Political Wednesday?

My response to NBruce's response to my comment on her journal posting, here,
[quick time out to catch breath over that chain], should probably have been posted here instead.

Anyone who thinks all liberals are on a single "team" hasn't paid much attention to the Democratic Party. Anyone who puts me on that "team" is doing a black-and-white, fur-us-or-agin-us that I've come to accept is regarded by, oh, GregS* and NBruce and some others here as the Only Proper Way.

I'm not buying it. It's as ludicrous (in my not at all humble opinion) as asserting that anyone who disagrees with Bush's policies is a "Bush hater." (At this point, on one policy, that even includes Dr. Frist--but Repubs. don't get called "Bush haters.")

I've tried to stay reasonably apolitical here and at Walt at Random and even more so at Cites & Insights. Of course, my idea of apolitical isn't that of some readers. Clearly, for example, believing there should be some balance within copyright, based on the U.S. Constitution, is regarded as extremely political to some (on both ends of the political spectrum, in this case).

I don't expect to post a series of political posts here, on Wednesdays or any other day. Not that I don't care about politics; I just prefer not to let it control every aspect of my life, and there are too many people writing too many things about politics already.

I suspect I won't respond to any further responses on NBruce's journal, both because it's her podium, not mine, and because I don't see anyone's mind being changed or anyone being usefully informed by the discussion. Although I certainly found it informative to see that NBruce believes that David Duke and Timothy McVeigh can be equated with Ted Kennedy and Sen. Wellstone! (I'm not making this up--I don't think I could make that up: follow the link at the top of this post and look at the comments.)

I keep being reminded of why satire is so hard to write these days...


"I've tried to stay reasonably apolitical here and at Walt at Random and even more so at Cites & Insights."

I, for one, am thankful that C&I tends to talk seriously about what it does without bringing up various presidential administrations.

Regarding politics, I think part of the problem with our current political discourse is that web/RSS readers are more likely to click on a headline "Bush's brother hates Florida libraries" than on "Moderate Democrat supports policy in Iraq."

Do I think you're a Rosenzweig or Litwin liberal? No
Do I think you're liberal? Yes.
Do I think you write mostly apolitical stories on library technology? Yes.
Well? Yes.
Do I think you occasionally throw in little political jabs here and there? Absolutely.
Does it make you a bad person? No.
Does it make you an occasional pinhead? Considering you don't like to get into actual discussions about the issues, yes.
Has the world ended? No.

"Occasional pinhead"? Wow.

If you think I write mostly about library technology, you're reading a different C&I than I'm writing, but that's OK...

And, as I just noted over at Norma's, I'll be only too happy to note, in the followup C&I essay, that she prefers the label "neocon" to "right-wing."

(I don't regard Rosenzweig as a liberal. I can just imagine Phil Ochs' response to lumping fairly radical leftists in with liberals... ah, the times certainly have changed.)

I didn't equate them. I said left and right. And comments left at journals are not for "changing minds." It's a conversation. When I leave a comment, I don't expect to change a mind. If one comment from me changed a mind set in a pattern of 30 years, it wouldn't be a fair fight, would it?

Let me quote exactly what you said:

"Ted Kennedy and Senator Wellstone are/were left wing. David Duke and Timothy McVeigh are/were right wing."

I certainly read that as an equation. If I said "Mao and Castro are/were left wing. John Roberts and Barry Goldwater are/were right wing" I suspect you'd be as outraged by the implied comparison as I am by your implied comparison. I don't accept that there was no implied comparison of degree. You're not that clumsy a writer, and I don't believe you just pulled those four names out of thin air.

OK, "change a mind or provide enlightenment or even entertainment." It's not doing that either.

Subscribe to Comments for "Political Wednesday?"