Monday, March 28, 2005
More questions for Chris Lyon
I wanted to practice my Web searching skills for more substantive blogging, so I decided to search for 3 key pieces of evidence I had come across earlier that convinces me to not completely respect the Powerline blog that Lyon likes to reference. I could only find 2 out of 3.
Exhibit A: Powerline's John Hinderaker responds to a political debate opponent in a very intellectural way fitting of someone with a law degree
Exhibit B: A lovely video clip with John Hinderaker saying liberals don't care about terrorism, don't care about 9-11, the Democrats have betrayed America, and what liberals are saying impedes the war on terrorism And I'm not paraphrasing. Take a look at it (4.1mb)
Exhibit C: I couldn't find this link but it's just another characterization. When Powerline's Hinderaker was asked by Time or Newsweek to define the media event of the year for an article, he nominated himself and his Powerline boys for bringing down Dan Rather. A little patting on your back is OK, but this article did not call for such blatant ego-stroking. Demonstrates overwhelming arrogance and self-aggrandizing.
So, Lyon, is Powerline an important influence on your views, or an extreme one that you only look at for news and commentary occasionally? Do you want to respond to my political arguments with a "Fuck-you Shithead?". Do you think by me being a liberal and supporting politicians that share my views, that I am increasing the likelihood of a terrorist attack. Where do you stand? I know I have to be careful to not be too biased or uninformed by the news and opinion filter I get from liberal blogs. What about you?
Exhibit A: Powerline's John Hinderaker responds to a political debate opponent in a very intellectural way fitting of someone with a law degree
Exhibit B: A lovely video clip with John Hinderaker saying liberals don't care about terrorism, don't care about 9-11, the Democrats have betrayed America, and what liberals are saying impedes the war on terrorism And I'm not paraphrasing. Take a look at it (4.1mb)
Exhibit C: I couldn't find this link but it's just another characterization. When Powerline's Hinderaker was asked by Time or Newsweek to define the media event of the year for an article, he nominated himself and his Powerline boys for bringing down Dan Rather. A little patting on your back is OK, but this article did not call for such blatant ego-stroking. Demonstrates overwhelming arrogance and self-aggrandizing.
So, Lyon, is Powerline an important influence on your views, or an extreme one that you only look at for news and commentary occasionally? Do you want to respond to my political arguments with a "Fuck-you Shithead?". Do you think by me being a liberal and supporting politicians that share my views, that I am increasing the likelihood of a terrorist attack. Where do you stand? I know I have to be careful to not be too biased or uninformed by the news and opinion filter I get from liberal blogs. What about you?
Comments:
<< Home
Jonah,
I don't have time to respond to everything this minute, but here's a few things to note.
Concerning exhibit A, look at this apology from Hideraker, here: http://powerlineblog.com/archives/2005_02.php#009632
If our weblogs had the traffic that they did, then we would find it much more difficult to criticize. People were actually calling his office, and swearing at his secretary over this matter. You may not respect him for his mean-tempered e-mail, but you should at least get the background, and realize he understood what he had done and regretted it. How you handle your missteps is just in important, in my estimation, as avoiding them altogher. So yes, they deserve my respect. And yours.
Also, you didn't make mention of the URL that actually pertains to this case, which I posted in an earlier comment. Here it is again, for your consideration: http://powerlineblog.com/archives/2005_03.php
And you only make mention of Hinderaker. This is far from a complete assessment of the weblog which has three different contributors.
Powerline is an important influence on the information I receive. As such, it could be argued that it affects my views. So do MSNBC and CNN. "Fair and balanced" comes to mind. I usually check powerline each day, along with other sources (the above, for instance) but I am capable of moving in contrary directions, and have e-mailed them with my own concerns on a couple of occasions.
Finally, I'll answer two of your questions:
"Do you want to respond to my political arguments with a "Fuck-you Shithead?".
