From:"Brian Menard"
Date:Fri, 29 Feb 2008 20:38:37 -0500
Young: Good questions and comments. I read them quickly, and look forward to responding in kind. I'm jammed time-wise at least through the weekend, though. Two snow days, one of which cancelled an all-day principal shadowing experience that sets up big assignment that consists of a huge part of my grade in one of my last to MEd classes, has put me into an undesirable circumstance. Sucks for me. So, anyway, it may take a while to offer the thorough response your quality contribution deserves. Bear with me, and keep the posts rolling even though I may seem like I'm ducking out. One process thought, though. In all your computerness, do you have the knowledge, skills, and platform to move us from e-mails to blog format? It might make things easier to follow, especially with threading, and would certainly make it easier to trace back and see what we've done. (I know I've deleted a lot of posts from all four of us that I'd like to pull up again.)
-----------------
Date:Fri, 29 Feb 2008 17:26:58 -0800 (PST)
From:"Young H. Kim"
I think we all agree that the four of us are not merely "conservative" or "liberal"in the labeling-sense of the word. Here's one thing that does bother me about the Reps attacking the New Deal or the "welfare state". You can't tell me that there were no problems of urban jungles or rural trailer parks before FDR; poverty existed all through history. What have the conservative Reps done for the poor and the working class that even comes close to what FDR and LBJ achieved, especially in terms of helping those who are less fortunate and less privileged? What have conservatism offered to the nation in terms of being morally responsible in a capitalist society? Kemp's "enterprise zones"? Are these successful today? I have no idea, actually.If the conservatives in the past had their way, we wouldn't even have Social Security, Medicare, the Civil Rights and the Voting Rights Acts. Is this not the case? There is a reason why blacks moved from the Rep party to the Dems. Was it Dem disinformation and deception that caused this shift? I don't think so. Dems proposed and enacted policies that favored the poor and the minorities. Of course,the results of those acts are not without flaws and abuses, but I guess I'm asking for the compassionate or idealistic conservative model for a better society. It can't be just about the trickle-down economics because we've already had a quite unsuccessful application of it.To me, the definition of "conservative" for the last half century or more has been"reactionary" and "maintaining status quo". How has conservatism progressed to put forth policies for the betterment of our nation today? I absolutely agree that American conservatism has lost its way; I believe many Americans are for individual liberty and limited government, but liberty as freedom from what? And how limited should gov't be? Unregulated free market? Remove government from education and social welfare? Conservatives/Republicans are constantly critical of liberals/Democrats, but what are the alternatives they have championed that would make our capitalist society more compassionate or ideal? Why don't pro-choice,affirmative action and gun control policies fit into the concept of making a better society? Is it about separating the social and political conservatism?I assume that there have been things proposed that fall in line with the brand of conservatism that you support, but they probably were never really given a full chance for one reason or another; this is where there is a definite disconnect between conservatives and Republicans, between ideology and party politics, just asthere's a disconnect between progressives/liberals and Democrats--what the ideologues support is not (necessarily) what gets implemented through party politics. I believe we also have to make a distinction between the ideological and the partisan political arguments.If anything, our discussion is helping me to rethink and refine my own sense of what it means to be a liberal or a progressive, so I thank you all for that.
---------------------
From: "Brian Menard"
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:06:07 -0500
One of the squarepegroundhole difficulties I have always had in fitting on this side or that side is that I generally appreciate the idealism of liberals, but so often the means pursued are so based in the policy equivalent of Dream Whip that they habitually screw things up just as much - if not worse - that things as they are. Conservatives, on the other hand, are more inclined to settle for falling back upon "keep what works, and maximize freedom" as a panacea that ignores our collective imperative to improve ourselves and society. This is one reason I loved Jack Kemp. He was an idealistic conservative...steadfastly conservative in the means he prescribed in pursuit of admirable ideals. This is different, I think, from George Bush's "compassionate conservative" mantra. I lauded Bush for his efforts to make compassion respectable in conservatism, and am content to describe myself as a compassionate conservative. However, I think the idealistic conservatism of Kemp describes me better. Compassion is an important quality to have, but it is more one-way than idealism. Compassion lets you care about others, help others, improve the lot of others. Idealism, on the other hand, allows for a Platonic recognition of conceptual ideals - however unattainable they may be in reality - that we can all strive to achieve for the betterment of ourselves and others as individuals as well as collectively. The question becomes: How do we do this? Fixing creating new problems in the process of trying to fix old ones (whether or not the old ones actually get fixed) is not progress, it's just new problems. For example, Johnson's War on Poverty and the Great Society did not succeed, but they did create a massive welfare state (built on FDR's foundation for the massive welfare state established decades before) that locked generations in poverty in urban jungles and rural trailer parks with no hope and no opportunity for escape. Would the hardcore conservative "solution" of "do nothing, but remind these people that they have freedom" have done better? No, it wouldn't. But creating programs that would create real opportunity for those who actually care about doing something to escape from dire economic circumstances has a positive benefit. Jack Kemp's "enterprise zones" are one example of addressing needs and striving for improvement through more positive means based in human nature instead of in denial of human nature. Similarly, my melding of idealism and practicality recognizes that something different or foreign or new need not be something bad, yet, recognizes also that ideas and culture matter: the philosophical ideas that shaped our system and culture are not inherently bad and provide a core that in some regards draw us together and in other regards are crucial for the successful continuation of our nation as a nation. As a nation of immigrants, and a nation founded on a bold experiment in implementing enlightened political philosophy, we must be open to ideas and practices that enrich us further, but we must also be cautious of things contrary to the essence of what makes us "one from many".
----- Original Message -----
From: b.adamson@comcast.net
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 8:38 PM
Brian M--I really appreciate you making the effort to explain your views to the left coast. I hope that you don't get too frustrated with our tone; We're just trying to understand how you guys see it. Further, it's obvious that your not too right of center or extreme--I appreciate that. I think that we all have a lot of emotion, that does not always find an appropriate outlet. Anyway, here's to understanding.I like listening to music as I write and send emails, thus all of the links.John Cruz (again)--Check out the end of the song, when he alters the lyrics, very funny.http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=07SrFYQDiAE&feature=related
B.
---------------
From: b.adamson@comcast.net
Subject: Communism, a Failure of Reason
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 01:11:30 +0000
One of the problems with blurring economic and political systems, is an inability to make important distinctions between the two. Certainly, some right-wing think tanks have purposed that capitalism will help bring about democracy. I believe this to be a fallacious assumption. Capitalism exists quite well without democracy. China is only the latest in a large number of examples.
Further, socialism can exist with democracy. I am reminded of democratic-socialist nations like Sweden. Can anyone argue that Sweden is not a democracy?
Yes, Marxist-Leninist doctrine--Or communism, or whatever one might call it--Is a complete fairy-tale and a total failure. Marx was a brilliant philosopher with many great ideas and insights--Nevertheless, his philosophy was inherently flawed, as humans are flawed. Anyone, who has ever been in the Army, or lived in a commune has a pretty good idea of why communism is completely unrealistic. In fact, even Marx believed that communism was just the final step in a process that would lead to Utopia.
Utopia, like Heaven cannot exist on Earth. Luckily, communism has been largely discredited. My concern however, when the extreme forces on the left fell--the extreme forces on the right took credit and gained something from it.
B.
-----------------
From:"Brian Menard"
Date:Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:32:06 -0500
Young: Thanks for the extended version cum responses to my response to your contracted version. After getting more of your thoughts, I think we agree in a lot of these areas than it first appeared to me. A few additional response thoughts...
China: No, this is not a true communist nation. Marx would be critical were he to see it today. I think the spirit in which Marx offered his theory was somewhat romantic, in that he really wanted to create a Utopian society in place of the darkness and devastation he saw around him sweeping through the aristocratic-based unchecked capitalism that de facto locked people into their castes. I wonder if you remember the portion of Ms. Carr's "poetry notebook" assignment when we shared a favorite song with the class. I, the Nixon-worshipping heartless fascist Republican, did John Lennon's "Imagine". After I read the lyrics and played the song, Dave Lutz (who thought it would be hilarious to do the Rolling Stones' "Brown Sugar" in Ms. Carr's class) immediately piped in, "Why, that's COMMUNISM!" A discussion on the distinction between theory and practice and idealism versus prudence versus pragmatism was not in order at the time, so I don't think I spent much time explaining that while I thought it was a nice thing to "Imagine", I did not confuse Utopian dreams with accomplishable targets. Anyway, China is an exciting and scary place in the world in an exciting and scary phase of development. Part of the underlying theory behind U.S. policy toward China for 35 years has been the expectation that if we can just plant the seeds of capitalism there, it will eventually flourish and ultimately blossom into democracy that the Party dictatorship cannot suppress. Meanwhile, the Party leadership understands that Mao led China into "communism" without first going through the capitalist phase Marx believed was required to provide a nation with the infrastructure that enables communist society to exist as it does; thus, I am convinced, they are using this current experiment in capitalism as a means to a more perfect communist end, all the while aware that they need to grow it in a controlled way or risk what U.S. policy hopes will result. Tiananmen Square is the most obvious example of what results from the tension, and I fully expect that at some point another and more wide-scale example will occur.
----- Original Message -----
From: Young H. Kim
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 6:17 PM
BRM, I intentionally kept my initial response short due to time, so I see that that has created some miscommunication and misunderstanding. You make it quite difficult for me to restrain myself from responding, but I mean that in the best way possible,and I certainly harbor no wrath toward you being "overly academic" though my comments must have come across to you that way; no, I welcome it, and I apologize for any offense in that regard.However, I wonder if by outlining the academic theories, you are also defending theactual practice of conservative ideology or the conservative movement. I believe weagree that the theory and the practice/reality are quite different from each other,whether it be conservatism, liberalism, capitalism or communism. I certainly am no expert on Western thought, philosophy or intellectual/political history, so I freely defer to you the details on those subjects. Please see below for a clarification of my previous comments.
YHK: Of course, there is plenty of blame on both sides; I'm not discounting anything. Michael Moore is an example of liberal extremists that comes to mind, and I certainly do not agree with all liberals or believe that all liberalism is free from blame or perfect. I certainly am not an atheist or a relativist or even a"philosophical anarchist" (remember this label that was put on me in the past by your mother, I think?). However, if you're comparing Al Franken and Michael Moore vs. Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, I'll have to defend the left insofar as they align with my beliefs and world view. And I can only speak and have been speaking from what I believe, feel, and understand to be right and just.
YHK: I didn't mean to say that Marx took into account human nature. I was only talking about my view of human nature in simple terms. It's my understanding that his better known theories are purely based in political and economic terms. I don't consider him a philosopher per se who provides insight into human nature. However, I believe that he does more or less accurately describe the flaws and dangers of capitalism, as did Adam Smith. A pure communist state will be difficult to create,I agree, but what would you say of China today? A mere dictatorship? ;-)
YHK: Do you see capitalism practiced this way today, where the haves see it is in their interest to help the have-nots? I don't. Do you see that the have-nots of the world are capable of destroying the haves? Seems unlikely. USA is the superpower and even post-9/11 hasn't made the world see us as helping the have-nots. Same can be said domestically. I believe it is more likely that our nation destroys itself from within. And I see conservatism at the heart of not being morally responsible to the have-nots, and liberalism doing a frustratingly piss-poor job of looking out for and helping the interests of the have-nots. There was a very interesting series by the LA Times a while back on how philanthropic organizations like the Gates Foundation actually do more harm to the people they help through charity by keeping investments in those companies whose business practices damage their environment and hurt their living standards. This is just one paradox of capitalism today.
YHK: I am not as optimistic of Smithian capitalism as you are. I agree that Marxism as practiced in history failed because human beings need to be rewarded for individuality, entrepreneurship, innovation and creativity. A free market system must be regulated, as liberals tout, and thereby improved because left alone to human nature, it will surely fail in theory and practice. Unregulated capitalism rewards the robber barons and the Gordon Geckoes of the world, and I feel that is pretty much what we have today.
--------------------
From:"Michael Busick"
Date:Thu, 28 Feb 2008 14:00:11 -0800
Actually, I was just pointing out the irony in the following: This administration espouses installing a democracy in Iraq (where none have ever flourished) while being in favor of illegal wiretaps, out-of-country secret torture/interrogation facilities, and the Patriot Act in this country. This administration goes on and on about how our enemy hates our freedom and then they come out in favor of a constitutional ban on gay marriage. It just seemed to me as thought this administration doesn't really want to throw out our enemy's entire playbook. :) Doesn't Iraq have universal health care now? Aren't schools being rebuilt there while they're falling apart here? Again, since 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, how come we didn't bomb them back to the stone age?
