dagblog - Comments for "New Rule for Radical Lefties: Mottos Don’t Matter "

Just to extend Saladin's

Verified Atheist — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 23:03:14 +0000

In reply to It's not a straw man argument

Just to extend Saladin's point, as perhaps the most obvious atheist here (because of my handle), you'll note that not only did I not advocate for attacking the motto, but explicitly stated that is was not a battle worth fighting at this time. That's not to say I'd be sorry to see it go (I wouldn't), but I'm quite aware of the framing such an issue would get. Right now, our best approach is to lead with E Pluribus Unum, as MrSmith suggested on your previous piece. I also agree that it'd be best to keep these conversations in a single blog post, at least when that post is still as easily accessible as that one is. It makes the conversation much easier to follow, and keeps reader blogs from disappearing off the side bar when no new issue has been added.

I know there's some debate

Michael Maiello — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 21:11:30 +0000

In reply to New Rule for Radical Lefties: Mottos Don’t Matter

I know there's some debate about how hard liberals are even fighting over this issue. From what I can tell, they basically aren't. I also don't consider it an issue of paramount importance while we have 9% unemployment. But I also don't see much of our foreign policy as having paramount importance these days. Better, and better paying jobs, is all that should matter.

But let's not lose sight, in this discussion, of the fact that "one nation under God," shouldn't be in the pledge and that "In God We Trust," should not be any sort of national credo. Witnesses in court should also not be asked to swear on a Judeo-Christian bible. It all happens, but it's all wrong and while there are more pressing issues, this is not without some importance. If people do want to devote time to fighting it, more power to them.

I haven't heard a word about

Saladin — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 20:10:59 +0000

In reply to It's not a straw man argument

I haven't heard a word about any of those efforts and don't really think there is much behind them, and I would note that you did not mention any of them in your piece. If your goal is to address them, then address them. That gives your piece context that a reader can understand, this is a against the left as a whole, which is simply wrong. One can always find minor advocacy groups that you can point to? Does the existence of NAMBLA signify a far left acceptance of pedophilia? Do a few activist atheists prove their is a "war on Christmas". Conservatives love to point to these examples but its bullshit, there is no larger movement behind them. This piece plays into that framing by accepting the fallacy that a few speak for the many, in short you are thinking like an elephant.

Your second paragraph is quite good, I don't disagree with you, maybe it should have been in the piece. Factually I would quibble with your history. Its true that some founding fathers would have disagreed with the GOP--Jefferson comes to mind--many likely would not have.

My other writing comment would be to spend some time editing your work. When you finish a piece don't be so quick to publish. Give it some time, and then reread it critically. How will someone with no idea of the subject matter respond? Is your thesis clear? Are the examples well crafted, or are they rushed. Is your tone the voice that you want to betray? (in this case a pejorative tone pervades the piece, which is fine, but you risk in kind responses). Now I warn you that I am not a very good writer, but these are some things I have been told. So take it with a grain of salt.

Best of luck,

It's not a straw man argument

MuddyPolitics — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 16:29:29 +0000

In reply to As one of those that

It's not a straw man argument when you have advocacy groups (Americans United, as just one example) making headlines for protesting moves like the reaffirmation of the U.S. motto, when you have atheists activists suing to change the motto, and when you have bloggers arguing that we should go back to the original motto.

Educating people about the real history of our motto is all fine and good. Undermine the GOP by informing people that our founding fathers disagreed with them on the motto of the "United" States of America. That's effective. A public protest about informing the masses would be awesome. A public protest, or publicized protest, a lawsuit rejected by the Supreme Court -- I think these do little to make the progressive movement attractive to larger audiences. There's a difference between educating people about the original motto and actually fighting to bring it back, which one reader here proposed.

Any other critiques beyond the now common "you should write about something else" "you write like a high school douchebag" analyses?

The "heartbreak hotel" piece

trkingmomoe — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 10:31:26 +0000

In reply to Thanks Dan. I actually read

The "heartbreak hotel" piece was good because the author was writing about a world he knows well. It is a world he lives in and works in every day. How is the economy and politics effecting the world and people around you personally? You can find some good politcal stories right under your nose.

"I chose a topic that the far

Saladin — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 04:48:17 +0000

In reply to No feedback necessary. It's

"I chose a topic that the far left often gets pissed off"

Yes you did, inanity. Well done. I hope that she looks like one of those hot blond Fox milfs and compliments your brilliance when she hands it back.

As one of those that

Saladin — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 04:40:37 +0000

In reply to Thanks Dan. I actually read

As one of those that contributed to your thinking I would say that the appropriate place for this point would have been in the conversational stream in your previous piece. It certainly did not call for a stand alone piece, and I actually don't believe it does a very good of responding to the points that each of us made.

The inconvenient lack of an actual left wing effort to remove the new motto makes your piece strawman argument, that frankly reads like a douchebag lecturing his dog on how important he is. I now have a mental image of you as a young Ignatius Jacques Reilly clutching a copy of George Lakoff and warning us libtards of our impending missteps. I suppose that's not a bad identity if you want to make it yours, but its sorta hard to take seriously.

BTW- If you are using Dagblog as a forum to work on your writing I think that is a fine thing to do, these are good people around here. I tried to do the same thing over at the old TPM cafe, but I actually learned much more through the commenting dialog, which is why I stop by here on occasion to converse. I would also recommend trying to bring something new to the conversation through your postings. Maybe a little background info, an interesting observation or connection, or if you are going for satire, find some humor. Above all it is important to consider your audience.

Thanks Dan. I actually read

MuddyPolitics — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 04:06:52 +0000

In reply to Genghis has a whole book on

Thanks Dan. I actually read the book. Interestingly enough, that's what led me here. (Which means it's Genghis' fault that I'm here at all.)

Regarding your statement, “liberals don't need to be warned not to wage a war against ‘In God We Trust’ that they are not in fact waging,” and your question, “Who in the world are you actually addressing?” I was actually commenting on the comments made by Mr.Smith, VA, and Saladin on my last post, but also the pro-Michael Newdows of the world in general. No Republican smoke machine here. I’m drug free.

As for the heartbreak hotel piece, it was breathtaking.... I wish I could write like that.

No feedback necessary. It's

MuddyPolitics — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 03:47:15 +0000

In reply to I'm sorry, is this a draft

No feedback necessary. It's only that my high school sped teacher (a conservative bitch) forced me to post something on a public blog that put bleeding hearts (she said "libtards") in their place. I chose a topic that the far left often gets pissed off about even though they have no chance of affecting any policy related to their position. I’ll probably get an A.

Genghis has a whole book on

Dan Kervick — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 03:44:21 +0000

In reply to New Rule for Radical Lefties: Mottos Don’t Matter

Genghis has a whole book on the Republicans technique of blowing smoke. I think you need to read it Muddy. Just because Bill O'Reilly says, for example, that there is a liberal war against Christmas doesn't mean there is actually a liberal war against Christmas - much less that liberals then need to be warned not to wage that war.

Similarly, liberals don't need to be warned not to wage a war against "In God We Trust" that they are not in fact waging. Who in the world are you actually addressing? Don't let yourself get lost inside the Republican smoke machine.

Here's the kind of thing that actual progressives are actually talking about:

dagblog.com/reader-blogs/heartbreak-motel-employed-unemployed-and-unemployable-12096