Flogged and Blogged

One of the more interestings to do in Hooville could be to visit the political forum, where members exchange their ideas on politics, religion and more.

Mirroring society at large, however, this forum is increasingly being given over to long quotes from different internet bloggers. It may be that the local Hooville posters feel that this blog expresses their idea better than they could, but, at the rate it is going, original thought from members of the board may be a thing of the past.

Personally, I can read blogs anywhere. But I come here to listen to what the guys in Hooville think on the subject.

I said much the same thing, but to no avail.

I agree. Mostly because leftist extremists offer no more credible evidence than their Ann Coulter counterparts. Relying on the fringe elements for factual interpretation is silly.

Recently, my Nephew asked me to comment on a paper he had written for his 9th grade social studies class. His references were from leftist blogs, and had previously been accepted by his teacher as credible sources. I have since written an anonymous letter to this teacher addressing my concerns, and questioning if he would accept the same quality sources from their counterparts on the far right.

I myself enjoy, and can often relate to biased leftist blogs. However, most 9th graders are not equipped with the ability to filter the facts from the fiction. I guess that applies to adults as well though.

Big surprise that I'd disagree with you on this non-issue Lucky. Over at MuscleService.Com, participants regularly post articles and columns from the mainstream press and blogs which initiate some sort of debate/discussion without anyone complaining about such postings. Invariably if you do start a discussion of a summarized article, someone immediately jumps in wanting link to the source of the article or to sources supporting your opinion. Contrary to what some may think, this doesn't mean I'm mindlessly adopting someone else's opinion as my own. Sometimes the articles don't really warrant debate/discussion, but are more for entertainment purposes.

Interestingly, I find that most of the detractors of such a discussion-starting practice are quick to dismiss an article or opinion from a blog by labeling it as "leftist" without ever attempting to discuss the substance of the piece.

If I find an interesting article or column somewhere, regardless of where it's found and I'd like to see what others think about it, it's simply easier to post said article rather summarizing it myself and let the discussion/debate go from there.

I've found that MediaMatters.org regularly compares how mostly right wing/conservative media types characterize what liberals/progressives have said on a issue by comparing side-by-side what (for example) Ann Coulter said to reality of documented facts/transcripts. The other blogs I regularly visit, Americablog.org, dailykos.com, SmirkingChimp.com often post articles and columns from magazines or newspapers that I'd otherwise not be aware.

Finally, I appreciate it when someone posts an article from a site with which I may have been unfamiliar. Such was the case with one of my favorites RudeOne at http://www.rudepundit.blogspot.com with which I was unfamiliar until someone posted an article from there in the Politics & Religion forum at MuscleService. I find it quite valuable in getting a variety of opinions in one place without having to visit a hundred different blogs a day.

RE: Lucky's record on "original thought" !

Let's look at Lucky's record on "original thought" from topics he's started just this year:

Jan. 5 "Tom DeLay...Mental Patient" >> Entire post consisted of 2 sentences.

Jan. 7 "IOKKIYAR" >> 2 sentence intro and then Paul Krugman's entire column

Jan. 12 "Boston Guy's Post" >> nothing about nothing from Boston Guy's post?

Jan. 20 "Fearmongering" >> 2 sentence intro plus entire Boston Globe article

Feb. 4 "Scary News on Chertoff" >> 2 sentence intro plus entire article from L.A. Times

Feb. 7 "Guns in the Workplace" >> 6 sentence intro and link to CBS article

Feb. 10 "Lynn Stewart...Convicted" >> excerpts Wash. Post

Mar. 2 "Why Bother" >> scintillating topic as to why people get into "scraps with Dougie"

Mar. 11 "Dirty Cops" >> 2 sentence intro and entire article from the NY Times

Mar. 15 "Schwarzenegger..." >> 5 sentence intro to quotes from L.A. Times and link to article

Mar. 15 "Big Mouth..." >> entire article from Washington Post, not one original word or thought

RE: Lucky's record on "original thought" !

You have ENTIRELY too much time on your hands.

Contrary to what some may think, this

>doesn't mean I'm mindlessly adopting someone else's opinion as

>my own. Sometimes the articles don't really warrant

>debate/discussion, but are more for entertainment purposes.

Notice how JeffOH, in listing the blogs he reads regularly, reveals that the only opinions to which he exposes himself are ones comprised of people who agree with him completely and who simply re-inforce his liberal views (MediaMatters.org, Americablog.org, dailykos.com, SmirkingChimp.com). That's seriously sad and dangerous, but hardly uncommon.