------------------
From:"Brian Menard"
Date:Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:32:15 -0500
Young: Do I take it from your response that you discount liberals from blame and rest it exclusively on conservative shoulders? If so, I think you're being disingenuous or self-delusional, either of which would surprise me. I go to great lengths to assess my side of the political debate fairly and evenhandedly, freely admitting the faults of folks professing views akin to mine. Do you not do the same because you honestly don't think your side has such faults, because you think your responsibility in this dialogue is merely to point out one side's view, or some other reason? It is one thing to assess allegations differently; something else to discount them altogether. Would you accept my challenge for you to name three recognized liberals - in politics, media, however they are known - and offer criticism of each of them? I'm happy to do the same on the conservative side. I'll even extend the challenge to all four of us, and match the combined liberal list with conservatives. As for human nature, I would agree with your assessment of such negative components of it. I would add that I believe, as did the establishers of the American flavor of political theory a couple centuries ago, that there are also higher elements of human nature (compassion, love, gratitude, etc.) that balance its negative elements (greed, self-interest, meanness, spite, etc.). At the risk of incurring your wrath again for being overly academic, the irony I find in your comment, though, is that human nature is something that Marx left out of his little equation. The reason that true communism will never be tried and that socialism fails to achieve its goals is that they build human nature out of the model. They fail to trust the positive side and fail to compensate for the negative side. Capitalism, in Gordon Gecko's "greed is good" sense, is flawed for other reasons. Adam Smith never advocated capitalism as a means for powerful individuals to profit at the expense of everyone else. His book "Capital" has a complementary volume, "The Theory of Moral Sentiments". A complete view of capitalism sees the economic principals of capitalism guided by the moral principals of humanity, so that capitalism is the tool for moral society to use for its overall benefit. Tocqueville illustrates similar ideas in "Democracy in America" when he discusses the concept of self interest rightly understood. Rather than being something for individuals to practice with reckless abandon for their unending financial benefit, individuals should understand that such practice will ultimately lead to the downfall of the haves at the hands of the have-nots. Thus, those more blessed on this Earth not only have a moral responsibility to take care of those less fortunate (which allows people to say, "Okay, I choose not to be morally responsible, so screw 'em!"), but it is actually in their own broader interest to do so. Every human system put into practice has flaws, but I see the flaws of Marx as deficiencies of theory (and thus condemned to fail from the start) while the flaws of Smith are deficiencies of practice (and thus improvable). I have no doubt I'll catch things coming back my way in response, so I look forward to what folks think on the matter. Cheers,Brian
----- Original Message -----
From: Young H. Kim
Sent: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:57:12 -0800 (PST)
Whoa, you're blowing my mind with the Hegelian reference, but loving it! Just toreply briefly, I believe there is always an opportunity and a willingness to cometogether, but it is dependent on whether the people who are in control or the peoplewho represent us have true leaders and statesmen among them to open those doors ofopportunity. But, truly, I just don't see the conservative movement (at least thecurrent version of it) as exhibiting a willingness to share ideas, wealth, or power,and I don't mean just in the political sense. As long as we always think inUs-vs.-Them terms, whether domestically or internationally, the door will stayclosed. I know that is cliche, but it is the simplest way to put it.But in the philosophical sense, I think Hegel and Marx is still right on abouthistorical determinism and the engine of political struggle, especially given thatthe world is now full-on capitalist again; I wouldn't say doomed, but the world is acontentious place because the ones that have the power will always seek to controlit by whatever means necessary, and the ones that do not have power will always seekto take it away or destroy it, even little by little. This struggle will always beUs-vs.-Them. That is my ultimate view of human nature.
--------------------
From: brian_menard@hotmail
Subject: Opportunity to come together?
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:45:38 -0500
"(...wouldn't that just seriously piss off their patriarchal society?) and tell them where they can stick it in the sand."
Intentionally or not, I think Michael has opened a door to collaboration that has often frustrated and confounded me about why it seems always to stay closed. To be stereotypical, liberals like to complain about all that is wrong/unfair/unjust that must be made right, and conservatives like to complain about why others can't just do things OUR way. Liberals think conservatives have no problem criticizing folks around the world, while hypocritically being apologists for insufficiencies at home; conservatives think liberals have no problem criticizing us at home, while hypocritically giving a pass to regimes around the world that do things far worse than what we live with here.
My question: Is there sufficient willingness for both sides to listen more than they talk and to prioritize action in those areas of agreement over politicizing areas of contention, or are we doomed to swing back and forth between periods of control by one side or the other as the Hegelian force of History shall determine?
--------------------
From:"Michael Busick"
Subject:RE: News Media Bias?
Date:Wed, 27 Feb 2008 22:34:36 -0800
Given that the Bush administration has been getting away with much worse than what Clinton tried to get away on the Lewinsky scandal -- when it comes to media attention and scrutiny -- I honestly don't see how the media can be left-leaning. I also believe the only reason why the media isn't trying harder to "get the goods" on the Bush administration is that the Bushies have denied media access to anyone who consistently criticizes them. Therefore, no reporter wants to get "Dowded" so they've been keeping their mouth shut -- and guys like Jeff Gannon (real name Jeff Guckert -- and seriously, shouldn't a reporter be arrested for not providing a real name in order to get access to the White House press room?) from "Talon News" get free rein to lob softball questions. There's no logical reason why a waged military conflict based on lies isn't at least as big a story as an extramarital affair in the White House. I figure the buzz after that Yahoo article which counted the number of Bushie lies that led up to the invasion -- and continued through the occupation of -- Iraq (counting over 900 and still climbing) lasted about three days before the American public moved on (or back) to Britney Spears' and Lindsay Lohan's latest travails. Also, the media consolidation during the last 5-10 years hasn't been favoring the left because the mega-media companies gobbling up stations (like Clear Channel) are right-leaning. I blame Congress for this Iraq mess as much as I blame the media -- which is also as much as I blame the American people for not doing more to protest it. It seems to me that if our enemy hates our freedoms, we shouldn't continue to try to take them away -- while claiming to win said battle against the enemy. If they don't like our freedoms, then hey, let's start with legalized gay marriage, legalized marijuana use, universal health care, and equal rights for women (wouldn't that just seriously piss off their patriarchal society?) and tell them where they can stick it in the sand. :)
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Freedom of Speech vs. National Security
[Following was in reply to my 2000 election story, but of course, spawned a different topic. -yhk]
From: Brian Menard
Sent: Mon, January 21, 2008 11:29:09 AM
Subject: Re: Young's (Not So) Excellent Adventure in 2000 Election - Re: Real Intolerance
I think the best way for me to respond to the thrust of this is to put it into context by parroting the position of Henry J. Abraham, one of the few non-lawyers in modern times to be on a short list for the Supreme Court. Abraham's academic career was built on the idea that the process of resolving constitutional arguments is an exercise in line-drawing. There are two extremes to every right - totally unrestricted and totally negated - and the wide array of points in between these extremes. Governments, and in particular the courts, must draw lines that establish how the concepts of particular rights manifest in actual practice. For example, we can say we support the freedom of speech, but does that freedom mean always and everywhere, or are there circumstances in which we limit things. The SC says that we DO limit that right, with one of the earliest limitations being the "clear and present danger" test (e.g., you can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater). Other lines the SC has drawn on the speech question deal with conduct, profanity, immediacy, pornography (with the infamous, "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it" quote), student speech in schools, and more. From the collection of previous e-mails, it seems none of us argues that the freedom of speech is unlimited. So the question really is what lines do we each advocate drawing. In the world of constitutional law, such lines - at least in theory - are supposed to be applied evenly and consistently, which can be a challenge. The same line-drawing exercise applies to the other rights guaranteed to us, including the Fourth Amendment rights that seem cogent to this discussion.
BRM
Wow, I did not know, or remember any of that-Very tough situation, working for intolerant people, or an intolerant company. I think, in the case of your example, the word 'intolerant' may not be adequate enough to describe how difficult and unfortunate that situation must have been-I am sorry. It is interesting how radical we might appear to one-another until we know where the other is coming from.
As far as sending an email in reply to Intolerance and the First Amendment, I have a lot to say about this-but, I don't know where to begin? It's a hard thing to talk about, kind of like our Seattle diatribe, or my lame defense of American Imperialism. It was meant, in a spirit of dialog and I must confess, I was pulling chains or pushing buttons a little bit...But, it's hard to have a discussion about things that are not morally sound but may be wise in a prudent, or 'real Politik way. For example, I wanted to point out that, some of our best presidents have advanced agendas of imperialism and even dictatorship. I did not, however, want to be known as the "imperialist pig" (sorry, Young, no offense-I know you were just kidding) who was defending and probably deep down agreed with some elements of American hegemony or imperialistic policy. So, it's hard to talk about these things without offending people. And it's hard to talk about some things without appearing to be an advocate of those things. In other words, is it possible to defend war, imperialism, or in this case the sacrifice of our freedoms for security and safety, without appearing to be a proponent of these difficult and unpopular views?
Thus, I believe that you might have been trying to ignite a discussion about the military commissions act. I think that you wanted to begin a discussion on our loss of personal freedoms and make connections between certain political philosophies and the loss of those freedoms?
Certainly, the first amendment protects our freedoms, the very freedoms in fact that, the military commission act suspends or revokes "during a time of national emergency or war."
So, what freedoms have we lost and why have we lost them? I believe that we could identify many of these points rather quickly. Also, however, I think that you (Young) would like to examine why we have sacrificed those freedoms in an attempt to allow our government to keep us more safe and secure?
Of course, we all know the 'Catch-22'- As Olbermann more aptly summarized it, "The Military Commissions Act has sacrificed our freedoms to a government more dangerous to our own liberty than the enemy, it claims to protect us from."
My question is two-fold. Do we all agree with the above preceding statement? And are there any circumstances that we could imagine, that would require a suspension of individual freedom and liberties? Bush argues, that the time is now. Is now the time? Has there ever been a time when the military commission act was necessary? Further, Bush has argued that the military commission act has saved lives and prevented terrorist attacks-If this is correct, is Bush, right?
B
From: Brian Menard
Subject: Re: Young's (Not So) Excellent Adventure in 2000 Election - Re: Real Intolerance
I think the best way for me to respond to the thrust of this is to put it into context by parroting the position of Henry J. Abraham, one of the few non-lawyers in modern times to be on a short list for the Supreme Court. Abraham's academic career was built on the idea that the process of resolving constitutional arguments is an exercise in line-drawing. There are two extremes to every right - totally unrestricted and totally negated - and the wide array of points in between these extremes. Governments, and in particular the courts, must draw lines that establish how the concepts of particular rights manifest in actual practice. For example, we can say we support the freedom of speech, but does that freedom mean always and everywhere, or are there circumstances in which we limit things. The SC says that we DO limit that right, with one of the earliest limitations being the "clear and present danger" test (e.g., you can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater). Other lines the SC has drawn on the speech question deal with conduct, profanity, immediacy, pornography (with the infamous, "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it" quote), student speech in schools, and more. From the collection of previous e-mails, it seems none of us argues that the freedom of speech is unlimited. So the question really is what lines do we each advocate drawing. In the world of constitutional law, such lines - at least in theory - are supposed to be applied evenly and consistently, which can be a challenge. The same line-drawing exercise applies to the other rights guaranteed to us, including the Fourth Amendment rights that seem cogent to this discussion.
As for Olbermann's view, no I don't agree at all. Do I advocate surrendering individual rights blindly and completely in the name of security from external threats? Absolutely not, for dangers to our freedom can be either foreign or domestic. Nor am I wholly comfortable with all that has been done in the wake of 9-11. However, when putting this potential threat side-by-side with what our enemies profess (and have demonstrated) they would do without hesitation if given the chance, I'll take the former over the latter any time.
BRM
----- Original Message -----
From: b.adamson@comcast.net
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 8:52 PM
Subject: Re: Young's (Not So) Excellent Adventure in 2000 Election - Re: Real Intolerance
As far as sending an email in reply to Intolerance and the First Amendment, I have a lot to say about this-but, I don't know where to begin? It's a hard thing to talk about, kind of like our Seattle diatribe, or my lame defense of American Imperialism. It was meant, in a spirit of dialog and I must confess, I was pulling chains or pushing buttons a little bit...But, it's hard to have a discussion about things that are not morally sound but may be wise in a prudent, or 'real Politik way. For example, I wanted to point out that, some of our best presidents have advanced agendas of imperialism and even dictatorship. I did not, however, want to be known as the "imperialist pig" (sorry, Young, no offense-I know you were just kidding) who was defending and probably deep down agreed with some elements of American hegemony or imperialistic policy. So, it's hard to talk about these things without offending people. And it's hard to talk about some things without appearing to be an advocate of those things. In other words, is it possible to defend war, imperialism, or in this case the sacrifice of our freedoms for security and safety, without appearing to be a proponent of these difficult and unpopular views?
Thus, I believe that you might have been trying to ignite a discussion about the military commissions act. I think that you wanted to begin a discussion on our loss of personal freedoms and make connections between certain political philosophies and the loss of those freedoms?
Certainly, the first amendment protects our freedoms, the very freedoms in fact that, the military commission act suspends or revokes "during a time of national emergency or war."
So, what freedoms have we lost and why have we lost them? I believe that we could identify many of these points rather quickly. Also, however, I think that you (Young) would like to examine why we have sacrificed those freedoms in an attempt to allow our government to keep us more safe and secure?
Of course, we all know the 'Catch-22'- As Olbermann more aptly summarized it, "The Military Commissions Act has sacrificed our freedoms to a government more dangerous to our own liberty than the enemy, it claims to protect us from."
My question is two-fold. Do we all agree with the above preceding statement? And are there any circumstances that we could imagine, that would require a suspension of individual freedom and liberties? Bush argues, that the time is now. Is now the time? Has there ever been a time when the military commission act was necessary? Further, Bush has argued that the military commission act has saved lives and prevented terrorist attacks-If this is correct, is Bush, right?
B
Young's (Not So) Excellent Adventure in 2000 Election - Re: Real Intolerance
From: Michael Busick
Sent: Sun, January 20, 2008 6:41:27 PM
Subject: RE: Young's (Not So) Excellent Adventure in 2000 Election - Re: Real Intolerance
Subject: RE: Young's (Not So) Excellent Adventure in 2000 Election - Re: Real Intolerance
Young, if only you had set that e-mail to send to "Liberals Only", none of that would've happened. :)
From: brian_menard@hotmail.com
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 21:31:10 -0500
Young: Yep, putting aside the corporate policy faux paux, it seems like familiar territory in the reaction department and subsequent concern about standing in the organization.
----- Original Message -----From: Young H. KimSent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 6:40 PMSubject: Young's (Not So) Excellent Adventure in 2000 Election - Re: Real Intolerance
At the risk of revisiting a topic that is beyond stale, I would like to share my experience at work during the 2000 presidential election. Not sure if I shared this with any of you, so pardon me if I'm repeating.
