Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Guerillas in the Midst
If you can get past the alarmist tone, partisan lean, and bizarrely specific unattributed facts (like "only 23 blogs were known to exist at the beginning of 1999"), this Garance Franke-Ruta American Prospect article about the blog-scalpings of Jeff Gannon, Eason Jordan, Dan Rather and Joseph Steffen contains some useful and interesting mapping of the political DNA behind the blogosphere's most recent tempests. Franke-Ruta's interpretation of the ample evidence she gathers is that many right-wing blogs are engaging in out-and-out dirty tricks:
Scratch the surface and the same names turn up in each scandal, revealing the events of mid-February to have been part of an ongoing and coordinated proxy war by Republican political operatives on the so-called liberal media, conducted through the vast, unmonitored loophole of the Internet. [...] Not only are most bloggers not journalists; increasingly they are also partisan operatives whose agendas are as ideological as they come. [...]
But unlike traditional news outlets, right-wing blogs openly shill, fund raise, plot, and organize massive activist campaigns on behalf of partisan institutions and constituencies; they also increasingly provide cover for professional operatives to conduct traditional politics by other means -- including campaigning against the established media. And instead of taking these bloggers for the political activists they are, all too often the established press has accepted their claims of being a new form of journalism. This will have to change -- or it will prove serious journalism's undoing.
Besides that sky-is-falling last sentence, there is a point worth addressing here. Franke-Ruta warns against "partisan operatives whose are as ideological as they come," and who support "partisan institutions and constituencies," but, well, what was the American Prospect again?
[A]n authoritative magazine of liberal ideas, committed to a just society, an enriched democracy, and effective liberal politics. [...]
The Prospect also convenes meetings of like-minded organizations in Washington. We co-host a biweekly strategy meeting of major progressive organizations to exchange ideas and develop a common message and a political and media strategy.
Nope, nothing partisan there! ... The line between opinion journalist and professional operative can be pretty damned blurry, as evidenced by the back-and-forth resumes of people like Prospect co-founder Robert Reich. For my money, as long as writers are reasonably transparent and factually accurate, their motivations are a curio, not a disqualifier (let alone a danger).
|3.7.05 @ 3:28PM|#
Permit me to quote Lenny Bruce on this item: "Liberals are people who tolerate everyone except those who disagree with them."
|3.7.05 @ 3:55PM|#
It's grass-roots when you do it, a diabolical conspiracy when the other guy does it.
|3.7.05 @ 3:56PM|#
As long as this is a tactic that can be exploited by all sides
in a debate, I don't see a problem. It's an even playing
field.
What's worse is that some people who should know better are taking
everything they read on the net at face value. During the
Rathergate thing one of the NRO hacks used as his source (for one
of his assertions) "a poster at freerepublic.com."
|3.7.05 @ 3:58PM|#
"If I were punished
for every pun I shed,
there would not be left a puny shred
of my punnish head." --Samuel Johnson
|3.7.05 @ 4:04PM|#
�the proxy war� on �the so-called liberal media, conducted
through the vast, unmonitored loophole of the Internet. [...] Not
only are most bloggers not journalists; increasingly they are also
partisan operatives whose agendas are as ideological as they
come.�
Okay, since I�m operating here in a an unmonitored loophole without
a journalism degree I�ll take my liberty to project my own
interpretation on her statements.
The internet should be regulated by the government to guard against
unapproved information being disseminated by those unqualified to
um, disseminate information. (With a journalism degree I could have
found a better ending for that.)
|3.7.05 @ 4:07PM|#
Great...another session of liberal-bashing.
Try for engaged, sensible debate and you get the highlights from an
Ann Coulter column.
And liberal intolerance (explain how this article is an example of
that) is what...An example of a right wing commitment to tolerance?
Yeah...right.
|3.7.05 @ 4:12PM|#
madpad, there's liberalism and then there's hypocrisy, over
which neither side of the political spectrum claims a
monopoly.
