Showing the true nature of the condition of their souls, Leftist Blogs Take Glee in Pope Attack
It was only minutes after Pope Benedict XVI was violently attacked on Christmas Eve by a woman described by authorities as mentally deranged, but leftist blogs lit up with joy over the assault.
The Daily Kos’s “Late Afternoon/Early Evening Open Thread,” for example, featured this posting at 8:10 PM Eastern Time: “Having just about enough of this male dominance bull—t, one bold Italian woman ran up and knocked down the Pope and a Cardinal!”
The woman, Susanna Maiolo, 25, was actually Swiss-Italian, and while the Pontiff himself came out of the episode unhurt and able to complete his celebration of Midnight Mass, 87-year-old French Cardinal Roger Etchegaray was left with broken bones requiring hip replacement surgery.
The comments that soon appeared on blogs known to be critical of the social teachings of the Catholic Church were so harsh that even fellow bloggers of similar ideological bent were outraged.
In a Dec. 26 a Daily Kos article entitled “Anti-Catholicism,” a “former Republican” Catholic woman and “forester/biologist” from the Deep South wrote, “I logged onto HuffingtonPost.com and read about the Pope getting knocked over by a mentally disturbed woman.
While several people pointed out the Pope’s age and how this could have easily resulted in a broken hip, many more rejoiced in the event.” One blogger’s “attack on Catholicism and Catholics was met with near universal approval within the HuffingtonPost community.”
She added, “I have read numerous, nearly identical comments and posts at Daily Kos.”
A number of HuffPost bloggers were also amazed at the venom of some of the responses, like one woman who observed, “This incident with the Pope has brought lots of Christmas cheer to the HP community. Wow.”
No doubt someone will say that “the right does it too.”
I invite those wishing to make such an assertion to provide examples. It will take a LOT of them just to “balance” this single incident.
January 5th, 2010 10:05 am
As always, Mr. Harmonicminer most of your articles are filled with provocative languages against us on the center-left. I like to think some of your expressions are more for homor and wits and not for serious allegations.
Just responding to this article,fairly simple compared to, oh say my “own nostalgia” for Soviet Union (yes I read that article too), the violence against the pope was wrong. period. Leftist bloggers who appluaded such act were wrong, period. But really, should such unethical act be portrayed in the traditional left-right frame? An inidiuvdal, mentally ill woman committed unethical act, it shouldn’t matter whether she was a communist, fascist, atheist, Buddist, conservative, etc does it?
To say some flamboyant leftist bloggers’s writings indicate we on the “left” (a broad term to even start with) endorse the violence on the Holy Father is simply untrue, as shown by even Huntington Post writers shocked by the venon of some of their compatriots. Do you really think some people on the “right”(again, a broad term) don’t say hateful things to others on the left(Ann Coulter is the 1st to come to my mind). Yet, I don’t think their words invalidate the views and principles of you, Katherine Harris, and many many “honorable” conservative-leaning people.
January 5th, 2010 10:22 am
So Jong, Harmonic states, “No doubt someone will say that “the right does it too.â€
I invite those wishing to make such an assertion to provide examples.” Where are your examples? BTW, what does ‘center-left’ mean?
January 5th, 2010 11:39 am
Here’s another example. Note the glee with which Ronald Reagan’s sufferings are viewed as “just desserts.”
http://tinyurl.com/ygrh8ps
When Reagan was first diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, the nutroots didn’t exist yet… But I do recall the usual leftist mouthpieces on late night TV finding great humor in it, and various national columnists commenting on the “irony” of his disease… the closest they felt they could come to expressing actual glee.
I think you will be hard pressed to find many examples of the Right celebrating the misfortune of someone on the Left. For example, see if you can find a website as prominent as HuffPo, but on the Right, celebrating the sufferings of Ted Kennedy so nakedly.
January 5th, 2010 12:32 pm
The same may be said of Rush Limbaugh and his recent emergency trip to the hospital. I was shocked by the instant hateful invective of those who seemed positively blissful about the prospect that Rush may have had a serious heart attack. Anecdotally, I found this same hate when I have engaged bloggers on left-leaning sites such as Huff Po. And I agree there is little if any evidence of the right engaging in equivalent vitriol.
January 5th, 2010 3:29 pm
Hello Mrs. Enharmonic,
I use the word center-left due to broad spectrum within those normally called liberal. As I tend to have more centrist views on say, same-sex marriage I align myself closer to the middle than the huffington post editors.
how about this videoes? I do not take this videos seriously because I know they don’t represent mainstream cosnervative viewpoints, but I am sure my compatriots on the center-left fume when they watch them.
http://www.examiner.com/x-15135-Celebrity-Families-Examiner~y2009m7d6-Westboro-to-protest-Michael-Jackson-memorial-and-in-Gary–Westboro-videos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIW27p4BI_g&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-CAcdta_8I
January 5th, 2010 3:41 pm
Mr. Harmonicminer I can’t seem to find an article on the Huffington post that appluads the attack on the pope. There were wall comments that were gleeful toward the violence, but I don’t view wall comments(most of them at least) as part of legitimate discussions.
(unless of course you want me to go searching the internet for blog commenters who said things like…oh I don’t know…like, “I am glad George Tiller is going to hell!!” or sometinhg).
January 6th, 2010 1:21 am
Jong Eun, I can’t speak for what you could or couldn’t find at Huffpo.
Did you read the entire article I linked above?
An “open thread” is an invitation to comment, of course.
Simple question, J.E…. do you deny that Daily Kos and Huffpo posters and commenters are, on average, far more vitriolic in a personal way towards the right than vice versa?
I doubt you can find much by Ann Coulter that sinks to simple glee that someone on the Left is physically suffering.
