Cerberus asks the million reader question;
It seems that, during the election, Liberal bloggers pretty much got their butts kicked by a much larger, much more determined, much broader and much more widely read (both by John Q. Public and media interlopers) conservative blogs. We started to catch on only in the last 2 weeks or so as more Liberals, out of desperation, suddenly “got it” about blogs. So what can we do to maximize the blogosphere for the next one? The same thing happened to the Democrats in the US and they paid for it and still are.
[…]
What do Liberal bloggers need to do to “catch up” to Blogging Tories or American bloggers and have a bigger impact on the leadership race and on political discourse in Canada?
While there are ways that bloggers on the left could improve readership and “impact” that I could share … I’m not going to. Figure it out for yourselves. Ha!
I don’t think it would help much, anyway. The primary reason that liberal/left bloggers in both Canada and the US have so much more difficulty gaining traction in the way the conservative-shere has isn’t really a mystery – they compete with the majority of voices in mainstream media for their readers – and we don’t.
I don’t know how you fix that, Ted.
Further thoughts – here’s a piece of advice I will offer. As I scanned “progressive” blog aggregators during the months leading up to the election, it was fascinating to watch the escalation of personal attacks on myself and other conservative bloggers. Sometimes just sideswipe name calling and ad hominem, sometimes entire posts were devoted to responding to, ridiculing or ranting about something written here at SDA.
Now, I would suggest that you lefties who have been pondering your own irrelevance think hard about something – how often do you see me attacking any of you?
Call it a clue.
The left leaning masses are hobbled by one thing:
the blinkers aka: culture of entitlement.
They all feel they DON’T need to lift a goddamn finger. “It’s someone elses job”.
The government, or someone else at least, will do everything for them. After all they are e-n-t-i-t-t-l-e-d to their perks and security.
Noses in the trough make it difficult to lift their jowlly heads high enough to smell the coffee. For some, that is “just too much trouble”. Ignoranc is bliss they say.
Till the tide comes in…. then it’s too late.
Locking the barn door well after the horse is gone, is a longstanding LIEBERAL tradition.
Hope they continue the tradition.. we need it.
ol hoss,
You have some good points there, but, Harper was elected on a promise of getting rid of corruption and lobbyists (read Hansard) So, his henchman John Renolds, now a lobbyist, gets stuffed into the Privy Council. Buckler, a lobbyist, gets the #1 spin gig. Another lobbyist is senior advisor to Stockwell Day. What’s next, Harper to pay some convicted ad man to teach ethics at universities?
Con or Lib…left or right…blue or red.
I read all these comments and am in awe at what we are wasting so much time,energy and emotion on.
Can ANYBODY tell me if there is a democracy on this planet that does not have the party system?
It creates such divisiveness and waste.
Can ANYBODY tell me with a straight face that over the last dozen years the Liberal party’s #1 priorty was not to stay in power?All decisions,at least to me,seemed to be based on how they affected the party,not the country.
Voting in any new party will make it better in the short term but the current system will guarrantee we will all be reliving this over and over.
Thanks for listening,I feel better now.
Having completely ruined the term liberal by effectively making it a word of only negative connotations……the socialists now want to be called progressives! Th inference of course that if your not socialist your “regressive’.
They can call themselves whatever they want but when the underlying values are nothing but a crock what they stand for is nothing!
Since people in general seem to be sick and tired of hearing from people who stand for nothing I predict that no amount of blogging will change their fate.
Couldn’t post a comment on the Cerebus site-but I can on this one. (And perhaps that is the major difference). Personally- I would not take a Gliberal across the street to see a horseball fight!
Dave, re: 8:28 post- Right on! That puts it in a nutshell, generally speaking.
I also think old squid has spilt his dark&dirty because he seems rather sour tonight. Either that or he has election withdrawl and misses the promise-a-day thing.
[Stand by for Incoming]
“Further thoughts – here’s a piece of advice I will offer. As I scanned “progressive” blog aggregators during the months leading up to the election, it was fascinating to watch the escalation of personal attacks on myself and other conservative bloggers. Sometimes just sideswipe name calling and ad hominem, sometimes entire posts were devoted to responding to, ridiculing or ranting about something written here at SDA.
Now, I would suggest that you lefties who have been pondering your own irrelevance think hard about something – how often do you see me attacking any of you?
Call it a clue.”