I was barely a year into my new job as a Software Test Engineer at a company called Metapath Software International (MSI) in the heart of downtown Bellevue. I happened across an article in the New Yorker about how the Gore/Bush matchup has turned into a mere personality contest ("I can imagine having a beer with Bush, but not Gore.").In my naivete and poor judgment of workplace email policy, I forwarded, no, spammed this article company-wide to the offices in the US. I invite you to imagine the reaction I received. Here's the link to an abstract of the article as The New Yorker does not have the full article online, but you'll get the idea:
Pretty harmless, wouldn't you say? ;-) I mean, in hindsight, it's truer now than it was then. Naturally, I received some but few email in favor and in agreement with my political leanings. And there were brutal, personal attacks against me personally and intellectually. So I know, BRM, when you talked about the fear of losing your job for voicing your political opinion, especially when one of the mostvocal criticism came from the Senior VP in charge of the engineering division, who is from and works in Richardson, TX, a suburb of Dallas--sort of a "Don't mess with Texas!" attitude. I am still looking for the email and the replies I saved somewhere.
Suffice to say, I received negative reaction in the following vein:1) Don't fill my inbox with your biased political crap.2) Cease and desist from such abuse of company mail lists.3) The New Yorker is a rag whose objectivity is more than questionable. (YHK: It was obviously an op-ed piece.)4) Send your liberal pablum somewhere else. (YHK: Morton Downey, Jr. popularized the word "pablum".)5) Yet another example of bleeding-heart, knee-jerk, elitist liberal position. Get better informed about the information you're spreading around.
Fortunately, I only got a slap on the wrist from my manager and director afterward, "Young, you know better than that. But I trust that this will never happen again." Needless to say, I learned a big lesson about using intra-company email. In any case, at the time, I just couldn't believe that a man like Dubya actually had a shot against a much more qualified Al Gore. I still believe that Gore would be the Dem nominee this year if he chose to run.
------------------
Couple of quotes that are popular among Dems about the Bush Years:
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." -H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
"They Thought They Were Free" - Milgram Experiment - Re: Human Nature?
From: Michael Busick
Subject: RE: "They Thought They Were Free" - Milgram Experiment - Re: Human Nature?
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:42:35 -0800
Well, sure, but it works otherwise, right? :)
From: brian_menard@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: "They Thought They Were Free" - Milgram Experiment - Re: Human Nature?
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:41:44 -0500
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:04 PM
Subject: RE: "They Thought They Were Free" - Milgram Experiment - Re: Human Nature?
I wish more people would view the Iraqi insurgents as "Minutemen". The nation is trying to become independent from a monarch/tyrant, after all. It might put this whole mess into a different perspective. :)
Of course, not all of the insurgents are home-grown -- and the weapons being used are a lot more advanced -- so this situation is a wee bit different. :)
From: brian_menard@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: "They Thought They Were Free" - Milgram Experiment - Re: Human Nature?
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 20:47:52 -0500
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 2:08 PM
Subject: Re: "They Thought They Were Free" - Milgram Experiment - Re: Human Nature?
Yes, I believe all four of us are in agreement regarding more civic involvement.
The real trick is in discussing what separates us. We agree to a point, yet, we
probably do not agree on further military action, or course of action to fight
terrorism. This al-Qaeda brand of terrorism is guerrilla warfare on a global scale
with the kamikaze suicide element thrown in. US will most assuredly be victorious
vs. a warring state, but our record vs. guerrilla warfare is not at all encouraging.
This conflict we're embroiled in is more similar to the Northern Ireland conflict
that made UK suffer for all those years. And what was the ultimate solution to
that? Bringing all sides to negotiate w/o demonizing or villifying any one party.
Same could be said for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
I'm not saying that we should legitimize al-Qaeda right now, but there are
diplomatic channels that can put pressure on al-Qaeda as an organization and limit
their recruitment vehicles. Demonizing Iran certainly is not what I mean.
BRM, in my previous email, I was not trying to slam you or anyone about the Iraq
War. I was just pointing out my observation of general partisan response from GOP supporters. I understand that you don't entirely support the Dubya admin actions in Iraq. I will, however, question any statement that comes across to me as needing some elaboration. I, too, immensely appreciate the time everyone is putting in to keep our conversation going. Thank you all!
Subject: RE: "They Thought They Were Free" - Milgram Experiment - Re: Human Nature?
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:42:35 -0800
Well, sure, but it works otherwise, right? :)
From: brian_menard@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: "They Thought They Were Free" - Milgram Experiment - Re: Human Nature?
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:41:44 -0500
One problem with your "Minutemen" allusion: our movement against the oppression of England started home-grown. Theirs, by virtue of the descriptor "insurgent", started as a turf-grabbing effort of ideological foreigners from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Afghanistan, etc. to take over Iraq in the wake of Saddam's removal and establish a new base since Afghanistan wasn't hospitable anymore.
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael BusickSent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:04 PM
Subject: RE: "They Thought They Were Free" - Milgram Experiment - Re: Human Nature?
I wish more people would view the Iraqi insurgents as "Minutemen". The nation is trying to become independent from a monarch/tyrant, after all. It might put this whole mess into a different perspective. :)
Of course, not all of the insurgents are home-grown -- and the weapons being used are a lot more advanced -- so this situation is a wee bit different. :)
From: brian_menard@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: "They Thought They Were Free" - Milgram Experiment - Re: Human Nature?
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 20:47:52 -0500
It's ironic, isn't it, that we have trouble with guerrilla conflicts, given that we invented guerrilla tactics in the 1770s?
----- Original Message -----
From: Young H. KimSent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 2:08 PM
Subject: Re: "They Thought They Were Free" - Milgram Experiment - Re: Human Nature?
Yes, I believe all four of us are in agreement regarding more civic involvement.
The real trick is in discussing what separates us. We agree to a point, yet, we
probably do not agree on further military action, or course of action to fight
terrorism. This al-Qaeda brand of terrorism is guerrilla warfare on a global scale
with the kamikaze suicide element thrown in. US will most assuredly be victorious
vs. a warring state, but our record vs. guerrilla warfare is not at all encouraging.
This conflict we're embroiled in is more similar to the Northern Ireland conflict
that made UK suffer for all those years. And what was the ultimate solution to
that? Bringing all sides to negotiate w/o demonizing or villifying any one party.
Same could be said for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
I'm not saying that we should legitimize al-Qaeda right now, but there are
diplomatic channels that can put pressure on al-Qaeda as an organization and limit
their recruitment vehicles. Demonizing Iran certainly is not what I mean.
BRM, in my previous email, I was not trying to slam you or anyone about the Iraq
War. I was just pointing out my observation of general partisan response from GOP supporters. I understand that you don't entirely support the Dubya admin actions in Iraq. I will, however, question any statement that comes across to me as needing some elaboration. I, too, immensely appreciate the time everyone is putting in to keep our conversation going. Thank you all!
--- Brian Menard wrote:
"'Who watches the Watchers?' The answer can be found by looking at a mirror..."
Agreed! I've been waiting for an opportunity to throw in one of my favorite
quotes from The Federalist. In Federalist #1, Hamilton (writing as "Publius")
says that the new Constitution is an experiment to test whether people actually
can govern themselves through reflection and choice or whether we are forever
doomed to be ruled by accident and force. Our governing system presupposes (and necessitates) involvement by the people. The power of sovereignty allotted to the people exists whether we claim it or not. If we do, that power is held in check
by us. If we do not, that power does not disappear, it merely gets claimed by
brokers happy to pick up and use to their advantage what we choose not to claim
because its responsibility is too onerous. This is one topic about which I am
passionate. That's why I've been involved in politics and governmetn most of my
life. That's why I started a civic education organization in the mid-90s. That's
why I became a government teacher. That's why I participate in e-mail exchanges
with others who care about the condition of our government even if we disagree
over how to care about it. Kudos to you for asking the question, and to all of us
for doing our part in answering it in our own ways!
Agreed! I've been waiting for an opportunity to throw in one of my favorite
quotes from The Federalist. In Federalist #1, Hamilton (writing as "Publius")
says that the new Constitution is an experiment to test whether people actually
can govern themselves through reflection and choice or whether we are forever
doomed to be ruled by accident and force. Our governing system presupposes (and necessitates) involvement by the people. The power of sovereignty allotted to the people exists whether we claim it or not. If we do, that power is held in check
by us. If we do not, that power does not disappear, it merely gets claimed by
brokers happy to pick up and use to their advantage what we choose not to claim
because its responsibility is too onerous. This is one topic about which I am
passionate. That's why I've been involved in politics and governmetn most of my
life. That's why I started a civic education organization in the mid-90s. That's
why I became a government teacher. That's why I participate in e-mail exchanges
with others who care about the condition of our government even if we disagree
over how to care about it. Kudos to you for asking the question, and to all of us
for doing our part in answering it in our own ways!
----- Original Message -----
From: Young H. Kim
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 1:20 AM
Subject: "They Thought They Were Free" - Milgram Experiment - Re: Human Nature?
Yes, of course, I believe we agree that there is evil. How we define evil may
be where we disagree, but if I may steer this thread to a slightly different
direction...The experiment you're referring to, BGA, is the Milgram Experiment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
(Not so much that I "rely" on Wikipedia, but it is a great source for quick
overview and as a starting point for further research. Footnote: Peter Gabriel has a
song on album "So" called "We Do What We're Told (Miligram's 37)", since only three out of 40 participants defied the experimenter in one variation of the test.) This experiment definitely grew out of the questions regarding Nazi Germany. Given the Iraq War and many examples in US history where we have hurt other nations or peoples more than we helped them, I feel that all Americans are no different than the Milgram subjects who not only did not refuse to continue with the experiment but did not ask about the release or the condition of the "person" supposedly receiving the shocks.
From: Young H. Kim
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 1:20 AM
Subject: "They Thought They Were Free" - Milgram Experiment - Re: Human Nature?
Yes, of course, I believe we agree that there is evil. How we define evil may
be where we disagree, but if I may steer this thread to a slightly different
direction...The experiment you're referring to, BGA, is the Milgram Experiment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
(Not so much that I "rely" on Wikipedia, but it is a great source for quick
overview and as a starting point for further research. Footnote: Peter Gabriel has a
song on album "So" called "We Do What We're Told (Miligram's 37)", since only three out of 40 participants defied the experimenter in one variation of the test.) This experiment definitely grew out of the questions regarding Nazi Germany. Given the Iraq War and many examples in US history where we have hurt other nations or peoples more than we helped them, I feel that all Americans are no different than the Milgram subjects who not only did not refuse to continue with the experiment but did not ask about the release or the condition of the "person" supposedly receiving the shocks.
Americans feel or should feel safe about living here daily. However, we are all
complicit in the suffering and the deaths of the Iraqi people that have occurred
since the invasion. Same can be said for the plight of the Afghan people.
Political incorrectness alert, the tragedy of 9/11 does not even compare to the
deaths and injuries caused by the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq. "We do what
we're told" whether directly or indirectly. America is very good at turning a blind
eye. To be frank, I have no idea what freedoms or liberties I have lost since 9/11;
I'd argue that you'd be hard pressed to name examples that has affected you directly to the point where you say to yourself, "I am outraged! I need to do something about this now!" And it is in this sense that our nation is not that far from the early phases of Nazi Germany.
complicit in the suffering and the deaths of the Iraqi people that have occurred
since the invasion. Same can be said for the plight of the Afghan people.
Political incorrectness alert, the tragedy of 9/11 does not even compare to the
deaths and injuries caused by the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq. "We do what
we're told" whether directly or indirectly. America is very good at turning a blind
eye. To be frank, I have no idea what freedoms or liberties I have lost since 9/11;
I'd argue that you'd be hard pressed to name examples that has affected you directly to the point where you say to yourself, "I am outraged! I need to do something about this now!" And it is in this sense that our nation is not that far from the early phases of Nazi Germany.
In deference to "They Thought They Were Free", America came for American
Indians, Blacks, Chinese, Japanese, Communists, Socialists, Gays and now Terrorists and radical Muslims. Attack against liberals have been happening for a while, so pardon me if I sound contentious and off-putting. To follow the now-defunct Fairness Doctrine, the conservatives and evangelicals also feel that they are under attack. Perhaps this tension is what kept America from swinging too far to one side or the other. Hallelujah for the First Amendment!
Indians, Blacks, Chinese, Japanese, Communists, Socialists, Gays and now Terrorists and radical Muslims. Attack against liberals have been happening for a while, so pardon me if I sound contentious and off-putting. To follow the now-defunct Fairness Doctrine, the conservatives and evangelicals also feel that they are under attack. Perhaps this tension is what kept America from swinging too far to one side or the other. Hallelujah for the First Amendment!
Through it all America has marched on, so our country now continues in marking
out "enemies" in the broadest sense possible. The danger is already here; we need
to decide not whether to speak up but rather how loudly we need to speak. "Who
watches the Watchers?" The answer can be found by looking at a mirror...
out "enemies" in the broadest sense possible. The danger is already here; we need
to decide not whether to speak up but rather how loudly we need to speak. "Who
watches the Watchers?" The answer can be found by looking at a mirror...
--- Brian Menard wrote:
Two thoughts. First, to discuss evil it seems to me that we first have to
acknowledge that there is evil, which requires an absolute statement. Second,
another reading suggestion would be to hit some Cato and Cicero, who wrote as
the Roman Republic fell into disarray amid internal cult of personality conflicts
and then fell apart. Might be interesting to compare with current doom-and-gloom
predictions for the U.S.
acknowledge that there is evil, which requires an absolute statement. Second,
another reading suggestion would be to hit some Cato and Cicero, who wrote as
the Roman Republic fell into disarray amid internal cult of personality conflicts
and then fell apart. Might be interesting to compare with current doom-and-gloom
predictions for the U.S.
----- Original Message -----
From: Brian Adamson
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 4:08 PM
Subject: Human Nature?
It's Japanese 'soap' day. Eriko has the computer, so I'll make this short.
