April 05, 2004


I'm growing as a person.

When another dissenting reader first used to come around here and leave comments, it used to make me so mad. I would absolutely fume at home, complaining to my husband that I wished this guy would leave me alone and that I really thought he was wrong, but didn't know how to counter him. I would lie in bed thinking about it, wondering what I could say, and I would be overcome with anger and worry.

I resolved on New Year's to learn to be bemused. So far I think I've been doing a great job of reaching my goal; at least now I don't let things affect me so much to where I can't sleep at night.

Look, the title of my blog is trying to grok. Trying. I would never be one to say that I've got the world all figured out, or that my way of thinking is the only one. I'm open for suggestion. But there's a difference between suggestion and beating someone over the head until they give in. There's a difference between Joshua coming here to have a healthy debate about Israel/Palestine and someone coming here to insult me on three different comment threads.

And, I'm sorry, but the idea that my disgust with vandals who care more about putting Bush down than respecting a historic monument would dishonor my husband makes me laugh instead of fret. Laugh. I'm at the point where I can laugh at this stuff, which means I've done a whole lot of personal growing since I started this blog.

Deal with this: I'm bemused.

Posted by Sarah at April 5, 2004 04:08 PM

The best way to deal with people like that? Facts, logic, and where possible, sarcasm.

As an example, the poster that responded to your vandalism post brought up the klan and linked it to conservatives. A quick check of facts shows that of the 2 parties, liberal have the only known former klansman in their senate ranks. Which logically shows the liberals are far more likely to support klansmen.

Posted by: LastStand at April 5, 2004 04:54 PM

"Far more likely"? The presence of one does not condemn the whole. That's like saying that a single Republican like, say, Trent Lott "proves" conservatives are "far more" (fill-in-the-blank). Besides, Democrats do not support Byrd *as a Klansman*. Byrd is not even a Klansman anymore. Democrats can explain their support for him by saying that he's reformed and then pick out Republicans with shady pasts.

I think it would be more accurate to say that the KKK today is so distant from either party that dragging it into discussions like these is irrelevant.

It'd be best to stick to what Sarah actually said (and DIDN'T say) when defending it from an onslaught of straw men.

Posted by: Amritas at April 5, 2004 06:09 PM

Of course we should be completely outraged at the vandals... that was a despicable act.
I was outraged at how you used that dispicable act to paint a broad brush over anyone who leans left.

You started out the "Vandal" post by claiming that many on the left are insincere on their support of the troops... and because of this, "you were not surprised" that vandals desecrated a memorial to veterans...
Quote: "I've come to expect this from the left."

My outrage is over:
(1) the despicable act of the vandals
(2) pseudo-patriotic right wingers who use said despicable acts to incriminate anyone on the left who disagrees... which is what you did.

Posted by: jab at April 5, 2004 06:53 PM

I looked back over my comments in the three threads... two were respectful dissent...
only in the "Vandal" post did I insult you.
Was I wrong: yes... did I let my emotions get the best of me: yes...
So, I apologize. I should not have said you dishonored the service of your husband. That was over-the-top.

Posted by: jab at April 5, 2004 06:58 PM

Jab, I'm not sure how long you've been reading this blog, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now. But Sarah isn't using one despicable act to "paint a broad brush over anyone who leans left." As she says in the first line of her post ("I've said before..."), Sarah is pointing out one in a string of acts/incidents that leads her to believe that many on the Left use the platitude of "supporting our troops" to cover themselves when making outrageous statements. She is not seizing on a singular incident in order to give lefties a bad name, she is noting a trend among those on the left who use the "Support Our Troops claim."

But you might not notice that if you haven't been here for long, or if you haven't taken the time to do a little research into the blogger you're criticizing--research that would show you that Sarah is a thoughtful person who doesn't make such statements lightly or without backing up what she has to say.

Posted by: Carla at April 5, 2004 07:06 PM


You seem to be doing the same thing.
This is the gist of the "Vandal" thread
as well as your reply:
CLAIM: The Left is insincere in their
proclamations of "Support the Troops."
It is a cover for outrageous statements/behaviors.
PROOF: Vandals desecrated a war memorial.

I don't see how one could read this any other way. Sarah herself linked the people who say "Support our troops" with the "vandals"...
I was insulted... those vandals are despicable,
I myself have family in the military... but those vandals are no where near representative of those of us on the left who oppose Bush's policy towards Iraq. I resent even being lumped together in the same post with them.

It would be equivalent to me writing a post where I start off making some generalities of the right's opposition to abortion... saying that i thought they are insincere in their proclamations that really do care about women facing an unwanted pregnancy... then I segue into
an incident where some extremist wacko guns down an abortion doctor... I then say, that "I'm not surprised" and that "I've come to expect it from the Right."

Of course, those who have sincere heart-felt beliefs about the wrongness of abortion and the sanctity of life should be insulted and outraged that I made the casual link between an extremist wacko and people with honest disagreements over policy.

THAT is how I read her post. In my opinion, Sarah could have expressed her disgust, shock and outrage over the vandal incident without making the casual link to those on the left who say "support our troops"...

