Warning, Haloscan has a 2,967 character limit after which comments are cut off
IMO you are a keeper, Raphael.
Aw, shucks, thanks wilson 
I've really taken an interest in your blog recently. (Adding you to my daily reads) because I, too, am trying to blog from a non-partisan perspective. You can read other posts I've written questioning if I'm really a conservative. I've been doing this for about 2.5 years and in my maturity as a blogger, I believe I've grown more into my own skin. My early posts show more partisanship, being new to the BT. While I could go back and change all my posts to reflect "older and more mature Spitfire", it would erase the progress (for lack of better term) I've made.
When a new scandal or hot poliical issues comes around, I try to ask myself, 'if we switch around liberal for conservative and conservative for liberal, would I have the same reaction?' It reminds me of that Stageleft Rhetoric conversion table "When we do it....when they do it."
I think blogs like yours and dedicated bloggers who genuinely strive to add thoughtfully for the debate and the ones who will make blogging more respectful.
and when I say, respectful...I meant respected...sorry. Long 12 hour day!
Thanks Spitfire. I know that you're still young [in your twenties], and 10 years ago I thought I was I was a liberal [I never voted for the Liberal party though]. I grew up influenced heavily by high school and liberal-socialist opinion in University, and never wanted to think that conservatism was anything but selfish and wrongheaded. But I soon realized that I was beginning to be set in my ways too young in life. I decided to try to look at things from a more neutral perspective, and I gradually evolved rightwards. I still think my opinions evolve based on new things I read and the way I think.
But I think I have always been fundamentally rooted in certain concerns and interests. I have always had respect for family and working people, no matter what their income.
Thanks for your comment.
I'm wondering if perhaps Mr. Bowman is misremembering some SDA comments. Certainly, if there was a comment on a blogpost suggesting your ouster, he might have the wherewithal to link to it.
About the closest thing I've come across to a post talking about a blogger forcibly removed from the BT is this one by Alberta blogger Werner Patels. Naturally it's a tad one-sided but his beef would be real.
Mind you, Bowman could also be thinking about the brouhaha that erupted over Kate's prank on Warren Kinsella, when not a few bloggers did leave the BT roll in protest and some people did post suggesting SDA be kicked off. A comment suggesting departure might have originated there.
Well, first of all I disagree with Werner Patels view of the BTs, although I know he was on it before [I wasn't blogging then]. I wouldn't say that the BTs are an "echo chamber" because it is supposed to be that way. I think it encourages a variety of opinion, but for some reason the most prolific bloggers do tend to be very praising of the party. This gives the illusion that the aggregate doesn't have a diversity of opinion, when in fact it certainly does. I think in particular what is noticeable is the difference between (C)onservatives and (c)onservatives.
I can't speak to Werner Patels situation, but from what I've read of him he has had a sordid history of controversy in the blogosphere [Olaf Raskolnikov?].
Of historical interest, I was actually removed from the Blogging Tories early on. I know people accuse the BTs of a lot of ridiculous things, but the administrators do not tolerate offensive material. I accidentally linked to a hate site, and was temporarily removed. This shows that what gets people removed are only things which threaten the integrity of the blogroll.
Looking for an ego stroke, Raph? 
The truly great thoughts and concepts defy partisanship. You strive to defy partisanship. You fill in the rest.
Unfortunately, we've become a nation of impatient and shallow thinkers, self-absorbed and fickle. That attitude reflects in our voting and in our government.
Blogging provides a platform for many to share their thoughts and exchange ideas. Unfortunately, many only spew bile and demonstrate their absolute inability to consider the perspective of anyone else as valid.
I hope as blogging and bloggers mature, the volume of vitriol will reduce. Hopefully, that will happen with our government as well.
As far as the right/left thing, the nastiness now is as bad as during the Rat Pack days. Liberals are unhappy because they're out of power and suddenly things get ugly... yet I've read others on your blog pointing fingers at the right as being worse than the left. Hmmm...
I have to admit that my defence of the blogs turned out a little anemic, not really what I had in mind when I set out to write it.
I'll also admit that I may have, to use the baseball lingo, misremembered the calls for you to be removed from BT. I do remember comments here suggesting that you leave, but they're gone now (Put me down as a "no" on Haloscan comments.)
The closest thing I could find was you defending Blue Lemons against similar calls.
If there were no members of BT who asked for you to leave, I'll correct that part of the blog tomorrow morning.