Call it clued-in to that bit of advice a long time ago, Kate. Quote: “there are three aspects of SDA in particular that keep me coming back to her site: (1) the blogger, Kate, doesn’t go in for diatribe and invective, unlike many of her devoted ultra-conservative regulars or “minions” as detractors call them and other far-right bloggers (in fact, she usually keeps here personal editorializing to a minimum and makes links to other sites with a small quip here or there); (2) she brings internet-available information (online MSM, personal sites, blogs) from a very wide variety of sources that almost always make you think or challenge accepted “common wisdom”; and (3) she has a wry sense of humour and there is even evidence that she can laugh at herself (a feature very very rare among far-right and far-left bloggers).”
Now, as for all of those kind conservative bloggers with such nice advice about avoiding name calling and basing arguments on facts, like conservatives!, thank you for coming out:
Fred at 4:01PM: �they need to remove their collective heads from their collective anal tracts, fess up that they are full of crap and get with the program�
Fred2 at 4:09PM: �Progressive-blog, sounds more like a loose bowel disease!�
As Daniel at 4:51PM calls it, folks: �Clean up the language… cursing and swearing only helps to reveal true character� and �Focus on the positive…eliminate the negative�
William at 5:08PM: �In the end, only the Cherniaks of the world, the fanatics, freaks, and “damn the torpedo” types held with their positions on the Liberal side.� � and a few million others leading to 103 seats.
More from William: �Most of these are the illiterate, idiot bunch. Some of them are simply fanatics, others just didn’t bother to really look at the senario and do their homework.�
And more: �Most Liberals are not what one would call “current event” enthusiasts.�
Then there�s the advice from Greg (outside Dallas) at 5:40PM: �1. Every morning when you get up, you should look in the mirror and ask, “Have I become a useful idiot yet?” 2. Get the Bonanno organized crime family to help you knock out a new strategy. � (And BTW Greg, thanks for your comments about Viet Nam. I wasn�t taking sides but pointing out the partisan side of it � why did it only become an issue 30 years later when he�s running for Pres? I thought the viciousness of the attacks on a soldier the marines had determined earned a medal made diminished all soldiers who had earned medals because it politicized the whole thing for electoral gain. Not that Kerry or combat-avoiding Bush hadn�t already politicized it, but that�s all for another day.)
nomdenet at 6:16PM: �4. Liberals don�t have a philosophy to Blog about. They stand for nothing.�
And then of course there is always Anonologue at 7:17: �You can’t polish a turd, nor can you sell a turd, and the Liberal Party (and more broadly The Left’s Agenda) is a turd. And the policies…ugh. Unambiguously bad, garbage. Based on lies, and a perverse self-loathing You have to question the character of somebody who supports what many describe as a criminal orgainzation to begin with. Garbage in, garbage out. �
Bruce at 8:32 gets straight to the point: �Liberals are idiots, period. By the time there’s another election, just how many Liberals will be facing jail time?�
Eastern Paul at 8:44 was the first to use �LIEBERAL�� today.
I�m not trying to pick a fight. But when it comes to civility, facts, tact, Kate is the queen and the rest of us � leftists, liberals and conservatives alike – have a lot to learn and live up to.
G�night folks. It�s been a nice discussion.
Cheers.
Ted
Cerberus
Dave: I have no idea why you couldn’t post on my site. I have a strong libertarian streak in me and allow anyone to comment. It’s open, c’mon back.
Ted
Cerberus
Stupid logic and stupid ideas usually indicate stupid people. The reason the lib/lefties will never catch up in the blog’s is because it’s very hard to defend stupid logic and ideas against practicality and common sense.
Leftists and liberals had hundreds of frauds, scams and rip-offs in their corner.
There was only character asassination and the wonderfully effective *FearHarper* propaganda ploy to fight with.
They did marvelously well with the help of *Rigid Liberals*.
LRs are those for which facts and logical thinking mean absolutly nothing.
Here is hoping that as the gun registry and other cans of worms are explored, there may be some re-thinking for *Rigid Liberals*. TG
Here’s a few cents worth.
If you think National Daycare is a better solution for my child, sell me the benefits to her, and to me. If I don’t “get it” from the get-go, DON’T assume I’m a religious social conservative.
If you think opting out of the next generation of NORAD is good for Canada…sell me on why that is true, or why the defence isn’t needed, or, at least, why any funding requirements you can demonstrate should have lower priority than other important things we can spend our taxes on. DON’T assume that I’m not buying your pitch because I want what the U.S. Government is selling.
If you want this country to legalize SSM, polygamy, marijuana, or anything else…stand up and defend those ideas on their merits. DON’T rely on badly flawed processes (non-free votes, or SCC test cases that are set up to change the Charter) and then tell us to “move along, it’s a Charter Right.” Engage conservatives in a real battle of ideas, and trust Canadians to choose through their votes.
