Bob Caldwell, editorial page editor of The Oregonian, in a column about civility in public discourse. (article not on-line right now, print version Jan. 11, 2009, page B1)
Also last week, some readers greeted the launch of Elizabeth Hovde’s local conservative column as the occasion to make their comments personal, and, in a few cases, downright vile.
And here’s the first sentence from Hovde’s debut column last week:
I’m not David Reinhard, but I’ll take his hate mail.
Hard to imagine a few kooks took her up on it. Dirty hippies!
It’s a strange newspaper world when shoving right-wing columnists down people’s throats is a civic duty. I’m not tempted to cancel my subscription over the hiring of Hovde, as a newspaper can print whatever it wants pretty much, but I am tempted to cancel my subscription because Caldwell insists on defining his new columnists as “center-right,” which is essentially a Republican canard. (You’ll recall the desperate attempts after the election by Republicans to reassure themselves that the country is still conservative, despite the most solid evidence of all, the election itself.)
By defining his new “center-right” columnists as being in opposition to the O’s editorial board, he magically transforms a traditionally Republican-leaning newspaper into a liberal one. Voilà! (Yes, they endorsed Obama. So what? The choice was between insane and not insane, the insanity being another four years of Republican rule rather than John McCain himself, the choice of running mate notwithstanding.)
Hey, here’s an idea. Newspapers, seeing as they are all going out of business and stuff, could judge their opinion columnists by the intellectual strength of the ideas they write about rather than making sure enough of them piss off the DFH. It may be fun to make the libruls mad but it’s kind of a zero sum game, and there was enough of that mindlessness in the last eight years to last a lifetime.
Thus when columnists are inclined to parrot RNC and stink tank talking points, this would count against them! Those with their own knowledge of history, government and politics and original ideas might thrive!
For example, if a conservative could actually make a convincing argument why unions have no inherent right to exist, based on history and the law, I might listen. Here’s a hint: personal resentments and “free-market” folderol are not convincing arguments.
I know, I know. I’m being uncivil by bringing any of this up.
This post by John reminds of the type of person who, instead of just changing the radio station when a song comes on they hate, will listen to the entire song, then later bitch to anyone who will listen about the bad song they HAD to listen to.
CONservative: clear cuts, coal ash spills, mountaintop mining, torture, rendition, constitutional decay, etc., ppp.
Liberal: clean up the mess.
Once again liberals/democrats are unable to act civil.
What happened to being tolerant of opposing viewpoints?
Personally I’m looking forward to the demise of daily newspapers. The first amendment was enacted to protect the pamphlet press, the prime communications media of the American Revolution. The modern equivalent of this media is, well, blogs and maybe the occasional alternative weekly. I don’t think anyone anticipated the rise of large corporate dailies. Journalistic objectivity is a myth that’s been forced down the throat of the public for far too long. When blogs and weeklies are free to be as biased as they want to be, when they can quote and link to other media outlets without worrying about hearing from the lawyers, then we’ll have a truly free press.
@3
What liberals do is they very cleverly label any opposing viewpoints as “hate speech.”
We will start when you do. When we try to have an intelligent conversation you all start calling us names. Go look at the start of the PI thread.
After being hit in the metaphorical head, repeatedly, when we try to have a dialogue, eventually we will start acting as badly as you, in self defense.
@6 Any thread will do.
“It’s a strange newspaper world when shoving right-wing columnists down people’s throats is a civic duty.”
It’s time for people like Caldwell to realize that conservative philosophy is vile, and by giving it a platform, a newspaper makes itself vile.
And I’m talking about honest conservatives. Lying Republicans who screw their own supporters with policies that are anything but conservative are a whole different ballgame.
Conservatism is a violent philosophy. It believes in using force to deal with society’s problems. Conservatives tend to be nationalistic, militaristic, and warmongers. Ann Coulter talks facetiously about “burning their villages and raping their women,” yet the attitude expressed by her words conveys a fundamental conservatie worldview — that’s how they regard other people.
Conservatism is also a selfish philosophy. The conservative focus is “me,” not “us.” They scoff at the notion of community, and have a pull-up-the-drawbridge attitude toward their less successful fellow human beings. Their mentality is, “I’ve got mine, and fuck you.”
Conservatives are, well, conservative about dealing with social problems. They think forms of social organization and ways of doing things of 100 years ago should work just fine right now. They’re against social progress in all its forms. They opposed civil rights. They opposed worker rights. They pretty much oppose everything that helps the common man (or woman).