Have you read the entry on here about Llosa's acceptance speech at
the AEI awards dinner? Plenty of us have applauded the comments he
made.
|3.7.05 @ 4:24PM|#
SPD,
I have not read the Llosa acceptance speech but I DID read the
article in question.
In all fairness, the summation has been all but ignored.
There were no pleas to regulate blogging...merely a warning (to
journalists) that they should not be passive about the partisan
underpinnings.
|3.7.05 @ 4:24PM|#
I wouldn't dare suggest that the right isn't just as guilty of
hypocrisy, but it is the left that wears "tolerance" on their
sleeve while shouting down dissenting viewpoints.
Are right-wing blogs politically motivated, partisan operations? Of
course they are, just as the left wing blogs are, and just as the
American Prospect is. There's nothing wrong with that, at least if
you're honest about the situation.
I seem to recall the DU orchestrating a massive email campaign to
skew the poll results after the debates.
What really upsets liberals about both talk radio and the
blogoshpere is that they arrived late to the party. They're
engaging in the same manner of guerilla politicking as the
righties, but they're not nearly as successful at it yet. As an
example, I'll often switch back and forth from Rush to Al, and
regardless of whose viewpoints I agree with, there's no denying
that Rush is a much, much better talk radio host. He's got the
experience and he's built his own market. Al may one day accomplish
the same thing, but until then he'll whine about how Rush is wrong
for doing the very thing Al would like to do.
|3.7.05 @ 4:24PM|#
It may well be that being associated with the print culture
makes for a better blog. I personally think NRO is the beat blog
without comments, and H&R is the best blog with comments...with
Washington Monthly a close second.
There. I hit all three bases - conservative, libertarian and
liberal. I would note that all three are asociated with above
average print magazines that were around much longer than the Net.
That said, I don't see why the market-place can't sort it out.
|3.7.05 @ 4:32PM|#
It certainly establishes credibility and an existing market, as well as using trained and experienced writers. That said, there will definitely be some online-only blogs that establish themselves at the top as well.
|3.7.05 @ 4:34PM|#
"it is the left that wears "tolerance" on their sleeve while
shouting down dissenting viewpoints."
I don't recall hearing the the Prospect was smashing people's
servers. Dude published an article in a magazine. Does "shouting
down" now mean "refusing to remain completely silent when I lie
about things you hold dear?"
|3.7.05 @ 4:36PM|#
Stretch,
You hit a lot right on the head. I have said as much in
conversations of my onw. The only point where I'll disagree with
you is your first graph.
While I'm sure it's been the case in the past, with all due
respect, the left is in a weakened position, does not control the
debate and is in no position to be intolerant these days.
Yes, there are expections to that statement, but from my
observation, those exceptions are dissipating.
Matt Welch|3.7.05 @ 4:39PM|#
joe -- Garance is not a "dude," in case there was some confusion about that....
|3.7.05 @ 4:42PM|#
Joe further echo's my disagreement with Stretch's
assertion.
With all due respect to the liberal-bashers...people have little to
fear these days from an encraoching liberal tide.
If you haven't figured that out, you're not paying attention.
"Political Correctness" conservative style is by-and-large the
biggest, creepiest threat I've EVER felt and far more realistic a
threat to life and liberty than anything the left has come up
with.
At least the left didn't have a problem with people getting
laid.
|3.7.05 @ 4:42PM|#
"unmonitored loophole of the Internet"
that "dang" Internet again!
Of course she doesn't call for outright restrictions on blogging,
but slipping in the (relatively) discreet and true description of
"unmonitored" implies that something is inherently missing. If she
truly has free speech in mind, she could have easily stated
"unrestricted", "uncensored" or "unadulterated".
And don't get me started on "loophole". . .
|3.7.05 @ 4:55PM|#
Damn, ironchef...you're sounding a lot like that thing from
Dune..."I see plans within plans..."
as for If she truly has free speech in mind, she could have
easily stated "unrestricted", "uncensored" or
"unadulterated".
Come On. You know if she would have said that you would have jumped
on it with phrases like "nanny state".
R C Dean|3.7.05 @ 4:58PM|#
Anyone who calls unrestricted free speech an "unmonitored
loophole" has completely missed the point.