If you think specific proposals for tax deductions are flawed (a la 5% GST) then let’s have a real discussion as to why a promised 28% reduction in the only tax many poorer people pay is regressive. DON’T drink the Liberal Party Kool-Aid and support a claim that anyone who ever had a single economics course knows is either a lie or a shocking example of incompetence.
The reason that the lefty blogs had so little impact was that they were unwilling to engage in signficant self-criticsim of the parties claiming to speak for them.
Meanwhile, for 2 1/2 hears the con blogs had been dissecting campaign strategy & tactics. We’re a little less critical now, but the secret to our future success will be constructive feedback to our leadership about the right direction to lead Canadians.
Oh, and by the way, The Wild Duck agenda does not include wasting time getting into pissing matches with liberal bloggers (unless it drives page hits, of course!)
Teddy Three Heeds, you’re suggesting that the Liberal party and it’s supporters are beyond criticism. Sometimes you gotta tell it like it is, and however offended you may be that I called the Liberal party a “turd”, multiply that by a hundred and that’s how “offended” I am that you support what many believe to be a criminal organization.
That’s not “different” politics, that’s wrong, bad, hostile politics. Get your hand out of my pocket.
The Liberal party deserves contempt and so do it’s supporters. We are entirely justified in calling on pointing our finger at you because you are the bad guys, plain and simple. Don’t like it? Try not supporting criminal organizations so much and you just might become more popular.
I feel too much conceit is driving the remarks here about the superiority of conservative blogs. For the most part, lately they are part of a general reform movement underway for more than 15 to 20 years.The movement is the logical “swing of the pendulum” in society back from the many “isms” that were nothing but cheap constructs of deconstructionist babble. The fraud of the so-called liberalism of the last generation or so is causing a collapse of a house of cards. The conservative blogs marshall facts and the opinions flow natural and strong. They are still opinions but they amount to a reform of the artificial environment of the past 30 years. The boomer generation provided a liberalism built also on self-absorbed tripe. The liberal blogs have rhetoric that is empty of arguement, prose that substitutes opinions for facts and shrillness born of the desperation of the entitled no longer receiving their entitlements.
Like General George Patton said, “..no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. You won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country…Now, an army is a team. It lives, eats, sleeps, fights as a team. This individuality stuff is a bunch of crap. The bilious bastards who wrote that stuff about individuality for the Saturday Evening Post, don’t know anything more about real battle than they do about fornicating.”
Translate that into war on leftist ideology.
Get real, most canadians put as little thought into elections as possible. The only people reading conservative blogs were other conservatives. The ‘blogging tories’ seems to be proof of this. Almost no posting, and zero insight. A scan down on the headlines is just a look at what lonely boneheads do in between watching porn. I’m still a tory, I just associate with the brain dead nimrods online much anymore.
Canadian Observer “Can ANYBODY tell me if there is a democracy on this planet that does not have the party system?”
Some of us are working on it. You’re standing in ground zero right now. Watch this space during the next twenty years.
Cerberus-
Dude you’re like some kind of meme DJ. You’re a bit wacky but I like the idea. At some stage I think political movements are going to go beyond blogging and assemble their favourite memes into wikis or some kind of groupware. Keep collecting and remixing memes, some of your political opponents might copy some of your techniques later.
Dave “2. Tory bloggers do their homework. ”
Funny thing is when they’re grading each other’s homework they almost always hand out A+. This is lazy thinking. I disgreed with the entire last half of Guns, Germs and Steel and that book has possibly been more influential in my understanding of the human race than anything else I’ve read.
Warning! Completely Tangental Plug:
You can do much worse than check the book out yourself:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393317552/104-8183529-9829551?v=glance&n=283155
History from the perspective of an evolutionary biologist. Its not the answer to Life, the Universe and Everything but it’s something of a flagship in a new kind of way of looking at humanity.
Pgp “Having completely ruined the term liberal by effectively making it a word of only negative connotations……the socialists now want to be called progressives!”
The word Liberal in Canada usually used in two ways a) the name of a Canadian political party or b) a derogatory remark used by guys like Rush Limbagh to denote some kind of closet commie. I’d happily refer to myself as a Liberal if I didn’t have to wrestle with those connotations. But even better call me a Secular Humanist. There’s more of us than you might think.
What is to be judged? Not comments but sites themselves, one hopes.
I think some people here are rather rabbling.
Remember “conservative” is not the same as “angry”–unless Giggles Taber is correct.
Mark
Ottawa
What do Liberal bloggers need to do to “catch up” to Blogging Tories or American bloggers and have a bigger impact on the leadership race and on political discourse in Canada?