January 6th, 2010 12:27 pm
Mr. Harmonicminer, I read to the very end of the article you psoted that said many HP commentators were actually sympathatheic to the pope(so the reaction was mixed). If the magazine’s editorial for an instance praised the act, I would have been angry against HP, but it apprears the rude comments were from individuals who responded to the aritcle. So should Huffington Post be blamed for what the commentators think?
In asnwering your question, no I don’t think Daily Kos commentators are far more vitriolic than those on the right, if you include those on the far right that I showed on the youtube links(please don’t ask me to go search online for slander from the right against left, because to be honest, I get uncomfortable when I read profane words of whatever origin).
Personal degradation transcends race, gender, ideology, class, so saying “left”(which ones?) is more rude than “right” (which ones?) seems too simplistic frame. Let’s just say the world is full of rude (and mentally ill) people who ought to be ashamed of what they speak.
January 6th, 2010 1:28 pm
JEL, simple observation:
If you don’t like personally degrading comments, rude people, and, in particular, profane commentary, you are utterly safe from ALL of that on nearly every significant conservative website in even the comment sections (generally, the webmaster won’t leave such things up, on the rare occasions they are posted… and when they are deleted, more often than not they are profance comments from a leftist…).
On the other hand, you cannot read Daily Kos or HuffPo for even a week and not be exposed to language and personal pejoratives that would make a sailor blush.
Face it, JEL: the Left and Right are NOT equal on this point. The reason is simple. Most of the Right believes in objective right and wrong, good and evil, and considers these things to BE evil and wrong by definition. Most of the Left does NOT believe in objective right and wrong (except when it comes to saving the baby seals), and so considers nearly any means to destroy a political enemy to be fair game.
Again: read the websites of the right over the illness of Ed Kennedy. Now read them over the Alzheimers of Ronald Reagan.
Given the tastes you say you have, I take it you rarely read Daily Kos or Huffpo or MoveOn… so how would you know what they say, and how they usually say it?
January 6th, 2010 1:42 pm
Read this:
http://tinyurl.com/ykdf8yx
January 6th, 2010 4:36 pm
The history of Liberals and Conservatives (as written by a conservative)
Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That’s how villages were formed.
Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to BBQ at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement…
Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly BBQ’s and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement.
Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. Those became known as girlie-men. Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided.
Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.
Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare.. Another interesting evolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn’t fair to make the pitcher also bat.
Conservatives drink domestic beer, mostly Bud or Miller. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, engineers, corporate executives, athletes, members of the military, airline pilots and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.
Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for nothing.
This is humor folks. Sorry couldn’t help myself
January 7th, 2010 10:33 am
Mr. Tom, thank you for your humor even though of course I have to disagree with it.
Mr. Harmonicminer, when I first began debating with you I was slightly confused by your confrontational tone against me, but now I am used to your particular style of rhetoric.
because of your inisistence that i dig up bad rhetroic on Ted Kennedy’s death, I most reluctantly digged up youtube video that shows heated debates among Right and Left comementators(and show how both sides are profane in their expression).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t07Gq38L55M&feature=related
or how about this Michael Savage’s comment after Bob Novak’s death, indirectly claiming that we liberals will goto hell for our activisms.
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200908190010
You are right that I rarely go into MoveOn.org, because I find their activism unconstructive and their views too partisan. I don’t speak for them, and they probably condemn me as a wishy-washy liberal just because I maintain friendships with Katherine and many of my conservative friends(and even having a dialogue with you). I also do not assoicate yourself too Ann coulter, Minuteman, and fringe, hate-filled right wing.
and that is why, i hope you and I could as honorable intellectuals of our respective causes work together for ciivl political “competition” of ideas. Let’s not let ignorant, verbose, radicalized elements in our scoiety(who may not even have constructive appreciation for their causes) deter us from political respect for each other. Those “stupid” comments, signs, protests, cussing you hear and read, denounce them and igonore them as trivial matter not wothy of even 2nd thoughts. Will you do that, Mr. Harmonoicminer?
In fact, that has been the central purpose of my dialogue with you all long. I am not trying to convert you to my progressive cause. I just want you to recognize the legitimacy of our politcal debates and show respect for the works and thoughts of my compatriots just as I have for you(I think America is great because we have lot of God-loving, thoughtful conservatives like you, even though I think you are wrong on many issues. Will you make the same compliments for me, Jim Wallis, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore and other progressives as well?.)
“In Essentials Unity, In non-Essential Diveristy, In All things Charity.”
January 7th, 2010 11:03 am
JEL, you’re not really responding to my main point: it IS part of the mainstream of the Leftist blogosphere to celebrate the personal misfortune of those on the right, and to do so profanely and enthusiastically. The reverse is not true.
What shows up on youtube has little to do with this, and proves nothing either way. Anyone can post on youtube. There are nuts on both sides, of course. The point is what passes as acceptable (as demonstrated by frequent and prominent repetition) on the Left vs. the Right.
The TOP THREE LEFTIST sites are HuffPo, DailyKos, and MoveOn. If you compared levels of personal vitriol, profanity and sheer bloody-mindedness on those sites to Powerlineblog, or pajamasmedia, or HughHewitt, or CaptainsQuarters, or RedState, you would see the obvious.
Just do this: search google for “top liberal blogs”. Make a list.
Now search for “top conservative blogs”. Make a list.
Now start counting four letter words, personal attacks, and celebration of evil. You’ll need a lot of paper to tally up these things on the left. A single sheet will do it on the right. Or maybe a half-sheet.
Sadly, some Christians have allied themselves with the Left. I would think they would find the company VERY uncomfortable.
I am sorry, JEL… but I do NOT find Jim Wallis, Jimmy Carter and Al Gore to be “God-loving, thoughtful liberals.” They’re just liberals. Of those three, Wallis is least objectionable. But that isn’t saying much.
They are hurting our country, and the world.
January 7th, 2010 11:09 am
Just curious, JEL. I am not one of the “minutemen”, but as far as I know, they have not caused injury to a single person. Why do you despise them and their perspectives?
