Am I Right Or Wrong?
I'm still parsing my recent experience where, in the wake of disagreeing with something I wrote, instead of merely disagreeing in a civilized way, as individuals, the "progressives" at a site I now refer to as Sadly Pathetic sent over the 7,000 dwarves to try to disrupt my blog.
These tiny little thugs posted numerous pieces of 30-page spam in nonsense characters, and spam with long, copied and recopied pieces about communism, referring to various blog commenters here. They posted numerous comments that said nothing, in some tired in-joke pseudonym lots of them use (I guess as a way of saying, "Hah! We peed on your tree!"), and then sent over people who either are the dimmest humans I've ever encountered who aren't in group homes, or who were trying to suck my time in hopes of making me re-explain what was explained plainly in the blog item above where they posted their utterly dim and contradictory assumptions.
And then, brilliantly, as their way of criticizing me for supposedly being racist (and read the post at the link -- I'm clearly not), they posted comments about how I have an ass so huge Christo couldn't cover it (which might be a hurtful remark if I didn't weigh what I weighed in high school as a skinny little redhead). And then there was lots of stuff about how I'm a male-to-female transsexual (intended to be derogatory, but which I simply see as a statement of untruth). Meanwhile, of all the people in the world who have it rough, people who are born one sex but feel they are truly another...the "progressives" are trying to use being transgendered as a weapon against me. Nice!
But, back to the whole right/left thing, as I posted at the link above:
The worst thing about this for me is learning how naive I've been in pooh-poohing right-wingers when they tell me how the real fascists are on the left. Again, I take people as individuals, but I've learned that there are a whole lot of people who call themselves "progressives" and "liberals" who see speech they disagree with not as a reason to speak out themselves, but as a reason to work very hard to intimidate the person who's spoken from speaking their mind again.
I just had an interesting exchange with Steve Miller in the comments (below the entry in the link above). Steve writes:
Yikes! This is why I don't blog.It's intimidation, and it occurs in business, too. Raise a question about Obama at any business where the default position is lazy leftist, and immediately you are asked why you believe torture is OK. Because Obama is against torture, and McCain is for it.
I see fairly civil discussions on right-leaning sites between leftists and rightists.
What leftist site permits rightists to speak freely with civility in the answers? TPM? FireDogLake? Huffington Post? Daily Kos?
Posted by: steve miller at August 20, 2008 8:58 AM
I responded:
This is what I talked about last night in my French class (filled with leftists, and the only woman who is not a leftist was not there). They insisted, utterly without experience in the blog world, that there are "cons" (assholes) left and right. But, actually, my experience has been what yours is, steve miller, and I'm saddened by it.Why do you think it is that right-wing people can think I'm an idiot and merely blog about it, or discuss it, and left-wing people take it to another level (and no, not all people). But I made it plain to right-wing friends that I voted for that sleazebag John Kerrey (I couldn't vote for the fundamentalist, anti-science George Bush), and before him Al Gore, and before him Bill Clinton. I'm sure they all think I'm terribly misguided for my votes, but they still speak to me.
Meanwhile, two left-wing friends stopped speaking to me when I voted for...that Lyndon LaRouche of California politics...Arnold Schwarzenegger!
Unbelievable.
Or...not, really.
Posted by: Amy Alkon at August 20, 2008 9:04 AM
UPDATE: The tiny little thugs posted some vast pieces of spam while I was at the bank. They have been deleted. Please refresh your browser and they should disappear. Other vast pieces of spam will be dealt with accordingly. Refresh, refresh! -Amy
Amy, Amy, Amy. You really don't know when to shut up, do you? This really, really has nothing to do with your political views. You can be a racist glibertarian prick all you want, we don't care. When someone lightly trolls you and you go off like fucking Old Faithful, then, yeah, we care. And when you keep going on and on, repeatedly mentioning this, interspersed with (empty, and we know it) threats by you and your sycophants to track us down and make us pay, then, well, we feel like we have to teach you a lesson.
