:: walterindenver ::

:: Thursday, November 28, 2002 ::

Debate? ...II

I've been mulling this post at Shadow of the Hegemon for a few days now.

Glenn says that weblogs solve the "problem" posed by Republic.com, the book: that the Internet creates conversation only among people who agree with each other.
Weblogs point joyously to those with whom they disagree.
You have got to be kidding, Glenn. They aren't the refutation or the solution of the problem posed by Republic.com...
they're the embodiment of it.

As I wrote below, one of the prime benefits of a blog is the ability to debate, to engage the opposition in verbal combat. Some are more willing to do this than others.

Now comes this. One blog delinks a second blog, and takes the further step of banning him from commenting, because he belongs to the wrong political party.
The word 'censorship' gets thrown about a lot in some of the comments floating around the blogosphere relating to this little tiff. But censorship is not the problem here. It's the way debate is avoided. There's not much sense in having political discourse if there's no chance of changing anyone's mind, and that won't happen if there's no interaction between people of differing political views.
I'm not trying to say that all views have equal weight. On the contrary, in a debate one side is usually wrong, and sometimes both sides are wrong. The best way to point out wrongness, or falsehood, is to tackle it head on. Debate, compare, contrast. As I said, "By refusing to engage one gives off the impression of either arrogance or inability to refute his opponent."
The banning blog in this case, is Jennie Taliaferro's Greatest Jeneration. She's a rightie, the banned Wilde is a leftie, the opposite dynamic of the Rittenhouse vs Little Green Footballs incident last week. Seems this problem doesn't have much to do with ideology.

:: Walter 1:44 PM [+] ::
...

Taking Inventory

Let's see, there's me, Mrs. Indenver, Edgar, (a malamute) and Natasha (mostly malamute). The guest of honor; a 20 (!) lb turkey. Who gets the lion's share? The line from Vegas goes like this:

Edgar 1 - 1, even odds.
Natasha 2 - 1
Me, 4 - 1
Mrs. 10 -1

Place your bets now.

:: Walter 1:34 PM [+] ::
...

Thieves Funding Campaigns

Kevin Raybould at Lean Left celebrates candidates who won elections while spending only public money.

Want to end the corrupting influence of money in politics? This is the way to do it. And, as an added bonus, you end up with people from all walks of life in the legislature. There are simply no losers in this scheme - except incumbents and money men, which is why getting this adopted has turned out to be so hard.

Not quite. You forgot about some other people who lose with this scheme. Public funds don't just magically appear, that's tax money you're talking about. That means no matter which raving loony gets elected, you helped. When some David Duke clone manages to win office, you'll have the pleasure of knowing that you spent some of your hard earned cash to fund his election. Taxpayers lose.

A bigger issue is the gatekeeper problem, as in who decides which candidates are eligible for public funding. That likely will be the people already holding office. Think about that, as laws get closer to outlawing private financing altogether. Want to run against the incumbent? He might be one of the people deciding how you'll qualify for campaign money. Want to run a campaign outside the political establishment? Start a new political party? Good luck! You may well find it's illegal to raise money. Public funding of elections is one more step toward consolidating power in backrooms at major party headquarters. The biggest loser will be grassroots politics.

:: Walter 11:48 AM [+] ::
...

Debate?

James Capozzola, writing on his blog, the Rittenhouse Review:

I can no longer in good conscience include on the Rittenhouse Review’s blogroll any weblog that has provided a permanent blogroll link of its own to the site known as “Little Green Footballs” or “LGF.”
It is with great regret and considerable lament that I have adopted this position -- or been forced to adopt this position -- as I am normally a passionate advocate of an author’s right to choose his associates and to establish and maintain her own chosen associations.
However, it has become painfully clear, to the extent it wasn’t already, that the hosts of LGF, while preciously coy about their own political persuasions, all too willingly and not without satisfaction have allowed their site to become a vile cesspool of racism, bigotry, prejudice, ignorance, and hate.
Little Green Footballs, its readers, and what can in fairness only be described as its many contributors, have long since moved beyond the realm of civilized discourse.

How about some examples of that racism, bigotry, etc.?

LGF is not a regular read for me, so after reading the above I hastened over to LGF to find some nastiness. What I found was a whole bunch of people really unhappy with Islamic terrorists around the globe. News items culled from mostly foreign press sources are reprinted and linked to highlight the terrorists as generally bloodthirsty and backward. I think it's safe to say they don't like the way Islam has spawned violence. That's a politically incorrect position to be sure, but is it bigoted? Is it unfair? Well it might be, but the burden falls on the accuser to prove his case.

Mr. Capozzola instead opts to avoid debate, and to refuse to engage LGF at all, saying it's a matter of 'conscience' for him to avoid LGF, even anyone who links with LGF. If one wants to claim the moral high ground, he must first establish that he stands on morality while others don't. This blackballing goes against the spirit of blogging. The strength of a blog is the ability to engage the opposition, to debate, and to fact check. By refusing to engage one gives off the impression of either arrogance or inability to refute his opponent. Certainly that isn't what Mr. Capozzola intended.

LGF responds to the Rittenhouse Review here.

:: Walter 2:49 PM [+] ::
...