dagblog - Comments for "FRIDAY FOLLIES: The Arresting truth about Orlando Cops, Vegetables, Bachmann, and the Sublime Ruby Bridges"

"the closed-minded "elitist"

smithers_T — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 19:03:55 +0000

"the closed-minded "elitist" tag you use so often instead of actual topical discussion.

Your arguments for Michele Bachmann aren't serious arguments."

Interesting to take such offense at the term elitist (which is not a put-down of persons, but something employed by many groups, unintentionally)... and then, in the next sentence, say something elitist. Like I said, it's unintentional. I'm sure I do it too.

The thing about "sides" though... you tend to see them most clearly when standing in the middle. You may think I'm conservative because I'm not liberal. Conservatives tell me I'm liberal. But I really don't hold that many views of either group. That's the classic "if you're not with us, you're against us." I'm not against anyone. I'm not even against Bachmann. (;

Why am I not surprised at

Ramona — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 18:54:14 +0000

In reply to This response honestly

Why am I not surprised at your response? Because it's what I expect from the little I know of you. This is a group, whether you like it or not. We write and gather here because we choose to. You seem to think it's okay to come in here with the sole purpose of disrupting. It's a game with you. I'm no longer playing that game.

So this really is the last time I'll respond to you.

This response honestly

smithers_T — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 18:40:00 +0000

In reply to Okay, I'm going back on my

This response honestly surprises me... because I thought you were through "playing" already. What I think happened is that you didn't read my second comment (vegetable) until after you said you were through, and because it has sharp statement at the end of it.

Look, I'm not your moral judge (or anyone's) nor are you mine. But it's fair to talk about the use of personal statements (even toward politicians). One of your bloggers must agree with that because they rebuked me on the same issue yesterday.

I feel it's fair of you to point out the beauty in your other statements, and I admit I'm not the kind of person who is given over to "cheerleading" people's comments, even if they're eloquent. Do I appreciate the writer's effort? Yes. It's harder to write than reply.

What else can I say? I wanted to keep my promise to Trope (mixed in with the dialog above) or I wouldn't have commented. I don' think this was bad.

Smithers

P.s. You'll see the same beauty (ultimately, care /concern /charity) for the poor if you read my first post carefully. I have to travel (to pay some bills), etc. So I'll not be troubling the faint of heart... (hmm... I don't really believe that... but rather the growling beasts that jollyroger spoke of? Yes, I think they're afoot... Indeed so!) Happy ranting

In a sense, Yes... you have

smithers_T — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 18:06:16 +0000

In reply to I have some time Ain't we a

In a sense, Yes... you have means (intellect /will) to do Good... Maybe you could win friends and influence people... Or, if not, have some fun, take the Morals Politics Test... maybe you could win a prize for being the most insightful political critic on your spleeny, sheep-biting street.

Okay, I'm going back on my

Ramona — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 18:02:52 +0000

In reply to This is in keeping my promise

Okay, I'm going back on my promise to stop playing with you, Smithers. I need to say this to you: I wrote a blog above that included many paragraphs beyond the few mentions of Michele Bachmann. You chose to pull the word "vegetable" out of it so that you could follow your usual pattern of disrupting blog posts on dagblog. I resent it mightily.

Not because you brought it to your comment but because you refused to let it go, even though there was nowhere else to go with it.

You know why I resent it? Because the longest segment of my blog was about Ruby Bridges, the little black girl who had to be escorted by U.S Marshals to an all-white school. She became an advocate for disadvantaged children and I thought that was important and beautiful.

The other segment I thought was important and beautiful was the one about the Mayor of Orlando giving space to Food, Not Bombs to help feed the poor and disadvantaged after they were forced to leave the city's public parks.

As the resident contrarian, there was no way you could leave it alone. You said:

Of the 10-15% of Americans who are considered to be in poverty, a small number are unable to provide nutrition and shelter, etc. (e.g. half own a house). Most are deemed comfortable by past (pre WWI) standards. And, by the standard of poverty elsewhere in the world today...? By this measure they're actually rich.

