Tim-
Apologies for the delay in getting back to you.
I am happy to learn that you favor gay marriage, marijuana legalization, and a fundamental rethinking of our military posture. The first tells me that you have a decent regard for the legitimate aspirations of gay citizens, the second tells me that you are indeed motivated by a desire for individual liberty and limited government, and the third tells me that you have an interest in ensuring that our military is used in such a way that is actually advantageous to the interests of the republic. These are all fine things.
It is also a fine thing for you to criticize Obama, who merits a great of criticism. But criticism should serve, I think, a particular purpose - it should not merely serve to lower the reputation of a target who merits a lowered reputation, but should do so in such a way that those who are intended to think less of the target will do so on a reasonable basis. Anything else is damaging to the national understanding, which itself is the limiting factor to the rightness of the national conduct. A subset of the population that punishes one of its representatives for having engaged in the same conduct as other of its representatives have also engaged in without having prompted similar punishment is incapable of dealing fairly with any of its representatives. This is a matter of great concern not because certain representatives are thereby given a hard time, but because it thereby becomes impossible for that subset of the population to accurately assess those representatives. To the extent that this is the case, we have a great number of people who are inclined to grant extraordinary power to individuals without truly knowing who they are and what they will be inclined to do once it has been granted to them. It is of great importance that we know which of our candidates and officeholders are injurious to the causes we support and which are helpful to those causes. That may seem obvious, but many commentators do not compose their output in such a way that would lead me to believe that they agree.
The reason I asked you those three questions is because I want you to give some thought as to what you are trying to accomplish and whether you are going about it in a way that is helpful to the national understanding. If there is something wrong with the practice of an American president bowing down to a foreign monarch - and I myself strongly oppose the practice - then it would be better for your readers to know which American presidents have been guilty of this practice rather than to assume that such a practice is limited to those presidents to whom they are opposed.
Here are the questions I asked and your responses, followed by my explanations.
1. What do you think would motivate an American president to bow down before the emperor of Japan or any other monarch?
I have no idea but it is disturbing - compared to trillion + deficits, a drop in the bucket.
Very well, you find the practice to be disturbing and I agree with you.
2. How obvious is it that the first question is intended to get you to double down on the implication that Obama had done some terrible thing by bowing to a monarch?
It isn't quite so obvious....nevertheless Obama bowing to a Monarch (or anyone else for that matter) is a strange sight to behold but low in the priority scale for America to discuss (I know, I know, you wanted a gotcha moment). And before you assume it, no, I am not a birther.
I will admit that I am always on the lookout for a gotcha moment, but in this case my intention was to get you to explicitly characterize this behavior in a negative way.
3. Why do you suppose I would want you to do such a thing?
Because you hate anyone right of center? And trust me, I am right of center. But I am pro gay marriage, believe marijuana should be legalized, think that our troops should be brought home from the Middle East....
I wanted you to do so because many American presidents have done the exact same thing as Obama, including Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and Bush - which is to say, contrary to your belief, it is not at all a "strange sight to behold" but rather a very common one.
I don't mean to single you out, as you are less guilty on this count than, say, Michelle Malkin, who actually went so far as to compare Bush favorably to Obama on this instance when in fact Bush has bowed down to a number of monarchs and dictators, including theocratic Saudi royalty with whom his family has long been close. And, as you note, the republic has more pressing concerns than this issue. The problem is that this is merely an example of a phenomenon that goes on in the context of concerns that are not only pressing but also a matter of life and death.
1. What do you think would motivate an American president to bow down before the emperor of Japan or any other monarch?
2. How obvious is it that the first question is intended to get you to double down on the implication that Obama had done some terrible thing by bowing to a monarch?
3. Why do you suppose I would want you to do such a thing?
1. - I have no idea but it is disturbing - compared to trillion + deficits, a drop in the bucket.
2. - It isn't quite so obvious....nevertheless Obama bowing to a Monarch (or anyone else for that matter) is a strange sight to behold but low in the priority scale for America to discuss (I know, I know, you wanted a gotcha moment). And before you assume it, no, I am not a birther.
