Comments on: Naming names (yourself)

By: Buddy Larsen

Buddy Larsen — Thu, 05 Jan 2006 17:02:25 +0000

Jill, your post is fascinating. You seem to be saying that whatever a person believes, says, or does, is less important than what someone else may ‘feel’ about him/her. IOW, you will judge–or, let’s use the cooler ‘evaluate’–someone not for what they are, but for what you want him/her to be.

By: Buddy Larsen

Buddy Larsen — Thu, 05 Jan 2006 17:02:02 +0000

By: Bookworm

Bookworm — Thu, 05 Jan 2006 15:45:46 +0000

It’s fascinating reading all the thoughts that my original article generated. I’m getting a sense from this that the liberal speaker’s attitude often dictates whether or not people “come out.” I simply don’t know where to go when someone says that “Bush is evil,” or “Republicans are evil.” These are subjective statements that are immune to reasoned responses. I have much more success — and I’ll willingly expose my neocon biases — when people make factual statements (which they almost never do). And if the argument stays in the factual realm, I’ll often end the conversation with them nodding their heads in agreement (although they’ll usually wrap up by saying, “I still hate Bush”).

To get back to this subjective “I hate Bush” viewpoint, I also cling to my anonymity, not just because it’s an illogical argument, but because it’s such an angry argument. Some of the comments and emails I’ve gotten from those on the Left who have discovered me are, quite simply, frightening. It’s only words, yes, but angry words have a nasty habit of sliding into angry acts. My anonymity allows me to function freely in the realm of ideas, without putting myself (or my family) at risk. Keep in mind that I live in a community where Bush bumperstickers get your car keyed. Who needs that tsores when you can always make yourself known where it counts — at the ballot box.

My last point echoes one of the early comments to your post, from Frederick. The fact is, at least until this coming November, Republicans control the White House and Congress (we’ll ignore their passivity). The fact that my chosen party is in charge removes from me the onus of making a brave rearguard action in the face of horrible tyranny.

Anyway, thank you Mr. Simon for your thoughtful and interesting comments. I admire your bravery very much, and wish I were more like you. However, as my article has shown me, there are an awful lot out there who are just like me.

By: jill bryant

jill bryant — Thu, 05 Jan 2006 15:01:42 +0000

Personally, I do prefer to hang out with people who have the same moral outlook I do. It just makes it easier since my response to almost everything is shaped by my ethics. That doesn’t mean I have stopped being friends with Bush supporters – it just makes it very difficult when we discuss anything topical. Luckily, only one of my friends has “come out of the closet” as you seem to think of it. She is an excellent demographic for it, played to well by Frank Luntz’s team – their monitoring of preferred word connotations regardless of actual meaning and the resulting actions is an example of excellent, if unethical, marketing. (Wait – you think unethical marketing is redundant? Being a marketer, I understand that – Luntz and his team certainly aren’t the only ones.) Also they have done well with the hints of moral superiority and creating a sense of belonging – something I have seen a lot of humans have a longing for. Let’s face it – all marketing plays to our vanities and secret needs.

I think the cleverest part of the reaching out from the GOP has been the all bases covered approach of non-responsibilitiy. Whatever happens – there is someone else to blame – and it all sits firmly under the neo-con guise of super responsibility.

So – when you are not invited to the parties, it isn’t because you are a blowhard who thinks you are a big deal (….something happened to the writer of Moses Wine? — whotheh@ll is Moses Wine….?) it’s because you’ve become a neo-con. Oke. Whatever it takes.

By: Buddy Larsen

Buddy Larsen — Wed, 04 Jan 2006 17:42:13 +0000

Impressive!

…say, I have this script I’ve been working on….

\;-)

By: Buddy Larsen

Buddy Larsen — Wed, 04 Jan 2006 17:31:11 +0000

Thanks for the foothold. Okay–let’s say “Twin Peaks” was done from the approach you recommend for Roger (who, as “Roger”, is trying to brand a blog). Would I’ve even known enough about TP to be impressed (which I am, BTW)?

You must’ve decided against drama as an entertainment device sometime after TP, Harley.

By: Harley

Harley — Wed, 04 Jan 2006 16:45:02 +0000

Oh, okay, fair enuf. The point I’d like to make is that whenever you hear someone talking about the tragedy of their Hollywood banishment (due to the bold quality of their thinking) they’re merely telling tales to make themselves seem more important than they really are. That doesn’t mean that some of Roger’s friends aren’t wondering what happened to him — after all, calling your friends ‘cowards’ tends to call the whole friendship thing into question, yes? — but idea that every time Roger heaves an ideological pebble into the waters of Hollywood a tsunami strikes Nate & Al’s? Just not credible.

I won the Globe for Twin Peaks.

By: Buddy Larsen

Buddy Larsen — Wed, 04 Jan 2006 03:35:26 +0000

Ha–got me good, there, Harley. I do know the diff-I just goofed. Of course Quintin Taranto is the WSJ riter.

And Harley S. does sound a lot like you.

Here’s the explanation for your confusion re Roger: It’s likely that he hangs out with people who know him, and vice-versa.

The people he knows, know him.

The people you know, may not know him.

The people you know probably also know you, and would thus know whatever is happening in your politics, and would likely remark on any obvious change.

Same with the people Roger knows, the difference being that they would note same with regard to him, rather than you.

Sound plausible?

What was your Golden Globe awarded for?

By: Harley

Harley — Tue, 03 Jan 2006 21:31:26 +0000

Gosh, you guys’re a little tetchy. First, I don’t know who Harley Sorenson is, but it ain’t me. Sorry, Buddy. Second, however snarky, the point remains a valid one. And sure, I hate to disappoint the faithful, but Roger’s notion that folks all over town are wondering what the heck happened to the creater of Moses Wine is, well, sorry again, but pretty laughable. And given that your hauteur/pomp meters are set to sensitive, I’m surprised you let a comment as obviously self-aggrandizing as that pass muster. But maybe your muster is more forgiving that mine. Third, no, kirfz1, never nominated for an Oscar. But did pick up a Golden Globe. Fourth, and back to Buddy. James Taranto. Quentin Tarantino. James Taranto. Quentin Tarantino.

By: Steven Mitchell

Steven Mitchell — Tue, 03 Jan 2006 15:53:38 +0000

As far as the neo-neocon post, the advice I got when still a child seems to apply very well: Be who you must, as tactfully as you can. Your circle of friends will take care of itself.

I realize that sometimes you need to cut family members a bit more slack–especially the older ones. I’ll let a 70-something FDR to LBJ liberal ramble all they want. The younger ones should extend you the same courtesy that you extend them. If they cannot provide a reason for their views, they can keep them to themselves. It is *not* too much to ask.