Well, they could jerrymander internet domains, send “heating fuel rebate cheques” to all ‘net surfers, appoint their friends to the InterNIC, organize pliable ethnic groups into block-surfers, nationalize one ISP and drive all the rest out of business with taxes and regulation, and as a last resort, send the RCMP to raid the home of anyone who visits a conservative blog.
When something works, baby, stick with it!
P.S. to all human secularists: if you promise to get your hands off my wallet then I promise not to call you commies any more.
You guys are hosting some kind of Emperor-has-no-clothes victory party for your domination of the blogosphere. Well I hate to break it to you but the left dominates.
Even if it dominates in numbers and hits, so what? For many of the reasons cited above, the left-wing blogosphere has all the lasting impact of a fist in a bucket of water. It’s on the right-wing blogs where leads are pursued and stories broken.
Kerry Who?
“ex-candidate Kerry, whom I met in Washington a few weeks after his defeat, haggard, ghostly, faintly whispering in my ear: “If you hear anything about those 50,000 votes in Ohio, let me know”;” +
A Letter to the American Left
by BERNARD-HENRI LÉVY
[from the February 27, 2006 issue]
Translated from the original French by Charlotte Mandell.
Nothing made a more lasting impression during my journey through America than the semi-comatose state in which I found the American left.
I know, of course, that the term “left” does not have the same meaning and ramifications here that it does in France.
And I cannot count how many times I was told there has never been an authentic “left” in the United States, in the European sense.
But at the end of the day, my progressive friends, you may coin ideas in whichever way you like. The fact is: You do have a right. This right, in large part thanks to its neoconservative battalion, has brought about an ideological transformation that is both substantial and striking.
And the fact is that nothing remotely like it has taken shape on the other side–to the contrary, through the looking glass of the American “left” lies a desert of sorts, a deafening silence, a cosmic ideological void that, for a reader of Whitman or Thoreau, is thoroughly enigmatic. The 60-year-old “young” Democrats who have desperately clung to the old formulas of the Kennedy era; the folks of MoveOn.org who have been so great at enlisting people in the electoral lists, at protesting against the war in Iraq and, finally, at helping to revitalize politics but whom I heard in Berkeley, like Puritans of a new sort, treating the lapses of a libertine President as quasi-equivalent to the neo-McCarthyism of his fiercest political rivals; the anti-Republican strategists confessing they had never set foot in one of those neo-evangelical mega-churches that are the ultimate (and most Machiavellian) laboratories of the “enemy,” staring in disbelief when I say I’ve spent quite some time exploring them; ex-candidate Kerry, whom I met in Washington a few weeks after his defeat, haggard, ghostly, faintly whispering in my ear: “If you hear anything about those 50,000 votes in Ohio, let me know”; + more
http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20060227&s=levy
I’d happily refer to myself as a Liberal if I didn’t have to wrestle with those connotations. But even better call me a Secular Humanist.
Leftists are forever changing their names in the hopes of outrunning past leftist behaviour.
Ted – you’re helping to demonstrate some of the criticisms here. Your knowledge of the history of the Swift boats is pretty superficial.
Kerry’s war record became an issue because he ran on it as a central part of his campaign. Before the primaries even got rolling, he was being referred to as John “and by the way I served in Vietnam” Kerry. He went so far as to arrive at the DNC in a boat. Bizarre.
That’s why the Swifties showed up to protest him doing so “30 years after the fact.”
The questions about his war record were hardly new – John O’Neill was taking on Kerry as far back as 1971.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1186437/posts
Your comment about Bush politicizing the Vietnam war record is also off base. Bush didn’t campaign on his TANG service – it was made an issue by a media and Democratic Party that had shown absolutely no interest in the draft dodging of Clinton.
Modern liberalism is a rigid bankrupt ideology – liberal blogs suck because it’s too hard to fit reality into an obviously bankrupt ideology, the reader has to suspend disbelief in humanity.
The word Socialist is associated with the left. Heard Buzz Hardgrove on CBC say he was a Socialist and he believes in strategic voting to keep the conservatives out of government. What I believe they actually want is an oligarchy or totalitarian society. Imagine just one party for Canada. I consider the leftys whether NDP or Liberal the same. Doesn’t really matter which is in power. Maybe they should merge.
When we leave the halls of education we are all Liberals or NDP. Over time as we learn, face the hard knocks of life we begin to think for ourselves. In time most of us end up Conservative. I guess what I am trying to say is that some of us mature.
what we need up here is a Karl Rove type Liberal killing machine. divide and conquer.
maybe a passal of jail time will keep a few of them out of the hustings, but you can always look at Svend Robinson,even arrests dont dampen his ego.
There’s no “catching up” to do really. You wanna be like blogging tories? Well, you won’t do it by ripping them off.