And: you frequently slam Ann Coulter. I’m not sure why. What personal attacks has she mounted that cause you to put her in the same category as the leftist schadenfreude crowd?
Re: Michael Savage, he is not one whom you will see quoted by ANY other mainstream conservative figure. They all quote each other a lot… but they simply ignore him, or if he comes up, tend to be embarrassed by him.
I see no evidence that the Left is embarrassed by Michael Moore, or Markos, or MoveOn. Instead, Democrats lionize them at conventions, while booing Boy Scouts. Republicans have not invited Savage to a prominent position, nor will they.
Savage calls HIMSELF a conservative, but he is really a populist of a sort, not a conservative.
January 7th, 2010 11:28 pm
Harmonicminor – I have to concur with you on this. I was challenged by one of my employees. He is a very intelligent, long time friend of mine (as well as an employee). He is about as far left as I am right. However, he challenged me that I only listen to those on my side. I agreed with him and have started to listen to both sides (XM radio hosts both). What I have found was that the right side typically has two sided debates – and discusses ideologies and politics. The left typically discusses personalities, politics and is extremely derogatory in their speech. Today I heard…”Christian – isn’t that the same thing as a hate filled bigot? I see no difference.” I heard yesterday “It is corporate right wing fanatics that allowed the underwear bomber on the plane in order to defame the centerest Obama. The racist right cannot stomach Obama because of his color. Wait until a REAL progressive gets in office. All we have to do is nationalize 4 – 5 industries to really get their attention”. This kind of talk is very disturbing to me. The worst name calling I hear on the right is one talk show host that keeps using the name pinheads.
January 8th, 2010 9:22 am
JEL:
You used the term, “fringe, hate-filled right wing”.
Now go find someplace where someone has ever used the term “fringe hate-filled left wing”.
January 8th, 2010 9:53 am
Mr. Harmonicminer, for once we share same sentiments, I am also frustrated that your are dodgeing my point.
You use the simplified framework of Left vs. Right to claim that because some bloggers who happen to call themselves “left” are immature, raving, malicious, it proves Right is more moral than Left. I see the framework instead as an disciplined/mature intellectuals(like you and me) vs. ignorant/rude individuals. Those bloggers of the leftist sites(Daily Kos or Move On.) are at best unruly, unsophisticated indiivudals who have not matured enough to lead cosntrutive polticial disucssion/activism. Now say, Noam Choamsky, George Soros or even the eidtors of Move.On applauded them, then we have a problem of the “leftist leadership” advocating disreputable strategy, but it seems reading Huffington Post, all I see is ranting and raving of unruly, dirty-mouthed individuals who don’t even have the courage to write their full name!!
Supppose I come back to you after long, uncomfortable research and say “you are right, leftist bloggers use more bad words than rightist bloggers?” It simply means there are people out there who needs to learn more manners. The 1st article you mentioned showed there were many readers of Huffington Post who condmened their rude compatiorts, and no intellectuals or ledership figures priased the rude people’s rude words (If you can find me George Soros publically praising the death of Reagan, than I would of course disown him).
I simply find the bloggers (even if they are suppossedly on my side) ranting, annoying, embarrasing and simply worthy of total dismissal(well perhaps some hard disciplinary measures must be taken to rein in their continued embarrasments). Rather than attacking even leftist intellectuals/leaders like me for somehow being the reason for their actions(as if A. we take orders from bloggers B. few thousand bloggers are even a fraction of the millions of leftist voters), how about “we”, the people who actually have the knowledge and skills to dictate the political direction of America, find “proper rules” to continue our decades of intense political comeptition? If a immature, undisciplined, trivial, impotent, blogger goes beyond his sore-lose ranting and turn to violence, well, he will be treated and punished as a rule-breaker.
There, I hope I got my points accross fairly respectfully. May be as a fellow intellectual(even if you are on the “Right”) you will share a common ground with me on this issue of political descency.
January 8th, 2010 9:59 am
P.S. now that I think about it, political/ideological leadership and intllectuals also can use profane expressions, as Dick Chaney did against Pat Leahy. I guess as a sinners, we have profanity as part of our basic sinful nature. But as intellectuals, we need to try hard to restrain our evil emotions and conduct our competition with persistence, zeal, but with certain sence of honor.
P.P.S. Oh and I don’t take your criticisms of my leaders personally. I also have strong sentiments against the Rightwing leaders like Reagan, Goldwater, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich But as you said, as a person I respect their values(and agree with them on some issues). I just think they are/were bad for the US and for the world too.
January 8th, 2010 10:08 am
(this is just a short rebuttal to Mr.amuizkman),
There are many conservative friends of mine who would use the term “fringe, hate-filled leftist” to people like oh, you know, flag burners!! (I also suppport constiutional amendment to ban descreting US flags). I too think there are fringe, hate-filled leftists like you know, Black Panthers? Anarchists? eco-terrorists? NCOR(Natl. Conference on Organized Resistance)? Wouldn’t you call them fringer, hate-filled? Now that I think of it, many of my “progressive” friends would agree with me too”. But those crazy folks are worthy of punishments, not constructive discussions, right?
January 8th, 2010 10:21 am
Yup… Ann Coulter doesn’t say anything offensive: Nope, nothing at all.
Lets see… she called Al Gore a “total fag.” Al Sharton a “fat, race-baiting black man with clownish hairstyles.” Bill Clinton “was a very good rapist.” About 9/11 widows: “I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands’ deaths so much.” Instead of talking to liberals: “I think a baseball bat is the most effective way these days.” On liberals: “Liberals are driven by Satan and lie constantly.” Clinton “masturbates in the sinks.” To a disabled Vietnam vet: “People like you caused us to lose that war.”
Should I go on?