You haven't learned yet, have you? Shame.
Seven Thousand Dwarves at August 20, 2008 10:25 AM
I am hopeful that you are wrong, and you are experiencing a sampling bias. When I visit rightwing sites, I see very similar behavior.
I also tend to note that most right wing sites and feminist sites tend to require logins, tend to disallow anonymous commenters, tend to delete comments and ban commenters, and tend to use these pile-on techniques to stifle dissent.
I seem to see that most left wing sites allow anonymous commenters and don't require login, and more and more they tend to delete comments and ban commenters, and tend to use these pile-on techniques to stifle dissent.
I am not hopeful that I am right, however.
And I am bothered by how much of a mob mentality the typical internet forum has become.
I think "K" explained it well:
Edwards: Why the big secret? People are smart. They can handle it.
K: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.
Perhaps unrelated: I tend to undress people in my mind, but I usually don't see naked humans, but I do see a bunch of dumb hairy apes, and many silverbacks, wannabes, and fights over who is to be a silverback.
In a sense we are seeing "Absolute power corrupts, absolutely" as people find out what they can do through group, mostly anonymous, attacks.
And in another sense, it's just Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory, which is non-partisan.
Seven Thousand Dwarves we feel like we have to teach you a lesson. As K said, "People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals" and a nice demonstration of a Lesser Internet Fuckwad.
jerry at August 20, 2008 10:47 AM
I've only commented on one post before now, but I faithfully read your blog, and I am truly sorry that you're slogging through the muck. I'm not part of your core community of commenters, but maybe it would help to know that even though some of us are silent, we're solidly on your side.
My belief is that a very large percentage of the lefty type at issue (and what a delight to see the first commenter doing such a bang-up job of illustrating the baffling behavior you've aptly described) are individuals under the age of 30 (and that might be a tad high - maybe younger than 25?). Lack of life experiences that bring real perspective (things like years working on a career [or losing one, or starting anew], marriage/long-term relationship, divorce, raising kids, encountering illness and death among friends and family, etc) is one of the culprits.
When we're younger, we think we know everything. What's worse is that when we're that young and oh-so-smart, we'll never consider another POV, and we'll never admit that maybe - just maybe - we should give some credence to the idea that we're not yet fully formed adults. We've just built this fragile world view (after countless hours in the classroom), and we're not ready to see it toppled.
Add to it that glib snarkiness has replaced excellent debating skills, and you're left with not only ignorance, but a fairly nasty delivery of that ignorance. I don't know about you, but when I read this drivel, it sits like a rock in my gut. I feel sad and sick about the loss of reason, the absence of logic, and the AWOL status of the ability under all circumstances to maintain civility. Maybe if we had to look each other in the eye, we'd be more respectful of one another.
Your honesty is deeply appreciated, and your refusal to be bullied is especially important right now.
buckkel at August 20, 2008 11:00 AM
Wow weird, Bukkel. I wrote your comment almost point for point on a previous entry. Yay for like-minded individuals. :)
As for shouting-down dissenters, it's obviously not just a left-wing issue. Try watching Fox News. I noticed the other day that Fox News no longer feels that two people yelling ("debating") is good enough. They had two FULL SCREENS of people yelling, at least eight different people!
I was horrified. Who watches that stuff?
Homeless in Seattle at August 20, 2008 11:33 AM
Oops. I meant "buckkel" of course.
Proofreading skills- I don't has them. :)
Homeless in Seattle at August 20, 2008 11:35 AM
There's perhaps a lot to what buckkel says, but this:
a very large percentage ... are individuals under the age of 30....
...
Add to it that glib snarkiness has replaced excellent debating skills, and you're left with not only ignorance, but a fairly nasty delivery of that ignorance.