Looking for an ego stroke, Raph?
Always
That attitude reflects in our voting and in our government.
Agreed. It's also disappointing how little flexibility our elected representatives have to vote for their constituent needs.
And I think the vitriol is bad on all sides, and certainly no worse on the "right". I tried in good faith to participate in many of the "popular" leftist blogs, and failed miserably.
To wit: I was banned from Pogge, BastardLogic, and Galloping Beaver. My comments are deleted on sight.
John, do not feel compelled to correct your article. I found your articles interesting and stimulating nevertheless, except for, as I say, the cynicism you seem to have for blogging. It was reminiscent of Christie Blatchford's ironic article in which she said blogging was irrelevant.
But still, you raise the important question of whether we are obligated, because of our professed affiliations, to voice a certain conformist mentality. It's a question which definitely needs to asked from each and every blogger, especially since some are very proudly blind to the flaws of their party. It makes me wonder how one can seek improvement of their party if one does not seek criticism of the weaknesses.
Raphael, don't equate comments to popularity. Some great bloggers never seem to generate a lot of response. It doesn't necessarily go hand-in-hand. Blogging is open to everyone. You are not answerable to anyone other than yourself for the quality of your blog. You are a regular on my reading list.
softtalk, thanks for the feedback and kind words.
You seem to have a lot of angst. Blog for yourseld and ignore everyone else.
The Blogging Tories has many points of view. You can hardly calll my friend Ggerry Nicholls someone who tows the party line.
I have never recieved emails form Dtephen Taylor or the party telling me what to right.
I don't always agree with you Raphael, but I hope you stick around.
The conservative movement should be a big tent.
You should come to the networking event in Ottawa next year Raphael.Ottawa
I read everything on BTs.
I check out Cherniak fairly regularly to remind me why I have always voted PC or to the Right.
I could never see the honesty in liberalism. The Kinsella approach has always been a little toxic for me.
There are a lot of liberals I like. They tend to be Blue Dog Democratic types.
I believe that should be the middle of the political path.
However, I understand that mine is only one man's opinion.
Raph...you should be in BTs though simply because you aren't afraid to express your opinion honestly.
Raphael is definitely a conservative. One of the saner types, on a blogroll that is increasingly radicalized to the far-right. There should be no reason for kicking off someone who brings a hint of moderate opinion to that aggregate, when most of the moderates or "red Tories" have quit BT's.
I've paid pretty close attention to your blog the last few months - best to have a sense of what's going on, and the writing is quite good.
I think you could really stand to praise the Conservatives a little more often; there's been a fairly anti-party stance on nearly every issue lately. But criticism is sometimes needed in order to ensure that the party doesn't become a bunch of yes-men. Stephen Harper isn't the Pope - he's not infallible.
But, in future, I'd implore you to try to see the plus side a little more often, not just the downsides.
Dr.Roy, thanks for the input and the suggestion to visit Ottawa. I will certainly consider that option.
Paul, you've been a critic, but it's the critics who keep me on my toes 
Scott "One of the saner types" I'll take as a compliment.
Frank, I have definitely been aware of being too critical of late. I am being influenced by my disappointment in some of the policies, and perhaps I have the whole "honeymoon is over" mood about me. But I will definitely take it under advisement. Great feedback, these comments!
There should be no reason for kicking off someone who brings a hint of moderate opinion to that aggregate, when most of the moderates or "red Tories" have quit BT's.
Seeding a little dissent in the competition, Scotty?
Honestly Raphael, I don't agree with you on everything, but that doesn't mean that you're not a conservative. You enjoy thoughtful debate and you're not afraid to stand by your opinions, and I respect that greatly.
I think that there are many who would rather you be less critical, but I think that your position as being critical has made you an important bellwether so to speak.
The Tories should be watching blogs like yours and should be concerned if you become too critical, not because it means something bad about you.. but because they need the support of people like you.
Besides, to criticize the Tories as much as you have and to still remain as devoted to the party as you seem, must mean you have some strong conservative values :P
Well that's just great, you stole EnigMac from Mitchievile.
When you write one post and it gets 40 comments and then you write another and it gets zilch it can be unnerving. Write about what interests you and the readers will come.
I think between blogs like yours, Purple Tory (Frank) and EnigMac us moderate tories are starting to find our voice. Aboot time I say!
Seriously, EnigMac, wtf?
