FRAnimals
A few months back I wrote about my experience in trying to participate in a Free Republic forum. Well, lately I've been facing similar hostility on a Right Wing Canadian blog. And though I haven't been banished, it has certainly been made clear to me that very few of the regular posters there are looking to hear from anybody who doesn't toe their party line.
The site is Small Dead Animals, a very popular blog put together by an ultra-conservative artist from Saskatchewan. (Beware of conservative artists. Think of the commercial with the guy diving into the fountain to get back the coin his girlfriend tossed in to make a wish. "When it's all about the money...") I actually admire her work on that site, because it is a good source of information on all of the Librano dirt that is underreported in the MSM. Some of it is over-the-top, but I have no problems with the hacks getting their red meat. However, I get a kick out of anybody, Right or Left, who complains about the state of democracy while discouraging it within their own domain.
I'll give you a couple of examples. My favorite was this post, with an excerpt from Mark Helprin about how he sees liberals as being unsympathetic toward victims of terrorism, and universally opposed to the War on Terror. After the excerpt was the remark: "This is not an invitation to debate the premise - it's an opportunity for you to see yourselves as we do - and to understand why we fight tooth and nail to resist your ideology." She and her monolithic readers weren't even interested in hearing the argument that the premise was false to begin with.
The most recent exhibit is from Monday when I commented on an item regarding Michael Ignatieff's parachuting into Etobicoke-Lakeshore to run for the Liberals. I don't like it much either. The remark I posted was: "Pro-war. Pro-torture. I'd say he picked the wrong party to run for." Yes, it was a bit snarky, but it raised a legitimate point that Ignatieff's foreign policy opinions more closely resemble those of the Conservatives than those of the Liberals. The reply I got from another commenter was very heartwarming: "Farck off, Jay! Showing people scary cartoons is torture to people like you, so long as the Americans are doing it. You're not welcome here! (evilprinceweasel)" First off, what does "Farck off" mean? Is that some kind of politically correct euphemism that these folks usually abhor? Secondly, is this person qualified to say where I'm not welcome? This "evilprinceweasel" is a regular commenter at SDA, so I imagine he has a good read on what his fellow readers want to see in the comments section. Other "dissenting" voices have met with similar hostility. There has really been only one person with whom I've ever been able to have a meaningful exchange. (Not including North Bay Trapper, of course.)
I can understand why the proprietor and readership of SDA are so revved up right now. They are so close to having their party get into power that they can practically taste it. But it would be nice, once in a while, to see a word or two criticizing the Conservatives. One thing that sets the Canadian Right apart from the Canadian Left, and both the Left and Right in the U.S., is that they have no cynicism or beefs at all with their party. Stephen Harper and his henchmen apparently all walk on water. I guess I'm reading things that way because we've bascially been in campaign mode for a long time now. But there must be some warts there. Nobody's perfect, and you know what they say about things that seem too good to be true. Maybe if the Conservatives win the election, the honeymoon will subside and we'll see what the reasonable Righties really think of them. On the other hand, if the Liberals win again, that site will be a lot more fun.
10 Comments:
Good post Jay. I've noticed the standards falling through the grate on the site as well. As far as I can gather it is about five or six goons who post on everything. Blogmaster Kate does not participate as far as I've seen in the stupid stuff.
I've seen the nastiness going on at some Liberal sites as well, most notabably Kinsella's. Other websites nuke posts before anyone can read them if they are not in line with their views. I believe we are in agreement that there are a few nutbars spoiling it for everyone else, and they are extra rabid since they caught their election erections.
There are definitely nutbars everywhere. But I admonished Kate in the comments for "this is not an invitation to debate the premise", and she subsequently replied by blowing off of my comments and those of another liberal (Dr Dawg I believe.) She doesn't have her hands totally clean. The loony commenters are everywhere, but there is no excuse for the blogmaster to discourage debate.
What a bunch of whiney sucky babies...
