| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Fred Stone" |
| Date: |
23 Nov 2007 05:36:35 AM |
| Object: |
I am not a lobby, an agenda, or an opinion |
http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2007/11/post_525.html
....I've said this before and I'll say it again. I am not a lobby! My
opinions are my own. Furthermore, I am not an agenda. These phrases are
used to discount opinions, and while it is not surprising to see them
tossed around by activists engaged in ideological disputes with each
other, for any legislator to discount constituents that way is to my
mind, a lot worse than simply disagreeing with them.
If I have a pro-gun opinion, and it is mine, why does that make me the
gun lobby?
To put it another way, if I have a pro-gay opinion, and it is mine, does
that make me part of the "gay agenda"?
To an activist, it does. Glenn Greenwald will refer to people who
disagree with him as part of the radical right wing agenda. The
Concerned Women for America spokesman will call people who disagree part
of the radical gay agenda (or "apostates").
It's the Greenwaldization of political discourse. It's probably
inevitable in the blogosphere and among activists, but should
legislators be interacting with their constituents that way?
Once again, the thesis in Glenn Reynolds' law review article really hits
the nail on the head. There is an eerie similarity, not just between the
gun issue and the gay issue, but in the way people who hold opinions
about these issues are treated. And stereotyped. I don't know what to
call it. ("Greenwalding" the opposition?) But it's leading to a
situation where any opinion that you have makes you not a person, but a
lobbyist. And Agendaite. (Er, maybe would that be "lobbyite" or
"agendaist.")
So, whether you agree with him or not, why should Glenn's remark about
the "happily married gay couples with closets full of assault weapons"
reduce him to being a hapless stooge of the gun lobby and the gay
agenda? The Gun Gay Agenda Lobby? Or the Gay Gun Lobby Agenda?
I think people are getting tired of this. What bothers me in this
instance is to see it coming from a legislator, and I'm hoping the
Inquirer was putting words in her mouth. Um, no, I'm not really hoping
that, because I don't want the Inquirer to put words in politicians'
mouths. You know what I mean. (I mean you, the reasonable readers, not
the people who think an opinion is a lobby is an agenda.)
Of course, to the Inquirer (and, apparently, Governor Rendell) the
argument that current laws are not being enforced is not a legitimate
argument or idea worthy of discussion on its merits:
Rendell's 40-minute appearance, in which he sought to refute gun-
lobby arguments about weak enforcement of current laws...
How dare I have opinions which are "gun lobby arguments"?
Stay tuned for more gun lobby arguments, and gay agenda arguments.
Speaking of lobbies and arguments, I enjoyed this piece of, um,
"constituent email" which activists were urging be sent to Kate Harper:
We will never have a sane gun policy unless we stand up to the gun
lobby.
You can start today.
Please take a moment to pick up the phone and call a couple of
people on the committee. It's a simple form of citizen action that makes
a big difference. They listen. I just did it myself. Here's what I said
(Rep. Kate Harper's office) - I got her voicemail:
Hi, my name is Hannah Miller, and I am calling to ask
Representative Harper to support the gun-control measures that are
coming up in front of the committee tomorrow. I live in Philadelphia and
I have seen friends lose their loved ones and family members because of
all these guns. Just this summer my friend had his 24-year-old son
paralyzed and we as a city can simply not take any more of this. Please
vote yes on HB 72 and 77. Thank you.
Something like that. That's all you have to do.
Here's the info and the members of the committee....
Sheesh. All I can say to that is this:
We will never have a sane family policy unless we stand up to the
gay lobby.
You can start today.
Pretty soon, there will be no real constituents, and no one will be
considered to have a real and independent opinion.
Beware!
If you have an opinion, you're just a lobbyist whose agenda assaults
someone's values.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
http://images.cafepress.com/product/124910883v3_150x150_Front.JPG
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