Reminds me an awful lot of what Geoffrey Nunberg has described as the death of good speech making skills, last seen in JFK. His view is that between TV, Vietnam, and Watergate, we lost the ability to give good speeches or listen to them. And I would add the rise of TV certainly gives lots of rewards to fun and snarky over boring old dialog.
jerry at August 20, 2008 11:35 AM
"Yay", indeed, H-in-S. Very happy to hear that I inadvertently reinforced your point.
You're right - it's not wholly a left-wing issue. Incivility exists at all points on the political spectrum.
What I've never understood is this: If the idea is to persuade the other guy that your evaluation is right or partially so, and his is wrong or partially so, then might it be that screaming isn't the way to entice him into accepting your position????
We all know folks who are dug in - they're not budging, no matter how much evidence is piled against their flimsy arguments. They are benefiting in some way by remaining rigid, and until that benefit no longer exists, it's probably best shut down the topic, and move on to something you can agree on. You can revisit the topic later - albeit, in some cases, MUCH later.
buckkel at August 20, 2008 11:50 AM
Little kids like to throw rocks at windows - but usually don't because they might get caught. In the Internet, childish people are in no danger of getting caught when they misbehave.
As you've discovered, responding is exactly the wrong thing to do - it gives them the attention they apparently crave. Just quietly delete their comments, ban the repeat offenders, and otherwise pretend they don't exist.
bradley13 at August 20, 2008 12:04 PM
That's not the idea though, buckkel. The idea is that posting a ton of garbage characters in the comments section of someone's blog and then going to the blog and saying "see I told you I could get you" (not always in that order-as illustrated above) is somehow going to ruin Amy's life.
As near as I can tell, this stems from the belief that THE INTERNET IS GOD. "Leik, OMFG i can hurt u w/ thees commnts"-god. And somehow people are supposed to give a rat's ass that you took the time to go to someone's blog and post a bunch of nonsense characters?
The one (and I do think it's one, at the most two or three) person who who purports to hate Amy and all "racist bigotry" she stands for, her entire ideology and all of her opinions...is the one person spending the most time here. Ironic, no?
Learn. To. Read.
Homeless in Seattle at August 20, 2008 12:23 PM
Seven Thousand Dolts said:
I concur with some of the other comments I've read regarding these mindless, immature, children.
Someone said, "I feel like I have rock in my gut" after reading something one of the trolls said as he slobbered all over himself.
One of the emails they sent to Amy literally made me sick to my stomach. Not because it was offensive, but rather, because it was obviously so mindless.
It spanned about a page, and I could deduce that the LW was beyond convinced that he sounded intelligent, articulate, and funny.
When in fact, the entire letter was pointless, without logic and reason, and lacked any signs of intelligence and critical thinking skills.
Speaking as someone with more than 15 years of IT experience, I disagree with ignoring this from an administrative point of view.
The fact is, as Amy becomes more and more popular, she will experience more and more attacks. That said, it's wise to work through the attacks so as to find a permanent solution.
As time passes, Gregg and team will have the necessary countermeasures in place to stop these children from playing. Moreover, future attacks against her will be more difficult.
Tony Fantetti at August 20, 2008 12:34 PM
Contrary to what these "hacker-wannabees" would have everyone believe, they are not some IT intellectual giants with "God-like" IT skills.
It takes very little to no skill to attack a blog like Amy's that doesn't require an ID to post a comment.
They are merely using "spambots" (software) to SPAM Amy's blog. There are two ways to stop it.
1. Require your users to login before they can post. Everyone, including I, hates this.
2. Withstand attacks until you've "tweaked" all of the necessary filters so that your software automatically blocks the attacks for you.
If those at Simply Stupid who are attacking Amy were true IT people with respectable "hacking" skills. They wouldn't be attacking blogs that don't require a login.
Why don't they attack the blogs (whose writers they disagree with) that require a login? They don't have the skill! It's as simple as that.