You see, anyone can build the technical aspects of a site like blogging tories to get it physically online but that doesn’t “catch you up.”
In order for the Liberals to “get it done” this time they’ll need to reinvent themselves and change the mindset of themselves and their followers.
And that ain’t gonna happen. I’m afraid Harper’s government is here to stay for a long time.
Dudley Morris “For many of the reasons cited above, the left-wing blogosphere has all the lasting impact of a fist in a bucket of water.”
*ahem* The moonbats over at Boing Boing are the most powerful media voice on the planet on all things Users Rights and DRM. Note the use of the term “planet” not “blogosphere”.
They’re completely non partisan on this issue. They’ve got a citizen army of investigators that ranges from communist tranhshumanist moonbats to old school right wing libertarians. Boing Boing doesn’t break stories it vaporizes them. Any political party that creates a User Right’s policy without heeding Boing Boing is asking for serious trouble. If they get any stronger on this issue then in a few years they may be even in a position to dictate policy to the major political parties if they aren’t already.
You guys should be taking notes instead of gloating.
Kate:…last post is bang on! and to the point.
meant …”your last post….”
Example of Ad Hominem
1. Bill: “I believe that abortion is morally wrong.”
Dave: “Of course you would say that, you’re a priest.”
Bill: “What about the arguments I gave to support my position?”
Dave: “Those don’t count. Like I said, you’re a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can’t believe what you say.” +
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
Talk radio, cable news, and the blogosphere freed U.S. political discourse. The Left wants to rein it in again.
City Journal- the plan to shush Rush and O’Reilly
“The rise of alternative media�political talk radio in the eighties, cable news in the nineties, and the blogosphere in the new millennium�has broken the liberal monopoly over news and opinion outlets. The Left understands acutely the implications of this revolution, blaming much of the Democratic Party�s current electoral trouble on the influence of the new media�s vigorous conservative voices. Instead of fighting back with ideas, however, today�s liberals quietly, relentlessly, and illiberally are working to smother this flourishing universe of political discourse under a tangle of campaign-finance and media regulations. Their campaign represents the most sustained attack on free political speech in the United States since the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts. Though Republicans have the most to lose in the short run, all Americans who care about our most fundamental rights and the civic health of our democracy need to understand what�s going on�and resist it.” +
http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_1_rush_oreilly.html
via newsbeat1.com
The 10 Commandments of successful conservative (or other partisan) blogging:
1. turn off your critical faculties,
2. ignore 2,500 years of intellectual and political history (especially the Enlightenment,)
3. boot up,
4. unleash your fingers on the keyboard,
5. gush forth your fondest wishes or deepest fears,
6. accentute the positive,
7. ignore all facts – they might be counter-productive,
8. demonize different views,
9. preach to the other converted, and
10. congratulate yourself on your sagacity and mastery of the blogosphere.
I must admit that, in many years of reading hard and electronic copy, I have never before encountered such hare-brained, one-sided, malevolent drivel as on some celebrated conservative boards. If that is the best blogging can produce, this medium has no message.
It is not a matter of conservative blogs being better. The nub of it is that the liberal/lefty position is bankrupt of ideas and morals. Bleat though they may, we hear their position day in and day out in the MSM.
The MSM newspapers readership is declining, network TV news viewership is declining. We hear the same old same old all the time. The lefts self importance has been pumped up by themselves while normal people are just switching off.
Why else would the CRTC prevent a free market of broadcasting, magazines and newspapers in Canada other than to keep out dissenting views? Keep out those nasty americans because the mindless sheep may hear something that the lefties don’t want us to hear.
enough
Hmm. During the campaign I was an equal-opportunity slagger. Well, no, I was much tougher on the Liberals, actually. I took Kate on once with respect to what she did, not what she thought or said–i.e., getting CBC to censor the post of a co-blogger. I won’t apologize for that.
But there’s a larger question here. Most of the commenters in this thread are thinking in categories (“the Left,” “conservatives,” etc.) that have become so humongous that they have little analytical power. So long as “the Left” means anything you dislike, from pet-owners who won’t pick up after their dogs to Osama bin Laden, why use the term at all? You’d really be a lot happier with metaphysical categories like “evil,” wouldn’t you? Come on, admit it.
Am I guiltless? Not at all. I got criticized recently for referring to “the Right,” in connection with the cartoon controversy, and have promised to do better; especially when I discovered a number of conservative anti-publication folks, like Michael Coren. Whoops.
In any case, I’ll give Kate this: she really doesn’t descend to personal attacks, and keeps things civil. It’s one of the reasons I’ve added her to my own blogroll. But it must be said that what she does not do, many of her multi-legged, blind, wriggling followers do for her. (And here I’m just responding in kind to what can be found in comments threads over here on a nearly daily basis.)