And if you think they aren't on the side of regulatory controls,
you are missing the point as well.
|3.7.05 @ 5:00PM|#
Does "shouting down" now mean "refusing to remain completely
silent when I lie about things you hold dear?"
Well, if it does, by all means let us "shout down" this
article.
|3.7.05 @ 5:02PM|#
I'm not "liberal-bashing" here. The left absolutely prides
itself on tolerance, and yet I find it to be increasingly
intolerant. So Churchill is a hero and Summers is evil? Huh?
Garance basically calls out right-wing blogs not for being wrong on
issues, but for being "partisan operatives whose are as ideological
as they come", a statement which fully applies to left-wing blogs
and the American Prospect as well. Do you not see the hypocrisy
there? She's the pot calling the kettle black...can I even say that
without being labeled a racist?
The right has more than its share of hypocrisy, but generally it's
because they go against their "mantra" of social values and small
government. If this had been a conservative opiner posting about
how wrong it is for the Democrats to increase the size of
governemnt, I'd be talking about that hypocrisy instead.
The right shouts down dissenting viewpoints, but at least that's
consistent with their self-view as moral overseers. Though it may
actually be in direct contrast with their claim of patriotism, a
view which would put them in the same boat as the tolerance
brigade.
I don't disagree that ""Political Correctness" conservative style"
is supremely terrifying, but that doesn't have anything to do with
the topic. Just because I call bull on the left, doesn't mean I'm
"liberal-bashing" or that I agree with the right.
Morat|3.7.05 @ 5:11PM|#
Ah yes. My favorite tactic. Everyone -- but you, of course -- is
equally as bad, so therefore anyone claiming the "other side" is
worse can be dismissed without question as a baseless
partisan.
How thankful I am to live in such an American where I can, blithely
and without need of reflection, know to the core of my being that
left is as bad as right and that I need trouble myself no
further.
For what the right does, the left does in equal measure. I know
this is true, because if it wasn't, I'd have to actually read
articles and think upon them.
No, it's best that they're both equally vile, incorrect,
hypocritical, misbegotten, ignorant, sold-out, extreme, and any
other pejorative you can think of. It really makes you feel so much
more superior to be an independent, doesn't it?
|3.7.05 @ 5:14PM|#
revealing the events of mid-February to have been part of an
ongoing and coordinated proxy war by Republican political
operatives on the so-called liberal media, conducted through the
vast, unmonitored loophole of the Internet.
I thought it might be helpful to put the FULL quote up there for
context.
Considering the author's assertion, I think folks are being just a
little sensitive and irrationally focused on a phrase that dares to
describe their precious internet in terms other than
"wonderful".
Morat|3.7.05 @ 5:16PM|#
On a more serious note: The piece seemed pretty damn
straightforward and unobjectionable. Quite a few of you seem to be
overreacting.
What part of: "Not all bloggers are the 'New Wave' of reporting.
Some of them are hacks. Journalists need to verify which are which,
instead of treating them all the same" is a problem to you?
Is it that the examples of paid political flacks were all on the
"right" side and the leftwing side were a bunch of partisan, but
unaffiliated, bloggers?
Has it occured to you that, maybe, the facts have a liberal bias
here? He seemed to have gotten all the "Blogs Crush Media" stories.
I'm not aware of any he missed.
Nor was his point that "Lefties are pure, Righties are paid hacks".
His point was "They're not all the same, and no journalist should
assume so".
And then to see all the whining about censorship, "shouting down",
and the rest? Overreact much? Damn. I've seen less drama from 13
year old girls.
You'd think the naughty liberal had kicked you in the 'nads.
|3.7.05 @ 5:25PM|#
Matt wrote
For my money, as long as writers are reasonably transparent and
factually accurate, their motivations are a curio, not a
disqualifier (let alone a danger).
As long as one writes with facts and logic that can be verified,
who cares about the motives and/or possible hypocrisy? If a
murderer tells others not to murder, do we question whether the
statement is correct because the one giving it isn't necessarily
the best messenger?
|3.7.05 @ 5:25PM|#
Morat,
I wouldn't say superior, though I am a proud Independent and am
registered as such.
