Well, finally, here's my blog. It has
been gestating for several years; lately I've been inspired to pull
all my notes together and put my opinions and interests online. I
will talk about whatever is on my mind: politics, music, history,
cars, aviation, food, who knows? I suppose I could start a blog for
each, but I will probably have trouble keeping up with one. But
then, maybe someday I'll spin some off and have a media empire...
I'm doing this mostly as an outlet to
say what I want. Maybe someone will find it interesting, whether
they agree with me or not. I can't promise to be on here every day;
maybe a few times a week. I'll try to be reasonable, and
grammatical, but I will slip now and then. I know I'll piss people
off. Sometimes intentionally, sometimes not.
There will be a lot of commentary about
politics, particularly as the election approaches. I'm somewhat
liberal, somewhat conservative. Depends on the issue and on how you
define the terms. I have referred to myself as socially liberal,
fiscally conservative. That holds true most of the time. I consider
myself moderate and independent; maybe an Independent, maybe a
Libertarian, though they have gone off the deep end lately. People
who vote the straight party line and otherwise don't bother to think
for themselves tend to annoy me.
I intend to flee the country a few
weeks before the election; everyone will have made up their mind by
then, and I'm sure I'll be tired of the shouting. Even my own...
A quote I like, perhaps as a motto for
this site: "Not red, not blue- red, white and blue." It
used to be the tagline on the XM POTUS channel. It's not used on the
POTUS website or channel anymore; tried to search to see if it's
copyrighted, with no luck. Another possible motto (surely
copyrighted:) “Think Responsibly,” slogan of the Economist
magazine.
Another quote I like, which while it
doesn't exactly describe me is certainly said with refreshing
honesty: “I'm actually a fairly green, anti-union, pro-gay
marriage, fiscally conservative, surprisingly socially liberal
Republican.”
You have the right to remain silent-
but please don't! I welcome comments. I reserve the right to delete
the nastiest, stupidest ones. Though you should know, they might
instead get full coverage....
I'll try to follow the “Blogger's
Code of Conduct” below. We'll see how it goes. I can tolerate
some abuse, but will not tolerate abuse of others. And if it gets
really stupid I might delete it. Just so you know.
1) Take responsibility not just for
your own words, but for the comments you allow on your blog.
2) Label your tolerance level for
abusive comments.
3) Consider eliminating anonymous
comments.
4) Ignore the trolls.
5) Take the conversation offline, and
talk directly, or find an intermediary who can do so.
6) If you know someone who is behaving
badly, tell them so.
7) Don't say anything online that you
wouldn't say in person.
Well, glad to see you've got this thing going Big Bro. I like what I have read so far. Of course our politics are similar and I think the concept of the political left-right divide is over ripe for some reasoned discussion.
ReplyDeleteWhy, if I say that I am an environmentalist, do most assume that I am then also anti-development? I argue against our foreign policy(especially wars) all the time, but I am a veteran, consider myself a patriot, and am NOT a pacifist...or a Commie :-) If one is pro abortion(is anyone really "pro" abortion?), then one must also be for "big government". It doesn't take much effort to see the dualism, hypocrisy, and fundamental prejudice involved in this adversarial cycle. How much of this is of our own creation? How much of it has/is being sold/spoon fed to us? Seems to me that a great way for a two-party system to maintain the status quo would be to attempt to force the body politic into black and white thinking.
Thanks, man. It's hard to talk about anything with some people; too many assumptions about left-right. Too many assumptions in general; and I know I'm guilty of it too. This is exactly what some people want. I just wish we could all agree on some basic facts before arguing about issues- actually arguing, debating, discussing, not just yelling...
ReplyDeleteWell, the last time I recall us raging at each other was when we still shared bunk beds. To be fair though that was pretty much the case right up until you left for college...sorry about that.
ReplyDeleteYes, it seems reasoned debate is a lost art. It doesn't have to be screaming matches. I'm quite comfortable hating someone's freaking guts but having a reasoned disagreement with them. That seems very rare these days. Arguing is NOT equal to fighting
Yeah, I remember that too. Sorry. I think it was just living in close confines. Hey, it's part of the job description for brothers...
ReplyDeleteI like reasoned debate. Of course, I'm happy to add smartass comments and righteous anger, depending on the subject and the other person's attitude. I do wish we could all argue from the same facts, and discuss what they mean or what to do about them, rather than having to deal with some of the made-up bullshit that distracts from reality.
It seems like the "facts" have become so open to interpretation. I prefer to argue logic & reason rather than data & sources. We all have so much access to data that we seem to find whatever supports our stance and argue using it to justify ourselves, logic be damned. I don't even bother citing sources, quotes, research, etc anymore. People will just find something that contradicts and/or undermines it anyways. So the merry-go-round just keeps spinning faster & faster...
ReplyDeleteTrue enough. But so many people argue from partial facts- a little knowledge being dangerous and all. Example: the Chik-Fil-A comments I hear from people: "He has the right to free speech." Yes, he does. That's not being infringed at all, in a constitutional sense by the government, or even in a societal sense by individuals. He can say what he wants. And he can give money to groups that say homosexuality should be illegal, and that promote criminalizing it abroad up to the point of the death penalty. And I am free to say he's a jerk for doing that, and withhold my money from him. (Not that I'd spend it there anyway- don't like the food, so it's not even like I'm boycotting them...) "Oh. He supports hate groups? Well, that's different. Then yeah, he's a jerk."
ReplyDeleteHow can we as a nation debate important things when we can't even agree on clear starting points? How can we talk about what Obama should or shouldn't do when I am talking about what he actually is doing and has done and says he'll do, and you are assuming he's a Muslim Kenyan socialist who wants to impose sharia law and take away everyone's guns? I've had those arguments; that's what I was thinking of when I mentioned facts. But I agree that everyone can find a "fact" to back him up nowadays. Of course, my historian's training tried to get me to examine the validity of sources, and come to a conclusion about their reliability. Which is why I'm often asking people, skeptically but curiously, "where did you hear that?" It's possible I missed an important piece of information. It's also possible, as in one case, that the other person heard two tiny bits of truth, distorted (by himself or the source he heard) into a ridiculously untrue assertion.
I do kinda like taking the comments people actually say, and showing them how their conclusions are in no way logically based on what they just said. But then, I'm a smartass.