Dawn, Gawker was mocking you. He never said you were scary. The tone of the mocking suggested that he didn't take you seriously at all. This is rather similar to your discussion of liberal publications and institutions, though it's true that Gawker's recent missive was a bit snarkier in tone, you've had your moments too.

I agree that a reporter or editor must have strong views. But in forming those views, it's important to understand the other side and engage them in respectful dialogue. One can come away from such discussions with one's beliefs intact or even strengthened. It happens in your comments sections all the time.
joe | 07.07.05 - 8:38 am | #

Of course you're not a wackjob or I'd see you at the meetings!
John J. Simmins | Homepage | 07.07.05 - 8:54 am | #

Several people have noted that liberals don't realize liberalism is an ideology just like conservatism, socialism, libertarianism, etc. Obviously, they think their own beliefs are mainstream and even harmless while those of others are extreme and dangerous.

Many liberals don't even see themselves as liberals, but moderates, and they have skewed views of the political spectrum. Ted Kennedy thinks Justice O'Connor is a "mainstream conservative," meaning that she supports Roe v. Wade. I knew someone who considered Joe Lieberman a "conservative." Someone else described the Daily News as "right-wing" when it is left-of-center. I would love to see who liberals consider extreme on their side of the political spectrum. Stalin? Mao?
D------ | 07.07.05 - 10:43 am | #

I guess if the political spectrum has shifted so that Stalin and Mao are considered liberals, then Bush must be the Nazi those puppet carriers claim he is. Thanks for contributing to the dialogue.
emptypockets | 07.07.05 - 10:52 am | #

D---, emptypockets - you know the old, mocking description of Stalin and the Communists: "Liberals in a hurry." Rather than let the socialist utopia bloom of its own necessity, they decided to uproot everything that wasn't socialist. Not surprisingly, after killing so much of the goodness of their society (and millions of their people) they ended up with a barren wilderness that couldn't sustain itself.

I'm still operating off of Chesterton's notion of liberal - those who believe in the expansion of freedom for the common citizen. By that definition, the Left is actually far reactionaries who think, much like the Communists, that the government is the only legitimate tool by which one solves any dispute. They favor laws to expand the power of the state into every corner of our lives - we have to wear helmets while riding and seat belts while driving, or be fined; we can't build a shed on our own land without permits and inspections; soon we won't be allowed to even keep that much, if Kelo v. New London is any indication.
Nightfly | Homepage | 07.07.05 - 11:35 am | #

Methinks you protest too much.

You blog, they comment, you get traffic. Your views are often wittily presented; it's a compliment, in essence, that they link to you, though they link to you without praise.

Perhaps the person who makes that decision to link from Gawker does so for the same reasons I'm a regular reader: I don't agree one whit with much of what you write, but darned if you don't state it well and passionately.

So, cheers and congratulations on your blogging success and your column, too!
libby the blue-tailed liberal | 07.07.05 - 11:37 am | #

Thanks very much, Libby, I appreciate it. On weekends, I have a blue tail too--in jeans.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 07.07.05 - 12:44 pm | #

Several people have noted that liberals don't realize liberalism is an ideology just like conservatism, socialism, libertarianism, etc. Obviously, they think their own beliefs are mainstream and even harmless while those of others are extreme and dangerous.

Shelby Steele summed that up when he wrote, "Whoever wins [the culture] war wins the extraordinary power to have their ideology become invisible." By gaining control of our cultural institutions -- journalism, education, art, mass media, even many religious organizations -- their views have come to define the mainstream. Every other view becomes by definition ideological, radical.

Lefties don't see themselves as having an ideology -- they just think all intelligent people think the same way they do, which is why they react with such shock and outrage when someone like Dawn defends conservative principles with intelligence and grace.
Michael Bates | Homepage | 07.07.05 - 1:19 pm | #

You're very welcome, Dawn.

Since I've piped up a just a bit, I would like to add this re: liberalism:

I know quite well that I have an ideology, a liberal ideology, and yes, I'd argue/agree that it's currently the dominant ideology in America. And most of my friends who are liberal would agree with my statement.

