|
10/29/08
Dear 1585,
I
have read
your essay about Mrs. Sarah Palin and I must say that I am impressed.
But I do
believe that you missed a few
key points. Now I
could type out all the
things that you have missed about Sarah Palin, but there is a website
that does
all the explaining for me: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-kurtzman/sarah-palin-by-the-number_b_127355.html
But the
beginning of this email is beside the point.
I’m just curious, and I could be wrong
because I haven’t read all of the
essays on your site, but are you trying to tell everyone who reads to
not
stimulate their political curiosity? When
I read some on the articles on your site, I begin to think that you are
simply
trying to say McCain sucks and Obama rules. (On
a side note, I am all for you. Obama
all the way for me). Before
people vote they read sites such as
this one and think that this is all the information on the particular
subject
that you can get. There
is never a CLEAR
winner on the Presidential debates and such because there is never a
clear
LOSER. In my
opinion, I don’t like
McCain. But that is
severely opinionated
because my Brother is in Iraq. And
I want him to come home and be safe. But that is just my opinion. I would love to simply Kick
McCain is his
shins (not what I was going to say) than let my brother stay in Iraq for another 15
months.
Whoops,
sorry. I’m
getting off of the subject
again.
What I’m
trying to say is that I know the 1585 is all about political debates
and
philosophical arguments. And
I’m all for
that. All that
I’m saying is that the
site should be less “Obama” and more
“Person that isn’t going to die in
office!”
I’m sorry
this email is so short, but because of my age, my time
on this
computer is limited. So
from one of your
youngest readers, Goodbye 1585.
--N.R.
Dear NR:
No reason to apologize for the
short e-mail. It’s
about time there was something short and
to-the-point somewhere on this site.
Anyway, I’ll begin by
answering the part of your e-mail that
was actually a question, and say No, of course we aren’t
telling our readers
not to stimulate their political curiosity.
We are not trying to be dogmatic about endorsements,
of Obama or anyone
else. These last
few essays are kind of
a rarity for us, since we usually just talk about issues and
don’t even mention
candidates, or even specific real people if we can help it (as we
pointed out
at the beginning of the Palin essay).
During the primaries, for example, we did not say a
word, even about the
Hillary/Obama “horserace.”
Partly, this
was because we are a hybrid political site after all, and wanted to
leave the
primaries up to the respective parties (it is, I suppose, clear by now
that we
are technically Democrats by party, but then again we never obscured
this; it
has been sitting there plain as day in the FAQ for as long as the site
has been
up). But to an even
greater extent, it
was because we simply didn’t have anything to say about
them—or, rather, not
anything that other people weren’t already saying just as
well or better.
Unlike a lot of blogs (are we
even a “blog,” by the
way? People keep
calling us one, but I
always thought we were just, you know, a regular website… Sure, the content is
opinions about
stuff written by people, but what isn’t?
What, do you have to be written by robots or
something not to be called
a “blog”? Unless
I have been
misinformed, “blog” is short for
“web-log,” indicating that it is basically
someone’s public diary, and while we may not be perfect, I
think it safe to say
that what we do here is a little more ambitious than a diary. Seriously, stop calling us
a blog. Unless you
are nominating us for a bloggie,
in which case, we are in fact a blog, and deeply honored by the
nomination), we
are not in the habit of updating constantly just for the sake of
updating constantly. As
a result of this, if we have an
opinion on a current issue, but it happens to be the exact
same thing that everyone has already read on a thousand other
websites, we don’t bother writing it up and posting
it. We’d
rather have people say “Wow, The 1585
always says what no-one else says, in a way that no-one else says
it” than
“Yeah, it is basically the same shit as everything else, but
man do they ever
update frequently!”
So, certainly I don’t
think that our essay on Sarah Palin was
the only word—or even the last word—on Sarah Palin. The stuff in the Kurtzman
piece you linked to
is definitely all vital information and, yes, ultimately more
important information that anything in my Palin piece. It was objective hard data
that made a
compelling case for why she sucks so much, whereas mine was mainly
jokes about
how women who work in offices think you’re mean if you know
too much about
dinosaurs. But, as
you proved by the
fact that you linked to it, you had already read the
Kurtzman piece,
and so
didn’t need us to tell you all the same stuff again. If we thought that info to
that effect wasn’t
already floating around out there, we would have provided it, but it
clearly
was.
And as I also pointed out in
the Palin essay, people simply
do not always vote based on sensible, relevant stuff—they
vote because of weird
psychological shit that they themselves don’t fully
understand. And
weird psychological shit that people
don’t fully realize about themselves is our specialty.
We concentrate on this stuff
because it’s what we’re good
at, and it fills a niche. The
fact that
it means we never have to do research and can’t technically
be proven wrong is
merely an added bonus.
Also, according to spellcheck,
the word “specialty” has only
one “i” in it, which means that young Obi-Wan was
just flat-out pronouncing it
wrong, regardless of how cool it sounded that way.
Anyway, you’ll get no
argument from me to the effect that only
what 1585 says should be read or
paid attention to. Clearly,
our work is intended for an audience that is already
fairly well-informed: people who don't also read a lot of
other stuff probably wouldn't even like or get what we do, so the
problem kind of takes care of itself.
As for the alleged
vociferousness of our Obama
endorsement—or our supposed damning criticisms of
McCain—I can’t really find
too much on the site to support this, to be honest.
Other than admit that I am voting for Obama
(briefly, in this
essay) and provide reasons why atheists should
still
vote for him, which was a response to a specific anti-Obama
argument I found
on
another atheist blog, I can’t find anything else
I’ve said about him.
But the fact that you still got
this impression speaks to
the widespread nature of a meme that has been, in my observation,
wrongheadedly forced upon people your age (you mentioned being young)
by
well-meaning, ultra-contemporary educators: the idea that expressing an opinion at all inherently
constitutes
an effort to “silence” all
others. Of course
there is, as you’ve
said, “never a clear winner in a presidential
debate”—it’s not like a sport,
where you score a set number of points for performing a pre-determined,
clearly
specified action—but that doesn’t mean a damn good
case to the effect that
someone has done so can never be made, or even that there’s
anything wrong with trying to make
one, be it damn
good
or only damn average.
Do we here at 1585 think that
the stuff we write is
good? Absolutely. Do we think it’s
the only
stuff anyone should
read? No.
Look at your own e-mail, N.R. You
expressed the opinions
that McCain should
be opposed because a) he is likely
to die in office (which we did, by the way, discuss at length in the
Palin
essay), and b) the War needs to
end. Now, if you
had a blog, you would
be expressing these opinions on your blog, instead of simply in an
e-mail to
me—but would that mean that you
believed these to be the only
reasons
anyone should cite for opposing McCain, or supporting Obama, or however
you
want to look at it? No. Just that they are the
reasons you personally feel like
giving. You would
not intend them to
drown out all others, and would (presumably) be more than willing to
entertain
debate after having voiced them. It
saddens me to see you seemingly apologize for your entirely legitimate
reasons
by hastily adding that “severely opinionated” bit. “Opinionated”
is a silly word, N.R. I
don’t know whose idea it was for people to
start acting like there’s something wrong
with having beliefs, but it was a bad idea.
What, after all, is the
alternative—that no-one ever says anything,
simply because it is not everything?
In conclusion, N.R.,
congratulations on being one of our
youngest readers. The
site is not easy
reading, even for many adults. And
although we obviously don’t pray, we are all hoping and
wishing that your
brother (and everyone else we’ve got over there) comes back
safe and soon.
Yours in Plurality,
—S.G.
Back to the Top
Back to Reader Mail Central
Back to the Homepage
|
|