Tony Fantetti at August 20, 2008 12:48 PM
Actually the lack-of-maturity level is quite laughable. I am reminded of one of my nieces, who, when told by one of my daughters to be quiet, stuck her fingers in her ears, ala Eddie Murphy, and started chanting "lalalalalalalala". Makes about as much sense, and produces pretty much the same result. My niece got a smack on her behind. The trolls need a serious ass kicking. Not that it would do any good. o_O
Flynne at August 20, 2008 12:51 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/08/20/am_i_right_or_w.html#comment-1583431">comment from Seven Thousand DwarvesAmy, Amy, Amy. You really don't know when to shut up, do you? This really, really has nothing to do with your political views. You can be a racist glibertarian prick all you want, we don't care. When someone lightly trolls you and you go off like fucking Old Faithful, then, yeah, we care. And when you keep going on and on, repeatedly mentioning this, interspersed with (empty, and we know it) threats by you and your sycophants to track us down and make us pay, then, well, we feel like we have to teach you a lesson. You haven't learned yet, have you? Shame.
All I ever cared about was the spam on my site, the multiple inane postings in the inane in-joke name that 52-year-old and 62-year-old losers from SadlyNo! were mucking up my comments section with, and the butt-dumb commenters who are either actually retarded or just trying to waste my time. Now that I've got that under control, I'm fine, and I actually went over to Tiny Little Turdville yesterday, where, shockingly, the attention was focused on someone other than me, and left a couple of comments along the lines of:
Hey, what about me?! Me! Me! Me!
Don't you get it? I am totally jazzed that you guys care enough to blog about me and leave THOUSANDS of comments about me, my looks, my beliefs, and the size of my actually quite tiny, shapely and very hard little ass.
I took the pictures of me you losers spent a considerable time Photoshopping to my French class last night and passed them around, showed them to my friend the cop, and just showed them to my wonderful new banker and to a a screenwriter/director friend I just ran into. He's European, and a lefty, and couldn't believe what idiots Americans are. I reminded him that these particular idiots are leftists, and he told me he's dropping off a gift certificate for an hour-and-a-half massage for me to make up for it.
I've also had a number of people who feel sorry for what I've been going through spamwise leave me contributions on Amazon from $1 to $50.
Oh, and I forgot one hilarious thing: All you tiny little turds with tiny little turd brains sending me these little protest e-mails after I ban your dumb, turdy asses from my site and you can no longer bring down the level of the discussion here with your stupidity...anyway, the e-mails all say, "You...you! Clearly you're not for freedom of speech if you ban us!"
Message to the dim: I totally support your right to open up a blog and post facts about me that actually match reality (aka "tell the truth"), and to criticize me in any way you damn well please, including parodying me, my dog, my car, my collection of Empreinte bras, and my site.
Because I am not dumb like those coming over from Sadly Pathetic, no, I am not going to pay for the bandwith for you to ruin the discussion on my site. Shocking, isn't it?
Oh, and in case you were wondering, I just banned your IP. You clearly do not meet the required intelligence level to be part of my comments section.
Kisses! -The Advice Goddess
Amy Alkon at August 20, 2008 1:03 PM
I'm ROTFL Amy! "Oh, and in case you were wondering, I just banned your IP."
There is nothing more satisfying than uttering those words to an immature, intellectually paralyzed, wannabe hacker.
One whose hacking "skills" amount to nothing more than launching a program on a computer, typing in a web address, and having the software program do all the work that you are too stupid to do in the first place. That same work that you take credit for.
What these technically-challenged clowns have done is akin to the following: It's like sicking your attack dog on someone you disagree with, then taking credit for the injuries your dog (more intelligent than you) inflicted upon the other person.
Welcome to the world of IT Administration Amy! I didn't realize that you too were involved in the technical side. My apologies for ignorantly assuming that you were not.
In defense of my ignorance though, I assumed you weren't involved with Administration not for lack of intelligence, but for lack of time! Do you sleep?
Tony Fantetti at August 20, 2008 1:20 PM
Back in the old days, we had the killfile.
