OT: "Propaganda"

[Charles Martin]

> From: Steven Rogers <srogers1 at austin.rr.com>
>> I disagree. It's a celebration of the diversity of opinion, and a
>> celebration of freedom of speech.
>
> If that were the purpose, a sig like "Hooray for freedom of speech!"
> would express it perfectly. The idea that posting your own personal
> take on today's hot political topics is a "celebration of freedom of
> speech" is a very arrogant rationalization.
>
No, it's not.

>>  I think that's something worth celebrating in every email, just as
>> many millions of people give thanks to their god at every meal.
>
> In their own home
>
And in public (restaurants, Disney World, outdoor concerts, schools, 
etc). Such people are everywhere. Not that there's anything wrong with 
that.

>> What's more, I think the sig lines help distinguish us as individuals
>> in the blank, faceless forum of email/news. I can't think of any other
>> reason why they are so popular.
>
> Its not necessary to post highly partisan comments on current events to
> distinguish yourself from the crowd. That's not the issue.
>
What "highly partisan comments"? My two most recent SIGS have been as 
follows:
"Have you noticed that this administration's harshest critics are ... 
lifelong Republicans?
Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neil, John McCain, Scott Ritter, Pat Buchanan, 
John Dean, John O'Neill, David Kay ... and the list goes on ..." and
"Read the PDB of August 6th, 2001 for yourself: 
http://www.cnn.com/2004/images/04/10/whitehouse.pdf and then tell me 
how the President could go on vacation for a month."

What part of these is partisan? The first is a perfectly true and 
factual statement, and you've reminded me that I need to add Bob 
Woodward to the list. The sig invites people to *draw their own 
conclusions* about this fact, it does not tell them what to think. But 
the fact that it is true is indisputable. Encouraging people to think 
for themselves, to challenge authority, is not only patriotic -- it's 
the very foundation of our democracy.

The second one is also patriotic in nature, encouraging people to read 
the actual August 6th Presidential Daily Briefing for themselves and 
*draw their own conclusions about it.* As an American, I find it highly 
disturbing that someone -- anyone, from any party -- could read that 
document (as you so obviously haven't) and then go on vacation for a 
month and apparently DO NOTHING ABOUT IT. This is a concern to anyone 
who counts themselves as a concerned citizen, and it has nothing to do 
with party. It has to do with competence and hypocrisy.

By claiming that such sentiments are "highly partisan," aren't you in 
fact saying that people should NOT learn the facts for themselves 
directly from the source? Aren't you saying that to care about whether 
or not the leaders we currently employ are deceitful or untrustworthy 
is *not* something we should be doing? That we should *not* question 
our Dear Leaders, or concerned about what looks to be a major scandal 
dealing with the very credibility of not just this administration, but 
this country in its leadership role in the world?

Sorry pal, but blind trust and limiting oneself to highly-biased "news" 
sources just doesn't jibe with being a good American. A patriotic voter 
is an INFORMED voter, and my "political" sigs have (in general) been 
aimed at encouraging people to EDUCATE themselves and form their OWN 
opinions, not tell them what to think. You want to keep your head 
buried firmly up ... er, in the sand ... that's your business, but in 
my world being an American means accepting a responsibility to be 
INFORMED and ALERT to threats both foreign *and domestic.*

>> Tell me, do you flag down cars on the highway with bumper stickers you
>> disagree with and tell them how much their car offends you?
>
> This is not a highway or a sidewalk or other public place.
>
It certainly is. The courts have said that email lists, Usenet and 
other such fora ARE public places. Again, your singular definition of 
things does not necessarily apply to reality.

> I suggest you think of this list as a meeting room with "Mac Newbies"
> on the door, the posts as discussion inside the room, and your (and any
> other) sigs on current political issues as an outburst in an otherwise
> orderly discussion.
>
I attend many such Mac gatherings, and you'll never guess what -- 
sometimes, we talk about OTHER THINGS BESIDES MACS! Shock! Horror!

Maybe if you got out more ... attended some MUG meetings or something 
...

> Your post shows exactly that kind of disregard for the list members'
> purpose in coming here, plus the amazing arrogance to think that we
> want or need to hear your take on today's hot political controversies.

I see. And your hijacking the list for days on end to rant (completely 
OT, I might add) about this despite invitations to take it off list is 
NOT "a disregard for the list members' purpose in coming here" and that 
your presuming to speak for "the list members" when in fact almost 
everyone who's posted on this subject has told you (politely) to take a 
hike isn't a display of "amazing arrogance." Oh-kay.

I have a simpler suggestion for you: if my sigs (ie, true statements 
which you are apparently unprepared to challenge or consider) offend 
you so, simply create a mail rule that deletes my posts unread. Your 
fragile fantasy world is spared, my rights are preserved, and the other 
members can do as they will without your "representation" on their 
behalf.

As they would have done without you anyway.

And that's my last word on the subject.

_Chas_

"There's nothing good about drug use. If people are violating the law 
by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted 
and they ought to be sent up." -- Rush Limbaugh