How could anyone purposely confine oneself to hearing and reading views that one already agrees with? Aside from making you worthlessly insular, uncritical, and uncertain of your own perspectives, doesn't it also bore you to death?

The reason why rational, constructive political dialogue is so impossible in this country is because so many people confine themselves to places bulging solely with like-minded drones, where anyone who deviates at all from the prevailing orthodoxy is, at best, a "troll," and more likely a "lying, stupid, sick, brainwashed idiot."

If the only places people hang out are places where the other side's views are distorted, maligned, hated or just ignored, it's hardly surprising that such people are incapable of any sort of critical thought or rational discussion. After all, if the other side are "evil, stupid, lying Nazis," why should anyone bother having discourse with the other side. The only thing you do with EvilStupidLyingNazis is throw insults - or rocks - at them.

While blogs can be quite valuable in lots of ways - I read them daily, particularly the ones I disagree with - they are becoming a refuge for people on both sides of the political spectrum where the participants can interact only with those who already agree with everything they think and where they can do so at the basest and most uncritical level.

That just makes the population increasingly ill-informed, insulated and unaware - and yet also increasingly strident and hate-filled. That's a really bad combination.

The sites I listed are among those that I just happen to visit every day. These sites often list links to columns and articles by conservatives. The few Republicans on MuscleService.com post articles by conservatives that I read and we discuss/debate. I also regularly (at least 2x a week), check out conservative sites such as, Accuracy in Media and Powerline. I also regularly (weekly) read the columns of Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Cal Thomas, Charles Krauthammer and Bob Novak. On television, I regularly (often daily) watch Crossfire, Hannity & Colmes, Scarborough Country, Bill O'Reilly, Connected with Ron Reagan Jr. & Monica Crowley and occasionally some other shows on Fox News. I purposely make an effort to see what the opposing views are. I'm certainly not, "ill informed or insulated or unaware".

Thanks for turning on to the rudepundit.com ... I really enjoy it!

>Thanks for turning on to the rudepundit.com ... I really

>enjoy it!

You're welcome Joel. I particularly liked A Great Big Fist Job about Karl Rove from 3/23.}(

RE: For example...

Here's one of those opposing views that I found on Powerline just after I'd read Maureen's column.

Dowd and Cole race to the bottom

Which offering about the Terri Schiavo case is more foolish, this one by far-left professor Juan Cole or this one by the increasingly incoherent Maureen Dowd? Both argue the same thing -- that by passing a law authorizing the federal courts to review the Schiavo case, the Republican-dominated Congress has adopted the tactics of Muslim fundamentalists and moved us closer to a theocracy.

Cole may fancy himself a terrific Arab linguist, but he is clueless when it comes American law. His argument is that the Republicans have embraced the Muslim fundamentalist practice of "using the courts to intervene in the private lives of others." What Cole fails to grasp is that the Schiavo matter was always a matter that the courts would decide, and had in fact been decided by the courts before Congress ever became involved. All Congress did was to authorize a different court to decide the matter. In my view, Congress should not have interfered. But Cole displays an astonishing level of ignorance when he claims this congressional action has caused courts to intervene in a private life in which courts hadn't previously been involved.

But at least Cole tries to locate his claims that Congress acted theocratically in a discussion of Muslim theology. Dowd's identical claim seems to be located only in hysteria she makes no attempt to hide (her opening line is "Oh my God, we really are in a theocracy"). Needless to say, Dowd never presents an argument as to how having the federal courts examine Schiavo's case constitutes the establishment of a theocracy. Now, I understand that Dowd has one of those endowed journalistic chairs, the occupant of which is never required to make an argument. But what would her argument be? That when people with strong religious beliefs try to add an extra layer of judicial review to make sure that innocent life isn't terminated based on erroneous factual conclusions, this represents a step towards theocracy? That's is an absurd position even by Dowd's standards.

The remainder of Dowd's piece demonstrates just how low those standards are. Much of it consists of the ad hominem attacks on Tom DeLay and Bill Frist. There's also a claim that they have put the Constitution on life support -- one that Dowd declines to support with any semblance of a constitutional argument.

But what really caught my eye was Dowd's cheap but inevitable comparison of Schiavo's case to Bush v. Gore. She writes: "The first time [Republicans] snatched a case out of a Florida state court to give to a federal court, it was Bush v. Gore. This time it's Bush v. Constitution." What Dowd overlooks, of course, is that Supreme Court review of state court decisions does not constitute "snatching" a case out of state court. Under our constitutional system, the Supreme Court sits as the final arbiter of certain types of state court decisions. But one wouldn't expect Dowd to know, or care about, this basic fact. It's enough that she was clever enough to connect, however superficially, her present grievance to the original sin from which all else flows -- the election of President Bush.