January 9th, 2010 10:09 am
OK Dave, I’ll take the bait.
Basically a statement of objective fact, no?
There is quite a bit of direct evidence for that.
Re the 9/11 widows comment, I think if you investigate the context a bit, it will make more sense to you. Recall that Ann would have had nothing to say about them had they not become politically active and attempted to parlay their status as 9/11 widows into extra-special but untouchable spokesperson status. It was not a gratuitous drive-by on Ann’s part, as it has been portrayed in the press.
Ann’s opinion of liberals is her own, and while exaggerated a bit here, it is not personally aimed at a specific person.
The comment on Clinton’s personal habits is also, as they say, “out of context.”
I don’t know about the Vietnam vet comment… but because someone is disabled does not remove from them the responsibility to be truthful agents in public discourse, and indeed, some disabled vets DID become anti-war activists and helped cause the US to “lose the war.” (Not that we actually lost it…. instead, a Democratic congress gave away our victory by stopping all material support for South Vietnam [which had been promised after the US HAD WON THE WAR and then pulled out] and the press conspired with them to call it a “loss.”)
I won’t go on… my point is that you cannot find anything similar to celebrating the personal misfortune of an individual as often found on the left, even when you are cherry picking examples out of the Right’s “enfant terrible.”
Without a doubt she is sharp tongued. I do not recall her celebrating in joy at the personal misfortune of a political opponent, and wishing the suffering had been even greater, and being obviously PROUD of those sentiments… the exact position of the Lefties mentioned in this article.
Do you?
January 9th, 2010 11:59 am
Seriously? Cherry picking?
I am pretty shocked that you are justifying her direct personal attacks. And I am pretty shocked that you wrote others off because they disparage entire groups rather than individuals.
And I noticed that you skipped the Al Gore is a “total fag” comment.
Look… I can look through conservative blogs and find plenty of offensive personal attacks. I have seen them time and time again. Does that justify some of the crap we see on democrat (not lefty – HuffPo, Kos, even MoveOn are hardly lefty) blogs? Not at all. They are just as offensive. But you don’t see Markos or Ariana making comments at all similar to Coulter’s. Yes, I agree that you see them in the comments, and I am conflicted about what kind of censorship/moderation should occur with those. But I would bet that I could find significantly more direct personal attacks from mainstream conservative pundits (i.e. Rush, Coulter, Malking, etc) than from mainstream liberal pundits.
And actually… Jong has already pointed out a very clear and obvious person on the right “celebrating in joy at the personal misfortune of a political opponent,” – you just choose to right Savage off, even though he has a huge audience and is very clearly on the (far) right.
January 9th, 2010 12:18 pm
By the way… how do you define cherry picking? Because I would define it as picking random comments off a largely read/large number of comments blog and pretending that those random comments speak for “Leftists.”
January 9th, 2010 12:38 pm
JEL
(tongue planted firmly in cheek)
You’re right. There is no difference in behavior between the right and the left. Both sides are equally respectful (or disrespectful) of the other. Both sides are equally right. Both sides are equally wrong. Both sides have the same tendency to speak hatefully of the other. Both sides have the same number of radicals. Both sides care equally about everybody and everything. Both sides have the same number of people who are committed to doing the moral thing. Both sides have the same numbers of people who are committed to their perspectives for purely selfish reasons. Both sides lie exactly the same amount. Both sides celebrate equally the personal misfortunes of the other.
Everyone is just as equal in everything as it is possible to be. We’re all just the same. No one is any more correct than anyone else. There are no absolutes, no one knows any more than anyone else, and everything is up for reconsideration at any time.
Furthermore, the communists in the Soviet Union were no worse and no better than any other political party or entity in any other nation, because everyone is basically the same, and there are no real moral differences between people who believe different things honestly.
In fact, the Chinese Communist Maoists were no worse than the Whigs…. just different. Who is to say whose values are better than whose? What gives anyone the right to say that one side’s values and policies are better than the other’s?
After all, good Christians were in favor of slavery, and quoted scripture to support it.
So nobody really knows anything with any certainty. In fact, stating one’s opinion too strongly is probably a sign of intellectual immaturity and possibly colonial intentions.
Can’t we all just get along?
(my tongue is starting to hurt, and I will now remove it before it becomes permanently bonded to the inside of my cheek)
January 9th, 2010 1:01 pm
Dave, I was very clear. You just didn’t read carefully. My question about Ann Coulter was specific:
That is, specifically, when has she joyfully celebrated the personal misfortune and suffering of a political opponent? I’m not saying she definitely has not… I haven’t read everything she has written by any means. But none of the items you mention fall in that category.
Similarly, I don’t think you’ll find that, or any tolerance of it, in any of the mainstream conservative sites.
You are familiar, I’m sure, with the difference between a populist and either a conservative or a liberal or a progressive. Populists can call themselves ANY of the forgoing, but they are still populists. For example, Buchanan is a populist, despite the fact that he sometimes makes conservative sounding noises. Other times, he makes progressive sounding noises.
Simple test, again: who is lionized by whom? Michael Savage will never be accepted as a major voice, given a seat of honor, etc., by any mainstream conservative, the RNC, etc.
On the other hand, Michael Moore is given honor by the DNC. And the lefty “nutroots” are much beloved of the DNC right at every election time (esp by Obama), even if they try to distance themselves (not very enthusiastically) other times.
January 9th, 2010 10:24 pm
Dave, reading the above, just to clarify, I am referring to my previous statement that Savage is more populist than conservative.
January 11th, 2010 8:26 am
Dave, glad you came along to join the debate. Thanks for countering Mr. Harmonicminer’s flawed assumption effectively, even more so than I can.
I wish to not go further into Anncoulter, but she has I distinctively remember, suggested publically in 2006 (in humor of course) that she wishes Justice Stevens to die so Bush can appoint one more justice to the Supremem Court.