I think between blogs like yours, Purple Tory (Frank) and EnigMac us moderate tories are starting to find our voice. Aboot time I say!
I find the fact that people have to specify moderate conservatism in the first place to be kind of telling. Conservatism is supposed to be all about moderation.
Anyway, I'll start believing they've found their voice when I see it. I've been waiting since the early 90's for some popular backlash against the irrationality (and I mean that quite seriously) that underpins Reform/neoconservatism among other types of conservatives. With the declining ability among people to think critically and the inability to distinguish between an assertion and an argument, it's just gotten a lot worse, with movement conservatism consisting of nothing more than a limited number of so-called authorities providing ready-made analysis and opinion for everyone else to copy dutifully and regurgitate...and spare me the "everyone else does it." argument. Ideological purity is a highly-regarded element of current conservatism and found practically nowhere except among truly fringe thinkers. I suspect, when many conservatives observe reality, they process that information through a filter of ideological correctness to weed out any ill-fitting nuances and contradictions.
I've never understood why it's so difficult for politically-aligned conservative bloggers to simply point out factual errors and flaws in logic, reason and issues of good faith among the sources they reference, among each other and more their commenters. I can understand not wanting to enter into a "blog war," but if disagreements and dialogue that refine and better articulate particular issues are always thought of as "wars" then I guess that's part of the answer.
Ahh... What's this?! Ti-Guy is capable of rational and coherent thought?
RA, I have been reading your blog for a while now... Without a doubt, you are a welcome sight on the blogsphere.
Keep your chin up, and push through my friend.
Ahh... What's this?! Ti-Guy is capable of rational and coherent thought?
I've been saying the same thing since the Iraq invasion (when the Harpocons came out in favour of it, which everyone seems to have forgotten). It's not my fault you've just become aware of it.
I was commenting more on your complete lack of name calling, strawman, and other childish attacks which usually accompanies your posts.
You are... Readable, and on target. A very pleasent surprise.
I was commenting more on your complete lack of name calling, strawman, and other childish attacks which usually accompanies your posts.
That usually only happens after I've gotten to know someone, and conversely, changes when I've judged someone unfairly (as with Raphe here...I used to be a lot ruder with him).
To be perfectly candid, I assume anyone associated with the Blogging Tories is irrational, ignorant, poorly informed, a Canada-hater, a Liberal/liberal/progressive/lefty hater, too often a garden-variety racist or bigot and lastly, a propagandist for ideologically-rigid movement conservatism. Those are the default assumptions under which I operate and unless I see evidence of something else, I don't change my mind. I don't feel any obligation to give Conservatives the benefit of the doubt; that's something I reserve for people I actually know and have to get along with in real life.
The only thing I object to in your comment is strawmen...It's almost impossible for me to employ them in an argument unless something I think I know is completely irrational (which isn't likely). You might be thinking of generalisations, which are not the same thing.
I'm more than happy to respond to a specific charge of employing strawmen, however..
To be perfectly candid, I assume anyone associated with the Blogging Tories is irrational, ignorant, poorly informed, a Canada-hater, a Liberal/liberal/progressive/lefty hater, too often a garden-variety racist or bigot and lastly, a propagandist for ideologically-rigid movement conservatism.
That's how I was pigeon-holed at several Progressive sites, hence my ban from them. Of course, the best revenge I could get is to keep improving myself to the point where they believe they made a mistake in judgment.
That's how I was pigeon-holed at several Progressive sites, hence my ban from them.
Well, you have tackled some issues that you are not well-informed enough to be as critical of them as you have been...that article on feminism being frankly insulting to any sensible person who read it, not just feminists.
Of course, the best revenge I could get is to keep improving myself to the point where they believe they made a mistake in judgment.
Well, I hope you're reading more. I read a lot about feminism in the 80's and 90's when I felt I wasn't well-informed enough about it to participate in discussions with the women I study and work with. After that, I decided, since I wasn't part of the problem, and since I'm a white male who couldn't care less that his (or anyone else's) unjustifiable privilege is threatened, I'll just stay out of the way as much as possible.
Ti-Guy, not everyone who self identifies as a Conservative is... Well, evil. I do admit, there is a great deal of overt evil within the Conservative sphere, and hence the reason why you do not find myself hanging out on those sites for longer then I have too (my skin crawls, and I need a shower afterwards).