Posted by deacon at 09:37 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

stirring the pot

My good friend Lucky chided me recently for my being absent so much.

So I wander in and what do I find? My good friend stirring the pot.

One of the things I appreciate about Lucky.

Well, you have stirred it up this time desert fox.

I think the more opinions you read, the more opinions you read. There is little discourse in this country today that isn't a rehash of talking points.

Doug is right when he intimates that the only way to have an informed opinion is to research both sides.

I saw an acquaintance last Saturday at breakfast who insisted on joining me at my table. He and I used to spar on politics until it became too tedious for me to listen to the same rants without ever being listened to.

Of course the current topic of the day was the Schiavo(sp?) case, and in his haste to condemn any and all who might disagree, my acquaintance went so far as to compare Shiavo's husband to Scott Peterson. At that point I was finished with breakfast and his opinion.

As for citing sources or reprinting blogs, I enjoy reading direct sources, but please, Please, PLEASE, don't make me listen to (or read) more than five minutes of Rush.

RE: Lucky's record on "original thought" !

Erik,

I agree.This Ohio guy tries to dominate the entire board.

And Oh My God, if you dare to have an opinion different from his, be ready to receive some of his intollerance and personal attacks.

RE: Lucky's record on "original thought" !

Trust me, I've received them!

Thanks for showing I'm not completely insane.

Totally agree Lucky. I click on here and read 2 or 3 times a week.

I've learned to just skip all those treatises posted by OhioJeff that just reinforce his hate of other people.

>>Thanks for turning on to the rudepundit.com ... I really

>>enjoy it!

>

>You're welcome Joel. I particularly liked A Great Big Fist Job

>about Karl Rove from 3/23.}(

I've been going through the archives, and I can't get away from the damn computer.

I'd love to go to dinner with this guy and get shitty drunk at a bar with him. He appears to have the NY sense of humor and sarcastic wit that I miss here in SF. All accomplished with a fun writing style and evidence to back up arguments.

RE: Lucky's record on "original thought" !

>if you dare to have an opinion different from his, be ready to receive some of his intollerance and personal attacks.<

Funny. That's exactly why I come to this forum! I love to spar with the opposition. And honestly, my joel304 moniker is never offended.

Unfortunately there's not much that can be done with extremist like JeffOhio that post huge amounts of blogger stuff on this site.

I just skip over all his hate postings and read original thoughts and ideas from the sane guys here.

From the regular guys here I usually get a new perspective on a topic and always get 1 or 2 good laughs. Thank you and Please keep it coming.

From Jeff's own statements he spends many hours a day viewing, reading, and writing far out political stuff. From his picture

it appears he needs to spend some of that time in the gym

working on his body. If he ever breaks away from his routine and comes to Atlanta, I'll line him up with a buddy who's a personal trainer.

>Unfortunately there's not much that can be done with

>extremist like JeffOhio that post huge amounts of blogger

>stuff on this site.

>I just skip over all his hate postings and read original

>thoughts and ideas from the sane guys here.

>From the regular guys here I usually get a new perspective on

>a topic and always get 1 or 2 good laughs. Thank you and

>Please keep it coming.

>

>From Jeff's own statements he spends many hours a day

>viewing, reading, and writing far out political stuff. From

>his picture

>it appears he needs to spend some of that time in the gym

>working on his body. If he ever breaks away from his routine

>and comes to Atlanta, I'll line him up with a buddy who's a

>personal trainer.

Peter Head Atlanta:

What great gems of wisdom have you managed to post in your whopping 26 efforts at the message center, other than to bitch, whine and moan? None that I can see. Instead, you just piss and moan about long posts or things shared here that offend your Southern redneck sensibilities. Why don't you go on out to the cement pond beside your doublewide trailer and have a few Pabst Blue Ribbons, and leave the intelligent discussion to others. Your ignorance is showing. If you don't like what you see here, then please go away.

So, deej, would this be appropriate to issue an alert?

If you actually read the blogs, you might find that they're often informing, entertaining, and factually correct.

LMAO....let the boo-hooing began,next will be wahhhh everyone picks on me...jessshhh what a putz this ho is.

Why can't people just stick up for themselves in a politics forum? Baby bullshit! If your moniker is offended easily, go to another forum and leave the moderators alone.

dude, he said that people "alerted" the moderators to something I posted. I'm pretty sure it paled in comparison to Bucky's attack on someone just because he lives in the South.

Relax. I haven't "alerted" anyone to anything, but merely pointed out the hypocrisy of the situation.

I make it a point not to respond to you, but that was exactly my point.