The internet needs a global killfile.
brian at August 20, 2008 1:32 PM
"he's dropping off a gift certificate for an hour-and-a-half massage for me to make up for it.
I've also had a number of people who feel sorry for what I've been going through spamwise leave me contributions on Amazon from $1 to $50."
With all due respect, it sound like you're in debt to Sadly, No. Also, surely your traffic has increased due to all the attention. if this keeps up you can get advertisers to pay for your bandwidth.
And, if I may be so bold, it's a bit unseemly to complain about them commenting here if you are going to make taunting comments at their website.
Hope this doesn't get me tossed in the Ban-o-matic.
ignatov at August 20, 2008 2:06 PM
While I was writing my post about a million nasty spams popped up all around. Oof. This is totally uncool.
ignatov at August 20, 2008 2:22 PM
Deleted. Took me about six seconds. Gave me pleasure that they are going to the trouble to proxy up and then post multiple times.
Attention for me! More, more, more!
Every post they make tells me how important I am to them, which I find completely hilarious and rather ego-massaging.
P.S. When you see tiny turdboys' posts, just refresh your browser periodically, as I delete them when I see them, and get great satisfaction out of doing it, I must add!
Amy Alkon at August 20, 2008 2:26 PM
Hey, Brian, I sorta like your blog, even though I'm a liberal. This is totally cool:
"Until the Republican Part decides to embrace the principle of smaller government, please refrain from sending me further surveys or requests for donations."
Bravo! So are you not voting this year or what? Voting for Bob Barr?
ignatov at August 20, 2008 2:38 PM
Anyway, Amy, I'm amused (in a good way) to read that that was actually you over in Sadly, No! I actually thought that was a dead-on, if uncharitable, parody of your recent discourse.
From a just-deleted/banned anonyweenie from SadlyPathetic.
If I'm going to say something to somebody, I'll say it in my own name. Count Chocula, or whatever you called yourself.
What would you do with yourself if you weren't obsessed with me?
Amy Alkon at August 20, 2008 3:23 PM
Amy,
Far be it from me to ask you to "take one for the team," but please don't let these lizards shut you up.
For the record, I would stand up for their right to their spewage if someone were to try to "punish them" for what they have to say.
But in your case, its not just the principle - what you have to say is often IMO 100% correct, someone needs to say it, and people listen to you.
I've disagreed with you too, and I say that only to dissuade any readers from accusing me of "ditto'ing" you. But a lot of what you have to say is overdue, spot on and 100% accurate. As evidence, I present the reaction you have gotten. They aren't over at the truly racist sites - the ones nobody reads. Because they know those people are just preaching to the choir anyway, they aren't a threat. But you are another matter.
WolfmanMac at August 20, 2008 3:29 PM
Thanks, WolfmanMac...and I won't let them shut me up. I actually take great pleasure out of deleting them.
Amy Alkon at August 20, 2008 3:42 PM
I just said I wasn't giving them money. I probably won't vote for any downticket Republicans, especially given that in CT they are virtually indistinguishable from Democrats.
Bob Barr is a crank. Ron Paul is a lunatic. Barack Obama is a Socialist. John McCain is unreliable.
But given the available options, I have to go for the one that will do the least damage to me personally, so I have to hold my nose and vote for McCain. My vote is likely to be nullified by the state I live in, but there it is.
A protest vote, in an election where the likely beneficiary of the protest was harmless, would be sensible. But I have to vote my own self interest, and Obama has already stated that he intends to do me and my fellow small businessmen harm, so I must vote defensively.
And thanks for pointing out my typo. I'll go fix it.
brian at August 20, 2008 3:42 PM
Didnt obama aslo mention expanding title 9 to cover acidemic programs as well?
lujlp at August 20, 2008 3:58 PM
"I probably won't vote for any downticket Republicans"
Yeah, that seems to be the general consensus.
