Give Up Blog - for scientists like these!


You hid my archives, didn't you Steve!


Maps and Figures

"Hitler or Coulter?" Quiz
Map1 - Teen Pregnancy
Map2 - Incarceration
Map3 - Homicide Rates
Map4 - Drop-out Rates
Map5 - Bankruptcy Rates
Map6 - Driving Distances
Map7 - Energy Use
Map8 - Gonorrhea!
Map9 - Tax Burden
Map10 - State GDP
Map11 - DHS funding
Map12 - Adult Illiteracy.
Map13 - Abortion Bans:
Map14 - ER Quality
Map15 - Hospital Quality
Map16 - Coal Burners
Map 17 - Infant Mortality
Map 18 - Toxic Waste
Map 19 - Obesity
Map 20 - Poverty
Map 21 - Occupational safety
Map 22 - Traffic deaths
Map 23 - Divorce
Figure 1 - Wages vs Right to work
Figure 2 - Unemployment vs Right to work
Give Up Shopping guide

Email



link to xml feed Subscribe with Bloglines

Google


www

giveupblog

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Screw Edwards
The more I think about it, the more I agree with PZ Myers on the whole firing Amanda debacle.

Screw Edwards. You know, we need Democrats who won't bend over for the likes of Bill Donohue, a known bigot, and his right wing fundamentalist organization the Catholic League. So a bunch of right-wing smear merchants go after one of Edwards' employees, distort her statements beyond all reason, and not only does he not stick up for her, he distances her, and then accepts her resignation like she did something wrong.

The only ones who did something wrong were Donohue and Edwards. Donohue for making mountains out of molehills and swift-boating poor Amanda (here is the "offensive" post), and Edwards for not standing up to the people he needs to oppose to if he wants to lead this country away from the advocates of a new dark age.

I'm with PZ. No more cowardly Democrats. No more appeasers. No more Chamberlains. We need a Democrat who isn't scared to death of offending the bigots on the right.

Edwards is a coward.

Labels: ,


6 Comments:

Jessica Smith said...

we need a Gelfling.

1:36 AM, February 14, 2007

 
Anonymous said...

People, there's no need for the cowardice litmus test. People are offering solutions.

And frankly, Rev. Dr, I'm surprised that you don't see an iota of similarity here.

For all your posturing about not to protest standing next to the idiot, you appear to think that it's OK to run for Presidential office while standing next to a similar type of idiot.

Oh, it's a totally different story when comparing bloggers to the protesters. See the protesters are uncivil, uncouth and unwashed, while bloggers are logical fiskers that probably attended a top private or public school. And blogs are where no enemies are ever made; in fact it's a tradition that everyone has tea and crumpets after the bruhaha. Donahue never got his invite to the tea and crumpet soire.

Call me an odd duck, but the screaming meemies that some bloggers project make the protesters look benign. Oh sure, a picture is worth a thousand words, but a good blog post; that's worth a bunch of pictures.

Once again, with the benefit of telling truth anonymously about telling the truth anonymously. :-)

Hmm. Ya think there's a lesson to be learned there?

4:33 PM, February 14, 2007

 
Rev. Dr. said...

I see what you're getting at but I don't think the situations are comparable.

For one I didn't say all protesters are uncivil uncouth and unwashed. I'm saying that the media is going to focus on the uncivil, uncouth and unwashed, and your message will be lost.

Second, this is more about being swiftboated, and standing up to bullies like Donohue. Yeah, she said some stuff that would probably offend some right wing fundamentalists, but those people aren't her audience at Pandagon. It's a little different with protests. In each case you have to think about the audience and what you're trying to say to them. When the audience is America at large, you should probably adopt a different tone than if you're running a feminism blog. I'm not suggesting every day of your life and every second of every day you should be thinking "what would the middle America think of this." That seems pretty extreme for most people's engagement in political activity.

I'm disappointed with Edwards because when he was attacked by the right wingers over something Amanda did in her private life, he threw her to the dogs, distanced himself from her, then ultimately took her resignation when she did nothing wrong. She didn't blog these things about the catholics from Edwards' blog, probably because she knew it was a different audience and you have to use different tactics to motivate them.

So, yes, I think you have to consider your audience when you're trying to convince people of the value of left wing causes. But protests are different from feminism blogs which are different from campaign blogs.

Finally Give Up blog is an entirely different beast. I'm not really out to convince anybody of anything really. Hence "Give Up". I'm more interested in pointing out the various ways that Republican policies screw over the people that vote for them. Our point is you don't have to actively change the minds of Republicans (because it doesn't really work), rather living under Republican administrations is the best way to end Republican ideology because it simply doesn't work. Granted it's less of a useful activity in the presence of this Democratic congress, so the utility of continuing this blog is currently under review.

4:50 PM, February 14, 2007

 
Anonymous said...

We probably should start from the bottom:

Granted it's less of a useful activity in the presence of this Democratic congress, so the utility of continuing this blog is currently under review.