Absolutely not. If so, then I wouldn't need to waste my breaktime commenting what could be wrapped up in the above sentence. And while Hinderaker can be antagonistic to his political foes, he has gone to far too much trouble forming cogent opinions (yes he makes those, too)to just be another Limbaugh. I would suggest you take a look at some of your favorite liberal websites to see if you can't find some "exhibits" there, that would make you lose respect for them.
"Do you think by me being a liberal and supporting politicians that share my views, that I am increasing the likelihood of a terrorist attack."
Possibly, but I don't think that this is you're favorite political leaders' intent. I distinguish between policy and person. Something most liberals out there are unable, or unwilling to do. While I may believe their policies are unwise for the country, I don't believe they're in league with terrorists. Nor do I believe you are. I've made this distinction before, concerning Ward Churchill.
I'll try to talk again later.
Lyon
I don't have time to respond to everything this minute, but here's a few things to note.
Concerning exhibit A, look at this apology from Hideraker, here: http://powerlineblog.com/archives/2005_02.php#009632
If our weblogs had the traffic that they did, then we would find it much more difficult to criticize. People were actually calling his office, and swearing at his secretary over this matter. You may not respect him for his mean-tempered e-mail, but you should at least get the background, and realize he understood what he had done and regretted it. How you handle your missteps is just in important, in my estimation, as avoiding them altogher. So yes, they deserve my respect. And yours.
Also, you didn't make mention of the URL that actually pertains to this case, which I posted in an earlier comment. Here it is again, for your consideration: http://powerlineblog.com/archives/2005_03.php
And you only make mention of Hinderaker. This is far from a complete assessment of the weblog which has three different contributors.
Powerline is an important influence on the information I receive. As such, it could be argued that it affects my views. So do MSNBC and CNN. "Fair and balanced" comes to mind. I usually check powerline each day, along with other sources (the above, for instance) but I am capable of moving in contrary directions, and have e-mailed them with my own concerns on a couple of occasions.
Finally, I'll answer two of your questions:
"Do you want to respond to my political arguments with a "Fuck-you Shithead?".
Absolutely not. If so, then I wouldn't need to waste my breaktime commenting what could be wrapped up in the above sentence. And while Hinderaker can be antagonistic to his political foes, he has gone to far too much trouble forming cogent opinions (yes he makes those, too)to just be another Limbaugh. I would suggest you take a look at some of your favorite liberal websites to see if you can't find some "exhibits" there, that would make you lose respect for them.
"Do you think by me being a liberal and supporting politicians that share my views, that I am increasing the likelihood of a terrorist attack."
Possibly, but I don't think that this is you're favorite political leaders' intent. I distinguish between policy and person. Something most liberals out there are unable, or unwilling to do. While I may believe their policies are unwise for the country, I don't believe they're in league with terrorists. Nor do I believe you are. I've made this distinction before, concerning Ward Churchill.
I'll try to talk again later.
Lyon
I will try to read more right-wing blogs on a regular basis, and I'm sure the Powerline guys have some expertise on some issues. And even though Hinderaker is 1/3 of Powerline, he does represent Powerline as an entire blog. A liberal blog, Pandagon.net used to have two people who contributed equally, and often I was not aware of who was writing since they both represented a general point of view.
I appreciate following the link you gave explaining his side of the story. There is no doubt that there are angry people on the left, with a public forum probably more miniscule than ours, who would actually go out of their way to send hate mail or look up this guy's law office. So the fact that he snapped is understandable, although its too bad he had to lash out at such a rational articulate e-mail. So I see this in a light. BUT... there are a few things about his explanation that disturb me.
The next day, one of these emailers responded that he thought my reply was disproportionate to the offensiveness of his email; I agreed and apologized for having reacted inappropriately.
I really hope that he doesn't assess criticisms of his views based on level of offensiveness. Unless those were the words the original e-mail used, if he views all of the responses to his Gannon posts as offensive including the nice ones, then he might be insecure in overeaching in conservative circles to diminish the signifigance of a gay prostitute allowed to bypass White House security to ask extremely pandering questions.
I would have done the same with the "Minnesota Politics" guy if he had contacted me rather than posting my email--which obviously wasn't intended for publication--on his site.
