Adventures In The Blogosphere
Over the last few days I have had the interesting opportunity to venture on to some conservatively based blogs that have linked to the website (yes, that’s one of the finer features of Mint).
First, it’s always important to respect the political passions of others, unless, of course, they venture into a realm in which outright intolerance is espoused. When it comes to various conservative blogs, the intelligence of the author is obvious, and while I might disagree with some of their positions, the way in which they convey their convictions is not to be overlooked or simply discounted because of disagreement. I should also point out that there are liberally based blogs that are just as guilty of the sorts of unintelligent practices that many conservative blogs are, so it’s not as if they have a monopoly on producing the ever popular response of me holding my head in my hands in absolute bewilderment.
That said; there is a bizarre trend that I have noticed on numerous Canadian conservative blogs that, I must admit, confuses me, and it has to do with the American Civil Liberties Union.
First, the ACLU has no bearing on the political landscape of this country. Thus, railing against it seems rather bizarre. Unlike the current US administration, whose policies do have a significant impact on a global scale, the ACLU is a national organization that deals with issues regarding American civil liberties.
Formed in 1920, the ACLU’s purpose is to defend the civil liberties of Americans as ensured by the Constitution of the United States. Since its inception, it has, through legal means, brought about significant evolutionary changes in the practice of Constitutional law. One of the most significant cases in its history was Brown v. Board of Education, which ultimately led to the desegregation of public schools in the United States.
While there are those that ignorantly attack the ACLU, it should never be overlooked that its entire purpose is to work to ensure the civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. There are, of course, certain areas that are controversial with regards to the groups positions, such as their opposition to government funded displays of religious symbols on public property, the equality of rights for gay, lesbian, transgender, and bisexual individuals, prayer in public schools, reproductive rights, and so forth.
To some, such positions may seem ‘crazy’, but the truth is that the ACLU’s goal is to ensure that the freedoms ensured by the Constitution, not the historical implications of American society, such as it being thought of as a Christian nation, are of the highest import.
That said; there are some positions held by the ACLU that I disagree with, but that does not alter the fact that the organization’s overall purpose is immensely crucial. We live in a day and age in which the Constitution’s authority has been usurped by members of the current administration, and that is a reality, no matter foreign wars, that should alarm anyone that believes in the sanctity of governing documents that exist to ensure the protection of civil liberties above all other intrusions.
In short, to say that the ACLU must be stopped says something about ones views regarding the protection of liberties, not to mention those landmark events in US history in which the ACLU was involved that resulted in the production of just equality. If the ACLU ‘must be stopped’, then one must ask if everything they have done in the past is also suspect, including the ACLU’s role in the US Civil Rights movement.
Childish Monikers And Sensationalist Political Blogging
I have no idea when the term ‘Moonbat’ was first employed or by whom. I also have no idea as to when similar terms regarding conservatively minded individuals were first employed. In truth, the employment of any of them is equally unintelligent and juvenile.
When it comes to blogging, mudslinging is a popular pastime, and one that is engaged in largely because the ability to form cogent arguments is beyond the scope of those engaging in it. Throw in a few inflammatory lines and a few links, maybe a picture, and you’re off to the races.
Of course, that practice is universal in the blogosphere, and absolutely not limited to a single group. In truth, when it comes to blogging on a daily basis, it is quite difficult to write in-depth entries that delve into every complexity regarding a particular topic. That is, thank God, why books still exist.
When it comes to geopolitics, fluidity obviously plays a significant role in how one approaches blogging about current events. But that does not mean that the inclusion of some intelligent basis for an entry should be disregarded in favour of lowbrow posts that are devoid of, at the very least, archival relations that present at least some semblance of an intelligent platform of opinion.
It is, in truth, hard to take anyone seriously whose blog is replete with moronic politically based adverts that do not offer their readership anything other than adolescent jabs. Even worse, when it is clear that their understanding of a subject is so limited that you feel embarrassed for them.
Unfortunately, that is the reality of the political blogosphere. In truth, it’s home to far more ‘instapundits’ than it is those that actually take the time to offer well thought out entries on a daily basis.