You see, I and many -- no, not all, but many -- liberals who are actively engaged in this national and international conversation about rights, values, direction, morality, you know, the small things in life ;-), acknowledge the humanity, as you put it, Michael Bates, the grace and intelligence, behind the sometimes inflammatory rhetoric on all sides.

Here's the radical idea from this liberal today in NYC: we are, today, all citizens of London. I know what's going on at The Corner today and I know what's going on at DailyKos. But that doesn't matter today. Today we are all human, reaching out to each other with compassion.

Have I said anything reminiscent of Stalin yet? It reminds me of weightlifting: when the muscle you are working gets tired, if you are not careful and if you don't take time to step back and correct it, the body contorts itself to get the job done and you end up with bad form. Both sides, liberal and conservative, when they get tired and lazy, reach for the Stalin/Mao/Nazi paperweight and just fling it at the other side.

We're all Londoners today. And tomorrow, we return to all being citizens of the world, hopefully trying to converse, and argue, and win our respective points, but let's all try and not fling the paperweights?
libby the blue-tailed liberal | 07.07.05 - 2:19 pm | #

Well said, libby t.b-t.l. And I'm a wingnut from Jesusland, to borrow Dawn's memorable phrase.

Michael, that's a great line from Shelby Steele. He just moved up several positions on my list of people I need to read.
Maclin Horton | Homepage | 07.07.05 - 3:09 pm | #

I am not a Londoner today, nor will I be a citizen of the world tomorrow. That's just empty rhetoric. Stop trying to conquer the world, communist.

But may God bless the people of London and give them peace, and have mercy on the victims of the attacks.
Philip | 07.07.05 - 3:17 pm | #

Well said, Libby.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 07.07.05 - 3:27 pm | #

Philip, I'm leaving your "communist" comment in on the off-chance that you're being sarcastic. In general, I delete name-calling comments like that, so please monitor your language. It denigrates the entire conversation to reduce discourse to "I'm rubber, you're glue."
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 07.07.05 - 3:31 pm | #

To continue what I wrote before, we often hear the terms "far right" and "ultra-conservative." Dennis Prager asked who in our country qualifies as the "far left" or "ultraliberal," terms that are not as common or used in the mainstream media.

It would be interesting for liberals to tell us who they think are "far left" and "ultraliberal."

Most of us have probably heard of what Pauline Kael, the late film critic of the New Yorker, reportedly said in 1972, (paraphrasing), "I can't believe Nixon got re-elected by a landslide. I don't even know anybody who voted for him."
D------ | 07.07.05 - 3:53 pm | #

I didn't mean "communist" as an accusation. Well, no, I did, but in my defense, Libby asks, "Have I said anything reminiscent of Stalin yet?" I felt "citizens of the world" was close enough.

She started.
Philip | 07.07.05 - 7:38 pm | #

Since you asked:

I'm a liberal -- I'd call The Nation "ultra-liberal" or "far left." Possibly Utne. I'd also call anarchists "ultra-liberal" or "far left"...or Communists, too, if there are any of those left in the US.
Vidiot | Homepage | 07.07.05 - 7:41 pm | #

Point well taken, Philip. It needed the explanation.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 07.07.05 - 7:50 pm | #

The point is not even that most liberals consider themselves "moderates", but that they simply consider their views *normal*, and anything else as an aberration.

And Sidney Hook was a leading member of the Socialist Party (or whatever it is called this year)... which did not stop the ersatz lefties when he was at NYU from whining "he's so CONSERVATIVE! He's against blowing up buildings!"
Will Linden | Homepage | 07.07.05 - 9:03 pm | #

Philip, I took your comment with a grain of salt... but, for clarification, since the internet is ripe with misinterpretation, the spirit of my statement was: I'm American and proudly so, but I do think we're all neighbors here on this planet and should strive to reach across boundaries and borders with compassion.

Now, back to deeeep lurking...

Oh, and whom or what would I consider ultra-liberal? Hmm... I really don't know. Probably myself! Hahaha...