Posted by: jab at April 5, 2004 07:27 PM

Jab, you need to get out more.

There is a huge and very vocal part of the Left that acts exactly the way Sarah said.

If you don't act that way, and don't agree with them, that's good. You're part of the Sane Left. But the Moonbat Left is, if not larger, at least a lot more visible than the Sane Left.

It happens. It's not a rare and appalling incident as your example would be; it's a constant stream of events. From the Left. That we have come to expect because it keeps happening.

So target your resentment at the moonbats who are destroying the entire left wing of politics all over the world, not at Sarah.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at April 6, 2004 04:27 AM


Sorry, but no.
The vast, vast majority of us on the liberal end of the spectrum do not condone such dispicable acts. Last time I checked, Bush and Kerry are virtually tied... there may be at most a few percent who are extremists... they are grossly outnumbered, but because they are so outrageous, they make the news... and it certainly doesn't help with the right-wing echo chamber of Rush, Hannity, Savage, and the rest of that ilk, trumpeting every horrible act in an effort to specifically demonize the left... don't get me wrong, said despicable acts should be denouncec by all sides... but I'm getting pretty d*mn sick of how the right are using these events to tar the entire left and stifle dissent.

So, no... I will not back down on this...
I encourage more people to denounce such despicable acts, but I will vehemently, vigorously, unceasingly also denounce any attempt to paint the entire left by the actions of very tiny, but very vocal minority.

Posted by: jab at April 6, 2004 09:02 AM

d*mn sick of how the right are using these events to tar the entire left and stifle dissent

Sorry, what planet did you say you were from?

Who exactly is stifling dissent? Try leaving a dissenting comment on a right-leaning bulletin board and on a left-leaning one. See how long they stay there.

The left actively censors dissenting voices. The right argues with them. Big difference, jab.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at April 6, 2004 11:40 AM

"to tar the entire left"

"resent even being lumped together"

"paint a broad brush over anyone"

I see Jab has still refused to read what Sarah wrote. Those 3 quotes are the only ones in all these threads lumping everyone on the left together in the same box.

Sarah did not say at anytime ALL on the left, she said "many on the Left". Another quote, "A lot of people", now to me, that is not ALL people, that is a lot of people, meaning more than one, less than all.

Jab is trolling with strawmen. No where does he acknowledge that Sarah has never catagorized everyone on the left as being identical. Instead he gets his panties in a wad, rather than realizing that if he does not engage in the behavior that Sarah is denouncing, he is not one of the people she is talking about.

The only reason he would have to take offense is if he engaged in the type of behavior described.


Posted by: Blueshift at April 7, 2004 09:55 AM


"The only reason he would have to take offense is if he engaged in the type of behavior described."

I think that's going too far - and yet not far enough. Why? Because those who took offense need not be "engaged in the type of behavior described." Perhaps they *admire* those who are engaged, or wish they could *be* them.

Leftists who vandalize are a tiny minority in this country. Those who take offense at criticism of the vandals outnumber the vandals. Only a few "dare" to "dissent"; many more sympathize with them.

Posted by: Amritas at April 7, 2004 01:19 PM


Posted by: Blueshift at April 7, 2004 01:56 PM

casinos online
online casinos list
online casinos and bingo
blackjack online casinos
casinos in spanish
online gambling and fun
online casinos
online casinos inc.
online casino

eagle casino
casino publishing and advertising
online casinos
festive online casinos
online casinos deluxe
online gambling at casinos
online casino graphics
imagine online casinos
play casinos online
casino online
where online casinos
best casino solutions
online casino gambling
casinos online
online casino groups
online casinos
how to play online casinos
my online casinos
become online casino player

gambling online casinos
casino online gambling
how to gamble at the online casinos
online gambling
rules of online casino gambling
casinos and games

online casinos on your computer
top casino gambling
casinos, online casinos
gambling at the best online casinos
online casinos,
online gambling,

play casino online,
online casinos and games,
online craps and casinos,
casino poker,
online casino and slots,
online casino
, online casino
, online casino
, online
casino slots
, craps
, casinos
, casinos
gambling online
casinos craps,
free casino online,
new casino online,
free online casino games,
online casino directory,
play casino online,
more online casino games,
casino blackjack online,
casino craps online,
poker casinos online,
list of casinos,
free casinos online,
new online casino,
free casino online,
play casino free online,
free casino games,
new gambling online,
new casino games,
online new casinos,
online free casino,
online casino,
free online casinos,
online casinos online,
top gambling casinos,
new casino gambling games,
best casinos,
best casino,
gambling online casino,
gambling online casinos,
free casino
online gambling
new casinos,
best online casino,
find online casinos,
list of casinos online,
internet casino,
net casinos,

most online casinos,
casino on the net,
internet gambling casino,
net casinos,
online casinos on the net,

free online casinos net,
new casinos online,
best casino online,

casinos online top,
best online casino net,
blackjack casinos
, video poker
online casinos
, online

casinos online
online casinos
online casino games

Posted by: online casinos at May 30, 2005 05:08 PM