"Obama has already stated that he intends to do me and my fellow small businessmen harm"
Do you make more than a quarter million a year? If not, Obama says he will drop your taxes. Hey, I'm an entrepreneur myself. Can you really argue that the Republicans have helped small businessmen over the last 30 years?
If you have to hold your nose and vote for somebody, why not Obama?
ignatov at August 20, 2008 4:02 PM
Why? I don't believe him. I know for a fact that when Obama gets through with the economy, we'll be pining for the halcyon days of the Carter administration.
Obama might not hurt me directly (although the probability of his raising taxes on a much larger set of people is 1.0), but he's going to hurt my customers, which is going to hurt me as a second-order effect.
Casting a vote that indirectly leads to an Obama win is not in my interest.
Yes, that's the "a vote for !McCain is a vote for Obama" fallacy. It just happens to be statistically true, even if it isn't logically true.
brian at August 20, 2008 4:33 PM
Okay, keep trusting the Republicans. Its going great so far.
ignatov at August 20, 2008 5:01 PM
It isn't a matter of trust, ignatov.
The Democrats have fucked me every single time they have had power. Their objectives are not compatible with mine in any way, shape, manner, or form.
The Republicans have not, and their objectives, while not in line with mine, are at least not orthogonal.
I think the choice becomes blindingly simple from that perspective.
What's worse, is that there are no third party candidates that are any closer to my ideals than the Republicans, and they don't even hit 50%.
So, it's hold the nose and vote McCain, or leave the country. And that last option isn't so good, because there isn't any place that's better.
brian at August 20, 2008 5:34 PM
Given what I must accomplish within 11 hours, I really have no business posting right now.
That's why I try to refrain from visiting this site too much; between my ADD and how addictive this site is, I could stare at my monitor and refresh my screen all night, just to "catch the next comment..."
Nevertheless, given the mixture of political and religious views, coupled with the incredible dialog and the number of intellectuals that post here, I had to make "one post" before I get back to work.
At almost 42, I was a lifelong "Republican't". I admit (with complete embarrassment) that I voted for George W. Blunder not once, but twice.
My "religious" views are open-bible, non-denominational, but non-judgmental as well. For over twenty years, I faithfully voted a straight Republican't ticket, with the exception of a pro-life democrap that I regularly voted for. I voted pro-life first, pro-gun second.
Put the last paragraph in the oven, bake on 450 for an hour, and out comes a "cookie-cut" fire-breathing Right-Wing Republican. I wasn't an "extremists" though, the "others" were.
I loathed Bill and Hilary. Bill for walking around the oval office with his pants around his ankles, and Hillary for more reasons than those at Simply Stupid can count.
What am I today? A father, that's it. I am an American, however and quite honestly, I'm not sure what that means anymore.
My views on politics, "constitutional rights", feminism, fascism and our country have changed to such degree, I that I cannot even begin to describe them. I can only say that I believe that I am now "enlightened," and that, for the first time in my life.
What happened? "It" happened, a divorce. In spite of growing up dirt poor, without a father (he died when I was nine), being placed in an orphanage, shuffled from one foster home to another and having an horrific childhood, I played the hand I was dealt and made the best of it.
I put myself through college, built up a six-figure investment portfolio, was readying to buy my fourth piece of real estate, and was projecting retirement to be between 55 and 60, and with a net worth of between 1.5 and 2 million when the divorce hit.
Today? I'm bankrupt, lost my job after they came to work to arrest me on a "civil" warrant. I have been arrested and jailed three times now, and I am currently living in my 3000 sq ft "home" that was foreclosed on, and sold by the sheriff at auction last month.
Prior to my divorce, I had never been arrested, had never been fired from a job, and had over twenty years of near perfect credit, with a credit score of around 800.
My point? Not sympathy, that's humiliating, as "this too shall pass." Rather, I look at what happened to me. I know for a fact that you can be arrested and taken to jail without a trial, without counsel and without having been mirandized.
