same (supposed) free->thinkers bleat `freedom of speech`?
Ashcroft can say whatever he wants in DC, just like "certain Muslims." But "certain Muslims" are not being appointed to insanely powerful posts like Attorney General. I have no problems with Ashcroft making public statements, giving speeches, etc. Hurrah for him! But I have problems with someone who is so outspoken against established laws (e.g. Roe v. Wade) being appointed to uphold the law. If "certain Muslims" were appointed Attorney General, I'd be angry about that too.
>Finally Mick Hume (also from the New Statesman) said, in >reviewing the book `Trust No One` "Conspiracy thinking is, >in essence, an intellectual endorsment of ignorance, fear >and powerlessness".
So then, will you finally admit that the conpiracy thought behind the supposed "liberal media" is an endorsement of ignorance? That many right-wing folks ignore anything they don't like in the media by attributing it to a conpiracy-based "liberal bias"?
>So much is made of `free speech` and the gifts it brings, >I would suggest freedom of thought is far more important.
Well, I see what you're saying, but free thought is an implied freedom of which free speech is an extension. We can think whatever we want. Nobody has the technology yet to read minds, and no government force exists to go inside our heads and stop us from pondering issues. But to express those ideas to the public and share them with others, that's where things get dangerous, where the government is always on the brink of intruding, and where we need protection. Thoughts don't ever leave your head, so they're really well protected until you say them out loud.
Well, I hate talking in abstractions, so that's enough of that. Hope this gives you some things to chew on.
-Scott