A blogger submitted a polite but spirited assessment of his views, and he responds with foaming at the mouth curses (there was no legitimate point in is shithead laced e-mail). Some might react by privately e-mailing him, but others who have a public forum would find it useful to demonstrate the angry and unnattractive nature of this popular right-wing opinion shaper. It's a little bit tabloid-esque to publish the e-mail, but many liberal blogs, most with clear warnings that if you submit "monkey-mail" it can and will be posted, post e-mail responses as a demonstration of the more primitive conservative arguing strategies. There was no personal information in Hinderaker's response, just an insight into his character he didn't what people to see. I'm glad he regrets writing that, but his claim that he doesn't have to apologize now that Minnesota guy published the e-mail response is a form of non-apology that I can't accept as cancelling out his previous error.
The left-wing blogs, although they have comment boards laced with expletives and base attacks, are written and run by people that don't respond to arguments that way. I am pretty sure they are having people dig up their personal contact information too. So it goes both ways.
What about the 2nd link, the video clip? I read that in the actual documentary, Hinderaker goes on and on about liberals longer than that short clip. He definitely knew those thoughts would be public, and that rhetoric he used, which is just as bad as the worst of Rush, Michael Savage, Peggy Noonan, and Sean Hannity, really struck me when I heard it, to the point that I remembered it a few months later. I don't think 'liberals hating America' or the like should be a legitimate political stance, and anyone who adopts it wholeheartedly will not get my full respect, especially when the tone of a lot of Powerline posts indicates that that stance influence a lot of their opinions.
I did read your link regarding the case history of Schiavo, and I think Powerline will be useful resource for me to understand more of technical and often value-neutral legal complications on different cases. It didn't provide for me how Michael Shiavo was being 'selectively adamant', though, but it did provide an extended quote and very little commentary. Just the facts, which is what I look to blogs for. The blog opinions help motivate me, but the articles they cite are important in solidifying my views.
This discussion is getting bogged down in all sorts of subarguments, so if you want to continue and go back to something in the original back and forth feel free to do so. By now, I've forgotten some of the things I wrote, so I will go back and review. I will start a more time-consuming job next week, so I probably can't be as obsessed with responding to you as a I am right now.
I appreciate following the link you gave explaining his side of the story. There is no doubt that there are angry people on the left, with a public forum probably more miniscule than ours, who would actually go out of their way to send hate mail or look up this guy's law office. So the fact that he snapped is understandable, although its too bad he had to lash out at such a rational articulate e-mail. So I see this in a light. BUT... there are a few things about his explanation that disturb me.
The next day, one of these emailers responded that he thought my reply was disproportionate to the offensiveness of his email; I agreed and apologized for having reacted inappropriately.
I really hope that he doesn't assess criticisms of his views based on level of offensiveness. Unless those were the words the original e-mail used, if he views all of the responses to his Gannon posts as offensive including the nice ones, then he might be insecure in overeaching in conservative circles to diminish the signifigance of a gay prostitute allowed to bypass White House security to ask extremely pandering questions.
I would have done the same with the "Minnesota Politics" guy if he had contacted me rather than posting my email--which obviously wasn't intended for publication--on his site.
A blogger submitted a polite but spirited assessment of his views, and he responds with foaming at the mouth curses (there was no legitimate point in is shithead laced e-mail). Some might react by privately e-mailing him, but others who have a public forum would find it useful to demonstrate the angry and unnattractive nature of this popular right-wing opinion shaper. It's a little bit tabloid-esque to publish the e-mail, but many liberal blogs, most with clear warnings that if you submit "monkey-mail" it can and will be posted, post e-mail responses as a demonstration of the more primitive conservative arguing strategies. There was no personal information in Hinderaker's response, just an insight into his character he didn't what people to see. I'm glad he regrets writing that, but his claim that he doesn't have to apologize now that Minnesota guy published the e-mail response is a form of non-apology that I can't accept as cancelling out his previous error.