While it seesm as if you and I are simply at a deadlock over our interpretation of politics, I observe that even you now acknowledge that Right has many different elements, such as populists like Savage and Buchanan(and libertarians like Ron Paul). Fair enough, we on the “left”(?) also have various elements that often disavow each other. (I do not associate myself with communism neither does the US Democratic Party). This is why left-right framework is simply unapplicable.
You last response to me has to be a sarcasm. In the dialogue between the “mainstream left and right” within the US politics(an vague concept but I will use for now) of course, each side should respect each other for their views. No ideology is absolute, and while we are entitled to our own strongly-held opinions, democracy requires each views to be respectfully debated and through majoritarian support, be implemented. Based on the Golden Rule, “Treat others as you want to be treated”, you should recognize that people on the US political “left”(?) is jsut as entitled to promote and pusuade people to their cause as you and those on the right(?) are entitled to. (my criticism on the Maoists is that that as radicals, they tolerated no such “tolerance” but since American “progressives” aren’t Maoists, I don’t have to talka bout them).
For your exaggeration, I do agree with your last response. Yes, we need to get along, even while discussing our views. No one has perfect truth, (except God) so we could all learn from the other side and vice versa(I also “learned” from you that there are malicious bloggers out there in the “left”).
Think about this, just for a moment. You were once one of us, Mr. Harmonicminer. You were a “progressive”. But you left and joined the “conservative-leaning views.” I think you made a mistake, but I accept the intlelectual decision of yours. Realize then that, even as a we speak, somewhere out there there may be a person on the “right” who is also moving to the “left” because same intellectual change of heart(Dave wouldn’t this apply to you as well? or werre you always progressive in your worldviews?).
We must never be like fascists, or communsits and persecute people just because they disagree. You are right, that we shouldn’t glorify the other side’s suffering. LET ME SAY THIS ONE MORE TIME VERY SPECIFICALLY, I LOVE THE HOLY FATHER AND I CONDEMN MALICIOUS ATTACK ON HIS HOLINESS. Yet the unruly, reprehensible rhetoric of some ill-mannered bloggers should not be the cause of sterotypical left-right villifation of each other.
I am trying to answer all your comments, but I can’t do that unless I make this post really long. So I will stop now, hoping I answered enough. I am afraid you will still disagree with me, even after reading my response. Hmm…well Mr. Harmonicminer I respsect your conservative views, I can only hope thst you will respect mine, that of Dave, and that of many American political progressives(who mind you, are not communists, or anarhcist, or radicals, or et. but leigitmate political counterpart to your own respective ideology).
Sincerely
January 11th, 2010 8:57 am
In response to your final question, Ann Coulter was a prime time speaker at the Conservative Political Action Conference(CPAC) several times and as Dave points out, Micahel Savage has 8-10 million listeners. They may not be explictly honored by the “Right” leadership, but among the greassroots they sure have lot of ears who listen to them.
As for us on the “left” we have our unruly netroots, but using your own category, did Michael Moore or George Soros or Al Franken (the celebritites) ever publically praised the death of a conservative leader? Of course, I don’t approve of them anyway due to their outrageous comments/behavior, but I doubt they will ever be the official spokevoice of the mainstream Left, any more than Pat Robertson or Glenn Back will be for the mainstream right. (Imagine how ridiculous it would be for Nancy Pelosi to publically say, “Following the great wisdom of his esteemed Mr. Moore, I advocate for health care reform.).
So with all due respect, I reject your premise that the mainstream left is more malicious than mainstream right (is is malicious when many churches in the countryside cry out during sermon, “May God judge and send all those homsoexuals, pagans, atheists, liberals/communsits, to hell!” I think it is). I also fear that you too will disagree with me.
January 11th, 2010 4:34 pm
Here is exactly what Coulter said re: Justice Stevens. “We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens’ creme brulee,” Coulter said. “That’s just a joke, for you in the media.”
That is STILL not celebrating over the real tragedy or personal misfortune of someone. I conclude you cannot find an example of that, and hoped this one would suffice. It does not.
JEL, I never said you did not or should not have the right to express different political opinions from mine. Nor did I say that others should not be similarly empowered. Nor did I say, or believe, that I don’t respect the “right of people to have opinions different than mine.”
I certainly DO respect the right of people to believe and act on the belief that intelligent aliens built the pyramids, that Elvis is still alive, and that the US government really brought the twin towers down in NYC.
I just don’t respect the opinions themselves.
You said
I’m glad you noticed. Perhaps you’re unfamiliar with the English idiom “tongue in cheek,” the usage of which I intended to signal that I was employing hyperbole to make a point.
I have never heard the prayer in church, “May God judge and send all those homsoexuals, pagans, atheists, liberals/communsits, to hell!†People in church do often pray for the repentance of sinners, because they fear for the souls of those sinners. I believe a huge majority of conservative Christians would consider what you said to be using God’s name in vain.
JEL, I can’t really tell what you want from me. I cannot express a respect I do not feel for your opinions, or the general perspectives of the Left. I respect your personal right to believe what you choose, but that does not require to respect those beliefs themselves.
You continue to change the subject about how the Left DOES accept into its mainstream some pretty radical characters. Again: Michael Savage will never be lionized at a Republican National Convention as was Michael Moore, who is far more hateful and vicious, at the Democrat National Convention.
You remember; that’s the one where they booed the Boy Scouts.
JEL, from what I can see, you appear to be constructing in your mind things I did not say, and then responding to them, without dealing directly with the specifics in my comments and posts.
Savage and Buchanan are not conservatives. They are populists who make conservative sounding noises sometimes, progressive ones other times. It doesn’t matter what they call themselves… it matters what other conservatives think of them… which is not terribly much, on many issues.
