Well, yeah. That's just not quite the vibe I was getting, somehow. A lot of Republicans scare the hell out of me. A lot of Republicans don't. It felt like Bob's comment didn't distinguish between Group A and Group B, is all.
Bob Oldendorf:
"The other side is full of religious conviction, and thinks that opponents are sinners."
"I don't think it's the reality-based community that's in danger of over-simplifying the motives of the opposition."
Are you sure about that? I don't know about you, but I would think that the 51% of the country isn't some undifferentiated mass of people, all of whom are convinced that we are sinners, etc. That isn't to say that such people aren't out there. But if you want to tell me that the entire Republican electorate is adequately represented by Jim DeMint or Tom Coburn, then I think you're on pretty shaky ground.
This isn't about using "reason" to teach people the error of their ways and convincing them to vote Democratic because our facts are better. It's about convincing them that we respect their values and lifestyle and beliefs, even (especially) when we don't agree with them. There are a whole lot of people in purple states who could vote Democratic, who voted for Clinton and would vote for someone like Obama, if they felt they were being treated with respect. Maybe we should do that?
Mary Kay, I wouldn't think that we'd be trying to get people like your uncle or your cousin to vote Democratic anyway (since it would never work). But there are lots of people who are more moderate than _that_ in the Midwest, no?
Define "align yourself." Define "the likes of Michael Moore." Define "hating your country." Oh, and look up the meaning of "rude."
Mitch, are you accusing Greg of flaming Arlen or of flaming Patrick?
Mitch, are you saying that Greg is assuming malice on _Patrick's_ part? Because I'm totally not seeing that at all. The post of Greg's that you're taking issue with is a response to _Arlen_, pointing out that Arlen's initial charge is way overblown. Greg, AFAICT, was saying that Arlen was wrong to criticize everybody who called the school to get their side of the story; he was also saying that (since this has turned into he-said/he-said), we don't have any way of figuring out definitively who's telling the truth, given the facts before us. How is that in any way an attack on Patrick?
In retrospect, yes. I reacted badly to the last sentence, mostly. My apologies, Yehudit.
you know...I really like Atrios, but there are times when I can't stand his commenters. This is definitely one of them.
As opposed to that haven of peace and quiet Baghdad?
That does imply that the Pauline view of homosexuality was a negative one, of course. I am reminded of Real Live Preacher's exegesis of this passage, though, in which he distinguishes between homosexual _lust_ (as described in Romans) which is bad, and more continent homosexual desire, which is not.
Lydia -- I think what Timothy was saying was that when fandom extends beyond the textual/critical realm (all of the activities mentioned in the paragraph you quote) to the personal interaction with authors/musicians/pros/etc, people tend to forget that they're dealing with other human beings, with all of the negative consequences he is deploring. I don't read it as saying one should only be a fan in one's spare time; I would also say that a lot of what's involved in being an active sf fan (certainly in terms of conventions) is somewhat different from the stuff he's talking about.
Add another qualifier or two, and that might actually be a decent imitation of what Lydia said. Of course, in doing so, you completely miss the difference in contexts between her remark and yours, which rather ruins the satire.
Would it be too much to ask that you answer the question I asked? (The one I asked in my post of 12:47; and no, I don't think you've actually dealt with this one yet).
Mostly because I didn't think he really went over the line in that last post. Or to be more precise: The bit where he said how he was offended by what Lydia said about him (and how she should have asked him to explain, etc) is pushing it, mostly because he ignored what she actually said.
But the rest? He made a comment, several people asked him to explain it, and he explained it. Was there a shade of histrionics to it? Maybe. Does that really bother me? Not really; it wasn't really insulting, per se, to the rest of the people on the thread, and I could easily see how someone could (non-maliciously) respond the way he did. It did imply that our responses to his comment were not the swiftest (which is a sin shared by a whole lot of other posters on this thread, put it that way), but if you're disemvowelling for that, there are a lot of people who are going to be very unhappy soon.
I guess what it really comes down to is that I didn't feel like the discussion was _quite_ done (and I freely concede that I may be overoptimistic here), and that disemvowelling him would have the effect of shutting things down. Or to put it another way, I still had one more question for him, and I wanted to see if he would answer it (or not), without him being possibly driven away by disemvowellment.
I hope the above makes sense and doesn't unintentionally ruffle any feathers. If it does, I apologize; it's late and I'm tired, etc. It is obviously your call, but I figured I'd throw in my $0.02.
Teresa, would it be too much to ask that his vowels be returned to him?
Just one more comment on irresponsibility: to be honest, I don't think you've fully addressed the points that have been made on this issue. It started with the actual physical risk to Plame and her contacts, etc. You argued that this was improbable, too cloak-and-dagger, etc. Fine. Whatever. I really don't know enough about the way the game is actually played to have a strong opinion.
But then the issue shifted slightly to employment (cf. James MacDonald's recent posts). All you've said in response to that issue is that a) Plame hasn't been fired yet, b) whether or not she gets fired (or has her career derailed, or becomes the office pariah, etc) probably depends on internal CIA rules and procedures.
A couple of points in response 1) That response to some extent assumes she actually is a CIA agent (which rather misses the point of the irresponsibility accusation anyway). If she is CIA, one would think that being outed as an undercover operative would in some way affect one's career, regardless of the letter of the procedures, no?
2) If you look at the rest of your response, your entire argument seems to be the bare assertion that being (falsely) outed as CIA would not really affect her job circumstances (looking in particular at your post of 12:11 PM on 8/3). That doesn't really seem to answer the points being made; do you really think that her co-workers (in the _energy_ industry, after all) would look at her the same way after she got outed as being a CIA agent? Care to back this one up?
Re: Lydia Nickerson/anti-semitism. I don't really feel like getting into an extended pointless argument about how your words came out (though when four or five people all tell you the same thing about how you're being received, you may want to pay attention). I will only say that there is no particular reason for you to be offended by what Lydia said, because she was quite careful to phrase her statement _as a conditional_. Given that you are _not_ anti-semitic (and I see no reason not to take that as given), what then is the problem?
Or at the very least, in the former scenario, it _may have been_ a crime; we don't know enough about her exact circumstances to tell if her case fit the precise wording of the law. On the other hand, "not technically illegal" isn't exactly exculpatory, either.
Dennis: you say that we don't know what her employment status is, whether it's changed, what CIA's rules are, etc. Does that really matter? If Yonmei's latter case is correct, then _someone_ in the Bush Administration or in CIA took an action which they could reasonably expect to screw her over w/regard to her job and her personal life (as for how, cf. James MacDonald's post on the subject).
The fact that we don't know if that's actually happened yet doesn't affect that. Even if it _doesn't_ happen, there's a decent chance that it would have; that chance alone makes the action irresponsible. Since you evidently feel that this is not the case, I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning. (I'd also be interested to know why you brought in Israel, if you don't mind).
Let me take this opportunity, then, to recommend all of the followups which both Mark Kleiman and Tom Maguire have made to their original posts on the subject. Between the two of them, I think they've largely beaten the subject to death, absent additional information (which ought to come soon, no?).
[spelling nitpick] Piestawa [/spelling nitpick].
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2005 | 1 |
| 2004 | 7 |
| 2003 | 15 |
| 2002 | 4 |
Total: 27 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Electrolite by Mark:
Show all comments by Mark.