Don't tell me that there's no coordination between supposedly independent activist organizations. Take a look at some emails I just received.
-Today, 1:25 PM from MoveOn.org: "This Saturday will see the biggest demonstration on climate change in U.S. History."
-Today, 2:38 PM from Democracy in America: "Will you petition the presidential candidates to share their bold plan to lead America forward and reverse the effects of Global Warming?"
-Today, 3:26 PM from ActForChange: "Come to Step It Up, the national day of climate action on April 14."
I get these sorts of 'coincidental' emails all the time.
My guess is that People for the American Way will send me something around 4:20.
10 comments:
4:20 huh?
The common denominator is the Democratic Party. Independant is not the word I first think of related to those groups.
The common demonimator is SetItUp.Org... are you saying that "activist group" - whatever the hell that is... are not allowed to coordinate their efforts? Do you recall in the CONSTITUTION where it outlines our freedom to assemble? Do you have a problem with that?
By the way, declaring someone an "activist" has become right-wing slander for people who care about what happens in our country and try to do something about it instead of being blindly led into a police state and one environmental crisis after another.
Almanack,
For one thing, I'm surprised you express any sympathy for these establishment Democratic organizations.
As per your frequent modus operandi, you extrapolate in the most fantastical way and read what isn't there. Did I say they weren't allowed to coordinate their efforts? No. Do you recall where I said what they were doing is UNCONSTITUITIONAL? If so, point it out to me because I don't. Did I ever say I had a problem with that? No.
I have various disagreements with the groups I mentioned, but I find merit in some of what they do. If I didn't, I WOULDN'T BE ON THEIR EMAIL LISTS. These groups claim to be independent yet I seem to get the same emails from each of them within hours of each other. That was the point of this email. I find this annoying, not UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Surely you understand the difference.
I follow politics reasonably closely but I was not aware that the word activist had taken on some sinister connotation (except with regard to so-called activist judges). Even so, I make no apologies for the use of the word. I am a progressive activist. Perhaps not as active as some wish, but I am happy to apply that label to myself. If it's been demonized by the far right, I am thrilled to wear it as a badge of honor. It's wrong (and frankly, quite surprising) for you to cede the linguistic war to the far right and implicitly accept their demonization tactics. If you've read Orwell's Essays on Language, as I suspect you may have, then I need say no more.
You wrote "Don't tell me that there's no coordination between supposedly independent activist organizations."
So what exactly is the problem then?
I assume you read the replies?
Read my response - never did I say that you thought it was unconstitutional. But your post clearly indicates that you have a problem with their coordinating their activities.
Failing to see the way that "activist" is used - as in "activist judges" - by the right, is failing to understand the power of language.
As per your frequent modus operandi, you are buying into the language and arguments of the right in your drive to be the "smarter commentator" - it doesn't work.
The problem isn't that four or five organizations are coordinating their press efforts (a claim made by the right in a variety of context such as the liberal media, the Communist and Socialist fronts of old, and more) - the problem is the impact of global warming.
"Read my response - never did I say that you thought it was unconstitutional. But your post clearly indicates that you have a problem with their coordinating their activities. "
Read my response - never did I say that you said I thought it was unconstitutional. Your post clearly indicates that, though.
I will say this for the third time. My problem was not their coordination of activities. My annoyance is that they claim to be independent of each other. It makes me wonder I bother to subscribe to three email lists instead of one. It's a minor thing, which is why it merited only a single small essay. But please stick to what I actually wrote, not what you imagined.
I am aware of the flap over so-called activist judges. Surely you've read the many essays I've written on the topic. However I was not aware it was being used insidiously in other contexts. I'm not surprised, but I was not aware. Even this 'smarter commentator,' as you so snidely describe me, is not aware of everything.
As per your usual modus operandi, you seem obsessed with proving your left-wing credentials by attacking anything that might conceivably appeal to a centrist or moderate conservative. By going after the most incidental aside in something I wrote and blowing it up into World War IV.
You seem obsessed with creative ways of labelling my writing as some sort of elitist enterprise (god forbid commentators try to be smart; maybe one day we'll get a president who is)... instead of recognizing this blog for what it is: an attempt to convince undecided people that my position on a particular issue is correct. You want to preach to the converted? Go ahead. I'm not going to stop you. I want to go after the undecided or those who might be swayed. I feel that's most efficient use of MY time and energy. The right gained such a control over our society precisely when they left their little echo chamber and went after the non-hard core. It's time the left did the same.
If you can be so knee-jerk belligerent toward someone who you know you generally agrees with on the big picture substance, what hope in hell do you possibly have of convincing anyone undecided?
Brian,
My comment was four sentences long and aside from the informational point about the derisionary use of the word activist made not a single declarative statement. I asked three questions about what you wrote - you replied with four paragraphs making various claims about what I wrote. For the sake of civility, look back at how this discussion has transpired. The only comment I made about your work was after several claims you made about me and my beliefs when I said, using your language: "As per your frequent modus operandi, you are buying into the language and arguments of the right in your drive to be the "smarter commentator" - it doesn't work."