Want to bookmark or share this entry?
This entry was posted on Thursday, January 17th, 2008 at 11:42 am. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
I’ve been reading some of those linked articles, too, over the past few days.
As someone who’s just “learning” about many of the subjects you post on (yes, I’ve been under a rock…long story), I usually refrain from commenting on the political issues, as my understanding is extremely limited and I don’t feel that I’ve much to contribute (other than to bring myself up to speed). So I think (hope) in the process that I’ve saved myself some of the embarrassment of doing that, despite the fact that I’m guilty of sometimes spurting out the occassional “Fuck Bush and everyone that looks like him”. I’m a genius, aren’t I?
A few quotes came to mind when I read your post:
“In silence man can most readily preserve his integrity.”
“I have often regretted my speech, never my silence.”
And, lastly…
“Smart people speak from experience - smarter people, from experience, don’t speak.”
January 17th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
I don’t know why, but on reading this post, I imagined someone yelling “ACLU must be stopped!” And for some reason, the confederate flag came to mind. Don’t know why. Maybe my subconscious is on to something.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
I wouldn’t even know where to begin if I was to start talking politics on my blog. To start with, I have a very hard time debating and when debates start to get historical, I begin to start looking like a moron because it’s probably something I have yet to cover in my travels. Even if I was to sit down, think about it, research it and then express whatever I have to say, chances are it would still look moronic compared to the best. At least when I start a feeble attempt at music journalism I have a bit of a background to go on and even then I start to chicken out when someone starts challanging my opinion. This one asshole at work was trying to convince me that the Imperial March is the best piece of music ever written, and the moment I had to think about how to express my opinion without stuttering, he declared his own victory in the arguement. He also is happy to let you know that he was happy on 9/11 because that meant there was going to be a war and he likes war.
But I do stay informed. It’s the least I can do in this confusing world.
January 17th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Good lord, can I tell you how much I hate the term “moonbat”? Schoolyard-level name-calling has got to be the least effective way to get your point across, but that doesn’t seem to stop people, does it? Being nasty and immature doesn’t accomplish anything except to prove who can dream up the most creative or vicious insults– and while some might take pride in that dubious talent, it doesn’t do a damn thing to illustrate intelligence or knowledge of the subject or, I don’t know, a well-thought-out argument. In fact, it really only suggests a lack of any of those.
I am reminded of a line from your Levant blog (a line I dearly loved): “…one would think such immature jabs would be something deemed counter productive with regards to the appearance of intellectual fortitude.” Yup.
January 17th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
The most interesting part is that political blogging has actually changed the way that politics are discussed, in general. Political blogs, with questionable (if not outright absent) sources are being linked to in arguments as a legitimate source of information. You’ll see a rant about a particular topic, click the link they’re using as a source, which goes to… another blog. Click a link there, and it goes to yet another blog.
And after a half-hour of searching, you realize that this mudslinging tripe that you first started reading is based upon some garbled nonsense that an anonymous face on the internet tossed out there… yet because it got linked often enough, it somehow gained a sense of legitimacy somewhere along the way.
(Of course, when you mention to the mudslinger that he/she is standing on a house of cards, you get called a moonbat.)
January 17th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
I could never really understand conservatives disdain for the ACLU. I’m generalizing here but traditionally conservatives have been closer to libertarians than have liberals. You’d think that libertarians/conservatives would support the ACLU wholeheartedly. You know, the whole keep the Govt. out of our lives bit has, it would seem to me, a lot to do with civil liberties.
Heck the ACLU even went to bat for Larry Craig’s right to have a wide stance -
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/in-larry-craigs-corner-the-aclu/?hp
January 17th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
I love hearing “the other sides” opinion cause that is the only way to find common ground and to actually move forward in a positive way. But when you have people (on both sides) baiting each other and try to use a campaign of keyboard “shock and awe”, we get nowhere. It seems a select group of asshats warp some peoples perception of an entire group of people (both sides being guilty, including myself) and a healthy debate is doomed before it began. I wish there were more conservative people who commented here with a different perspective, but not the type of overtly bigoted asshats that signed up just to stir the pot on the cartoon post.