The left-wing blogs, although they have comment boards laced with expletives and base attacks, are written and run by people that don't respond to arguments that way. I am pretty sure they are having people dig up their personal contact information too. So it goes both ways.
What about the 2nd link, the video clip? I read that in the actual documentary, Hinderaker goes on and on about liberals longer than that short clip. He definitely knew those thoughts would be public, and that rhetoric he used, which is just as bad as the worst of Rush, Michael Savage, Peggy Noonan, and Sean Hannity, really struck me when I heard it, to the point that I remembered it a few months later. I don't think 'liberals hating America' or the like should be a legitimate political stance, and anyone who adopts it wholeheartedly will not get my full respect, especially when the tone of a lot of Powerline posts indicates that that stance influence a lot of their opinions.
I did read your link regarding the case history of Schiavo, and I think Powerline will be useful resource for me to understand more of technical and often value-neutral legal complications on different cases. It didn't provide for me how Michael Shiavo was being 'selectively adamant', though, but it did provide an extended quote and very little commentary. Just the facts, which is what I look to blogs for. The blog opinions help motivate me, but the articles they cite are important in solidifying my views.
This discussion is getting bogged down in all sorts of subarguments, so if you want to continue and go back to something in the original back and forth feel free to do so. By now, I've forgotten some of the things I wrote, so I will go back and review. I will start a more time-consuming job next week, so I probably can't be as obsessed with responding to you as a I am right now.
I will try to read more right-wing blogs on a regular basis, and I'm sure the Powerline guys have some expertise on some issues. And even though Hinderaker is 1/3 of Powerline, he does represent Powerline as an entire blog. A liberal blog, Pandagon.net used to have two people who contributed equally, and often I was not aware of who was writing since they both represented a general point of view.
I appreciate following the link you gave explaining his side of the story. There is no doubt that there are angry people on the left, with a public forum probably more miniscule than ours, who would actually go out of their way to send hate mail or look up this guy's law office. So the fact that he snapped is understandable, although its too bad he had to lash out at such a rational articulate e-mail. So I see this in a light. BUT... there are a few things about his explanation that disturb me.
The next day, one of these emailers responded that he thought my reply was disproportionate to the offensiveness of his email; I agreed and apologized for having reacted inappropriately.
I really hope that he doesn't assess criticisms of his views based on level of offensiveness. Unless those were the words the original e-mail used, if he views all of the responses to his Gannon posts as offensive including the nice ones, then he might be insecure in overeaching in conservative circles to diminish the signifigance of a gay prostitute allowed to bypass White House security to ask extremely pandering questions.
I would have done the same with the "Minnesota Politics" guy if he had contacted me rather than posting my email--which obviously wasn't intended for publication--on his site.
A blogger submitted a polite but spirited assessment of his views, and he responds with foaming at the mouth curses (there was no legitimate point in is shithead laced e-mail). Some might react by privately e-mailing him, but others who have a public forum would find it useful to demonstrate the angry and unnattractive nature of this popular right-wing opinion shaper. It's a little bit tabloid-esque to publish the e-mail, but many liberal blogs, most with clear warnings that if you submit "monkey-mail" it can and will be posted, post e-mail responses as a demonstration of the more primitive conservative arguing strategies. There was no personal information in Hinderaker's response, just an insight into his character he didn't what people to see. I'm glad he regrets writing that, but his claim that he doesn't have to apologize now that Minnesota guy published the e-mail response is a form of non-apology that I can't accept as cancelling out his previous error.
The left-wing blogs, although they have comment boards laced with expletives and base attacks, are written and run by people that don't respond to arguments that way. I am pretty sure they are having people dig up their personal contact information too. So it goes both ways.
What about the 2nd link, the video clip? I read that in the actual documentary, Hinderaker goes on and on about liberals longer than that short clip. He definitely knew those thoughts would be public, and that rhetoric he used, which is just as bad as the worst of Rush, Michael Savage, Peggy Noonan, and Sean Hannity, really struck me when I heard it, to the point that I remembered it a few months later. I don't think 'liberals hating America' or the like should be a legitimate political stance, and anyone who adopts it wholeheartedly will not get my full respect, especially when the tone of a lot of Powerline posts indicates that that stance influence a lot of their opinions.
