Tuesday, October 02, 2007

Blogging Issues (Post 1)

Late last week I promised a post over the weekend in which I’d talk about issues which influence my blogging.

As examples of what I’d talk about, I said I’d reference two recent posts: one concerning Bill Anderson’s review of Until Proven Innocent and another titled, Jackson or Sharpton, who's dumber?

I didn’t publish the “blogging issues” post last weekend because I got “pulled off assignment.”

I needed to “cover” Duke President Brodhead’s statement Saturday afternoon in which for the first time in eighteen months, he said he was “sorry” he hadn’t been more supportive of the Duke students on the Men’s lacrosse team and their parents.

That story took most of my blog time this past weekend.

Now to the promised “blogging issues” post:

My post of Bill Anderson’s UPI review drew a sharp comment from Insufficiently Sensitive who said I hadn’t noted the most important comments in Bill’s review.

IS said [excerpt]: “Bill's disagreements with (Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson) contain the most important statement of the review - that is, the irresolvable enmity between PC and classic liberalism.”

When I read IS’s criticism, I knew IS was right.

I’d worked to reference in my post just what IS was saying.

But I couldn’t do it well, or at least not to my satisfaction.

Explaining to readers how classical liberalism differed from the liberalism of say, Durham’s People’s Alliance or that of the journalists at the Raleigh N&O who helped frame the Duke students, would make the post excessively long.

After all, don't N&O reporters and editors, for instance, claim they embrace the same principles as classical liberals?

So I went with a review that was fact-based, linked readers to Bill’s review, and suggested they read it.

I’ve no apology for doing that.

And that’s my answer to IS, a commenter for whom I have respect, and to all of you who come to JinC with serious and good purposes.

Can some JinC posts be improved? Of course.

All I claim for them is that when I put them up, I believe they’re honest, reasonable and fact-based; and when one of you shows me where one is not, I correct.

That said, comments such as IS’s are welcome for adding to a post and making this blog better.

Thanks, IS, and thanks to every other commenter/editor who helps out at JinC.

Now, about Jackson or Sharpton, who’s dumber?

Can we all agree since it’s after 11 p.m. where I am and Jackson’s and Sharpton’s dumbness aren't going away anytime soon, that you permit me to go to bed now?

We can resume “blogging issues” tomorrow with Post 2 in which I promise to discuss Jackson and Sharpton's dumbness and how the Internet is tripping up the Revs and their MSM flacks.

Thanks, I thought you'd say, “Yes.”

Until tomorrow, every good wish.



Anonymous said...

JiC -

Do you have a twin in California -
John in California?

See index of KC's book.

Thanks your continuing Gnofin-Ekud coverage.


bullcityinwonderland blogger

Anonymous said...

The difference between PC and classical liberalism, in one word: honesty. It used to be fatally embarrasing for any intellectual to be caught out in intellectual dishonesty. Today, that same dishonesty is revered as postmodern deconstruction.

Insufficiently Sensitive said...


If my remarks were taken as 'sharp', I apologize wholeheartedly. The intent was to add to the discussion, not to snipe at it. Your blog has consistently directed bright lights in directions where others weren't pointed, and has been invaluable in keeping knowlege of the Duke debacle up to date. My sincere thanks to you.

I would observe that Voltaire nailed it early on with his "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

Were that statement ever acknowledged by the PC mob, their whole edifice would come tumbling down. But their whole purpose is to monopolize the stage and the microphone, play the victim, and 'to get even' by suppressing dissenting voices - or even voices that might be interpreted as vaguely heretical. Stalin would recognize that purpose immediately.

That illiberal mob has been in full display recently, with examples given by G88 for starters, and by the the Columbia 'students' who brutally ran a Minuteman speaker off the stage (Lee Bollinger's darlings they were, all but lauded by him), and by the California professors who led the denial to Larry Summers of a mere dinner invitation.

The only thing the PC mob would defend to the death is the privelege they have created for themselves by distinctly un-liberal political action.