If I feel superior at all, it's in the notion that unlike my more
partison bretheren, I don't simply buy the party line when they
claim that black is white and some such. (No party single out here,
BTW.
And in all fairness, It is not ME that labels me (with venom) a
"liberal" or a "conservative" whenever I dare to disagree with a
particular point...it is my more partisan associates that choose
that approach.
It is not me who utters irrationalities and unpleasant names when I
mention a political figure I do or don't like that happens to
disagree with their POV. I leave that for my more partisan friends
(of which I have VERY few and with whom I avoid politics).
So yes, I DO like being an independant. I'm proud of it.
|3.7.05 @ 5:29PM|#
seems to me mr. morat is overreacting to what others are saying. isn't that a great tactic, a favorite one perhaps?
|3.7.05 @ 5:33PM|#
It really makes you feel so much more superior to be an
independent, doesn't it?
Eeeeeeyup.
|3.7.05 @ 5:53PM|#
In all fairness, morat has made some very good points.
What's lacking can be summed up in this:
"it's best that they're both equally vile, incorrect,
hypocritical, misbegotten, ignorant, sold-out, extreme, and any
other pejorative you can think of.
Morat, a lot of folks feel this way.
Further, many feel that the most crushing limitation of both the
left and the right is that they both see the world in terms of only
themselves and their opposition.
Since alternatives to themselves inevitably become "the opposition"
frankly, it's not the independants fault that:
a. Partisans tend to have a crappily limited view of the
world
b. extreme Partisans are generally no damn fun to hang around when
you're independant enough to point out the loonier prospects of
their philosphy
|3.7.05 @ 5:55PM|#
joe -- Garance is not a "dude," in case there was some confusion
about that....
Comment by: Matt Welch at March 7, 2005 04:39 PM
-------------------------------------------------
Morat -- Garance is a "he."
Comment by: Matt Welch at March 7, 2005 05:23 PM
-------------------------------------------------
O.K....I'm confued here
|3.7.05 @ 6:08PM|#
Matt,
I got that in the response to Joe...my confusion was in your
response to morat...read it. you say "Morat -- Garance is a
"he.""
I'm all clear now
|3.7.05 @ 6:33PM|#
Morat, what exactly are you saying about 13 year old girls? Are
they irrational by nature, or does society make them that way? Does
this end when they turn 18? Do you work at Harvard?
Sorry, wrong thread.
|3.7.05 @ 6:36PM|#
I read the article by Franke-Ruta this morning, and I was
thinking it would be good H&R fodder.
I know she doesn't speak for any Dems other than herself. But
between Robert B. Reich's advocacy of a national ID, and
Franke-Ruta wanting to squash any free speech on the internet, I'm
perplexed. The way to a majority party is certainly not by casting
aside civil liberties.
I also found the Dem attempts to squash Ralph Nader distasteful.
Apparently it was OK for Perot to run, but throw in Nader, and
suddenly they scream "no third parties." Lovely.
|3.7.05 @ 7:08PM|#
madpad: "the left is in a weakened position, does not control
the debate and is in no position to be intolerant these
days."
Obviously you haven't been on a college campus or in a college
course recently.
"'Political Correctness' conservative style is by-and-large the
biggest, creepiest threat I've EVER felt and far more realistic a
threat to life and liberty than anything the left has come up
with."
Then I think you're pretty lucky. What exactly is the threat? Look,
I dislike the rightwing attempts to teach the creation myth as
science, to push the "war on drugs" and to try to stop me from
seeing titties on cable TV as much as the next libertarian, but in
my daily life I'm much more affected by leftwing policies. As
Steven Landsburg noted, there's no danger of my local government
sending me a King James Bible but they do send me a recycling bin
(and in some places it's mandatory!). Whether it's being told how
you can use your property, being denied admission to a school
because of one's race, being told not to smoke on private property,
required to wear one's seatbelt, forced to wait to buy a gun,
compelled to pay the extremely progressive income tax, forced to
comply with voluminous regulations to engage in virtually any
business, even being told how much water we can use when we flush a
toilet for Christ's sake! The litany of leftwing encroachments on
our freedom go on and on and on. So while I am concerned by the
prospect of increasing right-wing interference, they have a long
way to go to come anywhere near what the left has managed to put in
place in terms of government intervention in our daily lives.