Assuming the ones at the park in Orlando were not nominally poor, but among the fringe that makes up a smaller number, I think that justifies giving them food in any circumstance. Heck, I give food to people who have jobs and houses (to make it easier and provide a sense of kindness that government's inert to).

But, for the sake of discussion, what about people who are passing through, not in a destitute state of well being? In that case, don't you need a permit? I know that everyone needs one, but I'm asking if even the most angst filled social justice advocate would then understand the need for a government permit?

For the sake of maintaining a sane discussion of my blog, I chose to ignore this. If one of us had challenged your premise, you would have been one happy camper. But since we didn't, you had to find something else. You chose the one-liner, "And speaking of vegetables", and off you went. And you won.

No more discussion of the good things happening in my Friday Follies blog post. Not a single mention of Ruby Bridges' name. You did that. It's what you come here to do, and you did it.

Now I'm done.

Wow! That deserves a prize,

Ramona — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 17:43:47 +0000

In reply to Yes, where is that

Wow! That deserves a prize, too. What a dilemma. I'll leave it to DD to sort it all out.

Yeah, where is that shirker?

acanuck — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 17:31:53 +0000

In reply to That's quinn's job, and I

Yeah, where is that shirker?

This is in keeping my promise

smithers_T — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 15:14:06 +0000

In reply to FRIDAY FOLLIES: The Arresting truth about Orlando Cops, Vegetables, Bachmann, and the Sublime Ruby Bridges

This is in keeping my promise to Trope who requested "substantiation" of specific points. Since I didn't make the contentions (the points) about Bachmann in the thread, I'll use one of Trope's bullet points, the first one:

1. On ethnic riots in Paris (November 2005): On the face of it, Bachmann observed, “multicultural diversity … sounds wonderful. But guess what? Not all cultures are equal. Not all values are equal. And ... those who are coming into France, which had a beautiful culture, the French culture is actually diminished, it’s going away.”

Bachmann is not referring to human dignity in the statement that cultures and values are not equal. She's making a factual statement.

It's true that cultures (and, at a finer level, communities) and their values, in order to differentiate and preserve what they have, resist change from outside... That which comes from what they perceived to be "the other". Every group does that which has identity, whether it's cultural, national, racial, etc. If I understand her, Bachmann is saying other groups exercise power to diminish what they think doesn't serve them. The French culture IS being diminished, and perhaps not improved.

I think it would have made a better response if she had talked about the French Revolution, a case where the "cure" for imbalance (of wealth) turned out to be far more insidious than the disease. "The Reign of Terror" (those diminishing the previous culture) imposed values that were, by any standard, grossly unjust, wicked actually. Due process? Gone. Even people who knew someone who had wealth often were beheaded (Beheaded by association, by suspicion).

Anyone could easily study this issue, look into the data and draw conclusions from it. But her statement is not false.... If you're arguing that it's polemic, weak on it's conclusion, or that the data to support what she said isn't there, I don't see that. Although I'm not coming from that vantage point, she is schooled differently.... But far from showing that she's a stupid person (or inane /funny because she's just so "out there"), I don't see anything showing what she said to be inaccurate or false or even presenting an alarming "out there" idea.

Again, some may shun debating or looking at facts and the logic surrounding them (or see it as boredom).... The way I see it is that if one is going to put up strong statements of disagreement, but then find the presumptions on which the strong disagreements were based aren't supported by real events, facts (or the full context of what has transpired), maybe it's because the view is based on nothing more than disliking a person's tone, beliefs or even their appearance... If so... well, that may be personal dislike or intolerance, but it wouldn't be justification for attacking a person's credibility, intellectual capacity or the truthfulness of their ideas.

Thoughtfully,

T. Smithers

Yes, where is that

Donal — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 14:04:41 +0000

In reply to Never underestimate your

Yes, where is that misbegotten knotty-pated ratsbane!

Never underestimate your

Ramona — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 13:59:57 +0000

In reply to There are some who might

Never underestimate your value to this here dagblog. Your comments above deserve some sort of prize. A Dikkday prize. So where the hell is he when we need him?