For example, Victor Davis Hanson, a true conservative, and Pat Buchanan have had quite a tiff on whether the US involvement in WWII was necessary or correct. Look it up. (just google both names together… you’ll find it)
January 11th, 2010 9:09 pm
Mr. Harmonicminer, may be there’s a serious limitations to online debates. I almost wish I am in Azusa right now, so I can visit your office and have one-to-one disucssions. You are right, to the best of our efforts there seems to be continued miscommunication, deadlocks, unanswered comments, and frustrations between both you and I (I initially expected this to be a more simple topic, than say, health care bill, but now I am afriad at this rate you and I aren’t going to see much eye to eye on nearly all socio-poltical issues).
As you may have noticed, you and I are increasingly repeating what we have continued to write. We also assume somethings from each other that turns out the other actually doesn’t(I guess on those things we have similarities).
Rather than going over again debates on Coulter and Buchanan and Savage, let me see if I can clearly view your stance and my stance, so at least I will know how we are different. Let me try now(reading back your comments)…
Your view from the the start in this topic is that the “Left” as an ideological and political movement is in nature, malicious and belligerant in its agenda/rhetorics and takes sadistic pleasure from the suffering of its opponents. This is further reinforced by the Left’s fundemental deficiency in its absolute moral values(am I reading your positions right, so far?). Such characteristics of the Left came to surface during the violence committed against the Holy Father, as the leftist bloggers glorified in the hurt inflict on His Holiness(just as they did during Limbaugh’s hospitalization). While no doubt there may be few “nuts” who call themselves conservative, who are just as hateful, it would be inconceivable for the conservatives to fall into same same moral depravity as those on the liberal camp. No doubt, there may be some good, well-intentioned liberals out there, but the moral characterisitics of the Left clearly protrayed by this violence against the Holy Father reveals that there is little hope or need for respect in the Leftist Ideology. Am I reading your thoughts so far? Is this your view?
If so, let me tell what my view is.
I on the hand, believe “at least in the context of American politics”, American Left and Right is an articifical concept that both hosts numerous kinds of groups and people. Such ideological diversity and personal temperament of individuals make it virtually impossible for either ideological spectrum to declare monolithic moral superiority over the other side, even if one can reasonably argue that the mainstream element in one spectrum has set of rule and beliefs that may be more effective in addressing one particular issue than its counterpart.
However, within the political movements of any kind, there will emerge two groups in the broad sense. One group, controlled by natural impulses, ignorances, and arrogances usually spoil for fight for fight sake and find delight in humilating their ideological opponents. There is other group, which by their own will or necssity, control their emotional impulses and display responsible prudence to engage in constructive political competition with ther others. The 2nd group may still not be fond of their ideological opponents, but still treat them with certain sense of manner and civility. (do you comprehend my view so far?)
The violence on the Holy Father(as you may have noticed I am quite fond of Benedict XVI) illustrated how people of these two groups (within the same broad ideological group) react differently to a same event. While those on the 1st group found temporal gratifcation in making fun of the ill of the other side’s perceived celebrity, those in other group either rebuked their colleague’s insolent remarks or ignored them all together in embarasments. The continued existance of the ill-mannered 1st group of course remains an obstacle, a thorn, to the more disciplined 2nd group who wants constructive political disucssions, not political giberish. It is particularly irritating for the 2nd group that they have to defend the irresponsible comments of the 1st, even though often the 1st group people(bloggers, Savage, Buchanan) may not even be credible, or relevant part of the “mainstream” conservative or progressive movement. In complete disagreement with your analysis, I see both the “mainstream” left and right in frequent clash with the radical, fake, mob-like elements suppossedly within its broad spectrum that often seeks to undermine the former’s more rational approaches and positions. While in sympathy with some(or many) of their sentiments, and perhaps even forced to form tenuous alliance for political purporses, it is hardly in the wish of those in the mainstream to take orders from those unruly grass-roots and if any thing, seek to educate and rein them in in the proper way of politics (Are you with me so far?).
As it is important to drive out the influences of the radical, and/or ill-mannered indiviudals to the extent possible, the more mature, honorable individuals of both Left and Right should work to display a moral integrity in keeping the political debates civil and respectful of each other. Such civility requires (I think this is where you and I would fundmentally disagree..) both sides to recognize the legitimacy of other’s intentions, logical reasonings, interests (if not not always the policy proposals),search for common grounds to the extent possible, and even in case of disagreement acknowledge that there are things one can learn from the other side. Thus, no matter, how deeply one believes in one set of political ideology, he will always recognize those on the other side as wothy competitors for the ultimate wellbeing of mutual country. The violence on the Holy Father, is a wake up call, not for one ideoliogical group to pronounce the other group as morally hopeless, vile, etc. but rather as a call for people who care about civility in political discussions to join hands in minimizing demogogury in the public policy arena (and I have done my part by explicitly denouncing the bloggers for their bigotry). This is my position. Have I made my views explicit this time?
I tried my best to clearly state your views and mine. It was my hope if we can clearly understnad each other, then mutual common ground can be found, but perhaps I was too hopeful. While we both oppose malicious attacks of the bloggers to Holy Father, I notice that our interpretation of its cause remain quite, quite different and after much discussions, unchanged. It may be perhaps that you view my continued defense of the mainstream left’s integrity and dignity as naive and ill-founded, as much as I find your refusal to show respect for my group’s views(even though you respect our freedom to beleive whatever we choose to believe), as haughty and judgemental. In your perspective, mainstream conservatives and progressives CAN NOT WORK TOGETHER FOR THE GREATER COMMON CAUSE, which is essentially the concession I sought from you and failed to receive. Thus, unless I surrender and return to the conservative philosophy(that both Katherine and I was taught at our Christian school), bipartisan collaboration between you and me would not materilize.
Hmm..how about this, Mr. Harmonicminer? If we can not reach a common ground on this topic, how about we respectfully “agree to disagree?” I understand your views(did I?), you understand my views(did you?), and in spite of our disagreement, we let each other go in to find our own ways to use our knowledge in this topic in the best manner as Christians?