BTW, thanks for introducing me to Juan Cole’s site a year or two ago, because of that I am able to surprise some of my Muslim coworkers and friends with stuff they are surprised I knew about.
Group Hug?
January 17th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
[quote comment="39026"]
“In silence man can most readily preserve his integrity.”
“I have often regretted my speech, never my silence.”
And, lastly…
“Smart people speak from experience - smarter people, from experience, don’t speak.”[/quote]
On my iGoogle page I have “Einstein quote of the day” and there was one similar to yours last week
“If A is a success in life, then A equals x plus y plus z. Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut.”"
Edit - finally wrapped my head around the “quote comment” function
January 17th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
There is a columnist in the Ottawa Citizen who is exactly as you describe. Some call him a journalist. I find this label rather dubious. I recall, in the past, him railing against the ACLU; he constantly refers to “liberals” when talking about anyone left of Harper; he’s always writing about the Iraq war and filling his columns with untruths (and, of course, scare quotes). Here’s a couple of recent gems:
“They may not like the U.S., and they certainly do not like the transformation of Iraq, into the most open Arab society, threatening by its very survival the mores and fatalistic assumptions of the whole region. But in the contest with revolutionary Iran, and despite their own formidable oil wealth, they currently have no choice but to make common cause with the U.S. and this new and strange Iraq. Only the election of a complete fool (such as Barack Hussein Obama) as the next U.S. President, will change this state of affairs.”
Sound insane? It is!!
From yesterday’s: “At the moment, a number of “interesting” cases are coming before Canada’s inaptly-named “human rights commissions.” ” That’s about the Levant thing.
Yes, David Warren is truly mind-boggling. Unfortunately, he’s like a train wreck you can’t look away from despite the awareness that every second passing will leave you more traumatized. Read at your own risk. Although I have to admit, I do find his amazing cognitive dissonance somewhat amusing.
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/davidwarren.html
(He has his own site, but I’d rather shoot myself in the face than drive traffic there.)
January 17th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Matt, i find your blog to be one of the finer politcally minded ones out there, but i was just wondering, what do you think is the best blog on the internet today?
January 17th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
I bet he says “hot chicks with douchebags”
January 17th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
RacyT, thanks for mentioning David Warren… or maybe not. I’ve been trying to forget about that guy ever since I left Ottawa. It is, like you said, somewhat amusing to confront the absurd impossibility of trying to reconcile the thought process he exposes in his writing with what my mind knows rational thinking to be, but when I think about how many people in positions of power think like him (or are advised by similar minds), it’s hard to be amused.
There’s just some kind of gross injustice in the fact that people make their livelihoods by being so wrong. And that so many people seem to believe them.
January 17th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Politically, probably Tom Dispatch.
January 17th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
I recently tried to get political on my blog (which is VERY out of character for my blog…I was definitely hesitant), and I found it extremely hard to fit everything in. There’s just so much information, and when you think you know what you’re talking about you have to verify that it’s actually accurate info, and then you think of other things that should be included and get thrown even deeper into research…I found it to render the same type of anxiety that is encountered when writing an academic essay.
I have since removed said blog. I found I was constantly questioning my knowledge, and that I’m not nearly as confident in myself as I had previously thought. It’s really hard to learn the entire history of the world and keep it all intact long enough to formulate something that really leaves an impact. I think what you (Matt) do on here is an extremely difficult thing to master, and I give you serious props for being able to come out with so many political pieces whilst avoiding a half ass approach.
January 18th, 2008 at 5:14 am
“Throw in a few inflammatory lines and a few links, maybe a picture, and you’re off to the races.”
Wait a tic…that’s me!
January 18th, 2008 at 6:56 am
Me again. You know, I think one of the reasons people like your blog is not just because of the content, which is intelligent and analytical and thought-provoking and sometimes concerns dogs, but because you’re a damn fine writer. Sometimes a turn of phrase of yours just catches me and I re-read it and think, “good lord, I’d have loved to have written that.”
(I realize that’s sort of off-topic, but I just clued in that I often have the urge to quote you back to you just to say “I loved this”… and I was about to do it again.)