I sent the link about 'Nazi Germany' for the same reasons that you found it
interesting (Young). I've even read portions of the article to relatives
aloud over the phone, powerful stuff. It is a profound article because it makes
you think about human nature and about the nature of evil. It makes you think
about yourself. Would I recognize evil and would I respond to evil? Profound
questions? Not easily answerable, but worth debating. Remember that Hitler
was powerful because of what he was able to get others to do, because of
fear, ignorance, or whatever...In other words, he didn't physically kill millions,
he ordered their destruction, and others acted on those orders. Why?
Interesting why people feel compelled to follow orders, or to do nothing in
the face of things that are wrong.
You're right, the article is not just about Nazi Germany. Rather, the
article is one that should be read over and over again and reflected upon. How can good people be brought to do the bidding of evil people, and how can we recognize evil? Further, if we do recognize evil, are we likely to respond to it?
Fascinating questions and not easily answerable?
I thought about this a lot in the army. Most people there, will do whatever
they are told, because that is their job. The average soldier does not seem
to believe that questioning an order, be it an immoral or evil order or what
not, is within their job title. I remember being briefed about torture and the
Geneva conventions. Our drill sergeant left the class to the end of the day
and kept the information to a minimum. He said something like, "I'm supposed to
brief you about what the Geneva conventions dictate we do, or not do in war,
and all that crap...Like you're not supposed to kill someone while they're
trying to surrender. But, men-when the time comes you'll know what to do (he winked and laughed). Was I then surprised when I heard about torture at Gitmo? Hec, no! Thoughts?
Also, although many soldiers went to church and were very religious and also
decent people; religion did not always combat this tendency toward obedience
toward authority.
Does anyone remember the famous 'shock experiment' where people would follow the orders of a perceived authority, even when they thought that it might cause intense pain, or worse?
I think that when someone does something moral, in the heat of war or
combat, or intense fear-it is the exception to the rule and not the typical response.
When at war, we tend to dehumanize the enemy. Shakespeare, described that rare 'goodness' that can be found in man under duress, as a "quality of mercy."
I hope that "quality of mercy" is growing and not declining in American
society. Nevertheless, our growing appetite for reality television, infotainment, sex,
drugs, and violence to name a few things on the internet and television-make me
wonder where we are going as a society? Have we lost the ability to relate with
one-another and to sympathize/empathize with other humans hardship and pain?
And, are we becoming a society that has lost its quality of mercy (empathy) and
are heading toward an ever increasing degree of barbarism?
B.
--
"...remember the past
but do not dwell there,
face the future
where all our hopes stand."
-Israel Kamakawiwo'ole
From: Brian Adamson
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 4:08 PM
Subject: Human Nature?
It's Japanese 'soap' day. Eriko has the computer, so I'll make this short.
I sent the link about 'Nazi Germany' for the same reasons that you found it
interesting (Young). I've even read portions of the article to relatives
aloud over the phone, powerful stuff. It is a profound article because it makes
you think about human nature and about the nature of evil. It makes you think
about yourself. Would I recognize evil and would I respond to evil? Profound
questions? Not easily answerable, but worth debating. Remember that Hitler
was powerful because of what he was able to get others to do, because of
fear, ignorance, or whatever...In other words, he didn't physically kill millions,
he ordered their destruction, and others acted on those orders. Why?
Interesting why people feel compelled to follow orders, or to do nothing in
the face of things that are wrong.
You're right, the article is not just about Nazi Germany. Rather, the
article is one that should be read over and over again and reflected upon. How can good people be brought to do the bidding of evil people, and how can we recognize evil? Further, if we do recognize evil, are we likely to respond to it?
Fascinating questions and not easily answerable?
I thought about this a lot in the army. Most people there, will do whatever
they are told, because that is their job. The average soldier does not seem
to believe that questioning an order, be it an immoral or evil order or what
not, is within their job title. I remember being briefed about torture and the
Geneva conventions. Our drill sergeant left the class to the end of the day
and kept the information to a minimum. He said something like, "I'm supposed to
brief you about what the Geneva conventions dictate we do, or not do in war,
and all that crap...Like you're not supposed to kill someone while they're
trying to surrender. But, men-when the time comes you'll know what to do (he winked and laughed). Was I then surprised when I heard about torture at Gitmo? Hec, no! Thoughts?
Also, although many soldiers went to church and were very religious and also
decent people; religion did not always combat this tendency toward obedience
toward authority.
Does anyone remember the famous 'shock experiment' where people would follow the orders of a perceived authority, even when they thought that it might cause intense pain, or worse?
I think that when someone does something moral, in the heat of war or
combat, or intense fear-it is the exception to the rule and not the typical response.
When at war, we tend to dehumanize the enemy. Shakespeare, described that rare 'goodness' that can be found in man under duress, as a "quality of mercy."
I hope that "quality of mercy" is growing and not declining in American
society. Nevertheless, our growing appetite for reality television, infotainment, sex,
drugs, and violence to name a few things on the internet and television-make me
wonder where we are going as a society? Have we lost the ability to relate with
one-another and to sympathize/empathize with other humans hardship and pain?
And, are we becoming a society that has lost its quality of mercy (empathy) and
are heading toward an ever increasing degree of barbarism?
B.
--
"...remember the past
but do not dwell there,
face the future
where all our hopes stand."
-Israel Kamakawiwo'ole
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Intolerance & The First Amendment
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 01:19:06 -0800 (PST)
From: "Young H. Kim"
Subject: Intolerance & The First Amendment
[The following ended up being written in rather dry and more abstract terms than I'd normally prefer, so apologies in advance for any lack of clarity.]
BRM, it's a bit amusing that you seem to be arguing an absolutist conclusion using a relativist premise; i.e. because the notion of what's offensive is relative, it must be an absolutism that all opinions must be allowed free expression, whether that opinion is one of tolerance or not. I guess what you mean is that regardless of what's offensive, freedom of expression must be granted to all.
It occurred to me that your thoughts on intolerance and freedom of speech create an incongruency. It is my understanding that the very freedom of expression that you tried to exercise was countered with other people's freedom of expression to disagree with you. And this you termed "intolerant". That is incongruent to the absolutist argument you're making above.
In other words, you were turned off by the expression of people who disagreed with you when both sides are exercising their First Amendment. Because you backed off or withdrew or withheld your opinion for fear of some negative reflection on you, that does not make the other side intolerant. That made you less comfortable in expressing your views, so you basically made the conscious choice to keep silent. So it seems evident that even though we definitely have the right to express ourselves, we can choose to keep quiet for fear of the consequences, whether actual or assumed. And the irony is that the exercise of the freedom of speech from one political view kept the opposing political view from being expressed due to a real or perceived negative reaction resulting from expressing opposing views.
And, isn't this even more interesting by the fact that what you felt in keeping silent appears analogous to the firsthand account of the person who lived through the rise and fall of Nazi Germany and also kept silent while the country went through its terrifying transformation? Of course, it would be a misreading and unwise to make the connection that liberals and PC advocates are doing what the Nazis did because this is not about liberals vs. conservatives. However, we need to examine what certain ideologies or accepted norms can bring about and how they can suppress our most cherished First Amendment.
More on how this relates to political correctness and the backlash against it in future email...
--- Brian Menard wrote:
My thanks for the passionate and respectful offering. I'll skip over 1-3 in order to align with your desire to put the Seattle thing to bed.
As for #4, the thing is that what is offensive to whom is, indeed, a relative matter. So if we start the practice of deciding who doesn't get to say what because it is offensive, ultimately it devolves into a power issue of those in charge being able to tell those not in charge what they cannot say because it offends those in charge, while they reinforce their own ability to say anything they want that offends those not in charge. This is the danger of situation ethics. You said you believe there are absolutes. I would maintain that one such
is: the downside of protecting rights is that some people will abuse them, but it's better to protect them for all and address abuses through opposing arguments that our free speech rights guarantee we can offer in response. Back to Jefferson's idea that he fears no idea so long as speech is left free to address
it. Also, Federalist #10 lays out the problem of faction in society, noting that there are good ideas and bad ideas; the way to address bad ideas is not by reining in liberty, but by maximizing the array of crosscutting interests in society it becomes much harder for bad ideas to get the support they need to proliferate.
I don't disagree that many in the GOP need to take the Big Tent to heart. I'm a Jack Kemp Republican, advocating the need to bring in everyone regardless of what faction of society they fit into. If they prefer the GOP platform to another, bring 'em in. I think, though, that there are more such folks in the party than
you think, and wonder if you are doing with the GOP what you say I'm doing with Seattle, painting with a broad brush the entire party because there exist elements within it that espouse undesirable characteristics. I would say that many Dems also need to embrace a more Big Tent approach to party as well. For example, when was the last time a pro-life Democrat was allowed to speak at a national convention for Democrats?
----- Original Message -----
From: Young H. Kim
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 1:32 PM
Subject: Real Intolerance - My Seattle Credentials and the earned right to have an opinion!
BRM, please don't take this as a comment on your experiences in Seattle or elsewhere, but I must respond.
1) I am not sure where you're getting this idea that Seattle has a "pronounced tolerance and openness that pervades the city". I certainly didn't mean that Seattle is exceptionally more tolerant or the most tolerant city. Most Seattleites wouldn't even admit that.
2) People are tolerant in Seattle. There are Republicans here. Not all Seattleites scream and bark at conservative Republicans or their views. Are you sure you don't have the blinders on in regards to being more tolerant of people who don't agree with you, by criticizing an entire city? It's hard for me not to see this only as your exhibiting a prejudice of liberals in general, not just Seattle.
3) Believe me, I do feel for your awful experiences here and elsewhere as a conservative, but let's put this intolerant Seattle theme to bed.
4) I have read your reply to BGA's email, talking about what happened in a class at UVa. As you may well remember, I wrote an editorial at RHS very much in line with the opinion of the young Seattleite woman you mentioned. Why should we be tolerant of intolerant people? In this case I was speaking of Nazis, KKK and other racist extremists. Doesn't this argument work on both extremes? However, the extreme intolerance is not what pervades in Seattle. It is an extreme disrespect for and calling out of and even a cry of outrage of people who hold or support or align themselves with a group or a political party that serves to empower those intolerant people for political gain. I'm sorry but you as an individual support the GOP which is not tolerant of great many people and ideas, even though you yourself may be the epitome of openness. I'm sure you'll tell me how I'm wrong on this point, which would be great. Then, we are no longer talking about "intolerant Seattle", but intolerance in American politics and who is really fueling it.
I do believe that the Rep party needs to do some deep soul-searching catharsis and be reinvented before anyone like me can seriously consider voting for a Rep candidate.
Passionately and respectfully,
YHK
--- Brian Menard wrote:
Not sure why you two "over there" are so hung up on avoiding the word "intolerant" as a descriptor. The hypocrisy and disrespect you both are willing to acknowledge all tie together. The disrespect we have encountered stems from an intolerance of things other than what people expect, which is hypocritical given the pronounced tolerance and openness that pervades the city. Tolerant of only that with which we agree is not real tolerance. Real tolerance is coexisting with those with whom we do not agree - on politics, lifestyle choices, cultural practices, etc. - even though we do not agree with them.
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Busick
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 1:39 AM
Subject: RE: My Seattle Credentials and the earned right to have an opinion!
Sure, but "good outweighs the bad (though I can't afford to live there)" doesn't sound anything like "intolerant". :)
It sounds to me like the two Bs faced disrespect in this area, not intolerance. Did either of you lose any friendships because of your political beliefs?
And I can certainly understand disrespect toward Republicans in Seattle. After all, there are so few of them left around here there must be some reason why they haven't all moved away by now. :)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Brian Menard
Subject: Re: My Seattle Credentials and the earned right to have an opinion!
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:25:55 -0500
Quick two cents...
BGA, I also am not anti-Seattle. There are aspects of the city that I love. (BTW, I'll add my vote to the King Café fan club. Please tell me it's still around and still good.) But that doesn't mean I put blinders on. In
the end, the good far outweighs the bad (though I can't afford to live there). But if we're going to knock our nation and our government for its imperfections, we ought to be willing to do the same with Seattle.
From: "Young H. Kim"
Subject: Intolerance & The First Amendment
[The following ended up being written in rather dry and more abstract terms than I'd normally prefer, so apologies in advance for any lack of clarity.]
BRM, it's a bit amusing that you seem to be arguing an absolutist conclusion using a relativist premise; i.e. because the notion of what's offensive is relative, it must be an absolutism that all opinions must be allowed free expression, whether that opinion is one of tolerance or not. I guess what you mean is that regardless of what's offensive, freedom of expression must be granted to all.
It occurred to me that your thoughts on intolerance and freedom of speech create an incongruency. It is my understanding that the very freedom of expression that you tried to exercise was countered with other people's freedom of expression to disagree with you. And this you termed "intolerant". That is incongruent to the absolutist argument you're making above.
In other words, you were turned off by the expression of people who disagreed with you when both sides are exercising their First Amendment. Because you backed off or withdrew or withheld your opinion for fear of some negative reflection on you, that does not make the other side intolerant. That made you less comfortable in expressing your views, so you basically made the conscious choice to keep silent. So it seems evident that even though we definitely have the right to express ourselves, we can choose to keep quiet for fear of the consequences, whether actual or assumed. And the irony is that the exercise of the freedom of speech from one political view kept the opposing political view from being expressed due to a real or perceived negative reaction resulting from expressing opposing views.
And, isn't this even more interesting by the fact that what you felt in keeping silent appears analogous to the firsthand account of the person who lived through the rise and fall of Nazi Germany and also kept silent while the country went through its terrifying transformation? Of course, it would be a misreading and unwise to make the connection that liberals and PC advocates are doing what the Nazis did because this is not about liberals vs. conservatives. However, we need to examine what certain ideologies or accepted norms can bring about and how they can suppress our most cherished First Amendment.
More on how this relates to political correctness and the backlash against it in future email...
--- Brian Menard wrote:
My thanks for the passionate and respectful offering. I'll skip over 1-3 in order to align with your desire to put the Seattle thing to bed.