January 11th, 2010 10:22 pm
JEL, again, you aren’t reading carefully.
I have said that the Left tolerates and accepts as fellow travelers people who do such things, and that Leftists are more likely to do such things. I have made no blanket statement that the entire Left does things like this directly.
It as objective fact that far, far fewer on the Left believe in anything remotely like absolute moral values. Simply ask them. They will tell you. Moral relativists are rarely Republicans…. but are very often Democrats.
Conservatives “fall into moral depravity.” When they do, they are FAR more strongly disciplined by other conservatives than Leftists discipline their own. For a very simple reason: Leftists are far less likely to believe in “moral depravity” as a concept, other than perhaps racism, sexism, homophobia, pollution, self-defense and the selfish desire to pay lower taxes.
Except that, again, it is NOT the violence itself… it is the general reaction of a significant minority of Leftists TO the violence, and the (mostly) yawning response of other Leftists to that significant minority.
I don’t happen to agree with your view of Ann Coulter. But you will find quite sharp criticism of her on many mainstream conservative sites.
JEL, this is just gibberish. Why would I recognize the legitimacy of the intentions of a group of people who want it to be perfectly legal to kill unborn children up to the moment of natural birth?
Why would I acknowledge their “logical reasonings”? If I thought their reasoning was logical, I would agree with them. Since I don’t, clearly it is because I find their reasoning illogical.
Why would I acknowledge their “interests” as respectable when I find them to be selfish and damaging to the culture? The “interests” of a group of people who want to subsidize bad behavior for the entire society are not respectable… they are despicable.
You persist in thinking my post was about the violence done to the Holy Father. It was not. How do I communicate this to you? I have no idea. Perhaps if you reread what I’ve written so far? I don’t know another way to say it. THE POINT IS LEFTIST RESPONSE TO THE VIOLENCE, AND LEFTIST RESPONSE IN GENERAL TO THE BAD BEHAVIOR OF ITS OWN FELLOW TRAVELERS.
.Pretty much. I think you either haven’t read history, or don’t understand it. I think you do not have a realistic appraisal of the incentives that motivate human beings, post-FALL, and the implications of those facts for how society can be organized to do the least harm.
JEL, how can there be a GREATER COMMON CAUSE than the legal and enforced protection of the unborn, the removal of incentives for people to make babies out of wedlock (and so impoverish multiple generations), and the defense of our nation from people who want us dead or enslaved? If these very simple goals cannot be held in common, whatever GREATER COMMON CAUSE you can name must surely be more like MINOR POINTS OF AGREEMENT ON TRIVIAL ISSUES.
I would love to hear your concept of what the GREATER COMMON CAUSE can possibly be, if it is not the above.
January 12th, 2010 6:53 am
harmonic, wouldn’t the current Harry Reid debacle regarding his ‘racist’ remarks about Obama be a good example of the double standard? Trent Lott was drummed out of office (because his Republican friends all abandoned him) whereas Harry Reid is actually being lauded by the left (yes ALL of them) for what he has done. I remember in the ’90’s when “Hate Speech” was the moniker given by liberals to any conservative for speaking truth, or maybe referring to someone as a ‘Nazi’ for instance. Yet when Nancy Pelosi refers to the folks in the Teaparty movement that way, no one even notices. The standard is so double it boggles the mind. When one enjoys the fruits of a double standard however, one simply fails to see that it even exists.
January 13th, 2010 11:09 am
Another good example would be a comparison between Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin and Massachusetts Senatorial candidate Martha Coakley.
Anyone heard or seen discussion on the cost of Ms. Coakley’s wardrobe? Anyone questioning where she got the money to buy her clothes? Anyone blogging about Ms. Coakley’s sex life or the sex lives of any of her children? Anyone speaking on Ms. Coakley abandoning her family in order to campaign? Anyone want to Google “Martha Coakley scandals” and compare it to “Sarah Palin scandals”?
January 13th, 2010 12:06 pm
After reading your yet another(though predictable) rebuttal against my stance, I took a day off meditating on what would be my final statement to you in this blog.
Reading your posted article on ex-president Wahid was an unexpected, but pleasent surprise for me to read an article that shows sympathy for moderate Muslims attacked from both radicals and non-Muslims. Thank You. In spite of my past skepticisms, there is a “center-right” element in your views as well.
Mr. Harmonicminer, I have read your final rebuttal against my stance. It appear that our views on political indescensy and villifcation will not converge, any more than our views on pro-life strategy(my incremental approach vs. your absolutist approach), views on “pro-choice” opposition, the nature of Obama’s Nobel Prize recipiency. It is clear that regardless of your opinion of me as a person(you did in the past recognizee me as a fellow Christian), you can not intellectually find my views logically valid or compatible to harmony. While agreeing with your views to the extent possible(such as on the difference between maisntream conservative, and populist-leanind conservative), your ultimate and final rejection of me and other mainstream Center-Left political movement within the US as a legitmate, respectable political competitor indicates that our mutual political dialogue has not been sucessful and has once again reached a deadlock.
Just as you can not accept the moral equality of the two ideoligcal spectrum, I too can not accept your efforts to portray the personal/verbal misconducts of some bloggers as the sins of the mainstream American progressivism, as our movement did not by any means endorse the comments of those who claim to be be one of us. I can not accept your claim that mainstream American progressivism( the radical left might) lionizes radical, and hate-filled figures any more than the mainstream American conservative movement does (oh by the way, I think Michael Moore is more nuanced in his views than Savage or Coulter if you ever read “How to talk to you cosnervative broher-in law” chapter in Dude, Where’s My Country). My faction has its scandals, flaws, and crooks of course(just look at the demise of John Edwards and Eliot Spitzer), but just as you beleive in the power of the mainstream conservative movement to dsicipline its “fallen” members, I also beleive in the same capacity for mine.
