Liberty is an inherently offensive lifestyle. Living in a free society guarantees that each one of us will see our most cherished principles and beliefs questioned and in some cases mocked. That psychic discomfort is the price we pay for basic civic peace. It's worth it. It's a pragmatic principle. Defend everyone else's rights, because if you don't there is no one to defend yours. -- MaxedOutMama

I don't just want gun rights... I want individual liberty, a culture of self-reliance....I want the whole bloody thing. -- Kim du Toit

The most glaring example of the cognitive dissonance on the left is the concept that human beings are inherently good, yet at the same time cannot be trusted with any kind of weapon, unless the magic fairy dust of government authority gets sprinkled upon them.-- Moshe Ben-David

The cult of the left believes that it is engaged in a great apocalyptic battle with corporations and industrialists for the ownership of the unthinking masses. Its acolytes see themselves as the individuals who have been "liberated" to think for themselves. They make choices. You however are just a member of the unthinking masses. You are not really a person, but only respond to the agendas of your corporate overlords. If you eat too much, it's because corporations make you eat. If you kill, it's because corporations encourage you to buy guns. You are not an individual. You are a social problem. -- Sultan Knish

All politics in this country now is just dress rehearsal for civil war. -- Billy Beck

Wednesday, November 24, 2004

Published AGAIN!

Well, only in the local lefty rag, The Tucson Weekly, but that's five-for-six, so far. The issue that came out immediately after the election was amusing, reading the shell-shocked reactions of the staffers. The editor wrote a subdued-but-hopeful, "we'll-be-inclusive" piece that prompted me to write a letter in response. They asked if they could publish it, and it appeared in this week's issue, but they edited it for length (as I expected) and took some of the punch out.

The original editorial was Onward and Upward, and my complete response to it is below. The Weekly's version of it is here. I've highlighted in blue the parts they edited out.
I noted with skeptical hope your promise: "We'll make an effort to understand and reach out to people with differing viewpoints."

Just how differing remains to be seen. I am one of the readers you'd probably consider "Republican and conservative," though my voter registration says Democrat and I'm more of a libertarian (small "L".) I consider the choice between the Left/Democrats and the Right/Republicans to be the difference between castration and a wedgie. Guess how I voted.

Yet, I'm college educated. I'm a professional engineer. I'm an atheist. (Agnostic if you want to be precise.) I'm in favor of gay rights - to a point. I'm in favor of abortion rights - to a point. I'm a pretty rabid proponent of the right to arms, though, and other rights of the individual. That's where I part company with the Left - it seems to be the modern equivalent of the Church. As one writer I read put it, "The thought occurs to me that politically, the Left is the modern Puritans - they want to live life their own way and make sure everyone else does, too." I agree with that thought.

I read the Weekly on occasion essentially to keep an eye on "the opposition" as it were. I've had four of my letters to the Weekly published, and one rejected (for length - I tend to the verbose.) I also read the Weekly because it does criticize government when such criticism is merited - something I see very little of from other media in this town.

I hope you do "fight for truth and justice," but I don't see it happening. No one in the print or electronic media seems interested in truth anymore, just in promoting their own agenda. At least the Weekly's bias is tattooed on its sleeve. And chest, back, and legs.

You wrote: "(M)any people who support equal rights for all and who dislike divisiveness were crushed by the election results. (This is not to say that all those who voted for Bush dislike equal rights and like divisiveness. A lot of good, intelligent people voted for Bush, as well as Proposition 200. But I don't understand how or why. Any insights are welcome.)"

Let me see if I can explain it somewhat. I've lived in Tucson since 1981. In the last twelve years I've seen the political divide get more and more pronounced - and from my side of the aisle, it is the Left that has gotten the most shrill and offensive. It is the Left that has been the most divisive. (Puritans, remember.)

A matter of perspective, perhaps, but the election results should give you pause.

I've only been "politically active" since about 1995, but apparently I'm a charter member of Hillary's Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, a charter member of Al Gore's Digital Brownshirts, and a charter member of Jonathan Klein's Pajamahadeen. (Yes, I am a blogger, since May 2003.) The 2000 election was a major motivator for me. And it wasn't because I thought Bush tried to steal the election.

The most fascinating thing I've noted recently is the declining influence of Big Media. Hell, even Small Media. Instead, I've been enthralled and engaged by Micro Media, and I think that's something you'd better pay attention to. That and Fox News. There's a reason right-wing talk radio and Fox News draw high ratings, and it isn't because the audience is stupid.

Finally, if you really want some insight as to why your side lost (and lost big) I suggest you read something that was posted to the blogosphere on November 5. (No, it isn't mine. I disagree with much the young lady wrote, but her piece is highly illuminating.) It's called How You Could Have Had My Vote. Print it out. Pass it around the office. Perhaps it will generate some useful discussion, instead of the congnitive dissonance that seems to be the general reaction from the shell-shocked Left.

Thank you for your attention.
Not bad. But read this week's guest editorial to see where their "effort to understand and reach out to people with differing viewpoints" is going.

Same ol' same ol'.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.