As for #4, the thing is that what is offensive to whom is, indeed, a relative matter. So if we start the practice of deciding who doesn't get to say what because it is offensive, ultimately it devolves into a power issue of those in charge being able to tell those not in charge what they cannot say because it offends those in charge, while they reinforce their own ability to say anything they want that offends those not in charge. This is the danger of situation ethics. You said you believe there are absolutes. I would maintain that one such
is: the downside of protecting rights is that some people will abuse them, but it's better to protect them for all and address abuses through opposing arguments that our free speech rights guarantee we can offer in response. Back to Jefferson's idea that he fears no idea so long as speech is left free to address
it. Also, Federalist #10 lays out the problem of faction in society, noting that there are good ideas and bad ideas; the way to address bad ideas is not by reining in liberty, but by maximizing the array of crosscutting interests in society it becomes much harder for bad ideas to get the support they need to proliferate.
I don't disagree that many in the GOP need to take the Big Tent to heart. I'm a Jack Kemp Republican, advocating the need to bring in everyone regardless of what faction of society they fit into. If they prefer the GOP platform to another, bring 'em in. I think, though, that there are more such folks in the party than
you think, and wonder if you are doing with the GOP what you say I'm doing with Seattle, painting with a broad brush the entire party because there exist elements within it that espouse undesirable characteristics. I would say that many Dems also need to embrace a more Big Tent approach to party as well. For example, when was the last time a pro-life Democrat was allowed to speak at a national convention for Democrats?
----- Original Message -----
From: Young H. Kim
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 1:32 PM
Subject: Real Intolerance - My Seattle Credentials and the earned right to have an opinion!
BRM, please don't take this as a comment on your experiences in Seattle or elsewhere, but I must respond.
1) I am not sure where you're getting this idea that Seattle has a "pronounced tolerance and openness that pervades the city". I certainly didn't mean that Seattle is exceptionally more tolerant or the most tolerant city. Most Seattleites wouldn't even admit that.
2) People are tolerant in Seattle. There are Republicans here. Not all Seattleites scream and bark at conservative Republicans or their views. Are you sure you don't have the blinders on in regards to being more tolerant of people who don't agree with you, by criticizing an entire city? It's hard for me not to see this only as your exhibiting a prejudice of liberals in general, not just Seattle.
3) Believe me, I do feel for your awful experiences here and elsewhere as a conservative, but let's put this intolerant Seattle theme to bed.
4) I have read your reply to BGA's email, talking about what happened in a class at UVa. As you may well remember, I wrote an editorial at RHS very much in line with the opinion of the young Seattleite woman you mentioned. Why should we be tolerant of intolerant people? In this case I was speaking of Nazis, KKK and other racist extremists. Doesn't this argument work on both extremes? However, the extreme intolerance is not what pervades in Seattle. It is an extreme disrespect for and calling out of and even a cry of outrage of people who hold or support or align themselves with a group or a political party that serves to empower those intolerant people for political gain. I'm sorry but you as an individual support the GOP which is not tolerant of great many people and ideas, even though you yourself may be the epitome of openness. I'm sure you'll tell me how I'm wrong on this point, which would be great. Then, we are no longer talking about "intolerant Seattle", but intolerance in American politics and who is really fueling it.
I do believe that the Rep party needs to do some deep soul-searching catharsis and be reinvented before anyone like me can seriously consider voting for a Rep candidate.
Passionately and respectfully,
YHK
--- Brian Menard wrote:
Not sure why you two "over there" are so hung up on avoiding the word "intolerant" as a descriptor. The hypocrisy and disrespect you both are willing to acknowledge all tie together. The disrespect we have encountered stems from an intolerance of things other than what people expect, which is hypocritical given the pronounced tolerance and openness that pervades the city. Tolerant of only that with which we agree is not real tolerance. Real tolerance is coexisting with those with whom we do not agree - on politics, lifestyle choices, cultural practices, etc. - even though we do not agree with them.
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Busick
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 1:39 AM
Subject: RE: My Seattle Credentials and the earned right to have an opinion!
Sure, but "good outweighs the bad (though I can't afford to live there)" doesn't sound anything like "intolerant". :)
It sounds to me like the two Bs faced disrespect in this area, not intolerance. Did either of you lose any friendships because of your political beliefs?
And I can certainly understand disrespect toward Republicans in Seattle. After all, there are so few of them left around here there must be some reason why they haven't all moved away by now. :)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Brian Menard
Subject: Re: My Seattle Credentials and the earned right to have an opinion!
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:25:55 -0500
Quick two cents...
BGA, I also am not anti-Seattle. There are aspects of the city that I love. (BTW, I'll add my vote to the King Café fan club. Please tell me it's still around and still good.) But that doesn't mean I put blinders on. In
the end, the good far outweighs the bad (though I can't afford to live there). But if we're going to knock our nation and our government for its imperfections, we ought to be willing to do the same with Seattle.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
A New Tone???
From: Michael Busick
Subject: RE: A New Tone ;o) ??????????????????????????????????????????????????
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 22:26:49 -0800
I'm not saying your guess about that Subaru wasn't correct. I'm just saying it's a bumpy road you walk down when you start guessing things like that these days.
My wife was a lifelong Republican voter when we met in 1995 and that continued in 2000. In 2004, she voted for Kerry. I didn't have to do much, if any, convincing or cajoling. She only had to see our surplus become a deficit (with the lion's share of that money going to rich people), our manufacturing jobs being sent overseas -- or across the border -- and replaced by service jobs (and yet touted by this administration as new jobs even though they paid a fraction of what the old jobs did) and an administration that can't even keep its own scandals straight. Has there ever been an administration where every cabinet department is being run by the exact wrong person for the job? Bolton -- a guy who was quoted as saying the UN could do without two whole floors -- was made ambassador to the UN. An EPA boss who was against the environment. A Dept of the Interior boss who was pro-logging and/or pro-mining.
And then there were all of Bush's signing statements (more than every other president combined -- and that's with having his party own the majority in Congress for most of his two terms) and mispronunciations of basic English words.
By most accounts Bush lost every debate with Kerry -- and Kerry is a boooooring speaker. :)
Once the GOP knocked out Dean with that Iowa scream, I knew it was over for the Dems because I knew I was going to hear more about Kerry's Vietnam protests than anything topical or more important.
Every time Bush says or does something stupid -- or there's yet another Republican in a scandal that's very un-Republican-like (sex, drugs, treason, money dealings with lobbyists), she turns to me and says, "I'm sorry" and my wife and I both know it's not her fault. :)
From: Brian Adamson
Subject: RE: A New Tone ;o) ??????????????????????????????????????????????????
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:44:30 +0000
I'm a teacher, Mike. A teacher driving a crappy old miata with 150,000 miles on the odometer. A substitute teacher, living in the crappiest and cheapest apartment that I could find in Bellevue. No kids, no family, no life. And yet, I have an opinion, and an opinion, that doesn't tow the party-line.
--
"...remember the past
but do not dwell there,
face the future
where all our hopes stand."
-Israel Kamakawiwo'ole
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Michael Busick
>
> "As we drove across the bridge, from the Eastside to the urban core, we noticed,
> the cars got crappier and the people became so much more liberal. Every car had
> to have something to say about Bush, or the war. I sort of joked to my wife
> that one car, a Subaru near Greenlake with a Roosevelt Roughrider sticker, AAA
> sticker, Endless war sticker, certainly must contain a passenger that did not
> vote for Bush and is probably a teacher. We usually have these kind of
> conversations, when we get a visa (joke) to go to Seattle."
> So many stereotypes, so little time. So then, doesn't it bother you that someone
> with a job as important as teacher is driving a crappy car? :)
>
> I suppose if Bill Clinton can win as governor of Arkansas, so can Huckabee, but
> Mike has to win appeal across a wider range of voters than he seems to have
> achieved so far.
>
> I'm not a part of the "Blame America First" crowd anymore than I'm a part of the
> "Blame America Last" crowd. I believe actions have consequences and sometimes
> the connections between those actions and those consequences aren't as obvious.
>
> How many of us know that the Lockerbie bombing was a retaliation for an Arab
> passenger jet brought down around the time of one of their holidays (like the
> Lockerbie one which happened around Christmas)?
>
> It's been widely reported that bin Laden set up 9/11 as a response to Saudi
> Arabia letting the U.S. set up bases there during the first Persian Gulf
> conflict. Those two events were nearly 10 years apart.
>
> Also, I believe if someone is going to ban a book, they should read it first and
> not just go from someone else's opinion of it. :)
>
> If I'm ever going to read the Christian bible, I'm going to follow it up by
> reading the Koran. This is America and it's only fair. :)
>
> Isn't it ironic, reading the Lincoln speech, that John Wilkes Booth, upon
> shooting Lincoln and leaping six feet from the prez box to the stage below
> yelled "Sic Semper Tyrannis"? To him, it would appear, the Lincoln presidency
> was tyranny. :)
Subject: RE: A New Tone ;o) ??????????????????????????????????????????????????
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 22:26:49 -0800
I'm not saying your guess about that Subaru wasn't correct. I'm just saying it's a bumpy road you walk down when you start guessing things like that these days.
My wife was a lifelong Republican voter when we met in 1995 and that continued in 2000. In 2004, she voted for Kerry. I didn't have to do much, if any, convincing or cajoling. She only had to see our surplus become a deficit (with the lion's share of that money going to rich people), our manufacturing jobs being sent overseas -- or across the border -- and replaced by service jobs (and yet touted by this administration as new jobs even though they paid a fraction of what the old jobs did) and an administration that can't even keep its own scandals straight. Has there ever been an administration where every cabinet department is being run by the exact wrong person for the job? Bolton -- a guy who was quoted as saying the UN could do without two whole floors -- was made ambassador to the UN. An EPA boss who was against the environment. A Dept of the Interior boss who was pro-logging and/or pro-mining.
And then there were all of Bush's signing statements (more than every other president combined -- and that's with having his party own the majority in Congress for most of his two terms) and mispronunciations of basic English words.
By most accounts Bush lost every debate with Kerry -- and Kerry is a boooooring speaker. :)
Once the GOP knocked out Dean with that Iowa scream, I knew it was over for the Dems because I knew I was going to hear more about Kerry's Vietnam protests than anything topical or more important.
Every time Bush says or does something stupid -- or there's yet another Republican in a scandal that's very un-Republican-like (sex, drugs, treason, money dealings with lobbyists), she turns to me and says, "I'm sorry" and my wife and I both know it's not her fault. :)
From: Brian Adamson
Subject: RE: A New Tone ;o) ??????????????????????????????????????????????????
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:44:30 +0000
I'm a teacher, Mike. A teacher driving a crappy old miata with 150,000 miles on the odometer. A substitute teacher, living in the crappiest and cheapest apartment that I could find in Bellevue. No kids, no family, no life. And yet, I have an opinion, and an opinion, that doesn't tow the party-line.
--
"...remember the past
but do not dwell there,
face the future
where all our hopes stand."
-Israel Kamakawiwo'ole
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Michael Busick
>
> "As we drove across the bridge, from the Eastside to the urban core, we noticed,
> the cars got crappier and the people became so much more liberal. Every car had
> to have something to say about Bush, or the war. I sort of joked to my wife
> that one car, a Subaru near Greenlake with a Roosevelt Roughrider sticker, AAA
> sticker, Endless war sticker, certainly must contain a passenger that did not
> vote for Bush and is probably a teacher. We usually have these kind of
> conversations, when we get a visa (joke) to go to Seattle."
> So many stereotypes, so little time. So then, doesn't it bother you that someone
> with a job as important as teacher is driving a crappy car? :)
>
> I suppose if Bill Clinton can win as governor of Arkansas, so can Huckabee, but
> Mike has to win appeal across a wider range of voters than he seems to have
> achieved so far.
>
> I'm not a part of the "Blame America First" crowd anymore than I'm a part of the
> "Blame America Last" crowd. I believe actions have consequences and sometimes
> the connections between those actions and those consequences aren't as obvious.
>
> How many of us know that the Lockerbie bombing was a retaliation for an Arab
> passenger jet brought down around the time of one of their holidays (like the
> Lockerbie one which happened around Christmas)?
>
> It's been widely reported that bin Laden set up 9/11 as a response to Saudi
> Arabia letting the U.S. set up bases there during the first Persian Gulf
> conflict. Those two events were nearly 10 years apart.
>
> Also, I believe if someone is going to ban a book, they should read it first and
> not just go from someone else's opinion of it. :)
>
> If I'm ever going to read the Christian bible, I'm going to follow it up by
> reading the Koran. This is America and it's only fair. :)
>
> Isn't it ironic, reading the Lincoln speech, that John Wilkes Booth, upon
> shooting Lincoln and leaping six feet from the prez box to the stage below
> yelled "Sic Semper Tyrannis"? To him, it would appear, the Lincoln presidency
> was tyranny. :)
My Seattle Credentials and the earned right to have an opinion!
From: "Brian Menard"
Subject: Re: My Seattle Credentials and the earned right to have an opinion!
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 14:09:25 -0500
It's not the fact that there is disagreement, or even that my views are minority views, that bothers me. It's the way in which my views are received and the tone of comments addressing my views. Mere disagreement is fine; it's possible to disagree amicably and respectfully. But the intolerance I'm talking about carries with it any combination of arrogance, hostility, invalidation, disrespect...I could go on. But this horse has been beaten, trampled, dismembered, ground into the earth, and covered with leaves in a shallow grave; I think by now we really have come to the point - and then some - that you guys will have to think of us as overly-sensitive reactors to the rejection of our intolerant views, and we'll have to be frustrated with your defense of intolerance. Onward to more constructive stuff
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Busick
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 10:04 PM
Subject: RE: My Seattle Credentials and the earned right to have an opinion!