I did read your link regarding the case history of Schiavo, and I think Powerline will be useful resource for me to understand more of technical and often value-neutral legal complications on different cases. It didn't provide for me how Michael Shiavo was being 'selectively adamant', though, but it did provide an extended quote and very little commentary. Just the facts, which is what I look to blogs for. The blog opinions help motivate me, but the articles they cite are important in solidifying my views.
This discussion is getting bogged down in all sorts of subarguments, so if you want to continue and go back to something in the original back and forth feel free to do so. By now, I've forgotten some of the things I wrote, so I will go back and review. I will start a more time-consuming job next week, so I probably can't be as obsessed with responding to you as a I am right now.
Post a Comment
I appreciate following the link you gave explaining his side of the story. There is no doubt that there are angry people on the left, with a public forum probably more miniscule than ours, who would actually go out of their way to send hate mail or look up this guy's law office. So the fact that he snapped is understandable, although its too bad he had to lash out at such a rational articulate e-mail. So I see this in a light. BUT... there are a few things about his explanation that disturb me.
The next day, one of these emailers responded that he thought my reply was disproportionate to the offensiveness of his email; I agreed and apologized for having reacted inappropriately.
I really hope that he doesn't assess criticisms of his views based on level of offensiveness. Unless those were the words the original e-mail used, if he views all of the responses to his Gannon posts as offensive including the nice ones, then he might be insecure in overeaching in conservative circles to diminish the signifigance of a gay prostitute allowed to bypass White House security to ask extremely pandering questions.
I would have done the same with the "Minnesota Politics" guy if he had contacted me rather than posting my email--which obviously wasn't intended for publication--on his site.
A blogger submitted a polite but spirited assessment of his views, and he responds with foaming at the mouth curses (there was no legitimate point in is shithead laced e-mail). Some might react by privately e-mailing him, but others who have a public forum would find it useful to demonstrate the angry and unnattractive nature of this popular right-wing opinion shaper. It's a little bit tabloid-esque to publish the e-mail, but many liberal blogs, most with clear warnings that if you submit "monkey-mail" it can and will be posted, post e-mail responses as a demonstration of the more primitive conservative arguing strategies. There was no personal information in Hinderaker's response, just an insight into his character he didn't what people to see. I'm glad he regrets writing that, but his claim that he doesn't have to apologize now that Minnesota guy published the e-mail response is a form of non-apology that I can't accept as cancelling out his previous error.
The left-wing blogs, although they have comment boards laced with expletives and base attacks, are written and run by people that don't respond to arguments that way. I am pretty sure they are having people dig up their personal contact information too. So it goes both ways.
What about the 2nd link, the video clip? I read that in the actual documentary, Hinderaker goes on and on about liberals longer than that short clip. He definitely knew those thoughts would be public, and that rhetoric he used, which is just as bad as the worst of Rush, Michael Savage, Peggy Noonan, and Sean Hannity, really struck me when I heard it, to the point that I remembered it a few months later. I don't think 'liberals hating America' or the like should be a legitimate political stance, and anyone who adopts it wholeheartedly will not get my full respect, especially when the tone of a lot of Powerline posts indicates that that stance influence a lot of their opinions.
I did read your link regarding the case history of Schiavo, and I think Powerline will be useful resource for me to understand more of technical and often value-neutral legal complications on different cases. It didn't provide for me how Michael Shiavo was being 'selectively adamant', though, but it did provide an extended quote and very little commentary. Just the facts, which is what I look to blogs for. The blog opinions help motivate me, but the articles they cite are important in solidifying my views.
This discussion is getting bogged down in all sorts of subarguments, so if you want to continue and go back to something in the original back and forth feel free to do so. By now, I've forgotten some of the things I wrote, so I will go back and review. I will start a more time-consuming job next week, so I probably can't be as obsessed with responding to you as a I am right now.
<< Home