And as for the creepiest thing ever - I'd say the left was the
fount from which sprung communist totalitarianism and brutality as
well, which killed far more people in the last century than
anything the rightwing managed to do. Again, not to defend
rightwing excess, but let's not get carried away either. The left
is hardly neutered.
|3.7.05 @ 7:24PM|#
"Does "shouting down" now mean "refusing to remain completely
silent when I lie about things you hold dear?"-joe
No, it means bitching about "partisanship" when someone tells the
truth about your lies.
|3.7.05 @ 9:52PM|#
At least the left didn't have a problem with people getting
laid
Yes they did, if you didn't formally ask permission before
proceeeding through each step.
(As long as one is wielding the broad brush here.)
And the Left sent you to re-education camps to get "sensitivity
training." I or someone I know is more likely to end up in one of
those classes than at Gitmo.
|3.7.05 @ 11:30PM|#
Regarding the comments of both brian and stevo...what the blue
fuck are you talking about?
I'd say the left was the fount from which sprung communist
totalitarianism and brutality as well, which killed far more people
in the last century than anything the rightwing managed to
do.
Think you got your timeline reversed there, buddy. Marxism - mid
1800s, Soviet russia - 1917, communist china - 1920s, American
communists - 1930s, American liberals - 1960s.
Yes they did, if you didn't formally ask permission before
proceeeding through each step...And the Left sent you to
re-education camps to get "sensitivity training."
I was talking about average American liberals, a wide ranging
group, most off whom would be the first to disdain communism.
Not once have I ever heard of an American liberal having to get
permission to have sex with anyone OR being OR wishing anyone to be
sent to a reeducation camp.
So let me get this straight, you're going to automatically assume
that "left" means communism (a stupifyingly dumb assumption) and
characterize any statement about the (obviously American) left as
automatically referring to people embracing communist ideals (an
equally idiotic assumption).
Boys...you need to take off your tin foil hats and come up for
air.
|3.8.05 @ 12:13AM|#
madpad: "Think you got your timeline reversed there, buddy.
Marxism - mid 1800s, Soviet russia - 1917, communist china - 1920s,
American communists - 1930s, American liberals - 1960s"
What "the blue fuck" are you talking about!? Thanks for the
condescending history lesson, buddy, but I really didn't need it.
Where did I reverse anything? I was referring to your post which
said, ugh, need I quote it again: "...anything the LEFT has come up
with" (emphasis mine). Yes, it's a reasonable lefty timeline you
created - but Soviet Communism was certainly leftist, as were all
the other's you point out. I didn't equate them all; that would be
ridiculous. What I did was point out where leftist extremists have
been the cause of a great deal more death than rightist extremists
in the previous century, which clearly refutes your "anything the
left has come up with" comment.
Secondly, that was but an after-thought to the main point of my
post which is in day-to-day life, liberal or leftist or whatever
you want to call them, limitations on our freedom are far greater
than conservative or rightwing limitations.
|3.8.05 @ 1:30AM|#
Oh Christ on His throne! I take it all back. No sooner do I make
that last post and I see over at The Agitator that the Utah senate has
voted to ban internet porn... Ok, the rightwing assault on freedom
is now officially a bigger threat to my day-to-day life than the
lefties.
They'll get my internet porn when they pry it from my cold dead
hand...
Oh come on, I meant the mouse, not THAT! Geez.
|3.8.05 @ 2:40AM|#
Mad, you haven't been paying attention to life in these United
States. Or maybe you were just too little to remember things from
10 years ago -- I don't know how old you are.