Conservatives also are often associated with bigotry and discrimination. They don’t like immigrants. They don’t like people of different skin color or religion. In fact, they pretty much dislike and distrust everyone who isn’t exactly like themselves. They are the anti-diversity crowd. They’re the people who always want to shove the Ten Commandments and Nativity Scenes down everyone’s throats while raising a stink if someone wants to put up a Menorah or Buddhist display in a public place. They’re the ones who want to force-feed their fundamentalist brand of Christianity to public school children.
Conservatives also are the flat-earthers among us. They distrust science, and can’t be bothered to learn science, or deal with scientific subjects. For them, creationism is the answer and evolution is wrong, no evidence needed or accepted, with no room for discussion — you either agree with them or you’re a pagan to be loathed and rejected.
In short, conservatives aren’t respectable, and the fact there’s a lot of them doesn’t make them mainstream, either. Their propaganda doesn’t belong in a daily newspaper anymore than does the propaganda of, say, Bill Ayers’ Weather Underground or Richard Butler’s Aryan Nations. They’re a destructive influence on society who sow discord and conflict among our people, and among all peoples.
So, Mr. Caldwell, as an editor who probably wouldn’t dream of giving space to a Nazi or Communist columnist, why are you giving Hovde column-inches? Have you deluded yourself into thinking that the conservative ideas she espouses are good for the Portland community? If you had lived in another time and place, would you have given a young Adolf Hitler space in your newspaper just because his ideas were catching on with a significant segment of the citizenry? Even the German editors of that time weren’t so stupid; he had to set up his own “newspaper” to circulate his venomous philosophy. So why are you voluntarily publishing Hovde’s venom in your newspaper?
Oh, and by the way, the verbal abuse we heap on our conservative trolls in the comment threads of this blog is justified because … well … because they’re conservatives. They’ve got it coming because they come here to propound a vile philosophy. They are not respectable. They are not, by any stretch of imagination, our equals. They’re vermin who crawled out of a sewer to spread their conservative disease through the land. You wouldn’t feed a sewer rat, would you? Well, giving someone like Hovde space in your newspaper is like feeding a sewer rat, Mr. Caldwell. Do you get it? No, I don’t think you get it.
Damn, Roger. Well said.
How does any newspaper shove anything down people’s throats? Don’t like it? Then don’t read it, or at least have the honesty to admit, like Roger, that you can’t stand conservative philosphy in any context.
@3 Why should we tolerate militaristic warmongers who questioned the patriotism of anyone who questioned the lies they used to start a war?
Let me spell this out for you, Stamm. I wasn’t drafted, I volunteered. I didn’t serve in the peacetime military, I was shot at in a war. But for all the phony lip service your side pays to “supporting the troops,” that wasn’t good enough for the motherfuckers on your side of the political fence who shot off their mouths about my patriotism. That isn’t going to be forgotten or forgiven — you got that, bub?
This isn’t merely a political disagreement anymore, your side made it personal, and to paraphrase your Great Leader, “war is what you wanted, and war is what you got.” This isn’t civil anymore, it doesn’t have to be civil, it shouldn’t be civil, and it ain’t gonna be civil.
I’m done with being polite to fat-mouthed conservative motherfuckers. I don’t owe you goatfucking perverts any civility, you lying and thieving scumbags don’t deserve any civility, and you disease-carrying cockroaches ain’t gonna get any civility.
Besides, the name-calling we do here is all in good clean fun, anyhow, so lighten up. You guys take things way too seriously.
@11 Actually, I don’t mind debating honest conservatives, because I like intellectual challenge, and besides liberalism is the superior philosophy and will win an honest debate every time.
But I won’t waste my time on liars who stonewall basic facts and have no intellectual skills but merely repetitively regurgitate the same talking points over and over no matter how many times you debunk them. Why should I “debate” morons who don’t even understand the words they’re mouthing?
And why would anyone want to play in a game where the other side deals from the bottom of the deck and grabs the chips even when they’ve got the losing hand? You can’t deal with people like that. I wouldn’t be in business with them, I wouldn’t marry into their families, I wouldn’t buy a house in their gated community, so why the fuck waste my time on people who won’t play in any game they can’t rig to their favor?
Some people are worth your time, and others aren’t.
Whoo hoo!
Rabbits with fangs and big fuckin’ claws… this long.
@16 I hope they weren’t expecting something soft and cuddly, because I don’t do cute, I’m a scratcher and biter. Anyone who wants a soft, cuddly, cute rabbit should go to a pet store.
My husband talks big, but I can kick his ass, and he knows it.
Strangely, in many species the females and bigger than the males. That doesn’t seem quite fair. Can any of you scientific types explain why Mother Nature did that to us? After all, males are supposed to be dominant in the natural order of things, and the female is supposed to keep her mouth shut and bend over when it’s time to make babies and …
[crashing noises]
SCREEEEEEEEECH
[thumping sounds]
IIIIII-YIIIIIIIII-EEEEEEEEEEE-IIIIIIIIII !!!!!!
