I was alerted by a reader that my name was once again contained in a post at the self-proclaimed "purple" blog so I wandered over there and checked it out. What I read was another screed in a series of screeds by the former Union editor about what he considers the state of our county demographics and the Union's policies regarding opinions.
It is clear to me after many posts by the 'purple' fellow that he is a demagogue and censorship of opinions he doesn't like are his game. He attacked the Union relentlessly when he left their employ and was a constant complainer of the Jeff Ackerman reign as publisher. Of course we all knew it was "sour grapes". Why did the 'purple" fellow leave? Was he given his walking papers by Ackerman? Did he leave of his own choosing? Was his tenure at the paper short because he did not fit into the community? Maybe he just didn't have the personality to get along with others?
Who the heck knows? But one thing is clear to the community, he is holding a grudge about his unemployment and the community is viewing him as a non-important part of the discourse because of his apparent grudge. If you are not at the Union because of cause, then tell us all so we can better understand your anger. Maybe we would give you a break when discussing the gossip. But alas, "Mr. Purple" has not given the community his side of his departure so the gossip rages on.
Now once again he tells us all on his blog (I get more hits and comments on mine it appears) the Union is making a mistake by allowing those wascally conservatives to post a Opinion that they just are not reflecting the political and demographic makeup of Nevada County. Huh? His attack on the right, and usually it is on George Rebane and Russ Steele and moi, are specious and unAmerican. We have yet to ever write a similar story about him or his five or six commenter's. We have yet to say anything similar about the leftwing nut Ron Lowe's constant screeds against us and conservatives posted in the Union. We on the right are not afraid of "speech". We say more speech is our goal, whether left or right.
Mr. "purple" says the Union should not allow Rebane and other like minded people to post opinions in the paper. He cites the breakout of voters in the First Supervisorial District as a reason the Union should boot Rebane. Yet he never ever says the same thing about a democrat, a leftwingnut or an independent leaning lefty yet he claims to be a "middle of the road" personality. A total crock of course. The proof is there in every post criticizing the right. The purple fellow is a liberal and for some reason he is embarrassed to admit it.
So it appears the grudge goes on with the Union and its owners Swift and even departed publisher Jeff Ackerman. I recommend he seek some counseling about his grudge and his bitterness because he has made his opinions about the community he moved to irrelevant. The seething inside about his departure from the Union needs to be resolved and fixed so his opinions can be viewed with a bit of credibility. But maybe he is unable to to come to grips with his problems so we will get to read forever more his bitter screeds about his own county and its newspaper. Too bad.
Mr. Crabb showed us a long time ago, and nailed his sorry hide to the wall with his " South Park" sketch. That one is priceless, and OH so true.
ReplyDeleteI think that we, as a People, should err on the side of more speech as opposed to less. The Union has a bunch of "columnists" - Amy Goodman, Byron York, Rebane, and others. To say that the community should not give others a forum to air their opinions is a slippery slope to censorship.
ReplyDeleteBefore Ackerman moved to Roseburg, I had a conversation about concerned citizens calling him to demand that he not publish certain opinions. First of all, the vast majority of phone calls requesting to restrictions were from liberals. Second, who defines what opinion is appropriate? Defining the speech is a form of censoring it.
I often do not agree with opinions in The Union. As opposed to demanding that such speech not be published, I will fight until my dying breath to guarantee that (whether I agree with them or not) people are free to say it.
Our political system cannot function any other way...but likely that is the liberal goal of restricting speech.
Barry, you nailed it. I recall just a few months ago when Mr. Purple and his leftwingnut minions were trying to get Limbaugh shut down. Limbaugh said a few things they did not like, (even I did not like the word "slut" even though some say he was being accurate) and they did their darndest to achieve liberal censorship. I actually experienced this kind of crap myself years ago. Anyway, don't hold you breathe the purple fellow and his ilk will ever tell us time after time how dopey Ron Lowe's lying columns are. We want speech to counter speech, purple and his pals want us silence so they have hegemony over the people.
DeleteHegemony...good word. Rules for Radicals.
ReplyDelete* RULE 5: "Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon."
Rule #5 is the rule at play here in the faux outrage against The Union.
If one examines premodernist cultural theory, one is faced with a choice: either reject capitalist deappropriation or conclude that reality is capable of truth. A number of theories concerning capitalist discourse may be revealed. In a sense, Lacan’s critique of capitalist deappropriation suggests that discourse comes from the masses.
ReplyDelete“Society is intrinsically used in the service of class divisions,” says Baudrillard. The main theme of Brophy’s[3] essay on modernism is a self-justifying totality. Thus, several narratives concerning not, in fact, desublimation, but subdesublimation exist.
Derrida uses the term ‘neosemantic theory’ to denote the bridge between class and sexual identity. Therefore, d’Erlette[4] states that we have to choose between modernism and Lyotardist narrative.
The subject is interpolated into a premodernist cultural theory that includes truth as a paradox. In a sense, the precapitalist paradigm of expression implies that sexuality may be used to marginalize minorities, given that Sartre’s critique of modernism is invalid.
Well, I finally lost my cool - see my FUE post on RR. Thanks for the supportive perspective Todd.
ReplyDeleteNo problem George. I have been dealing with those loudmouthed liberals for thirty five years.
ReplyDelete