Comments Posted By Joel Gillespie
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 35 Comments
As a conservative I would like very much to see a more conservative administration than the current one, therefore it worries me that Sarah Palin may (and we're not sure) be positioning herself for 2012. If in fact this is what she is doing, then I think that resigning now was in the best interest of the Republican party in Alaska, just as she said, and the timing makes sense. I personally like Sarah Palin, but I think her negatives are too strong and she will more likely energize the Democratic base! Since I want to see conservatives do better in 2010 and 2012 this concerns me. I hope there will not be bad news about some scandal - nobody needs that.
Comment Posted By Joel Gillespie On 04.07.2009 @ 18:13
Thank you. I may head downtown in a bit, if I can get up for being hot the rest of the day! She only energizes part of the "base" and in so doing alienates the majority of the electorate. I like her, she is gutsy, but she is way too whiny. I can't believe that she really thinks she has a chance, so I think something else is up. I guess we'll see.
Comment Posted By Joel Gillespie On 04.07.2009 @ 09:31
I may be one of the few around who does not dislike Sarah Palin, but...she has no chance of winning a nomination, and if by some miracle she did, it would guarantee a sweeping Obama reelection. Certainly she knows this. I agree that an ax is getting ready to fall. So, since I AM expecting an investigation, can I still have a nice 4th?
Comment Posted By Joel Gillespie On 04.07.2009 @ 08:47
Sue,
Of course I don't think stealing the sign is appropriate, but to tell you the truth, I din't know about that until just now. I had seen the story several places, maybe before the thing was stolen I don't know, but I missed that detail. Putting up the sign was mean spirited at best; stealing it was childish and stupid - oh, and illegal too.
Darkmoon, I really don't care either way about one religion or philosophy appropriating symbols from another, and given new or different meaning to them. Christianity did this in many ways from the beginning in the symbol of the cross. So, unlike some of my more purist brethren I am fine with Christmas trees and such, and there is an historic basis for St. Nicholas. What disgusts me is the orgy fest of shopping and spending money. Add to that the incredible Madison Avenue push to exploit the holiday and whatever meaning "advent" may have had in the liturgical year is just smothered.
Joel
Comment Posted By Joel Gillespie On 07.12.2008 @ 20:48
Sue,
Having already expressed my views about Christmas vs. Winter's Solstice and such (hello....we live in a secular nation...), and weary of all the wrangling about this on the Christian side, I have to say that I think that that sign was in fact inappropriate. There is no fundamental right anyone has to place physical objects - crosses, nativity scenes, menorah's, etc. in public places like a capital or legislative building. If such access is allowed, as in this case for a limited time and having to do with the official holidays, then the officials can decide the general nature of the kind of speech that is appropriate. In this case I think it is appropriate for people of different faiths (or lack thereof) to put up symbols of their views, in keeping with the holiday spirit. What these folks put up was a written criticism of what the other folks were putting up. It wasn't symbolic, and it was an attack. Do we want Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindu's, Atheists, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Animist, and every other religion we can think of putting up written critiques? I don't think that is the purpose of these short window holiday exhibits. I would rather they not allow anyone to do anything than that.
I don't think this is a sense of humor issue. Nothing about that sign was funny. It wasn't intended to be funny. Anyway, that's how I see it.
Joel
Comment Posted By Joel Gillespie On 05.12.2008 @ 19:20
Sandy, I have no memory of it being a wonderful medium. Guess that was before my time. But you were always perfectly upstanding and polite.
I alluded to a dialogue in NCFOM. Here it is. I think the pertinent part is clear:
Roscoe: If you'd a told me twenty years ago I'd see children walkin the streets of our Texas towns with green hair and bones in their noses I just flat out wouldn't of believed you.
Bell: Signs and wonders. But I think once you stop hearin' sir and madam the rest is soon to follow.
Roscoe: It's the tide. It's the dismal tide.
It is not the one thing.Bell: Not the one thing. I used to think I
could at least some way put things right.
I don't feel that way no more.Janet - Yes, the key is taking responsibility. On occasion I have gone back channel to people, really decent people who weren't jerks everywhere, to say, hey my friend, this blogging thing isn't working out for you. You're just pissing everybody off and not making your points very well." Then I think it's what they do with that - kind of like the drunk. Some folks have back channeled me before too, no names of course :-)
Comment Posted By Joel Gillespie On 04.03.2008 @ 10:54
Sue, yes, it's cowardly bluster, and, yes, it is your right. JW, where I may differ is that I believe the medium really does draw out a part of our nature that is unpleasant. Many of the normal constraints that keep people from being mean or rude or unpleasant in regular face to face interaction are not there to check us. Some people, when their emotions get up, or when they get mentally stimulated, start typing, and there is a kind of rush that comes in the put down, the verbal counter punch, etc. They type, they hit send. No pain, no seeming consequence. I think we're all vulnerable to it, and some more than others. Because I have known other wise very nice people be total asses in this medium I must beg to differ with your point JW, most respectfully of course, and I may be wrong.
In the end, it's just a matter of minding our manners, not trying to "win,", not trying to stick it to anybody whether in a subtle nuanced way or otherwise. It's hard sometimes, and we all fail sometimes, as I did recently with the SE High matter (I was really peeved) but good old fashioned manners should be the rule in blogging as elsewhere. I think Tommy Lee Jone's character pretty much had it right in NCFOM :-)
Comment Posted By Joel Gillespie On 03.03.2008 @ 20:35
True, and it's not right to tolerate the outright mean spirited stuff (not politically defined but defined by ordinary everyday standards) and downright disrespect while we wait to figure out how to define the nuanced meanness. I still find it amazing the way otherwise nice and decent people can be so reckless and awful in this medium who would really not be that way face to face.
Comment Posted By Joel Gillespie On 02.03.2008 @ 22:44
Ever since online "chats" and discussion boards came to be I have noticed that people much nastier in writing than they would be in person. It makes sense really. I think a certain minimum standard, hopefully evenly applied, is appropriate. In fact, I think more people would participate in dialogue if there were more civility generally. But civility means more than abstaining from profanity and obvious mean spirited words or hyper sarcasm. There are "kind" ways of being meaner than spit. Folks know it when they see it but can't "prove" it; and it is deniable. That is where hypocrisy enters into the conversation. Smugness and condescension can be worse than a thousand curse words. So, it can be a tricky business defining or determining what kind of behavior has crossed the line.
Comment Posted By Joel Gillespie On 02.03.2008 @ 20:07
Sue,
Of course he should have owned up and apologized. But using course language even on the floor of the senate even for a a vice president is nothing compared to the tee shirt thing you pointed out. being a potty mouth and not adequately apologizing "for the children's sake" is less of a problem than the other, in my opinion, though I'd rather have neither. The tee shirt matter really bothers me.
Comment Posted By Joel Gillespie On 26.02.2008 @ 20:38
|
|
|
|
|
|