Our disagreements could have risen because of my political naivety, as you diagnosed. Perhaps in my later life, I will see the error of my youth and if you still maintain this blog, return to ask for your forgiveness. It may also be that though you were once one of us, your zeal for new founded cosnervative values can not allow you to appreciate the merits, efforts, and necessities for progressive movement in American society. I too have to show audacity in beleiving that as you age, you will come to more and more relize that very few things are black-white in our world, and accept the grey matters in the social issues.
Nonetheless such hopes are but hopes that may or may not be fulfilled in future. Today, I can not but be grieved that we have to part our ways not only with disagreements on issues, but with failure to facilitate “good will” for our mutual factions (or at least on your part, as you made it clear you can not even view my agenda as legitimate, respectable or even logical, when I do perceive such merits on your conservative movement).
Mr. Harmonicminer, you are an intelligent men with great knowledge. Your writing style shows that you are not a person driven by hot temper, but rather coldy persistent in your promotion of your beliefs. Regardless of my views on the content of your blog, I have attained lot of “facts” from your articles as well as stout conservative opinions that I would be obliged to comprehend to better promote my own progressive agenda. I may not have agreed with you, but I have learned from you, and for that I am grateful. As you are a fellow Christian, I also look forward to seeing you in heaven, if not before(though hopefully as brothers, not as political opponents).
Nonetheless, I can not apologize for my views any more than you can. As much as I respect your conviction, and agree to some extent(on santity of life for an instance), I find your views too rigid for pluralistic society, misfocused in priorities, and uncompromising in your moral judgments toward your opponnents. As our dialogue has not brought us closer together, but only confirmed our division, I can only appeal our difference to the deicisions of the American society who will determine what future they will take for their country. I also appeal to God himself, who is the judge of all human wisdom and will make all things under the Sun be known at the Last Day.
It is my hope that we could still respectfully “agree to disagree” and see how the future shapes the course of our respective ideology and movements. Even if you can not with your conscience, agree to even such sentiment, as a fellow Christian I wish you well under God’s care. I understand that your disagreement with my steafast allegiance to the US progressive movement is based on your conviction, and not a personal animosity against me. While I will do everything within my capacity to oppose the dominance of your political philosopy in this nation, nonetheless, Dr. Shackleton, I can and will bless your personal life.
In the words of Book of Numbers 6:24-26, “May the Lord bless you, and keep you, the Lord makes his face shine upon you and be gracious to you; and may the Lord turn his face toward you and give you peace”. Amen.
Sincerely,
Jong Eun Lee
January 13th, 2010 12:57 pm
Jong,
If I saw an evidence that an “incremental” approach to ending abortion-on-demand could work, I could far more easily accept your statement of intent to be “pro-life.” But I do not see any evidence that this is a goal of the Left, nor a goal even of the Christian Left. Rather, it is something to say in recognition of the fact that no Christian can be ambivalent about the status as human beings of the unborn.
There is nothing in the policy proposals or platform of the Democrats that will have any good effect in reducing abortion. The exact opposite is true. If Democrats get their way, there will be more incentive towards abortion, and less restriction of it. So the “incremental approach” seems to me to be rhetoric without factual foundation.
Your last comment was so long that I don’t have time to respond in detail to the rest… but the abortion issue is emblematic of the rest of our disagreement. You say you and I want the same positive things in society. Perhaps we do. I can’t tell. What is clear is that you want some things a great deal more than others, and that the priorities you assign are far different than my own.
JEL, much as you can’t seem to accept the point, neither Michael Savage nor Ann Coulter will ever be given special seats of honor at Republican National Conventions, as Michael Moore was. Your comparison of them and their relationship to their relative parties is simply misplaced because of that. I wonder why you cannot accept that obvious fact.
This kind of language troubles me:
Of COURSE I accept you and the Left as “legitimate, respectable political competitors.” I can respect your legitimate rights to believe what you choose, and act politically as you see fit, without respecting your positions or opinions themselves, or the values they seem to imply that you hold.
I submit that you do NOT “respect” my opinions, else you could not say this:
This is not what you say about opinions that you respect. But I see no conflict in believing that you respect my RIGHT to have such opinions, while not respecting the opinions themselves. Curiously, you seem to be unwilling to grant me the same right, namely, to respect your right to your opinions without respecting the opinions themselves, which is all I have ever said.
Again, I’m simply unable to use language that you seem to want. You seem to want me to say that I can see your point of view, accept its logic as being “as good as mine”, etc. But that is an incoherent wish, it seems to me. If I thought your logic on an issue was as good as mine, I would not have my opinion in the first place… I’d have yours!
I wish you well, JEL. I hope you never are forced to live in a society that is organized along the lines you say you want. I suspect you will find that it is not a pleasant place to live, and most certainly not a just one.
January 13th, 2010 2:41 pm
Harmonic, I never knew you were “coldly persistent”, that sounds so, well…, cold. Of course, it’s comforting to know that you are not “hot tempered”. Good thing, though, that you are not “Lukewarm” ’cause we know what God does to them. So since I brought up that word, do you think God really doesn’t like lukewarm folks? I think a post on Revelation Chapter 3 might be good about now.
January 18th, 2010 9:13 am
This wasn’t a blogger but rather an MSNBC commentator: “Radio Equalizer’s Brian Maloney captured MSNBC’s Ed Schultz making a startling remark on his radio show yesterday about supporting voter fraud in Massachusetts, so Scott Brown would lose. “I tell you what, if I lived in Massachusetts I’d try to vote 10 times. I don’t know if they’d let me or not, but I’d try to. Yeah, that’s right. I’d cheat to keep these bastards out. I would. ‘Cause that’s exactly what they are.”” (source – The Washington times)