I have found a diffrent kind of evil pervasive on the far left... Just not as icky as the racist, Islamophobic garbage found on the right.
Ignorance and prejudice are found in vast ammounts on both sides. That is evil. The failure to recognize the prejudices we all have is evil. When we do not recognize these prejudices, they grow and fester, and then turn into the hatred which tears this world apart.
Ti-Guy, not everyone who self identifies as a Conservative is... Well, evil.
When I'm dealing with people I don't really know, I don't think in terms of evil. My judgment is based on expressions and actions that I've observed over time, which I criticise as either uninformed, ignorant, dishonest, hypocritical, passive-aggressive (my least favourite character trait) selfish or mean-spirited, all of which can (theoretically) be overcome.
There are only two or three people on the Right I'd come close to calling evil, but I'm more inclined to believe they're simply mentally ill.
I don't know what you're thinking about that's similar on the left, since the equivalent ideological rigidity so pronounced among movement conservatives is really marginal among anyone to the left of them, and has been for a long time in this country. No one, except the lunatic fringe for example, is seriously recommending cultural revolutions or command-and-control economies or nationalising the means of production or anything like that. Remember, the equivalent elements on the Right, such as laissez faire capitalism, deregulation, maginalisation of state and public institutions and social re-engineering along "conservative" or "traditional" values is not exactly considered fringe.
Can you think of something specific?
That's how I was pigeon-holed at several Progressive sites, hence my ban from them. Of course, the best revenge I could get is to keep improving myself to the point where they believe they made a mistake in judgment.
When you align yourself with a particular aggregator you’re bound to get judged by a lot of preconceptions and will suffer from some inevitable “guilt by association” (also known as being viewed through the prims of “the company you keep”). It’s the downside of the deal.
rabble.ca/babble leaps to mind. A lot of folks over there seem to be all for some sort of radical reformation of society, and all the "good" sorts of things that you mention above...
Now, don't get me wrong. In it's purest form, socialism would be the ideal. However, mankind is far from ready for that ideal as demonstrated by the extremes in communism in the last century. Radical change at this time would lead to a fascist state as opposed to the promised utopia, and that is simply because of the collective short comings of mankind.
There is also the prevelance of prejudice and ignorance concerning soldiers that is common across the far left. Several assumptions have been made which are untrue (ie. torturers, deliberate murderers of civilians, blood thirsty, warmongers to name a few). Take for example, the regretable incident involving an NDP riding in BC attempting to bring forward a motion at the Quebec caucus meeting to name the CF as terrorists... This happened just a few years ago (2006 I believe).
Jeff — Rabble appears to represent opinions from what might be described as the "far left" but most "liberals" have no connection with it.
What's the current support for the NDP? 15% I believe... And they advocate a pretty moderate form of democratic socialism.
To associate "liberals" in general with the more extreme strains of thought that prevail at Rabble and other sites is just plain wrong.
There's far too much of this sort of divisive labeling that goes on all the time.
Now, don't get me wrong. In it's purest form, socialism would be the ideal.
I don't happen to think so. In fact the only thing I've learned in my political maturation from 20 to 45 is that there is no one paradigm in which society can or should be organised. The best we should work for is transparency, freedom of expression (although not in the same way the censorious righties and the corporate media think) and freedom of association, social and economic justice, economic sustainability and peace.
Socialism is its purest form is a delightful fantasy and nothing more.
The point I made was deliberate. I know it was a generalization, one that is commonly made towards those on the right.
As for fantasies... Sometimes they can come true. I just do not believe that mankind will be ready for that kind of awakening for another several hundred years (sadly).
Socialism isn't even a "delightful" fantasy. It is the stifling of the natural competitive forces of nature.
It is the stifling of the natural competitive forces of nature.
Oh, c'mon. There is nothing about how nature works that's meaningful to civilisation. That's the point of civilisation...for humans to organise ourselves to overcome simple questions of nature.
And most of nature is quite communist, anyway. Certainly, the animals don't seem to have a highly developed sense of private property.
Socialism isn't even a "delightful" fantasy. It is the stifling of the natural competitive forces of nature.
I'm not so sure it stifles competitiveness, so much as greed. One can be competitive in the absence of reward.
Take for example, the regretable incident involving an NDP riding in BC attempting to bring forward a motion at the Quebec caucus meeting to name the CF as terrorists... This happened just a few years ago (2006 I believe).
What fucking planet do you live on?