Here's the kind of stuff I was referring to:
In 1990, a feminist group from Antioch College demanded that
the administration of the college institute a sexual consent policy
binding upon all Antioch students. The group, Womyn of Antioch,
sought the policy out of frustration after two rapes were reported
that year on campus, neither of which was prosecuted. [A real
problem, granted. Now, here is their solution.] To demonstrate
their resolve, they threatened the college with ?radical, physical
actions? if their demands were not met. The campus furor instigated
by the Womyn of Antioch resulted in a formal "Sexual Consent
Policy," issued in 1992.
From page 1 of the policy:
If the level of sexual intimacy increases during an interaction
(i.e., if two people move from kissing while fully clothed -- which
is one level -- to undressing for direct physical contact, which is
another level), the people involved need to express their clear
verbal consent before moving to that new level. If one person wants
to initiate moving to a higher level of sexual
intimacy in an interaction, that person is responsible for
getting the verbal consent of the other person( s) involved before
moving to that level. (Emphasis in original.)
In other words, it is official university policty that you
have to constantly ask, "May I kiss you on the mouth? May I kiss
you on the neck? May I touch your breast? May I slip my hand down
the back of your jeans?" to ensure you're not raping
somebody.
Source: http://www.enotes.com/rape-campus/ (An article sympathetic
to the policy.)
But at least the Left doesn't have a problem with people getting
laid. Nope. It's only the Right that is dangerously intrusive in
people's sex lives.
"Re-education camps" is an exaggeration. I was actually speaking of
groups of wrong-thinking (or presumed-to-be-wrong-thinking) people
forced to attended classes that are designed to mold their minds in
more politically correct ways -- sometimes as a form of punishment,
sometimes as pre-emptive indoctriniation. Which is, of course, way
different from forced re-education. I expect Larry Summers of
Harvard to be sentenced to such any day now, as part of the price
for keeping his job (if he is offered that option).
http://reason.com/0003/fe.ak.thought.shtml
http://www.alabamascholars.org/page14.html
and Google "mandatory sensitivity training" to find out more about
this stuff that no liberal would ever make people do.
I am, of course, painting with a broad brush -- just like you.
However, like Brian, I think the Left's encroachments on our
freedoms have already embedded themselves pretty deeply in our
institutions, and are therefore the proximate threat.
Meanwhile, the dreaded Right-wing American Taliban has expended
most of its energy over the past 30 years trying to get a human
fetus something like the same legal protection currently enjoyed by
the endangered spiny mussel, without a whole heck of a lot of
success. (And they never will, either, because they are tactical
and P.R. dumbasses.) Ooh, scary, scary.
It's just that I think the drama-queen hysteria I've heard about
"an impending Right-wing theocracy" ever since GWB got elected the
first time, while downplaying what the Left has already done, is
pretty blind.
That's my opinion, anyway. Sorry about the tone, I don't know where
I picked that up.
|3.8.05 @ 7:28AM|#
Stevo,
Understood...but there's painting with a broad brush (I'll plead
nolo contendre) and then there's taking a fringe incident and
making it an example of the whole...
I understand your point but I don't think I'd color the actions of
some fringe extremists as an example of trends in modern
liberalism.
And I'll confess to a little paranoia...I spent time in a
pentacostal church and ever since I left, the right has been a
chafing, creepy influence that (to me anyway) makes nanny state
liberals look like a tea party.
Sorry if my tone was over the top as well.
|3.8.05 @ 12:05PM|#
Madpad, I'll also confess I may be a tad under-sensitive to the
Left's fears of church-going busybodies trying to run their lives,
just because I don't see a lot of that happening around me. Maybe
in other parts of the country (the South? smaller towns?) there's a
bit more church-lady totalitarianism going on.
On the other hand, I did work for a while for a state university,
and while it was nothing like the Lefty-looney-bins some
universities are supposed to be, it was an eye-opener. Most of my
friends are left-liberals, too, so I tend to worry more about
their seemingly pervasively statist opinions, than those
of church-tyrants I've never actually met.
I guess we just tend to be most sensitive to the dangers that we
see actually impinging our own lives -- that goes for you, me,
Brian and everybody.