On the topic (at last), please note that “Liberals” aren’t necessarily leftists, certainly not from where I stand. But if we can widen the question to include genuine liberals and socialists, I believe the answer to Cerberus’ question is that we’re simply outnumbered. The reason for the preeminence and number of conservative bloggers may have something to do with socioeconomics (Not everyone can afford a computer with all mod cons, and take the time to blog incessantly, and relatively well-off people who can are more likely to be conservative than left-wing.) and somenting to do with a goodly amount of paranoia fuel about the supposedly “left” mainstream media.
Many of us on the left know what the “MSM” is, who owns it and what it can be expected to do or say, and we don’t get all het up about it as an institution. We’ve been there, done that. We analyze it and sometimes we comment about it, but we don’t see the blogosphere as a corrective– that’s just mystification, not to mention blind ambition.
The blogosphere is just a bunch of people with opinions, and on occasion with a superior sleuthing ability, but it will never supplant those corporate mouthpieces that get bitterly criticized as “left-wing” when all they’re being is strategic. Asper and Black “left-wing?” Pull the other one. “Corporate media” is a far better label than “MSM.”
Anyway, here’s one blogger who doesn’t really mind being a voice in the wilderness. Rather appeals to me in fact. When I see the veritable frenzy that some conservatives get into when a single clear left-wing voice is permitted air-time (Heather Mallick is but one example–Bob Tarantino for one just couldn’t get her out of his mind), I figure the best left-wingers can do in the blogosphere is to provide an alternative to right-wing bloggers, and annoy the hell out of them. Anyone with higher ambitions than that requires a good dose of criticism and self-criticism.
“Liberals would steal a lit stove…Of course, Conservatives would too…But they’d at least have the common sense to wear gloves.”
– Mark Twain, answering a question on why he votes Republican.
Liberalism always appealed to the less intelligent. The problem now is that it also appeals to those with the moral turpitude of a snake. That makes Liberals a dangerous party to have running anything other than a lawn mower. And pretty much explains their blogging problems.
ol hoss “Leftists are forever changing their names in the hopes of outrunning past leftist behaviour.”
I’m a leftist who happens to be a Secular Humanist. However Secular Humanism isn’t a leftist poltical brand. There are right wing libertarians who are Secular Humanists. Look it up in Wikipedia for a taxonomy of the philosophy.
agitfact “I must admit that, in many years of reading hard and electronic copy, I have never before encountered such hare-brained, one-sided, malevolent drivel as on some celebrated conservative boards.”
You must have the epic missed BBSes and Usenet flamewars of yore.
I don’t agree with what you are saying. The moonbats at Boing Boing is light years ahead of the blogging right but the larger blogging left has its fair share plenty of partisan lazy dribble. Just look at The Huffington Post’s invective parade with respect to Cheney’s hunting trip.
I’m no great fan of Kate’s reportage but she knows how to set the stage for a lively debate. And at the end of the day that’s a powerful contribution to be making.
In a few years I suspect you’ll see right wing bloggers creating cross-factional coalitions like Boing Boing has done on the issue of Users Rights. There’s a tremendous oppurtunity for them to do this with personal choice in education, an issue where they can find support for from within the other guys on the “other” side.
When that happens they’ll start ending the careers of a few politicians (the meme bullet that ended the career of Liberal MP Sam Bulte came from Boing Boing’s gun). Once they get a little taste of that power they’ll cream their jeans and flock in that direction faster than you can thump a bible.
Perhaps the lib-left blogoshere’s inability to attract an audience outside the small clique of lefty web trolls, is the same phenomena that dogs left talk radio and left cable news nets. Perhaps JQ Public has suffered through the decades of left dominated media and become resistant to BS.
Without BS the left must make an intellectually honest argument to support their partisan spin on current evnts and no such argument has existed since the liberal left covertly strayed from classic liberalism towards fabian utopianism.
I like to refer to myself as either a “Left-Wing Objectivist” or a “Right-Wing Art Fag”. Keep ’em guessing, I say.
Dawg:
“getting CBC to censor the post of a co-blogger”
No citizen has to endure defamation. I didn’t “get the CBC to censor” anything. I informed them that I considered the post to be an act of malice and libel. Upon checking the links, they agreed and took the post down of their own accord. That Marcie also apologized unreservedly for her error in linking to a hate site should have closed the matter.
Nonetheless, a number of bloggers on the left – including you – have refused to acknowledge those facts. I said it was defamatory, the CBC agreed it was defamatory and so did the author.
What does that say about your integrity as a blogger, Dawg, when everyone directly involved in the episode came out on the same side of the issue, yet you continue to characterize it as “censorship”?