Robert, how about a planet where google is available.
The Nanaimo-Cowichan NDP spells it out for anyone still unsure of the NDP position:
"Peter Stoffer, a NDP MP said during the debate "I support the mission and the troops in Afghanistan and so does our Party." This is not an acceptable position when world peace hangs in the balance. A combat role in Afghanistan is a no-win situation both for Canada and for the Afghani people. Its only dubious value is to curry favour with the militarist government of George W. Bush. No matter how noble our intentions, such as "bringing democracy" or "enabling peaceful development", these goals cannot be achieved by violence when the "enemy" cannot be distinguished from ordinary citizens. In such a situation Canadian troops end up acting like terrorists, destroying communities, killing and maiming innocent people. In turn our troops become easy targets for others."
Of course, there was much more colour back when this was a subject of interest for the Nanaimo-Cowichan riding of the NDP. I remember reading the news reports that day, and in an instant, I went from thinking the NDP was growing up, to thinking they are a bunch of infatile wannabes who must never gain power.
And before feelings get too hurt... I no longer believe that that is the opinion of the entire NDP, nor was it ever the feeling of the entire NDP caucus.
The motion was to withdraw from Afghanistan, not name anyone as anything. And the motion didn't make any claim that the CF were terrorists, it clearly stated that the situation in Afghanistan would lead to them acting in a manner similar to terrorists.
Spin is not reality, rube.
Perception is everything. Perception is reality for us, and it is coloured by our experiences.
This is an example of how the men and women serving perceived the message sent by that riding, and not sent by Layton.
http://forums.army.ca/forums/
ind...ic,49833.0.html
RA — I think we were talking about pure theory and “idealism” and on that level socialism is a “delightful fantasy” in its Utopian aspirations.
If you're talking about a socialist Utopia like "Star Trek", then sure. I'd be allright with that.
I was thinking more of the Arts & Crafts movement of the 19th century, but I guess "Star Trek" might serve that purpose too.
"Oh, c'mon. There is nothing about how nature works that's meaningful to civilisation."
I believe Raphael is referring to human nature here, and I agree with him. Socialism, in its purest form, imposes a level of community control over individual assets that exceeds most people's natural willingness to share. Resentment is inevitable. The other side of the coin, unbridled capitalism, is no better, with the less-able participants falling by the wayside. Resentment is inevitable here as well, along with consequences much more dire.
So we strive to stake out the middle ground. The question that divides us is where to draw the lines.
fergusrush, my friend... At 3:30am, with a retarded ammount of beer in me. I am with you.
There is an element within all of us human beings. which would prevent us from being happy in a pure socialist environment. I beleive that environment to be the ideal, and yet, I identify with capitolists because it is not yet realisitic within myself.
I accept I am greedy. I need/want a house more then an appartment. I have to have a car. I like being recognised for my work.
When we as a species, can throw off our basic greeds, then we will approach a time closer to the ideal. Until then... (must sleep)
The question that divides us is where to draw the lines.
That's part of the problem; worrying about "where to draw lines."
I'm completely indifferent to where lines are drawn and more interested in what works and what doesn't.
For most of us, living in the present means handling life as it comes and moderating extremism in many different ways, all the time. That's why I'm much more interested in transparency than anything else (and thank God I always knew the authoritarian Reform conservatives would in fact reduce transparency...I'm feeling self-righteous and vindicated).
People, individually and in groups, will make better decisions if they have better information. That is in fact, what is supposed to be key to laissez faire but as we see, capitalism ends up concentrating power and influence and distorting information.
Those of who are so gung-ho about laissez faire should become more informed about all its drawbacks (and we have several centuries of evidence to draw on). Those who are dedicated to social democracy should be mindful of economic issues that are inescapable in a market economy.
The concept that should be rejected outright, however is the Thatcherite assertion that "there is no such thing as society;" that human behaviour can only be meaningful in terms of individual agency. That is completely irrational and sociopathic, and is thinking that still poisons our public discussions.
"I'm completely indifferent to where lines are drawn and more interested in what works and what doesn't."
To me, Ti-guy, it's the same thing: I care about where the lines are drawn because of my opinions about what will or will not work. With that one small distinction, I have no quarrel with anything else in your last comment. I also believe that transparency is paramount in a democracy, and that people behave both as individuals and as members of a group, that we are "social" creatures as well as independent agents.
Commenting by HaloScan