By which I meant, perhaps in more rational terms, that I suspect you think you were taking a smarter, unbiased, concensus-building, stance when you snidely attacked those organizations for coordinating their actions and for claiming independence, but the result was that you were really just attacking those organizations which are being (somewhat) effective on the issue of global warming. However, my comment ASKED you to clarify what you meant.
By the way - you did write "Don't tell me that there's no coordination" in the original post - clearly that implies that you have a problem with that coordination - doesn't it?
It's these kinds of exchanges that make me not want to have comments on my blog, or frankly to comment much on others.
I asked three questions. You replied that I:
"express... sympathy for... establishment Democratic organizations"
"extrapolate in the most fantastical way and read what isn't there"
"imagined" what you "actually wrote"
"seem obsessed with proving [my] left-wing credentials by attacking anything that might conceivably appeal to a centrist or moderate conservative"
"obsessed with creative ways of labeling my writing as some sort of elitist enterprise"
And if that wasn't enough, then you deride me for being "knee-jerk belligerent."
If you didn’t want to answer my first three questions, why did you bother to have comments turned on?
Knee-jerk belligerent indeed.
Almanack,
The tone of your comments were clearly confrontational.
A non-confrontational or sincerely inquisitive approach would have been something like:
-You seem to be implying that activist groups shouldn't be allowed to coordinate their efforts. Is that what you mean?
-Are you suggesting that the Constitutional right to free assembly doesn't apply to these groups?
-Or maybe... Do you think these groups are wrong to pursue global warming as a key issue?
-Or maybe... Why do you object to these groups coordinating? (to which I would have clarified that it wasn't the coordination per se but the pretense of independent action)
These would have been fair questions, fairly stated.
Instead, you put words into my mouth under the guise of a question ("Do you recall in the CONSTITUTION where it outlines our freedom to assemble?") that had no relation to anything I said. Instead, your jaw hits the ground in amazement that anyone could detect any belligerence in phrases like "Do you have a problem with that?" and "whatever the hell that is"
I only referred to your "frequent modus operandi" after your attempt to put words into my mouth under the guise of questions.
"I asked three questions"
You made three accusations in the form of questions.
""Don't tell me that there's no coordination" in the original post - clearly that implies that you have a problem with that coordination - doesn't it?"
No. Let's focus a little less on the verb 'to imply' and a little more on the word 'to state'.
My comment clearly states that I have a problem with CLAIMS that there is no coordination. "Don't tell me that there's no coordination" doesn't imply coordination is bad; it implies that someone is saying there's no coordination but there really is.
You seemed to assume you knew what I meant (thus the hostility of "Do you recall in the CONSTITUTION where it outlines our freedom to assemble?") so you jumped on me instead of seeing the nuance of what I actually wrote.
I'm not afraid to open up my essays to public criticism. But I'm also not afraid to defend them either.
If you ask your questions in a fair-minded manner (or " smarter, unbiased, concensus-building" manner, if you prefer, I will respond in a fair-minded way. If you ask in a hostile, prosecutorial tone, I will respond in kind.
You took a brief essay on a minor annoyance about my inbox being flooded with repetitive calls to act and responded and turned it into 20-something paragraphs on God knows what you were trying to achieve.
If I were as belligerent as you seem to think, with comment moderation I would have refused to publish your comments altogether.
Bear in mind that today's notes follow the same trend as recent comments such as:
-Saying I'm guilty of "throwing around right wing clap-trap"
-...and of peddling "the right wing BS line"
-"if you had a real stake in that struggle, you would know that."
-"I'm simply saying that hearing "I'm being put upon by ideologues, woe is me" all the time is tiring and off the mark regarding the enormity of abuses in this world and who is responsible for them."
So if I'm less inclined to give your tone the benefit of the doubt and more sensitive to you putting words into my mouth, it's not because of today's exchange alone.
"It's these kinds of exchanges that make me not want to have comments on my blog"
When it's the most minor essays (or the most incidental points in major essays) that seem to provoke the strongest reactions, I often feel the same way.
Incidentally, I've published 1377 entries on this blog in the last 4+ years. Most deal with serious issues, but yes some are minor, some are trite. I don't claim that all are equally weighty. You write about pop culture TV shows, local hermits and photography and I've never once denounced or mocked you for this. I think what you write about fills an interesting role and I'd like to think the same about my stuff. In fact, the only times I believe I've mentioned your blog here is to praise it.
Just this week I've write about the carnage in Iraq, Big Media's hypocrisy, a living wage for coffee growers, humane treatment for Orlando's homeless and the Rwandan genocide. None of these garnered a single word pro or con from you. But this minor one is the one that moves you to vent?
Post a Comment