LOL, secular humanism is just the belief, notwithstanding several thousand years of experience, that mankind can use their own weak flesh to solve all the problems of weakness of the flesh.
Circular reasoning, and strictly leftist.
“What does that say about your integrity as a blogger, Dawg, when everyone directly involved in the episode came out on the same side of the issue, yet you continue to characterize it as ‘censorship’?”
Because that’s what it was, Kate, and you know it. As we’ve seen recently in the epic Bourrie- Kinsella non-battle, no one in his or her right mind goes looking for defamation suits. The CBC caved, no surprise. I refuse to speculate about Marcie’s motives here.
I read the offending links. They were caustic, unkind, insulting and arguably hurtful. But they were no more “defamatory” in the legal sense than things you have said about the linked-to blogger in question.
The end result? You didn’t like something a co-blogger had linked to. You got it removed by implying that a defamation action might ensue.
As for my integrity, I have been even-handed about this. I had just finished excoriating Ottawa-Centre Liberal candidate Richard Mahoney for his threats of legal action against all and sundry, when I learned about your action over at the CBC blog. I don’t like using the legal system to bully opponents into silence or grovelling apologies. And I don’t care where on the spectrum the bullies lie.
For the record, I’ve spent far more time on our mutual friend Warren Kinsella in this respect than I have on you. He does this sort of thing habitually. You have done it only once. But commenting on the latter hardly indicates lack of integrity on my part. It just means I’m consistent.
“The CBC caved, no surprise”
The CBC editors responsible for approving her post hadn’t followed through on her links. That’s why they pulled it after I made my complaint. What part of “agreeing that it was defamatory” do you not understand?
“I refuse to speculate about Marcie’s motives here.”
Well, that’s understandable, isn’t it? Because acknowledging that her apology was unsolicited and sincere would undermine your position. And that’s more important to you than the truth.
That’s what I mean by blogging integrity.
And by the way – that you have criticized others for threatening libel suits is not relevant, nor does it get you off the hook for ignoring the facts.
Hey Greg in Dallas,
Thank you for your service.
I lived in NY state during the 60s and early 70’s and witnessed some of what was going on with the antiwar crowd from some universities and churches and I remember the Winter Soldiers.
I too believe the Swift Boaters claims and the reason the left can not counter them effectively is because they are true.
Baldwin huffing/puffing at: Huffington.
http://www.rapp.org/url/?MZ7CIWJH
“How about…a lying, thieving Oil Whore.”
A descent by the left into gibberish; self-loathing puerile nonsense; a short step away from impotency.
The left: tlhIngan maH!
http://www.kli.org/tlh/phrases.html
Facts, Kate? What facts? We all know there’s no love lost between you and MWW. That’s about the only fact that’s relevant here. There was nothing legally defamatory in her blog-posts. That, too, is a fact. And we know you used words like “defamatory” to get your way. That, too, is a fact.
“‘I refuse to speculate about Marcie’s motives here.’
“Well, that’s understandable, isn’t it? Because acknowledging that her apology was unsolicited and sincere would undermine your position. And that’s more important to you than the truth.”
Truth, Kate? What’s the truth here?
I haven’t been in touch with Marcie since her apology. I have no idea what her motives were, I think speculating about them is wrong, and I don’t think it’s appropriate in any case to bring her into the matter at this point. She’s a very nice person and I’m sure she was sincere.
As to whether her apology was “unsolicited,” however, I’m a wee bit sceptical. There are ways and means of “unsoliciting” apologies.
The “truth,” as you put it, is that you shut down part of a blog-post because you didn’t happen to like it. I criticized you for that, as I have criticized others for doing the same thing. Had I singled you out, you might have had a point. But I didn’t, and you don’t.
“As to whether her apology was “unsolicited,” however, I’m a wee bit sceptical.”
And that’s a coward’s way of calling me a liar.
The only person who seems to be actively engaged in manufacturing controversy about it is you – and the last time I checked, you weren’t privy to any of private exchanges.
Why is that? What exactly are you trying to prove? Or is it just that difficult to admit you blew it that you continue to flog a horse that was dead and buried weeks ago?
Testimony: Al & Mo met here courtesy of CEOOR. +
Meeting a Muslim is not always easy.
