What's Really Important Chutzpah Indeed!
I have for some time now in this blog, restrained myself from responding to the writings of a fellow Post blogger, Jim Herndon, author of a blog entitled, “Just One Guy’s Opinion on the Political Scene.” I've thought many times about addressing statements that seem bitter and resentful to me, but decided to leave him alone. Present day politics has created some bitterness and resentment in people on all sides of the political spectrum, including myself, so I left it alone. My own attitude is one reason I do try to reach out from time to time with a plea for the opposite sides to focus on our real foes, which are not ourselves. I was attacked once by Mr. H in his blog and chose not to write about it. Another time I wrote him an email about a blog, and then sent a second email apologizing for the first one. I figured that would be the end of it. I was wrong.
Yesterday I checked out his blog, as I periodically do, only to discover I’d been attacked a second time, and just that very morning. The first attack had been for stating my own opinions in public, and often. This time I was accused of having “chutzpah” (shameless audacity, impudence) for what he considered injecting partisanship in to a letter to the Paradise Post in which I made a plea for less partisanship, and more accountability for political leadership on both sides of the aisle. He and a few others don’t quite understand that criticizing the government is not necessarily related to partisanship, it can be simply criticism of government, period! I’ll go into that in a bit.
I had to think again about responding, and even longer about whether to post what I had written, wanting to leave it alone. But after thinking over his long line of blogs in which he quite vehemently attacks most anyone thinking differently than he does, I decided to respond.
Mr. H doesn’t seem to want to mention me by name, but it’s quite obvious who he is talking about, considering his reference to a recent letter I wrote for the Post by the title the editor assigned to it. I, on the other hand, will mention him by name; this is, after all, a political blog, and agreeing or disagreeing with the specific opinions of particular people is one of its purposes. Besides, it's rather obvious who is speaking to whom.
It’s time to pen an answer to this person who just doesn’t seem to get the fact that he chronically and habitually demonstrates every bad attribute he so brutally attacks in those he finds fault with, and ad nauseam, a term he uses concerning the communications of others. He appears to believe it’s okay when he rants on incessantly, but takes great umbrage when anyone else in any way mirrors his own behavior, basically having strong opinions, stating them often, and believing others might be wrong about something.
Normally I wouldn’t bother answering him in a blog; it would be simpler and less invasive to comment on his site, but guess what? He doesn’t accept comments on his blog. Why? One can only surmise he doesn’t want anyone to challenge his opinions because quite frankly __________ (fill in the blank)!
Bearing this in mind I thought it was quite telling when on September 14, 2007 he posted a blog, entitled “Lefty Teachers,” stating:
"Extreme lefties cannot bear others having opposing views and have to proselytize wherever possible; that is why so many join the teaching and journalism professions. We have a local left-winger whose name appears repeatedly on letters to the editor, the 49er column, and even a full-time blog. He is a crusader who is incapable of accepting that others may have different opinions - much less that he could be wrong. He, therefore, feels obliged to respond to every opposing letter and correct the writers – meaning convert them to his way of thinking. He is like a political Jehovah’s Witness on speed."
How ironic that a person accusing me (the “local left-winger”), or anyone else, of not being able to bear opposing views, doesn’t even accept comments on his own site. Hmmm!
And I’d imagine Mr. H has never considered the possibility that so many “lefties” might be teachers and journalists because they are smart and educated, not because of some preordained political leanings.
As for the rest, you really need to read his own almost daily hyper-opinionated and extremely politically biased views in order to fully appreciate the hypocrisy in his quote, and denial of same. Readers can readily view our differences by simply reading samplings from both our blogs.
It’s rather interesting that a man who every week incessantly generalizes people into groups, and attacks "lefties," and " libs," and, "DemPols” (whatever that implies, but which is surely meant to be derogatory), and sometimes other writers, has the audacity (chutzpah?) to criticize anyone else for also communicating their own views and opinions in public.
There is one thing I have noticed, most especially from the extreme right wing political fringe (sorry, that’s where I see it the most). It appears they interpret any criticism of the present Administration, or this government in general, as political bias and partisanship. Do they really not understand that does not necessarily compute? Not every criticism of the government automatically denotes partisanship. Sometimes people just don’t agree with what is happening. It is quite common lately to hear Republicans criticizing this Administration, the government, their party, and its leadership. Are they being partisan?