Personally, I still believe "intolerant" is too strong a word here because you had assumed way back when there was a possibility you would get a bad grade or lose a job because of your beliefs, but it sounded like neither of those things actually happened. Sure, I suppose it's useful to keep quiet just in case, but (in my opinion) people are more interesting to hang around with and talk to if/when they're different than me. :)
To me, intolerance leads to ostracism and it still doesn't like you lost any friendships because of your beliefs. I could be wrong, but I didn't see any examples of that in your stories.
Also, personally, life would be boring (to me, anyway) if we all agreed on everything. Americans used to have constructive conversations on differing opinions, but for some reason, it's getting more difficult to do that these days.
Hypocrisy, sure, I guess. All sides are guilty of quick and easy stereotypes stemming from political-belief assumptions.
Disrespect, definitely. You were belittled and practically dismissed out of hand (but maybe not officially and/or permanently?) by a number of people because your political opinions differed from others.
To me, "intolerant" defines someone who doesn't like you -- or anyone similar to you -- and doesn't even want to talk about why they don't like you.
I also believe it would be easier for all Americans to coexist if we dwell more on what we have in common than what we have that's different and yet understand that life would/should be extremely dull if we were all physical/emotional/psychological clones of each other.
I believe every GOP candidate still running right now would like some kind of Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and they all seem to be against equal rights for gays. Gays, for example, shouldn't have to try to become straight in order to have equal rights in this country.
Therefore, it's that disrespect and intolerance of gays (this administration certainly seems to intolerant of gays if they're willing to dismiss 36 of those who had been Arabic translators -- seems like that particular talent could be useful in fighting the war on terror, but hey, some things must be more important) that will prevent me from voting for any of the GOP candidates just on this one issue alone.
From what I understand, there has yet to be a Constitutional amendment that would exclude a particular cross-section of the American people. A ban on gay marriage would be the first and I wonder then what other exclusionary amendments could be added later on.
"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist; And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist; And then they came for the Jews, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew; And then . . . they came for me . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."
If someone told me Brian that Seattle would be better off if you weren't here, I would speak up for you.
From: brian_menard@hotmail.com
To: yhkpenguin@yahoo.com; b.adamson@comcast.net; misterb_46@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: My Seattle Credentials and the earned right to have an opinion!
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 07:46:07 -0500
Not sure why you two "over there" are so hung up on avoiding the word "intolerant" as a descriptor. The hypocrisy and disrespect you both are willing to acknowledge all tie together. The disrespect we have encountered stems from an intolerance of things other than what people expect, which is hypocritical given the pronounced tolerance and openness that pervades the city. Tolerant of only that with which we agree is not real tolerance. Real tolerance is coexisting with those with whom we do not agree - on politics, lifestyle choices, cultural practices, etc. - even though we do not agree with them.
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Busick
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 1:39 AM
Subject: RE: My Seattle Credentials and the earned right to have an opinion!
Sure, but "good outweighs the bad (though I can't afford to live there)" doesn't sound anything like "intolerant". :)
It sounds to me like the two Bs faced disrespect in this area, not intolerance. Did either of you lose any friendships because of your political beliefs?
And I can certainly understand disrespect toward Republicans in Seattle. After all, there are so few of them left around here there must be some reason why they haven't all moved away by now. :)
From: brian_menard@hotmail.com
To: misterb_46@hotmail.com; yhkpenguin@yahoo.com; b.adamson@comcast.net
Subject: Re: My Seattle Credentials and the earned right to have an opinion!
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:25:55 -0500
Quick two cents...
Like BGA, I also am not anti-Seattle. There are aspects of the city that I love. (BTW, I'll add my vote to the King Café fan club. Please tell me it's still around and still good.) But that doesn't mean I put blinders on. In the end, the good far outweighs the bad (though I can't afford to live there). But if we're going to knock our nation and our government for its imperfections, we ought to be willing to do the same with Seattle.
----- Original Message -----
From: Brian Adamson
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 2:37 AM
Subject: My Seattle Credentials and the earned right to have an opinion!
Michael, weird reading your biography because, we have a lot in common, I think.
I was bused to the CD, Washington Middle School (once called Garfield B.), during the first year of the busing experiment, as well.
Okay, now we're really getting to some of the good stuff. We are all about 'our experiences'. My Seattle diatribe, is not nearly as 'out there' as it may first appear. I go in to the city nearly everyday. My wife chose to live in Bellevue. I have a long History in Seattle. For most of my life, I believed it to be the center of the universe, the best place to live in America. Then, I went to Hawaii, and the rest, as they say, is History...But seriously, Seattle is probably one of the best places to live in America. I know that. But, then again, it is only a good place, if you can afford it, and if your views are mostly liberal ones, as mine are. I also, very much like Manhattan, Maryland, and Las Vegas. How's that for contrasts?
I first lived near the old stadium vista in a south Seattle apartment. Then, moved to a house in Wedgwood, when I was 2. The Wedgewood neighborhood was mostly working-class and had been a popular neighborhood for enlisted navy.
It was in nearby, Hawthorne Hills where the better homes could be found. Later, I had an apartment in Downtown, (Bell-town). I always had a natural seattle-prejudice of the 'burbs, especially, of Bellevue. Remember the movie? Kind of accurate...My jesting about Seattle is based more on what the city has become and less of my childhood memories of it. In the old days, we told stories about the rich people that lived in Bellevue, especially summerset on the hill. Been to summerset, lately? Summerset is an aging, mostly korean ghetto, now.
Look, truth be told, my wife bitches at me for driving in to the city so often, and then going way out of my way to drive through the old neighborhoods. She once told me, if we keep this up someone will think we are stalking them. Actually, I was just hoping that I could find a cute, little affordable cottage home or cape cod, or whatever they are called. You know, it's the kind of style most popular in Seattle. It's also the kind of really small house, that I couldn't wait to leave. I never did have my own bedroom and I was an only child. My mom has said, they couldn't afford to have another. When my parents purchased a new home in Maple Valley, I was very excited even though I wouldn't be able to appreciate it, at 19 years of age. I would be moving-out, enlisting in the military and living on my own.
I went to both graduate and undergraduate school in Seattle. I attended the U.W., university campus and then Antioch, in downtown Seattle.
I went to the Pike-place market and the Seattle Art museum last week-end. I met my family in the Westlake, Grand Central Bakery, the week before that. Also, last week, went to the U. village, Northgate, and the Elliot Bay book company. Three weeks ago, I went to Bruce Lees grave-site on capital hill and paid my respects. How many Seattlelites do you know that have done that? Michael, Young, I'm the real McCoy. A real 'local' and I have earned the right to say whatever the fuck I want about this city, the good, the bad, and the ugly. Though, admittedly, when it's just me and my wife, most of the comments are good-ones. Things like, we can only get good food, coffee, fun and culture in the city. Bellevue, is boring as hell.
Anyone been to the Allegro lately? We should meet, somewhere, sometime. Who do you think has the best coffee in Seattle today?
So, in my real-life and not my internet chat -life, Seattle is an inescapable part of my psyche. I am Seattle, Seattle is me. And there is a reason so many of us drift back and forth between Seattle, Hawaii and Las Vegas-It's the whole ying/yang balance thing, you know.
Also, you Seattlelites, I found an unbelievable Pho restaurant in White Center, about a month ago and a pretty darn good Salvadorian bakery as well.
My wife and I have grown to like Bellevue, only because of its diversity and the fact that it is less-crowded, but still centrally located. It's also cheaper. We can drive to Seattle in 10-15 minutes. My wife works in Fremont.
I once worked in Fremont too. I was heavily involved in the Art glass community for years. My uncle was instrumental in bringing Art Glass to Seattle and founded the famous Art Glass Shop, the Glass Eye. He was a friend of Chuhuly and involved in the founding of Pilchuck Art Glass school, as well. Check out the made in Washington store, most all of their glass comes from my uncles former company. And they've got more glass than anything else. I have so much History here, so much History...That was the good part. Some of the bad. My dad was a cop and would get shot while patrolling King County. I remember, when I was little, he would disappear each night and I would wonder if, he'd come home. Stories would filter-out and piece-by-piece, I could assemble them. One time, I learned that my Dad was on a stake-out. Ted Bundy had escaped prison, and his girlfriend lived down the street, in our neighborhood.
I remember working in the Central District before that. When I started to work in the 'CD', in Middle School, I would walk to lunch through Chinatown, past the ACME chicken company which smelled as bad from the outside, as it must have form the inside. It was a slaughtering house, and has long since closed. I usually ate lunch at a dive called the King Cafe, which specialized in dim sum and I still remember it as having the best steamed hum bow, I have ever tasted.
A good childhood friend growing up just houses away, on the same street had a house, but no car, no t.v. and no dad. A single mother raising 3 kids on a dental assistant salary. And yet, they were able to do it. Could I be so lucky today? No way! My dad sold his house in 1986 and was lucky to get $56,000. Today, the house might sell for $500,000-and it's a piece of crap. Weirder still, it hasn't been restored, some of it hasn't even been re-painted.
Since then, I've been back to my old stomping grounds many times with my wife, searching for an affordable Seattle home in my old neighborhood. Last month, we found a house on my street for sale. The asking price was $849,000! I've been priced out of Seattle, and Seattle is pricing out the middle-class. And who are all these newbees, anyway?
Young, you need to find a little tolerance and remember, that I don't have to physically occupy Seattle to have an opinion about it. My Seattle credentials are solid, you should know that, better than anyone.
And guess you haven't noticed the epidemic of moss growing on our streets this year? "Emerald Sludge Pool"-Indeed!
Subject: Re: My Seattle Credentials and the earned right to have an opinion!
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 14:09:25 -0500
It's not the fact that there is disagreement, or even that my views are minority views, that bothers me. It's the way in which my views are received and the tone of comments addressing my views. Mere disagreement is fine; it's possible to disagree amicably and respectfully. But the intolerance I'm talking about carries with it any combination of arrogance, hostility, invalidation, disrespect...I could go on. But this horse has been beaten, trampled, dismembered, ground into the earth, and covered with leaves in a shallow grave; I think by now we really have come to the point - and then some - that you guys will have to think of us as overly-sensitive reactors to the rejection of our intolerant views, and we'll have to be frustrated with your defense of intolerance. Onward to more constructive stuff
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Busick
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 10:04 PM
Subject: RE: My Seattle Credentials and the earned right to have an opinion!
Personally, I still believe "intolerant" is too strong a word here because you had assumed way back when there was a possibility you would get a bad grade or lose a job because of your beliefs, but it sounded like neither of those things actually happened. Sure, I suppose it's useful to keep quiet just in case, but (in my opinion) people are more interesting to hang around with and talk to if/when they're different than me. :)
To me, intolerance leads to ostracism and it still doesn't like you lost any friendships because of your beliefs. I could be wrong, but I didn't see any examples of that in your stories.
Also, personally, life would be boring (to me, anyway) if we all agreed on everything. Americans used to have constructive conversations on differing opinions, but for some reason, it's getting more difficult to do that these days.
Hypocrisy, sure, I guess. All sides are guilty of quick and easy stereotypes stemming from political-belief assumptions.
Disrespect, definitely. You were belittled and practically dismissed out of hand (but maybe not officially and/or permanently?) by a number of people because your political opinions differed from others.
To me, "intolerant" defines someone who doesn't like you -- or anyone similar to you -- and doesn't even want to talk about why they don't like you.
I also believe it would be easier for all Americans to coexist if we dwell more on what we have in common than what we have that's different and yet understand that life would/should be extremely dull if we were all physical/emotional/psychological clones of each other.
I believe every GOP candidate still running right now would like some kind of Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and they all seem to be against equal rights for gays. Gays, for example, shouldn't have to try to become straight in order to have equal rights in this country.
Therefore, it's that disrespect and intolerance of gays (this administration certainly seems to intolerant of gays if they're willing to dismiss 36 of those who had been Arabic translators -- seems like that particular talent could be useful in fighting the war on terror, but hey, some things must be more important) that will prevent me from voting for any of the GOP candidates just on this one issue alone.
From what I understand, there has yet to be a Constitutional amendment that would exclude a particular cross-section of the American people. A ban on gay marriage would be the first and I wonder then what other exclusionary amendments could be added later on.
"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist; And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist; And then they came for the Jews, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew; And then . . . they came for me . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."
If someone told me Brian that Seattle would be better off if you weren't here, I would speak up for you.
From: brian_menard@hotmail.com
To: yhkpenguin@yahoo.com; b.adamson@comcast.net; misterb_46@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: My Seattle Credentials and the earned right to have an opinion!
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 07:46:07 -0500
Not sure why you two "over there" are so hung up on avoiding the word "intolerant" as a descriptor. The hypocrisy and disrespect you both are willing to acknowledge all tie together. The disrespect we have encountered stems from an intolerance of things other than what people expect, which is hypocritical given the pronounced tolerance and openness that pervades the city. Tolerant of only that with which we agree is not real tolerance. Real tolerance is coexisting with those with whom we do not agree - on politics, lifestyle choices, cultural practices, etc. - even though we do not agree with them.
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Busick
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 1:39 AM
Subject: RE: My Seattle Credentials and the earned right to have an opinion!
Sure, but "good outweighs the bad (though I can't afford to live there)" doesn't sound anything like "intolerant". :)
It sounds to me like the two Bs faced disrespect in this area, not intolerance. Did either of you lose any friendships because of your political beliefs?
And I can certainly understand disrespect toward Republicans in Seattle. After all, there are so few of them left around here there must be some reason why they haven't all moved away by now. :)
From: brian_menard@hotmail.com
To: misterb_46@hotmail.com; yhkpenguin@yahoo.com; b.adamson@comcast.net
Subject: Re: My Seattle Credentials and the earned right to have an opinion!
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:25:55 -0500
Quick two cents...
Like BGA, I also am not anti-Seattle. There are aspects of the city that I love. (BTW, I'll add my vote to the King Café fan club. Please tell me it's still around and still good.) But that doesn't mean I put blinders on. In the end, the good far outweighs the bad (though I can't afford to live there). But if we're going to knock our nation and our government for its imperfections, we ought to be willing to do the same with Seattle.