[running feet]
If any of you see my husband, would you please bring him back here to Greenlake Park, so I can finish what I started? He has a yellow streak a mile wide, and runs away every time. There’s no telling where he’s at now.
Anyone got a bomb shelter I could use for a couple of weeks?
Uhhhh…..rabbit? You still there? Do you have pet insurance?
I was bitten by a rabbit once. Nasty business.
Jon: I agree with the sentiment and your overall argument, but on this one point, you can’t have it both ways:
Can the politically entrenched Republicans really call themselves conservative?
Their track record reeks of fascism. I guess I did not know systematic torture of fifteen year old boys was a conservative tenet. Or deceiving a Democracy into an attack on another sovereign nation. Having the Vice President, with the Presidents permission, out a NOC CIA agent actively involved in keeping WMD out of terrorists hands right after a severe terrorist attack on 9/11, that is conservatism? I did not know that.
Conservative….Fascism…you say tomaytoe, I say tomahtoe.
I can’t wait to see the backlash of the voters when they finally figure out that all their “free” shit ain’t gonna happen but instead they will get a big tax increase on their asses because of the huge financial disaster our country is in because of failed liberal ideas. You couldn’t write a better movie. Nice work tards.
Roger @ 13: Sorry for overstating your opinion… and I do agree, you can’t have a discussion with someone who won’t acknowledge the facts and repeats the party line, no matter what. SP (and some here) proves that.
@25 “the huge financial disaster our country is in because of failed liberal ideas”
This is what I was referring to @13. Like I said, you can’t deal with people who act in bad faith. The best thing to do is raise your hind leg and piss on ’em.
Dear #25,like most wingnuts you thrive on others pain. Blaming liberals for what your soulmates have done to our country. How in the world did we do that from the positions of no political power since the contract on america? Two years of slight political advantage obsrtucted every step of the way by what was left of the republican party.
To bad Shurb’s privatising SS didn’t go through. You’d have even more people in pain for your enjoyment.
And this just in, The discovery Institute has produced a “conservative only” space warp leading to a land of milk, honey, Jesus and millions of good looking female virgins who never learned the word no. It’s your just reward for your hard kept ideology. Get in touch today. The contact is the well know Bernie Madoff. Just send him all your money to get on the waiting list.
@28 Dear Ed, apparently you are incapable of
paying attention. Go back about ten years and
really try to read about the people and ideas that got us to this point. You will wind up
ashamed of your voting record.
Bernie Madoff , BIG democrat contributor over the years. NO BIG FUCKING SURPRISE!
Dear Mark: Apparently, you have been brainwashed and can’t think for yourself.
I have posted numerous times the link to the banking reform acts of 1999 and 2000 sponsored by Phil Gramm. Gramm put the 1999 act that allowed banks to hide their investments and to buy real estate holdings that were bundled (the law that got us into this mess) in a budget bill with no debate.
For your information, Gramm and the deregulation effort led the charge and Gramm had a lot of backing from the banking industry.
Oh, and this is the same “conservative” Phil Gramm that has been the lead republican on banking issues and said there was no recession and called the American people whiners.
Now go stuff your Rush Limbaugh-addled brain with real facts, not made up diatribes- I know it will hurt. What moron thinks the democrats who were not in charge of the seante were leading the deregulation fight? Mark…..reality is tough Mark for republicans who can only try to blame their messes on the democrats. Try taking some responsibility for the mess YOUR party made.
Dear 29. If the democratic party had such control, how did the economic miracle of the last eight years end up in the pockets of less than 1% of the population? Been reading and posting for over two years on Media Matters. They back up their information back to the originalsources. You offer your twisted ideological rants with no backing. Ignore questions and carry on in a classic wingnut troll manner. Some of our trolls approach your manner. They get busted daily but don’t seem to ever notice and come back with the same BS the next day.
The are some rational conservative posters that show up there. They are much appreciated, but the louder talking point types usually drownd them out.
Actually, I do enjoy discussing politics and economics with knowledgable conservatives, and reading their books and opinion.
I’ve always enjoyed George Will’s columns, even when I don’t agree with him (as long as he doesn’t get stuck on talking about baseball too much).
But notice that most knowledgable conservatives have been pushed aside from within their own party by the crackpots. It’s awful hard to have a civil, elightening discussion with someone who takes their talking points from the revisionist history and factual distortions which populate Limbaugh’s and O’Reilly’s discourse.
How dare they hire a columnist with whom you disagree!