XARK 3.0

  • Xark began as a group blog in June 2005 but continues today as founder Dan Conover's primary blog-home. Posts by longtime Xark authors Janet Edens and John Sloop may also appear alongside Dan's here from time to time, depending on whatever.

Xark media


  • ALIENS! SEX! MORE ALIENS! AND DUBYA, TOO! Handcrafted, xarky science fiction, lovingly typeset for your home printer!

  • XARK TV

  • XARKAGANDA

  • XARKTOONS
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2005

Statcounter has my back

« This week's contest voting... | Main | Testing Google Maps feature »

Tuesday, July 03, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5d3453ef00e008d15cbf8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Mellowing back to sanity:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Agricola

"What makes me feel optimistic is the hope that modern conservative politics, which crossed the line from zeal into zealotry after 9/11, may be moderating its way back into relevancy. Perhaps we are turning the corner on a dangerous time in our nation's history, an era that reached its nadir in the period between November 2004-06."

What will make me feel optimistic is when modern liberal politics, which crossed the line from zeal into zealotry after 1/20/2001, will begin moderating its way back into relevancy.

"In the end, it wasn't liberal argument that caused American conservatives to begin changing their tone. It was observation. They observed their leaders describing one reality while their own eyes witnessed something very different. This process was slowed by conservatives' broad belief in systemic liberal media bias, a belief that invalidated much of the critical information the public received from 2001-2005, but eventually the weight of incoming data simply overwhelmed the Republicans' ability to deny it."

Read: 12,000 voters.

"The first step in taking our country back was to stand firm against the abuse of law, and we did that successfully in November."

Huh?

Look, I'm all for turning down the rhetoric and engaging in serious bi-partisan discussion to solve our ever larger woes. But to blame the current situation on a bunch of right-wing wackos, out to subvert the Constitution in order to lock up "progressives", is not a good start to the healing process. There is plenty of blame to go around over, say, the last 20 years, and if the excesses of the last 8 years do result in a new middle ground, I will take comfort in the fact only if the middle is a little farther right than it was in 1999.

Tim

Mystery in the Heartland

So it turned to a domestic substitute by demonizing the latte-drinking, Volvo-driving, school-bussing, fetus-killing, tree-hugging, gun-fearing, morally relativist and secularly humanist so-called liberal elitists, whose elders had been "soft on communism" while they themselves coddle criminals, women, and same sexers, eat brie, drink chardonnay, support Darwin, and oppose capital punishment in defiance of the "moral values" of ordinary, god-fearing, flag-waving, assault gun–carrying Americans.
It seems that as a person ages, you get to watch the generational pendulum swings in the culture war. If only for the good ol' days when the Left could successfully "Goering" the Right as: beer-drinking, SUV-driving, home-schooling, misogynistic, planet-killing, gun-loving, bible-thumping and puritanistic so-called fascist overseers, whose elders had been "Nazi collaborators" while they themselves oppress criminals, women, and same sexers, eat meat, drink tap water, oppose Darwin, and secretly wish they could be the ones pulling the capital punishment switch.

Oh wait, were those days ever really over?

Peter Levine: the wrong kind of liberalism

Janet Edens

Here's the thing I never get about these discussions and why I decline to participate so often: Conservatives do not equal "right-wing whackos" and liberals do not equal anything-goes socialists.

Why are we so intent these days to force a black-and-white definition?

I don't debate with the same grasp of language that many do. I don't claim to have the depth and experience in idealogy that some seem to have. Maybe I'm just a slightly above average American voter. Frankly, I don't know what it means to be "conservative" or "liberal" anymore. Does anyone remember the days when you could be a fiscal conservative and a social liberal? How about when "Conservative" meant pro-privacy and anti-government?

How can you possibly extrapolate from an opinion on one subject someone's entire philosophy of life and politics? But it's done all the time. On blogs and TV and radio and everywhere else. If you are this, then you must be that. If you oppose abortion, you must think women shouldn't even be voting. If you have doubts about the war, you must want to dismantle the CIA.

If you don't pick one side and stick to it without blinking, you'd better be prepared to defend your right to even participate in the conversation. No matter which side you choose.

That is screwed up, which ever side started it, however long ago.

Agricola

Janet,

We don't agree on much, and maybe I don't understand what you said, but I agree with what I think it means.

Tim

Dan: "From the fall of the World Trade Center to the mid-term elections of 2006, Republicans controlled all three branches of government."

You realize, Dan, that this statement is false? It's false on its face because the Democrats primarily controlled the Senate from January 3, 2001 to January 3, 2003.

I also consider it false because it politicizes the Supreme Court, unless you truly believe the Supreme Court is run by one or the other political parties.

To Share and Share Alike
Clinton and the Democrats
Democrats settle into power in the Senate

Tim

The Xark ideal & Scoble's No. 3

Xark was born out of the idea that by embracing many interests we could build a community of readers and writers and participants that was more interesting than a self-selecting, narrowly focused, special interest blog.
'Xark!' The FAQ
Xark! seeks to create a safe place in which people of divergent backgrounds and gifts may creatively discuss -- sometimes seriously, sometimes playfully -- whatever issues and ideas happen to engage their curiosity. It hopes to expand beyond the typical rhetoric of blogs, not by creating one new style, but by opening the discussions to many styles, many mediums ... and many topics. Instead of mimicking a high-pressure, formalized debate forum, Xark! is more like an extended, rambling house party.
The Xarker Manifesto
On victimization

1. The worst thing that liberalism ever did for American culture was to elevate the status of "victim" to a level at which it has become almost universally coveted. This occurred when we allowed victimization to be interpreted as a free pass for unlimited self-righteousness and wretchedly bad behavior.
So, Dan was so victimized by the Bush administration, Fox News Channel and Cal Thomas that "it made me want to fight back with every tool at my disposal."

Daniel

Tim,

I don't really know how to respond to you on this, because I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

Tim

Dan, I've left 4 comments on this thread and sent you an email.

What would you like me to clarify?

The comments to this entry are closed.