----- Original Message -----
From: Brian Adamson
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 2:37 AM
Subject: My Seattle Credentials and the earned right to have an opinion!
Michael, weird reading your biography because, we have a lot in common, I think.
I was bused to the CD, Washington Middle School (once called Garfield B.), during the first year of the busing experiment, as well.
Okay, now we're really getting to some of the good stuff. We are all about 'our experiences'. My Seattle diatribe, is not nearly as 'out there' as it may first appear. I go in to the city nearly everyday. My wife chose to live in Bellevue. I have a long History in Seattle. For most of my life, I believed it to be the center of the universe, the best place to live in America. Then, I went to Hawaii, and the rest, as they say, is History...But seriously, Seattle is probably one of the best places to live in America. I know that. But, then again, it is only a good place, if you can afford it, and if your views are mostly liberal ones, as mine are. I also, very much like Manhattan, Maryland, and Las Vegas. How's that for contrasts?
I first lived near the old stadium vista in a south Seattle apartment. Then, moved to a house in Wedgwood, when I was 2. The Wedgewood neighborhood was mostly working-class and had been a popular neighborhood for enlisted navy.
It was in nearby, Hawthorne Hills where the better homes could be found. Later, I had an apartment in Downtown, (Bell-town). I always had a natural seattle-prejudice of the 'burbs, especially, of Bellevue. Remember the movie? Kind of accurate...My jesting about Seattle is based more on what the city has become and less of my childhood memories of it. In the old days, we told stories about the rich people that lived in Bellevue, especially summerset on the hill. Been to summerset, lately? Summerset is an aging, mostly korean ghetto, now.
Look, truth be told, my wife bitches at me for driving in to the city so often, and then going way out of my way to drive through the old neighborhoods. She once told me, if we keep this up someone will think we are stalking them. Actually, I was just hoping that I could find a cute, little affordable cottage home or cape cod, or whatever they are called. You know, it's the kind of style most popular in Seattle. It's also the kind of really small house, that I couldn't wait to leave. I never did have my own bedroom and I was an only child. My mom has said, they couldn't afford to have another. When my parents purchased a new home in Maple Valley, I was very excited even though I wouldn't be able to appreciate it, at 19 years of age. I would be moving-out, enlisting in the military and living on my own.
I went to both graduate and undergraduate school in Seattle. I attended the U.W., university campus and then Antioch, in downtown Seattle.
I went to the Pike-place market and the Seattle Art museum last week-end. I met my family in the Westlake, Grand Central Bakery, the week before that. Also, last week, went to the U. village, Northgate, and the Elliot Bay book company. Three weeks ago, I went to Bruce Lees grave-site on capital hill and paid my respects. How many Seattlelites do you know that have done that? Michael, Young, I'm the real McCoy. A real 'local' and I have earned the right to say whatever the fuck I want about this city, the good, the bad, and the ugly. Though, admittedly, when it's just me and my wife, most of the comments are good-ones. Things like, we can only get good food, coffee, fun and culture in the city. Bellevue, is boring as hell.
Anyone been to the Allegro lately? We should meet, somewhere, sometime. Who do you think has the best coffee in Seattle today?
So, in my real-life and not my internet chat -life, Seattle is an inescapable part of my psyche. I am Seattle, Seattle is me. And there is a reason so many of us drift back and forth between Seattle, Hawaii and Las Vegas-It's the whole ying/yang balance thing, you know.
Also, you Seattlelites, I found an unbelievable Pho restaurant in White Center, about a month ago and a pretty darn good Salvadorian bakery as well.
My wife and I have grown to like Bellevue, only because of its diversity and the fact that it is less-crowded, but still centrally located. It's also cheaper. We can drive to Seattle in 10-15 minutes. My wife works in Fremont.
I once worked in Fremont too. I was heavily involved in the Art glass community for years. My uncle was instrumental in bringing Art Glass to Seattle and founded the famous Art Glass Shop, the Glass Eye. He was a friend of Chuhuly and involved in the founding of Pilchuck Art Glass school, as well. Check out the made in Washington store, most all of their glass comes from my uncles former company. And they've got more glass than anything else. I have so much History here, so much History...That was the good part. Some of the bad. My dad was a cop and would get shot while patrolling King County. I remember, when I was little, he would disappear each night and I would wonder if, he'd come home. Stories would filter-out and piece-by-piece, I could assemble them. One time, I learned that my Dad was on a stake-out. Ted Bundy had escaped prison, and his girlfriend lived down the street, in our neighborhood.
I remember working in the Central District before that. When I started to work in the 'CD', in Middle School, I would walk to lunch through Chinatown, past the ACME chicken company which smelled as bad from the outside, as it must have form the inside. It was a slaughtering house, and has long since closed. I usually ate lunch at a dive called the King Cafe, which specialized in dim sum and I still remember it as having the best steamed hum bow, I have ever tasted.
A good childhood friend growing up just houses away, on the same street had a house, but no car, no t.v. and no dad. A single mother raising 3 kids on a dental assistant salary. And yet, they were able to do it. Could I be so lucky today? No way! My dad sold his house in 1986 and was lucky to get $56,000. Today, the house might sell for $500,000-and it's a piece of crap. Weirder still, it hasn't been restored, some of it hasn't even been re-painted.
Since then, I've been back to my old stomping grounds many times with my wife, searching for an affordable Seattle home in my old neighborhood. Last month, we found a house on my street for sale. The asking price was $849,000! I've been priced out of Seattle, and Seattle is pricing out the middle-class. And who are all these newbees, anyway?
Young, you need to find a little tolerance and remember, that I don't have to physically occupy Seattle to have an opinion about it. My Seattle credentials are solid, you should know that, better than anyone.
And guess you haven't noticed the epidemic of moss growing on our streets this year? "Emerald Sludge Pool"-Indeed!
The Fear Card tangential
From: "Brian Menard"
Subject: Re: The Fear Card
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 00:01:42 -0500
Just sent the GOP light bulb joke on to about 2 dozen people on both sides of the aisle (of politics, I mean). I'm still laughing, man!
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Busick
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 11:58 PM
Subject: RE: The Fear Card
No, I meant the guy who was writing the OTHER manifesto. :)
From: Brian Menard
Subject: Re: The Fear Card
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 00:57:13 -0500
Naw, he got caught a few years ago wearing a hoodie and sunglasses.
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Busick
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 7:00 PM
Subject: RE: The Fear Card
And I was a temp at Microsoft when I saw a note posted to a public-discussion folder written by a guy who was so convinced our civilization would crumble because of Y2K that he was retiring to live in the hills away from technology prone to go haywire. :)
Wonder if he's still up there.
From: Brian Adamson
Subject: RE: The Fear Card
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:51:40 +0000
We've got a gay-friend, my wife's x-boss, who quit his high-paying Microsoft job and d flew the coup to Canada with his Japanese x-sumo, buu. Now, that a made for t.v. drama for you. Comedy aside, those guys were great and I hated to see them go.
Subject: Re: The Fear Card
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 00:01:42 -0500
Just sent the GOP light bulb joke on to about 2 dozen people on both sides of the aisle (of politics, I mean). I'm still laughing, man!
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Busick
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 11:58 PM
Subject: RE: The Fear Card
No, I meant the guy who was writing the OTHER manifesto. :)
From: Brian Menard
Subject: Re: The Fear Card
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 00:57:13 -0500
Naw, he got caught a few years ago wearing a hoodie and sunglasses.
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Busick
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 7:00 PM
Subject: RE: The Fear Card
And I was a temp at Microsoft when I saw a note posted to a public-discussion folder written by a guy who was so convinced our civilization would crumble because of Y2K that he was retiring to live in the hills away from technology prone to go haywire. :)
Wonder if he's still up there.
From: Brian Adamson
Subject: RE: The Fear Card
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:51:40 +0000
We've got a gay-friend, my wife's x-boss, who quit his high-paying Microsoft job and d flew the coup to Canada with his Japanese x-sumo, buu. Now, that a made for t.v. drama for you. Comedy aside, those guys were great and I hated to see them go.
Seattle Intolerance - the dead horse that gets beaten
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:30:42 -0800 (PST)
From: "Young H. Kim" <yhkpenguin@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Seattle Intolerance - the dead horse that gets beaten
All right, I'll bite. Forwarding to others...but to be sure, I'm rather tired of
this topic.
Are we talking about intolerance or hypocrisy? You know, I'm not even arguing that there is no intolerance in Seattle, but intolerance only coming from the coffee-swilling, carbon-counting, hard-core liberals? Okay, I'll stop the stereotype name calling. Your litany of more hypocritical nature of Seattleites suggest to me that they are actually tolerant of views AND behavior that does not match their ideology or principles. And I suppose there's no intolerance or hypocrisy on the other side of the center, outside of Seattle. NOT!
Just say that you hate Seattle for all things liberal and beverage-wise that it
represents, in your own mind, and be done with it. And that makes you incredibly more tolerant. This is another case of Limbaugh-type conservatives villifying a city or a region that do not agree with their beliefs. I don't even know why I'm even defending Seattle, to be honest. I wanted to move away from here because of the damn rain. But I won't just stand by and take some reactionary comments about Seattle that don't wash.
Hmm, strangely people keep moving to the Northwest where the housing market hasn't turned as sharply downward as the rest of the nation. Come all ye intolerant people, in your huddled masses. Your argument just don't fly, other than your own prejudices toward people who have made you feel uncomfortable and oppressed, whether intentionally or not.
--- Brian Menardwrote:
> Except that the snob factor in Seattle is connected to the larger intolerance.
> The snobbery includes both the expectations that one bleeds coffee and is
> disappointed that Jim McDermott isn't more liberal than he is. One who doesn't
> fit the mold must be somehow impaired. (Am I exaggerating? Certainly, but you
> get the point.) It's a Wallingford Chic that is very uptight about being
> laid-back Seattle. It's all for preaching the need to deprive other folks of
> their choices in life to protect the environment, but please don't measure the
> carbon footprint of thousands of vehicles moving at 1 mph to Stevens pass on
> Friday afternoon and back again on Sunday evening. (Like Edwards and Gore on the
> environment, but please don't calculate the total carbon footprint of their houses
> and vehicles combined.) And lets make sure to remind everyone that Seattle had
> NOOOOO problems until those blasted Californians started coming north late in the last century!
>
> I think we've moved into the main thread of Seattle intolerance, so I'm going to
> suggest we cc this to the others as well. If you agree, please forward it on.
>
> Brian
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Young H. Kim
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 1:15 PM
> Subject: Re: A New Tone ;o)
>
>
> Seriously, man, that is not what I would hardly call "intolerance"; it wouldn't
> even
> rank as "peer pressure". I don't know who in Seattle gave you strange looks for
> not
> drinking coffee, but they are obviously caffeine addicts who didn't want anyone
> to
> ruin their buzz. No need for me to defend the snob element in Seattle, an
> element
> that is everywhere.
>
> However, I must say to you, my friend, develop a thicker skin and let it go.
> That
> is much less "intolerant" than asking for ketchup at Carnegie Deli, for A1 sauce
> at
> a steakhouse in Texas or for a less-drippy cheesesteak in Philly and getting
> yelled
> at. Give me a break, please. Be happy with your carbonated drink of choice and
> move on. Be tolerant of, if not sympathetic to, the caffeine addicts of the
> world.
> :-)
>
--- Brian Menard wrote:
In truth, and for all the sheer absurdity that it represents, yes. Pretty sad when your mere choice of beverage gets taken as an insult to a city and its inhabitants.
----- Original Message -----
From: Young H. Kim
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 9:07 PM
Subject: Re: A New Tone ;o)
Yeah, of course, do get your political fix for tonight, as I will later on. Go
McCain. ;-) Gee, I hope the coffee comment was not meant as one of the Intolerant Seattle examples. Did they really look at you strangely and judge you, my friend? O the injustice! "I feel your pain." Ha!
--- Brian Menard wrote:
Could be. I wonder if he voted today...Which reminds me that I've got to put this threading aside and go watch the news to see how things shape up. I just checked Washingtonpost.com, and Romney is up 37% to McCain's 31%. Of course, with only about 23,000 votes in, that and 50 cents will get you a cup of coffee...except in Seattle where it will cost $3.50 and come with a double shot, steamed soy milk, chocolate sauce and whipped cream. Actually, I have no idea if that actually works as a latte; after nearly 41 years I still don't drink coffee. And typically when I have mentioned that while in Seattle over the years, I get strange looks in response like there must be something wrong with me for being so offensive andjudgmental of coffee drinkers by daring not to drink it myself. Sorry Starbucksland, it's not about the caffeine; I just hate the taste of coffee, and prefer to get my caffeine from carbonated sources.
---------------------
Yikes, Brian M., I guess you are still sore; I was trying to be tongue-in-cheek. Of course, it was never my intent to paint you as a reactionary. I don't know how you could read it that way. I put myself on the left as you are on the right. But I must ask, when's the last time you supported a Democrat or some non-conservative proposal? Were and are you not a Rep supporter all of your life? I specifically said, "I don't expect you to be a Dubya apologist," but you do have more respect for Nixon than someone on the left. You are the conservative Republican in our panel. Am I wrong in that? Did I offend you in some way by saying this? I do apologize if that's the case. Do you consider yourself an independent conservative? A moderate?And what of this venom against Seattle? I don't get your assessment of "intolerance" here (I am planning on a separate thread on "tolerance"). Seattle hasgot to be one of the most open cities in the nation, socially, culturally and politically. I did not realize your time in Seattle, politically-speaking, was so horrible. Is Seattle so politically oppressive? I'd argue that it's not much better or worse than any other major city in the US. Urbanites tend to be more liberal. You haven't even been living here for most of the last 20 years. In that time, Seattle has had a steady influx of transplants from other states and foreign nationals. Dare I say I think you've become overly sensitized to any opinion left of center. Believe me, there are plenty of conservatives, Republicans and right-wing extremists in greater Seattle. I trust you heard about the gubernatorial race here in 2004, which may well repeat itself this year. Mike works for the King County Elections, and he could tell you some stories about the right-of-center folkshere. Certainly we are influenced by our surroundings, but I think your prejudice and bias against Seattle has clouded your objectivity. No doubt Seattle as a whole is decidedly liberal and on the left, but "intolerant"? Seattle is absolutely more tolerant than the right-wing areas in the South, the Midwest and some parts of the East.