Mr. H’s November 18 blog entitled, “Liberals Have Chutzpah,” accuses me of saturating my "column," actually a letter, “with heavily partisan opinions.” In fact, those opinions were basically criticisms of a government that is now being strongly and consistently attacked by Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and Independents alike. The right to criticize the government is guaranteed by the First Amendment, and was never meant to insinuate doing so was partisan, unpatriotic, or treasonous.
It is my “personal” observation that many on the far right tend to deny this. They love to use labels to bash anyone that is “not them;” perhaps because that makes it so much easier to put a face on their real enemy, anyone and everyone who disagrees with them. They never see themselves as displaying partisanship; it’s always “others.”
Will Mr. H, having accused me of feeling “obliged to respond to every opposing letter and correct the writers,” characterize this response to his second attack in the same way? I would remind him, people “living in glass houses should not throw stones,” and I assume he can take as good as he gives.
Mr. H is obviously not interested in interactivity, dialogue, or discussion. He just wants to be able to say his piece and not be bothered. I would remind him I’m writing this in a forum where he will have the right and the ability to respond in kind, and on this very site. In fact, I strongly encourage it.
To openly criticize others, consistently and unmercifully, week after week, and give them no recourse for responding, is how I would define Chutzpah.
Footnote: I had decided to unpublish this blog and allow Mr. H to go his own way; I didn't need to get into a debate with an unarmed man. Fortunately, or unfortunately, I just happen to look at his latest blog, "Losing the Fight?" in which he calls a bright, honest and dutiful United States Congressman, Dennis Kucinich, "The little mutant Congressman." I thought that was rather demeaning, so immediately republished this blog, and the gloves are off. It's time someone responded to Mr. H's nasty weekly little diatribes. A man with that little respect for another human being who is actually serving this country with something as novel and refreshing as honesty and integrity (and hasn't done anything to decimate the nation as others have) deserves everything he gets!
Comments
I believe the quote is to enter into a "battle of wits with an unarmed man".
Buen provecho!
Posted by: beanie | November 20, 2007 09:16 AM
I thought this post was very well written, Stephen; accurate and to the point.
As you know, I had an encounter with Mr. H. about a year ago. I challenged some outrageous statements he had made, in an unsuccessful attempt to post a comment. Subsequently, I did make contact with him through email, and later, even had a comment posted in response to one of his posts. I'm sure the only reason that happened was that he misunderstood my premise.
I decided, sometime after last year's elections, to completely ignore him, because I was convinced he's a small minded bigot, who's just out to get some recognition. I was hoping to debate him, to have an exchange of ideas, but it was clear that he's both unwilling and incapable of escaping the rut he lives in. None of us has shown a complete understanding of universal truth, nor has anyone stood up that can unite the polarized segments of our population, but that's no excuse for not trying. Nor is it an excuse for the vitriol that issues forth from this man. Mr. Herndon has shown himself to be a small-minded, hateful person, and from this day forth, I will refer to him as Missy, for the miscreant he is.
I still have no intention of reading Missy's posts, however. Why bother? If you see something that's worth a laugh, let me know, Stephen. I'll let you be my eyes.
Posted by: dougt | November 20, 2007 12:16 PM
Doug, I'm pretty sure that one comment got posted on the site, as did one of mine, because the blog site was having some problems at that time, and someone from the newspaper posted the comments, and not the bloggers. You will remember that the option to comment on Mr. H's site disappeared soon thereafter.
It's a shame one cannot comment on what another person states publically, but it tells us much about the person doing the talking. And as I stated, I wouldn't have even entered into this fray if it hadn't been for being attacked a second time, and then seeing such a mean spirited comment thrown at a person because (I'm assuming) how he looks, coupled with his eccentricity (the ability to speak his mind).