Anyway, thanks for seeing my point of view. And actually a little
over-the-topness can be kind of fun, as long as none of use are
hurt when we pick ourselves up and dust ourselves off
afterward.
Morat|3.8.05 @ 12:42PM|#
Oh no! Some college did something stupid which PROVES ALL
LIBERALS ARE THE SUXXOR!
Jesus Christ, stereotype much?
|3.8.05 @ 1:59PM|#
It's not a unique event, but representative of a much broader
trend. Ever hear of "political correctness on campus"?
Zeus and Zoroaster, read the paper much? :)
|3.8.05 @ 2:00PM|#
Stevo,
True, a little over the top can be fun.
I don't know about your leftist friends - I tend to have a lot of
rightist friends (though I have no idea why). Sadly, I can no
longer talk reasonably about politics with most of them so I avoid
the topics.
Glad this board is here...look forward to sparring with you
again.
|3.8.05 @ 2:40PM|#
Madpad -- One of my leftist friends and I, we used to work late
a lot, and around midnight we'd hang it up, have a couple scotches
on the rocks, and debate gun control, free-market capitalism,
pacifism, the land-mine ban, France, all kinds of stuff, from
opposite sides. We both just enjoyed the give and take, without
taking anything very personally, and not really expecting to change
each other's minds -- it was just good "exercise."
I really miss that.
Years later, he has moved on to another job, but we were both at a
gathering of friends on the lake, and at night we're all sitting on
the dock drinking beers. The subject of gun control comes up, and
I'm the only one who doesn't think concealed carry is a terrible
idea and that gun-owners just have a penis problem. But what the
hell, I decide to just be quiet and listen to everyone else rant
about it -- dammit, I'm on vacation. Lo and behold if my
lefty friend doesn't speak up with a mildly pro-gun position. So,
you never know who you might influence if you can find someone even
remotely receptive.
Morat|3.8.05 @ 3:37PM|#
It's not a unique event, but representative of a much
broader trend. Ever hear of "political correctness on
campus"?
*snort*. It's not "representative of a trend" so much as it is
"lazy-ass stereotyping".
How pathetic is this? Your all in a twitter about the occasionaly
antics of some idiotic college or something. Yes, indeed, one
college or another doing something ridiculous and then getting
slapped about in the media for it IS indicative of a trend towards
the leftist destruction of the United States!
Yadda-yadda-yadda. Do you really expect to be taken seriously? Do
you even take yourself seriously? How can you and spew such
pathetic bullshit? I've seen smaller leaps of logic by
Creationists.
|3.8.05 @ 5:27PM|#
morat,
Even though I agree with you...we get it. Stereotyping is bad.
Let's move on, shall we. I'll give you one thing...you sure are
passionate.
Stevo,
To your last nicely illustrated post, I hoist a single malt in your
general direction and follow it up with a "Hmmmmm...I'll have to
give that some thought..."
|3.8.05 @ 9:37PM|#
Morat:
Do you really expect to be taken seriously?
Yes. Kneel before Zod!
Do you even take yourself seriously?
Actually, not nearly as much as you do.
I've seen smaller leaps of logic by Creationists.
Hey, watch it -- now you're, you're ...
stereotyping!
-----------------
Actually, is stereotyping always bad? Isn't your blanket
condemnation a stereotypical stereotyping of stereotypes?
OK, that's enough for tonight.
---------------
Madpad:
Morat's passion reminds me of my friend's, and that was part of the
fun -- but your civility reminds me of the underlying respect that
kept it fun. Hasta la vista.
Morat|3.9.05 @ 12:25PM|#
Eh, if it wasn't for the idiocy at work I wouldn't be wound up
in the first place.
Tell you what, if you promise to think dark thoughts about my boss,
I'll promise to go have a beer. :)
|3.9.05 @ 4:04PM|#
Geez, what's this love-fest going on here? Can we please get
back to smacking each other - I'm starting to feel ill... :-)
Oh, I give up. Bartender, a round of Guinness for everyone!
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245