The Constitution means nothing, "constitutional rights" are nothing more than a catchphrase, and what happened to me plays out on a daily basis nationwide, yet very few even believe it.
That said, I'm not posting to debate religion or politics, as I know from personal experience what reality is.
Given the upcoming election, Mccan't simply can't. Outside of Jesus running for president on the Republican ticket(not that he'd get the liberal vote, he'd just treat the votes like bread and multiply them - it's "fuzzy math") republicant's don't have a chance.
However, despite my feelings about Hillary, I'd still rather see her, not Obama, as President.
Enough ranting and raving. Ass or elephant, a politician is a politician. That said, until we have a strong third party, what's the point of voting? As of today, my intentions are that I'll never vote again, why should I?
Tony at August 20, 2008 7:42 PM
Tony - sorry to hear about your troubles. Unfortunately, there's not a whole lot you can count on politicians to do for you anyhow.
But I respectfully submit to you that unless McCain self-destructs in spectacular fashion, he's going to win 40 states come November. The real Obama becomes more and more evident every time he speaks.
Of course, the downside to this is the Republican party learns the lesson of "go left, young republican", and we don't get anything undone. but maybe McCain will be ornery enough to not DO anything either.
brian at August 20, 2008 8:14 PM
Interesting Brian, given the economy, unemployment rates, gas prices and Iraq, you really think he has a chance?
Remember that "punched in the gut" feeling after Clinton won the second term? Wouldn't that be ten times more painful if you were expecting a win?
I'm not being sarcastic, disrespectful or disingenuous, when I ask this Brian, but how do you believe he can take down 40 states?
The thought of Obama being elected frightens me as much as W's election probably terrified the Liberals, and then some. I think we'd spiral downward even faster with him at the wheel, hence why I wish Hillary was instead the nominee.
Not only that, (and notwithstanding the reality that women rule the world through men)we are what we are today with a history of male-only presidents.
What are the predictions at this point (adjusting for the media's bias against the right :)) as to who is expected to emerge victorious?
Tony at August 20, 2008 8:36 PM
1 - Obama is an elitist. If there's anyone that Americans outside of San Fran and NYC hate, it's an elitist.
2 - In 2004, some punk at Newsweek came out and said that the media was good for 15 points for Kerry, and he lost. This time, the media is even more obviously in the bag for Obama, and going in to his convention he's dropping like a rock and will need whatever bounce he can get just to return to par.
3 - Obama's an idiot. The more he is forced to talk without his handlers having pre-written everything and putting on a teleprompter, the more this becomes obvious.
There's nothing short of nominating Hillary that the Democrats can do to give themselves a chance, and her negatives are so high that McCain might win bigger against her than against Obama (not to mention the almost guaranteed riots that failing to anoint the chosen one will cause).
I thought the Republicans stepped in it with McCain. But the Democrats are the ones who really stepped in the dog doo this time around.
brian at August 20, 2008 9:12 PM
Amy,
You question why "progressives" who disagree with you are so vicious and why conseratives (like me) can disagree with you civilly. The answer is very simple. Liberalism is a religion. Accordingly, Liberals are just as capable of inquisition as non-secular religious zealots.
Whether its global warming, gun control or taxes, Liberal dogma allows no deviation from party doctrine. More importantly, and germane to your post, is that Liberalism allows no questioning of it's positions. Liberal dogma must be followed unquestioningly or you are a heretic to be destroyed. (ask Joe Lieberman how the Democrats treat their own who don't tow the party line.)
Liberalism is "mob rule" at its worst. Its completely anti-intellectual and intolerant. Yet they, like religious zealots everywhere, believe they are right, and good, and just.
Tom at August 21, 2008 5:49 AM
Yeah, hang in there, Amy. I suspect I'm missing a lot for wading through the mess but even the worse little brats throwing temper tantrums eventually wear themselves out.