Young
--- Brian Menard wrote:
Young: While I'm sure it's not your intent, you set me out as a reactionary token. I'm the only one you addressed oppositionally in your bios of us. Is it impossible for you to describe me without impugning my end of the spectrum, presuming that I should NOT be sore about years of abuse from the thought-majority around me, or that I can only support our president as an apologist for him? C'mon, friend, break free of your narrow Seattle parameters ("Seriously?" You bet!) and give it another objective try. I'm happy to help, but I'm curious to> see what you can come up with after knowing me so well for the better part of three decades! BTW, after a decade of broad searching from 8th grade through mid-20's, I landed back in the Catholic church, though still with my LIBERAL views on Church doctrine. (Egads!)
From: "Young H. Kim" <yhkpenguin@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Seattle Intolerance - the dead horse that gets beaten
All right, I'll bite. Forwarding to others...but to be sure, I'm rather tired of
this topic.
Are we talking about intolerance or hypocrisy? You know, I'm not even arguing that there is no intolerance in Seattle, but intolerance only coming from the coffee-swilling, carbon-counting, hard-core liberals? Okay, I'll stop the stereotype name calling. Your litany of more hypocritical nature of Seattleites suggest to me that they are actually tolerant of views AND behavior that does not match their ideology or principles. And I suppose there's no intolerance or hypocrisy on the other side of the center, outside of Seattle. NOT!
Just say that you hate Seattle for all things liberal and beverage-wise that it
represents, in your own mind, and be done with it. And that makes you incredibly more tolerant. This is another case of Limbaugh-type conservatives villifying a city or a region that do not agree with their beliefs. I don't even know why I'm even defending Seattle, to be honest. I wanted to move away from here because of the damn rain. But I won't just stand by and take some reactionary comments about Seattle that don't wash.
Hmm, strangely people keep moving to the Northwest where the housing market hasn't turned as sharply downward as the rest of the nation. Come all ye intolerant people, in your huddled masses. Your argument just don't fly, other than your own prejudices toward people who have made you feel uncomfortable and oppressed, whether intentionally or not.
--- Brian Menard
> Except that the snob factor in Seattle is connected to the larger intolerance.
> The snobbery includes both the expectations that one bleeds coffee and is
> disappointed that Jim McDermott isn't more liberal than he is. One who doesn't
> fit the mold must be somehow impaired. (Am I exaggerating? Certainly, but you
> get the point.) It's a Wallingford Chic that is very uptight about being
> laid-back Seattle. It's all for preaching the need to deprive other folks of
> their choices in life to protect the environment, but please don't measure the
> carbon footprint of thousands of vehicles moving at 1 mph to Stevens pass on
> Friday afternoon and back again on Sunday evening. (Like Edwards and Gore on the
> environment, but please don't calculate the total carbon footprint of their houses
> and vehicles combined.) And lets make sure to remind everyone that Seattle had
> NOOOOO problems until those blasted Californians started coming north late in the last century!
>
> I think we've moved into the main thread of Seattle intolerance, so I'm going to
> suggest we cc this to the others as well. If you agree, please forward it on.
>
> Brian
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Young H. Kim
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 1:15 PM
> Subject: Re: A New Tone ;o)
>
>
> Seriously, man, that is not what I would hardly call "intolerance"; it wouldn't
> even
> rank as "peer pressure". I don't know who in Seattle gave you strange looks for
> not
> drinking coffee, but they are obviously caffeine addicts who didn't want anyone
> to
> ruin their buzz. No need for me to defend the snob element in Seattle, an
> element
> that is everywhere.
>
> However, I must say to you, my friend, develop a thicker skin and let it go.
> That
> is much less "intolerant" than asking for ketchup at Carnegie Deli, for A1 sauce
> at
> a steakhouse in Texas or for a less-drippy cheesesteak in Philly and getting
> yelled
> at. Give me a break, please. Be happy with your carbonated drink of choice and
> move on. Be tolerant of, if not sympathetic to, the caffeine addicts of the
> world.
> :-)
>
--- Brian Menard wrote:
In truth, and for all the sheer absurdity that it represents, yes. Pretty sad when your mere choice of beverage gets taken as an insult to a city and its inhabitants.
----- Original Message -----
From: Young H. Kim
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 9:07 PM
Subject: Re: A New Tone ;o)
Yeah, of course, do get your political fix for tonight, as I will later on. Go
McCain. ;-) Gee, I hope the coffee comment was not meant as one of the Intolerant Seattle examples. Did they really look at you strangely and judge you, my friend? O the injustice! "I feel your pain." Ha!
--- Brian Menard wrote:
Could be. I wonder if he voted today...Which reminds me that I've got to put this threading aside and go watch the news to see how things shape up. I just checked Washingtonpost.com, and Romney is up 37% to McCain's 31%. Of course, with only about 23,000 votes in, that and 50 cents will get you a cup of coffee...except in Seattle where it will cost $3.50 and come with a double shot, steamed soy milk, chocolate sauce and whipped cream. Actually, I have no idea if that actually works as a latte; after nearly 41 years I still don't drink coffee. And typically when I have mentioned that while in Seattle over the years, I get strange looks in response like there must be something wrong with me for being so offensive andjudgmental of coffee drinkers by daring not to drink it myself. Sorry Starbucksland, it's not about the caffeine; I just hate the taste of coffee, and prefer to get my caffeine from carbonated sources.
---------------------
Yikes, Brian M., I guess you are still sore; I was trying to be tongue-in-cheek. Of course, it was never my intent to paint you as a reactionary. I don't know how you could read it that way. I put myself on the left as you are on the right. But I must ask, when's the last time you supported a Democrat or some non-conservative proposal? Were and are you not a Rep supporter all of your life? I specifically said, "I don't expect you to be a Dubya apologist," but you do have more respect for Nixon than someone on the left. You are the conservative Republican in our panel. Am I wrong in that? Did I offend you in some way by saying this? I do apologize if that's the case. Do you consider yourself an independent conservative? A moderate?And what of this venom against Seattle? I don't get your assessment of "intolerance" here (I am planning on a separate thread on "tolerance"). Seattle hasgot to be one of the most open cities in the nation, socially, culturally and politically. I did not realize your time in Seattle, politically-speaking, was so horrible. Is Seattle so politically oppressive? I'd argue that it's not much better or worse than any other major city in the US. Urbanites tend to be more liberal. You haven't even been living here for most of the last 20 years. In that time, Seattle has had a steady influx of transplants from other states and foreign nationals. Dare I say I think you've become overly sensitized to any opinion left of center. Believe me, there are plenty of conservatives, Republicans and right-wing extremists in greater Seattle. I trust you heard about the gubernatorial race here in 2004, which may well repeat itself this year. Mike works for the King County Elections, and he could tell you some stories about the right-of-center folkshere. Certainly we are influenced by our surroundings, but I think your prejudice and bias against Seattle has clouded your objectivity. No doubt Seattle as a whole is decidedly liberal and on the left, but "intolerant"? Seattle is absolutely more tolerant than the right-wing areas in the South, the Midwest and some parts of the East.
Young
--- Brian Menard wrote:
Young: While I'm sure it's not your intent, you set me out as a reactionary token. I'm the only one you addressed oppositionally in your bios of us. Is it impossible for you to describe me without impugning my end of the spectrum, presuming that I should NOT be sore about years of abuse from the thought-majority around me, or that I can only support our president as an apologist for him? C'mon, friend, break free of your narrow Seattle parameters ("Seriously?" You bet!) and give it another objective try. I'm happy to help, but I'm curious to> see what you can come up with after knowing me so well for the better part of three decades! BTW, after a decade of broad searching from 8th grade through mid-20's, I landed back in the Catholic church, though still with my LIBERAL views on Church doctrine. (Egads!)
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Dorothy didn't stay in the Emerald City, Part 2
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:21:32 -0800 (PST)
From: "Young H. Kim"
Subject: Re: Dorothy didn't stay in the Emerald City...
Just so you don't think that I belittled your experiences, I wholeheartedly
understand the point about not sharing your political views for fear of being
misunderstood either way. But isn't that true of how social relationships are in
this country and elsewhere? It's difficult to really open up to people of adult age
because most of them have values and views that are practically etched in stone and
would get offended if countered or challenged.
I know for a fact that I have Republican neighbors on my block. I wouldn't dare to
bring up politics with them. What would be the point, other than to create bad
feelings or misunderstandings? It would only have a chance to work if we had
developed a more personal relationship. We attend a Southern Baptist church; afaik,
all of them hate gays. I spoke with a man who is finishing his studies through
Liberty University last Sunday, and he is a hardcore evangelical. He unswayingly
believes that the secular educational system is godless, indoctrinates children with
anti-Christian teachings, and should be abandoned completely by all Christians.
I've already had some fairly deep conversations with him, so I felt somewhat
comfortable in arguing a contrary position; I even said in so many words that his
view is rather extreme to me. We parted amicably and civilly, of course, but he may
now be considering me a man not truly convicted in Christ.
So why this anecdote? BRM, in all of your time in Seattle, I was under the
impression that you were proud of defending your conservative and Rep opinions. I
always respected you a 100% for that. If you didn't get that impression from me,
then now you know. No equivocation here. However, I also saw you as tough enough
to handle the majority liberal view in Seattle, and also wise enough to know that
you're in the minority. One's surroundings do dictate how one behaves or speaks;
that's just the way it is. I live that everyday as a Korean-American. [As a
footnote, you may imagine that among Koreans, there is a different language and tone
in how they describe their experiences in America, which may seem discriminatory or
even racist to other non-Korean-Americans. I believe this is true of any ethnic
group or community. Someday I hope explore this dynamic in a book.] I couldn't say
some of the things that are said among Koreans, or actually bring and eat authentic
Korean food to work because it would offend the olfactory senses of the uninitiated.
Obviously, I don't consider this intolerance. Rather, I see this as courtesy and
maintaining harmony in a public place. So, again, let's re-examine what we mean by
intolerance, and whether it really arises from actual intolerant action against you,
or if it is from your own biases and sensibilities. But examples of coffee-snobs,
tofu burgers, carbon-counting and paper-over-plastic are rather lame to fall under
intolerance. Anyone keeping you from not drinking coffee, eating meat, or driving a
Hummer? Heaven forbid, you had to take a paper bag home instead of plastic.
One more thing about political correctness. Railing against it is rather overblown,
isn't it? Is it as bad as censorship? Sally Field got bleeped at the Golden Globes
last year because she said "if mothers ran the world there wouldn't be goddamn war."
Would you attribute that to PC or censorship? I guess it could be both. I'll come
up with a better example. :-)
From: "Young H. Kim"
Subject: Re: Dorothy didn't stay in the Emerald City...
Just so you don't think that I belittled your experiences, I wholeheartedly
understand the point about not sharing your political views for fear of being
misunderstood either way. But isn't that true of how social relationships are in
this country and elsewhere? It's difficult to really open up to people of adult age
because most of them have values and views that are practically etched in stone and
would get offended if countered or challenged.
I know for a fact that I have Republican neighbors on my block. I wouldn't dare to
bring up politics with them. What would be the point, other than to create bad
feelings or misunderstandings? It would only have a chance to work if we had
developed a more personal relationship. We attend a Southern Baptist church; afaik,
all of them hate gays. I spoke with a man who is finishing his studies through
Liberty University last Sunday, and he is a hardcore evangelical. He unswayingly
believes that the secular educational system is godless, indoctrinates children with
anti-Christian teachings, and should be abandoned completely by all Christians.
I've already had some fairly deep conversations with him, so I felt somewhat
comfortable in arguing a contrary position; I even said in so many words that his
view is rather extreme to me. We parted amicably and civilly, of course, but he may
now be considering me a man not truly convicted in Christ.
So why this anecdote? BRM, in all of your time in Seattle, I was under the
impression that you were proud of defending your conservative and Rep opinions. I
always respected you a 100% for that. If you didn't get that impression from me,
then now you know. No equivocation here. However, I also saw you as tough enough
to handle the majority liberal view in Seattle, and also wise enough to know that
you're in the minority. One's surroundings do dictate how one behaves or speaks;
that's just the way it is. I live that everyday as a Korean-American. [As a
footnote, you may imagine that among Koreans, there is a different language and tone
in how they describe their experiences in America, which may seem discriminatory or
even racist to other non-Korean-Americans. I believe this is true of any ethnic
group or community. Someday I hope explore this dynamic in a book.] I couldn't say
some of the things that are said among Koreans, or actually bring and eat authentic
Korean food to work because it would offend the olfactory senses of the uninitiated.
Obviously, I don't consider this intolerance. Rather, I see this as courtesy and
maintaining harmony in a public place. So, again, let's re-examine what we mean by
intolerance, and whether it really arises from actual intolerant action against you,
or if it is from your own biases and sensibilities. But examples of coffee-snobs,
tofu burgers, carbon-counting and paper-over-plastic are rather lame to fall under
intolerance. Anyone keeping you from not drinking coffee, eating meat, or driving a
Hummer? Heaven forbid, you had to take a paper bag home instead of plastic.
One more thing about political correctness. Railing against it is rather overblown,
isn't it? Is it as bad as censorship? Sally Field got bleeped at the Golden Globes
last year because she said "if mothers ran the world there wouldn't be goddamn war."
Would you attribute that to PC or censorship? I guess it could be both. I'll come
up with a better example. :-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)