Posted by: Stephen | November 20, 2007 05:52 PM
I agree with Doug. Mr. Herndon has shown himself to be a small-minded man who projects his own partisan behavior onto others, whether they deserve it or not. His posts are a constant litany of uninformed right-wing talking points that appear to be gleaned from the grimiest dregs of the whackosphere. Anyhow, a person who criticizes and attacks others on a blog that allows no comment reeks of pure cowardice. Or narcissim. Or both.
Posted by: Renee G | November 20, 2007 07:13 PM
Renee, I'd be much more understanding of all his criticisms of Democrats if I could find ANY criticisms of Republicans ANYWHERE on his blogs. I looked through a bunch and found NONE.
It's one thing to be biased and strongly partisan, but in the present climate of leadership failure in the USA at present, for someone to not have any problems with, and criticisms of, the party actually in power for all those years demonstrates a huge lack of judgment.
Hell, I don't even want to mention all the things that have gone wrong in our nation in the last seven years, it's all in other blogs, and I don't really have to. When 70% of Americans (and that includes both Democrats and Republicans) believe the nation is going in the wrong direction, and the nation has been run by Republicans, totally, for six of those years, and then they have obstructed Congress for the last year, I would damn well think anyone with half a brain would find some fault with at least some Republicans.
Even I, who really find very little that is admirable in most Republicans in office, have openly criticized several Democrats I haven't agreed with.
And I have Republican friends I like, even though they are politically challenged. (smile) It seems most of them are Republicans because their parents were. That makes as much sense as still having a black and white TV because our parents did.
I won't even mention all the sex scandals involving boys, prostitutes and mensrooms recently, ALL created by Republicans. You would almost think they ALL equate to that one BJ in the oval office. At least that involved heterosexual sex with consenting adults Sheeesh!
I don't recall seeing any blogs by Mr. H criticizing even one of them, or mentioning how they have hurt their party. It makes me believe he is more interested in being right (pun intended), than actually being concerned about the welfare of the nation.
Oh well!
Posted by: Stephen | November 20, 2007 07:44 PM
The price of Apathy towards Public Affairs is to be ruled by evil Men
kick their ass Steve
Posted by: Rsit | November 22, 2007 12:30 PM
Unfortunately Rsit, lately it's not so much apathy as misinformation, and alliegiance to self-serving ideologues who can be the largest disseminators of that misinformation. Ergo neocons and their mouthpieces such as Limbaugh, Hannity et al, and the biggest of all Fox "Noise." The next phsase is all those people out there who have always been members of the Republican party, without thought for ever changing, probably because their parents and their parents were; and they buy into the ideologue blather hook, line and sinker. They quite often unthinkingly respond with a Pavlonian reaction to certain key words like patriotism, liberty and freedom, and have long forgotten what they truly mean -- the right to disagree and dissent, not just blindly following the status quo and the pack.
Posted by: Stephen | November 22, 2007 01:59 PM
Steve
It is Apathy when we continue to just listen to these pundits and actually tune them in. Ignore the bastards and try and do something to save our country if its not too late already because we tend not to react in a positive manner even when we see and hear the lies daily, and just set back. Unfortunately not many speak out or act as you do brother.
Ray
Posted by: Rsit | November 22, 2007 07:25 PM
Steve, I believe that people like Mr. Herndon, who spend so much time spewing right wing talking points without backing up a bit to see a bigger picture, do so because they must. Because they see nothing else, they don't want to see anything else, and they are so stuck in their blind patriotism that they can't even conceive that anyone but those who think exactly like themselves (and I use the word "think" very liberally, here) might have something useful to say. At the same time, they are unable to consider that anyone with the same politics as their own might actually be unethical, immoral, unpatriotic, or incompetent. They believe this way because the people they blindly trust have fed them this pablum, because their narrow view of what's right and wrong, what's good and bad, what's useful and what's not, does not include any kind of alternative view. It is the "my way or the highway" mentality. They don't criticize "their own" because their thinking ability has been whittled away by biased pundits masquerading as news personnel, partisan hacks masquerading as legislators, and easy-to-repeat sound bytes masquerading as content. Mr. Herndon is a perfect example of those who are willing to spout hate but not willing to listen to anyone else. If he weren't, he'd accept comments on his blog site.
Posted by: Renee G | November 23, 2007 09:18 AM