On the politics side, I suspect there is little reason to vote. I'm liking Obama less and less. They're trying to Nader on the ballot in NY or if anything... maybe... but overall I'm thinking I may not bother for the first time since my late 20's when I woke up to the fact that perhaps I should vote.
Starting to wonder why I ever thought that.
T's Grammy at August 21, 2008 11:09 AM
Amy, you might check out this article on the Oregonian's website:
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/renee_mitchell/index.ssf?/base/news/1219191906326940.xml&coll=7&thispage=2
"Mom might be the reason dad's absent"
Sio at August 21, 2008 4:58 PM
I interviewed Dr. Laura at an LA Times Festival of Book panel (it's on CSpan if you want to see it). She was promoting her book Stop Whining And Start Living. In it, there's this really great passage about parents who get divorced (and she's not talking about horrible, high conflict marriages, but those where it just isn't necessarily jazzy between the parents anymore). I don't have the quote, but in my notes there's this:
"p. 194 - stay in loveless marriage for the kids – maybe you can make it a loving marriage."
I think her idea was something along the lines of, surely you could make your marriage work if your life depended on it. Your kids' lives do depend on having a stable, intact home, maybe not exactly in a life and death sense, but in a well-being sense.
And if you are somebody who needs a jazzy, sexy relationship to be happy, as I do, well, don't have kids, and you can ditch the moment it gets boring. That's fine, as far as I'm concerned...go to Paris, sleep with the Knicks one night, whatever...as long as you don't have kids. Once you do, sorry, YOU OWE THEM.
Amy Alkon at August 21, 2008 5:12 PM
Linked over from Moxie.
I think the answer is that the left attract a highly charged emotional personality. Add to that the 'cool' factor of being with the populist position just like life back in high school with all the 'cool' kids acted and looked a certain way.
This is not to say the left is an always an emotional position, hardly, just that it attracts a young eager crowd that probaly does not think before they speak or act. Just watch any video of a protest to see it in action.
It takes real conviction not to be cool.
Dave
Dave at August 22, 2008 2:48 AM
"as long as you don't have kids. Once you do, sorry, YOU OWE THEM."
Amy it's statements like this that make me a fan in spite of my single mom status. Absolutely. And I'll add that even if the marriage does turn out to be a horror, divorce does not mean you get to act like you did in your carefree single days.
At least not if you are a parent. Married or not, if you have a kid, you give up Paris and sleeping with the Knicks, for the sake of that little someone you brought into the world.
Great article by Renee Mitchell, sio! It is good to see black women speaking up about the issue. We've seen what happens when a white woman does. RM's article was dead on and well stated.
T's Grammy at August 22, 2008 9:55 AM
You have handled yourself well, and I shall become a frequent peruser of this blog.
If i may, i think much of the left's venom, and authoritarian impulses derive from a fundamental rejection of the Judeo-Christian spiritual tradition. Put frankly, religously sympathetic (note that i didnt say observant) people recognize that politics is politics;a means to an end. there is something more to this.
to the structural left and its followers, politics and policy is an end.
you committed heresy, pure and simple. Never, ever forget that the cruelest reaction is always against a heretic.
the fact that you are 100% right is besides the point.
do well,
Mcgruder
mcgruder at August 25, 2008 10:35 AM
Linked over from Moxie, so naturally I am a conservative.
Just think of it as a vast right wing conspiracy to convert you to conservatism by means of common courtesy and civility.
Best of luck.
Tony Muhlenkamp at August 29, 2008 1:20 PM
Well, the article is in reality the greatest on this worthw hile topic. I harmonise with your conclusions and will thirstily look forward to your approaching updates. Just saying thanks will certainly not just be acceptable, for the tremendous lucidity in your writing. I can promptly grab your rss feed to stay abreast of any kind of updates. Admirable work and much success in your business enterprize!
Flat Screen TV Mount at April 23, 2010 5:08 AM
Leave a comment