Meeting the right person can be hard enough, but when you combine that with trying to find someone that is also a Muslim, and you live in a country where Muslims are a religious minority—Good Luck! For most people, it is far from easy.
http://www.twomuslims.com/ +
The Quislings of Eurabia
by Paul Belien, The Brussels Journal
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Last Saturday Tim Blair wrote that so far thirteen papers have been closed down after they published the Danish cartoons. At least twelve journalists face charges and seven are in prison. �Most media organisations have taken a stand by boldly running away,� says Blair. �Journalists can spend entire careers mouthing off about their commitment to free speech without ever having the chance to properly demonstrate it. I once had a theory that the lack of repression in modern democracies drove journalists to invent McCarthyesque threats, so much did they crave an opportunity to stare down those who would silence them. Their ideal imagined foes (I�m guessing): brutish religious fundamentalists opposed to progressive notions on women�s rights, homosexuality, art, and education. Problem is, those imagined foes were always named Falwell or Robertson or Nile (or John Paul II). Faced with fundamentalist religious demands from people bearing less familiar titles, however, the media froze. Missed your chance, journalists!�
Since Saturday the figures need updating. Yesterday a Saudi newspaper was banned after printing some of the cartoons. Some socialist governments in the West are no better than their islamist counterparts. Sweden has already closed two websites for publishing the cartoons, and the Finnish government closed one, and quickly apologized to Muslims worldwide for the drawings.
The fate of the imprisoned journalists, who now linger in cells in Islamic countries for taking the brave decision to show the public what the cartoons are really like, should be a matter for concern amongst their colleagues around the globe. The resounding silence on the part of the latter, however, proves that most journalists are either downright cowards or the Quislings of anti-Western forces. This reminds me of the infamous Brussels journalist Philippe Servaty who last summer deliberately ruined the lives of more than eighty unfortunate Moroccan women (whom he had each wooed, promised to marry and take with him to Belgium) by posting nude pictures of them on the internet. While Servaty walks free, the women in Morocco were killed by their disgraced families, committed suicide or were locked up as whores in Moroccan jails. Today many of these women are still in prison, serving their one-year sentence. I addressed some of the largest and most powerful international women�s organizations and asked them to launch campaigns for their unfortunate sisters in Morocco � to no avail. The feminists are only interested in their own abortion rights, not in the plight of Muslim women in jail.
It is interesting to compare the behaviour of the Quisling governments of Sweden and Finland to that of the Netherlands. Today (Tuesday) Dutch foreign minister Ben Bot sharply rebuked EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana for the way in which the latter grovelled at the feet of radical Muslim regimes last week, when on a tour of Arab nations Mr Solana, a Spanish Socialist, declared that Europe shared the �anguish� of �offended� Muslims over the Danish cartoons. The Dutch Secretary for European Affairs, Atzo Nicolai, is quoted in today�s De Telegraaf, the largest paper of the Netherlands, about Mr Solana: �He has toured around in order to offer apologies. On behalf of whom, I ask. You and me? We did not draw those cartoons.�
Despite its brave stance, however, the Dutch also have their Quislings. Last month the authorities in Amsterdam prohibited the police from patrolling certain areas of the city in uniform after a Moroccan �youth� had died in a traffic accident. This situation was sufficient for the authorities to consider it unwise that the �youths� be �provoked� by the sight of police uniforms.
One of the worst Quisling regimes can be found in neighbouring Belgium. There the government has an entire organisation at its disposal, the so-called Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism (CEOOR). This Centre systematically prosecutes people who oppose �multiculturalism.� +
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/brussels022206.htm
via freerepublic.com
Grab a pin, the giant Blogging Tories bubble is about to burst.
Well, Kate, there’s a lot I could say here, but I’ll keep it brief for both your sake and mine.
1)“‘As to whether her apology was “unsolicited,” however, I’m a wee bit sceptical.’
And that’s a coward’s way of calling me a liar.
Not so. You have here confirmed that there were additional “private exchanges,” as I’d thought at the time. You don’t have to demand an apology outright to get one. There are all sorts of subtle and not-so-subtle ways of generating apologies. If I wanted to call you a liar, I’d have called you a liar, by the way: you know that I’m a plain-spoken person.
2)The only person who seems to be actively engaged in manufacturing controversy about it is you – and the last time I checked, you weren’t privy to any of private exchanges.
Your post, to which I responded, mentioned personal attacks on you by “you lefties” during the campaign. I assumed that you were referring, inter alia, to my post about this incident. I responded with one or two sentences, and moved on to the nub of the left/right blogging issue. I wasn’t interested in “manufacturing controversy” about that incident, but I wasn’t going to take your broad-brush charge lying down, either.
“Why is that? What exactly are you trying to prove? Or is it just that difficult to admit you blew it that you continue to flog a horse that was dead and buried weeks ago?
The horse is dead, all right; we can both agree on that. And perhaps we can agree on one further matter: with your unwarranted attack on my personal integrity, your use of words like “coward,” etc., the second-last sentence of your post has just self-destructed.