Whom or what would you all consider far right or ultra-conservative?
libby the blue-tailed liberal | 07.08.05 - 10:56 am | #

Rush Limbaugh.
Bill O'Reilly.
Sean Hannity.
Anyone who thinks that public brawling is more important than seeking a solution.

Bill Gates.
Michael Novak.
Ken Lay.
Anyone who thinks money is the ultimate goal.

Unfortunately, those are two positions that have become identified with conservatism (not that liberals don't have their share of the brawlers), and I think anyone who follows them too strictly is moving too far away from meaningful work and discussion.

But that's just me.
Kate B. | 07.08.05 - 11:17 am | #

Kate B., Bill Gates' father was president of a Planned Parenthood chapter. Gates is as liberal as they come—even the left-wing site Salon says so.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 07.08.05 - 1:32 pm | #

Regardless, he's a mogul. In my book, that's about as far right-wing as someone can get. The liberal/conservative dividing line falls in odd places. The liberal far-wing seems to want the gov't in EVERYTHING except abortion, while the conservative far-wing want it out of anything that doesn't protect them--it's bizarre. And both extremes curve around to meet in the middle of the back of beyond. I'm just not sure the line between the camps or the camps themselves, insofar as they ber labels, are all that pure. Like I said, it's just me, and I don't really know anyone else who shares that view.
Kate B. | 07.08.05 - 2:22 pm | #

So you must also think that billionaire George Soros is "far-right" even though he spent millions to defeat W. in the last election and donates lavishly to liberal groups.
D------ | 07.08.05 - 3:40 pm | #

I don't think Gates is making money because he wants to make money. I think he values the things he can do with it. ("Performing uses", as we Swedenborgian heretics say.) You can't EAT money.
Will Linden | Homepage | 07.09.05 - 9:18 am | #

Gates (and yes, Soros) is pretty liberal in his philosophies, from what I can see. And he has a bona fide record of philanthropy through the Gates Foundation and others.

He is a mogul, though...I realize, as you say, Kate, that it's just your POV, but I think that there's more to where one falls along the liberal-conservative spectrum than one's bank account. There are wealthy liberals, and not-wealthy conservatives. (As there are, of course, the other way around.)

For the record, also, George Soros isn't as ultra-liberal as some paint him. (Though, thank goodness, not in this thread so far.)
Vidiot | Homepage | 07.09.05 - 10:32 am | #

I'm not trying to say that money makes one's party--however, conservatives have come to be identified as the rich, and as those who wants unadulterated capitalism to run the world. I can't think of a better example of that than MIcrosoft. VEry few people are all one party or the other. One can be a philosophical or social liberal and still be fiscally identifiable with the worst stereotypes about conservatism.
Kate B. | 07.09.05 - 11:25 am | #

I'd be interested in hearing who the conservatives here think are "ultra-conservative" or "far-right." Any takers?
Vidiot | Homepage | 07.09.05 - 1:40 pm | #

I'd call Pat Buchanan far right. I try to stay as far from him as possible. He's not a friend of Jews.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 07.09.05 - 6:25 pm | #

Kate, I do not think that stereotypes should be used as our standard for labeling people. Do you think we should classify people as "Christians" or "Jews" or "white" or "black" according to whether they fit fashionable stereotypes?
Will Linden | Homepage | 07.11.05 - 11:32 am | #

How, in labelling people with with prefixes "far-" and "ultra-" are we supposed to avoid the stereotypes? We're talking about people who take the position to the extreme, no?
If you look at the positions that were historically identified with liberals--gov't intervention, universal education, health care, etc.--they had many of their roots in reaction against big businesses that screwed everyone over. Microsoft, IMO, looks like one of those businesses. So does Wal-Mart, BTW. And I don't care what Sam Walton's ballot looked like. If we're labelling people conservative or liberal based on what they say, and not what they do as well, we might as well call John Kerry a Catholic or Dubya a pro-lifer. So, yes, Will, if I'm going to call someone Christian or Jewish, their behavior had better fit the profile.
Kate B. | 07.11.05 - 4:28 pm | #