Blogosphere Rears its Ugly Head
I am fairly disgusted with blogs right now. In less than a week after hurricane Katrina, we have seen:
Hysterical liberals trying to blame Bush for a natural disaster. This is followed with a shameless plug for their political agenda.
Smug conservatives who gleefully point out other nations and/or celebrities who haven't offered help. Mostly they were just too busy patting themselves on the back to notice.
Charges that the delays in rescue efforts are somehow racially and/or politically motivated.
In particular I have seen a lot of righteous "Oh this is what happens to poor people in America" posts. Actually, this extreme rhetoric is what happens when you give Joe Public a pseudonym and a website. I doubt I will post for awhile; this is just madness.
Hysterical liberals trying to blame Bush for a natural disaster. This is followed with a shameless plug for their political agenda.
Smug conservatives who gleefully point out other nations and/or celebrities who haven't offered help. Mostly they were just too busy patting themselves on the back to notice.
Charges that the delays in rescue efforts are somehow racially and/or politically motivated.
In particular I have seen a lot of righteous "Oh this is what happens to poor people in America" posts. Actually, this extreme rhetoric is what happens when you give Joe Public a pseudonym and a website. I doubt I will post for awhile; this is just madness.
posted by Roy at 14:56
6 Comments:
Well, had you not noticed the sheer pointlessness of the blogosphere before this event?
And sure, why not use pointless as a synonym for ugly, because aren't they really the same thing?
But it seems you have noticed that. The title of your post seems to imply that you've known all along that blogs have ugly heads but they've only recently reared them? I am not sure.
Blogs will not and cannot change our media. They will not and cannot change our democracy. All they do is push more of the shit that is lurking under the surface to the surface. And there's a lot of shit under the surface.
So the liberal half of our office wrote a post similar to the ones that you assail as self-righteous. "This is what happens to poor people in America."
They would first like to point out that they are righteous and that even though that, rather obscure fact, does not directly refute your argument in any way, shape or form, they would like to make it anyway. Apparently they think it's funny, but you and I know they are sadly mistaken.
Even though I disagree with the libs in this office on a regular basis there is some truth to what they wrote. But you address the weakness of the "some truth" or "raises" issue arguments in one of your previous posts and comments.
I cannot deny the fact that most of the people left in New Orleans are of the low income persuasion. I don't believe that this has anything to do with the pace of the rescue effort. I do think it has something to do with the fact that they did not leave on time. Why did they not leave soon enough?
Maybe they are stupid as that is certainly correlated with being poor.
Maybe the poor have stronger emotional attachments to their things because they have fewer things.
But obviously these people haven't worked hard or saved any money their entire lives so why would they work hard and try to save themselves before the flood?
And now this annoys my liberal friends to no end and they say that personal anecdotes have no place in an arguments (and they would be correct, but this entire essay is so chalked full of bad prose and muddled logic that I have to ask, does it really matter? I mean, will anyone even make it through this entire comment? Chances are a few people have already decided this is just too long, boring and uninsightful. They probably stopped reading along time ago after maybe the fifth mispelled word or the seventh cliche. And so why do I continue to write when I feel I have no particular insight on the topic? Do I wish to waste your time? Do I hope that maybe, possibly insight will develop as I compose? My god, I've rambled! Now people are certainly bound to stop reading. But this might be a good thing. Give me a change to write down what I really think without fear of being called stupid or useless. Because smart people don't like emotional arguments, hell I certainly don't like emotional arguments. They are so dirty.). But, I know people who grew up poor with shitty parents. These underpriveleged children have become sucessful adults. And what do they all have in common, they worked and work hard. If they didn't have the money to get out of New Orleans they would have found a way. Hell, they made it through Harvard, didn't they?
Ah, but I am just advancing my agenda and this is what you hate.
Rhetoric:...lacking sincerity or meaningful content. Well, I've certainly been sincere but probably not meaningful.
-marcus
Marcus, get a grip.
I apologize. Things are a little out of control at my office and I'm a bit stressed out. Have a great weekend.
No problem, I took the liberty of Gizoogling your comment. Hilarity ensued.
There's a long, thoughtful discussion about good and evil. No one usefully misconstrues natural evil as moral evil exercised at the hands of an agent. What is clearly moral evil is placing an incompetent, inexperienced crony in a position he ought not hold. It is mainly bad luck that events tested the effort in ways that made the error so painful and so painfully obvious. It is also clearly morally offensive, evil, to accept being put in a position that you know is beyond you.
Roy,
There was interesting piece in this week's Village Voice:
http://www.villagevoice.com/screens/0537,dibbell,67643,28.html
Post a Comment
<< Home