LOL
Kate
SDA
Thanks for stopping by, Kate. I'm glad to see you keep up with your links and trackbacks. But how selfish of you to hoard all your wisdom and witticisms on your own blog and not share any here. :-)
Thank you for the contribution, Andrew. And God bless you.
Hey Andrew... if your main interest is "winning wars," you certainly live in the wrong country.
From Reuters: The following are the latest figures for military deaths in the Iraq campaign since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003, in line with the most recent information from the U.S. military.
U.S.-LED COALITION FORCES:
United States 2,128
Britain 98
Other nations 94
Ain't goin' so well there, is it?
Sorry Mustard, Andrew didn't bring up the Iraq War so I was wondering why you did? (mind you Andrew's post was completely vacant of any true insight, and his base comments portrayed a crass belcher of swill, but I digress).
I hope I am mistaken but it seems to me that you are gloating about American casualties.
If you want an honest debate on the Iraq War then ask Jaymeister to start a thread. Otherwise, your argument has nothing to do with the topic and if I read it correctly (I hope I am wrong at which time I will apologize) is callous.
You also make an assumption that Andrew is for the War In Iraq which perhaps should be verified before making your statement.
One last point of order directed at Jaymeister and the article he wrote. Please clarify your point regarding the Conservatives (since the article about Ignatieff was concerning the Canadian dimension, I must assume that you meant the Conservative Party of Canada), supporting torture? If this is a new platform then I have not heard about it.
NBT,
I can't tell you precisely that the Conservative platform is "pro-torture". But I can say with near certainty that a Harper government would not voice any public criticism of the way in which the U.S. is conducting the war, incuding if they see the tactics as unsavory. Lack of objection is tantamount to acceptance - as Bush himself will tell you in other contexts. So even if Harper whispers to Bush behind closed doors, "I'm not sure that's a good idea," they will take a de facto pro-torture position publicly. You would certanly agree that Ignatieff's public statements on Iraq put him in the minority among the Liberal caucus.
(I realize we could have another argument about what constitutes torture, but that will be another thread.)
"I realize we could have another argument about what constitutes torture, but that will be another thread.) "
Isn't that the thrust of the argument. Many folks, myself included do not see a problem with sleep/sensory deprivation as a means of extracting information from war prisoners.
I quite simply do not see any real torture going on. I have seen some individuals charged at Abu Ghraib and I have seen some of those convicted (for humiliation..not torture). I see visits by the Red Cross to the prisons in Iraq and Cuba. There are no reports of physical harm.
In an article found in the NY Times (not the most Pro-Bush paper in the world) which conveyed the Red Cross' findings, we find this damning evidence:
"Doctors and medical personnel conveyed information about prisoners' mental health and vulnerabilities to interrogators"
Wow. That is pretty heady stuff. Information about the state of mind of someone who is about to be interrogated....almost as bad as bamboo shoots under the finger nails...
"Full article is here"
The Red Cross stated that the medical care the prisoners received was first rate.
Although the Red Cross criticized the lack of confidentiality, it agreed in the report that the medical care was of high quality.
If this is as damning as it gets then I don't get it. No prisoners have shown any sort of physical harm to any of the interviewers (for those willing to martyr themselves I do not believe that they would have any trouble telling the Red Cross of mistreatment if it meant embarassment for the US). I have a shade of suspicion with regard to the International Red Cross. Any group that didn't see anything too wrong with the Nazi's and the way in which they treated prisoners is not all that trustworthy to me.
"Red Cross not as moral as you may think...click here"
Am I against torture. Most definately. Should all those involved in humiliating Abu Ghraib prisoners be punished? Most definately (to the fullest extent I might add). Is war terrible? Of course it is. Does depriving someone of sleep, or quiet, or a Simmons Beauty Rest tantamount to torture? Definately not.
Point well made.
I have not heard Paul Martin and Jack Layton speak out against child pornography to any great extent....does that mean they support it through their inaction?
Post a Comment
<< Home