I tend to agree with Dennis Perrin, that the Democrats are only marginally better than the REpublicans. What with the cowardice displayed by Edwards, there ought to be fodder for keeping the blog going.

I mean, look at this: I'm more interested in pointing out the various ways that Republican policies screw over the people that vote for them. which I suppose implies that Democrats are different. Hello, NAFTA?

I'm saying that the media is going to focus on the uncivil, uncouth and unwashed, and your message will be lost.

And the media focused on the blogger and the message may have been lost.

Yeah, she said some stuff that would probably offend some right wing fundamentalists, but those people aren't her audience at Pandagon.

Here's the thing. Right wing, left wing -- if you're in an echo chamber, talking trash and getting assent and have your ego stoked, but fail to realize you're in an echo chamber, you're really off the rails. The fact that many bloggers think that their private message to their peezos shouldn't be made an issue over in the general discourse, is realy, really immature. It's not like they're behind a firewall or paywall. You know public blogs are public. These people are not being elitist shits in private, but strive to be public. In fact their MO appears to be, "lets be as egregious as possible, as insulting as possible, because that will totally destroy the opposition". Uhm, no it won't. Also the whole strategy of let's ridicule their ignorance/intolerance and that brave act of "a ceaseless regimen of ridicule will shift the general public to our point of view because we point out the stupidity of conservatives". Uhm, no it won't. People don't act rationally 100% of the time despite game theory view of rational agents.

I'm disappointed with Edwards because when he was attacked by the right wingers over something Amanda did in her private life, he threw her to the dogs, distanced himself from her, then ultimately took her resignation when she did nothing wrong.

WTF? Her blogging was private? Oh, you mean relative to Edwards, right?

Quite frankly, he went up in estimation in my view. As the POTUS, he'd need to jettison people routinely. Loyalty? Look at Bush's loyalty to his incompetent cronies. Is that something admirable? Rationality vs. emotionality would dictate that advisers close to Edwards would have pulled her over to the side and said, "Hey, listen -- the noise on you is overshadowing the campaign. Should this be about you?"

But protests are different from feminism blogs which are different from campaign blogs.

These are all fundamentally political functions and all striving for a similar goal; social change and/or policy change.

At the bottom of all this is a pretty simple question: Can a blogger be mainstreamed given that they act -- well, juvenile. My view is that's very hard because Google is a harsh mistress. One day she'll blow you, the next, jam a stick up your ass.

With regards to your comment on swiftboating and it's effectiveness, that is more of a function of media consolidation which BTW the Democrats have failed to address as well. Swiftboating works because media can get saturated, because reporters are corporate shills and beholden to the corporation, and because small, independent papers and independent reporting/verification have been decimated.

2:40 PM, February 15, 2007

 
Rev. Dr. said...

How much you want to be anonymous here is a Naderite?

NAFTA wasn't the end of the world, and you're ignoring degree. Yeah, Democrats have done stupid crap, but they don't have the same track record of unremitting hostility to the poor and middle class that the Republicans have evinced. The Bankruptcy bill? No Child Left Behind? Name anything in the last 6 years that hasn't been an outright rape of this country for the benefit of the rich.

This stupid "Republicans and Democrats are the same" meme should have died 6 years ago, and maintaining it must be evidence of some kind of mental illness.

Where have you been for the last 6 years (or 12 really)? Republicans != Democrats. Democrats are not perfect, but the difference is between being screwed with a flagpole, vs being screwed with a spaghetti noodle. I'll take the spaghetti noodle every time.

12:32 PM, February 16, 2007

 
Anonymous said...

NAFTA wasn't the end of the world, and you're ignoring degree.

NAFTA was pretty bad shit for a lot of the working class. Probably the well educated have fared well enough through protectionism and professional associations that influence legislation, but not everyone's circumstance is such that education or membership in a professional group is a given.

I saw enough over the last 12 years to know that occasionally Perot and Lou Dobbs are right too. To a degree.

You're saying that Republicans != Democrats, but I think you're looking at the politicians only -- as if they exist without the constituency, a lot of which shifts fluidly. The war was supported by 87% at the beginning and now is opposed by 64%. I'm assuming that we're not counting 151% of Americans here, but there appears to be net gains in the Democrat ranks.

Republicans = Americans. Democrats = Americans. Apparently many are both and the contradictions inherent in != duality may be causing their heads to explode.

However, if you're not so subtly implying that there's some mental illness going on with this:

This stupid "Republicans and Democrats are the same" meme should have died 6 years ago, and maintaining it must be evidence of some kind of mental illness.

There may be mental illness, but it ain't me in this case. How do I know? Because I NEVER liked Lieberman -- not even when the Democrats wanted him to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency. Democrats != Republicans? What the fuck is Lieberman, the 2000 candidate for VP? That's a Democrat=Republican bud, and that disproves your equation. :-)

5:10 PM, February 16, 2007

 

Post a Comment

<< Home