3. - Because you hate anyone right of center? And trust me, I am right of center. But I am pro gay marriage, believe marijuana should be legalized, think that our troops should be brought home from the Middle East....
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 9:51 PM, Left Coast Rebel
<leftcoastrebel@gmail.com> wrote:
Mr. Brown,
This is quite a list and response. Obviously you and I are on the opposite side of the political spectrum but I think you will find that in many ways, I, (along with many of my brethren) do not fit the template that you put forth here. First, you wrote:
..my purpose is to advance the Obama Agenda by means of avarice and
deception because all is permissible under dialectical materialism. This
is the key motivation of everyone who writes for such publications, of
course. Normally I don't tell people this outright but, having examined
some of your output, I gather that you've already gotten it all figured
out, so there really is no point to keeping up pretenses
This is quite funny and I admit, you are an excellent writer. On that point (the writing), you got my attention (and frankly, I am jealous of your cred). On the other point, not so much. As much as I loathed the Bush administration, especially in the later years, I loathe far even more the Obama administration. The fact that the press has never been an honest broker regarding Barack Obama and never will be, is a shameful and disgusting spectacle. I don't assume that you are a 'shill' for Obama. Also, I am far from a simpleton and I sense that you assume so, being that I am a conservative/libertarian. Still, I appreciate the sarcasm. Nice work!
Again, you wrote:
I wrote to you because I admire you. Whereas many other movement
conservative pundits were unwilling to defend Brewer's unusual decision
to smoke a bowl of salvia before giving her opening statement or
whatever the fuck was going on over there, you came right out and
characterized her as having exhibited the qualities of a "real person."
Presumably this is a good thing, one that ought to further incline
Arizonans to vote for her; just as presumably, or perhaps even more
presumably, but probably less presumably, she would have come off as
even more of a "real person" had she fallen out of her chair and then
just sat there on the ground making gurgling noises, and thus given
Arizonans even more of a reason to vote for her.
First, I don't appreciate the cursing, is that necessary? I believe it dilutes the point you are trying to make here. Also, you are crossing quite the theoretical bridge here to attempt to equate Brewer's gaffe/misstep/nervous mistake as being not that much different than her quivering on the floor in a drug-induced, slobbering state. If you assume that I would have defended her in that state, you are wrong.
Then you quipped:
In such a case, I imagine you would have defended her even more vocally
whereas other conservatives of less rigorous ideological commitment
might have just given up on her and gone back to writing about how
Islam, unlike other religions, has prompted violence.
Moving along, you said:
..you have attacked your political opponents for having exhibited far
lesser instances of "nervousness" and then write something to the effect
that you might be a disingenuous person. Pursuant to this, I did a bit
of Googling to find those instances and immediately came across
something else that caught my attention, which brings us back to the
emperor of Japan.
And am I to assume that ''nervousness'' led Obama to bow to the emperor of Japan? What then led him to bow to the Chinese President in April? Or the Mayor of Tampa? In the grand scheme of things, it's low on the totem poll. But, it is not becoming of a President. What say you?
Then, you finished with these questions, and I will respond:
1. What do you think would motivate an American president to bow down before the emperor of Japan or any other monarch?
2. How obvious is it that the first question is
intended to get you to double down on the implication that Obama had
done some terrible thing by bowing to a monarch?
3. Why do you suppose I would want you to do such a thing?
1. - I have no idea but it is disturbing - compared to trillion + deficits, a drop in the bucket.
2. - It isn't quite so obvious....nevertheless Obama bowing to a Monarch (or anyone else for that matter) is a strange sight to behold but low in the priority scale for America to discuss (I know, I know, you wanted a gotcha moment). And before you assume it, no, I am not a birther.
3. - Because you hate anyone right of center? And trust me, I am right of center. But I am pro gay marriage, believe marijuana should be legalized, think that our troops should be brought home from the Middle East....
If you are interested in more discussion that may be mutually beneficial for our media endeavors (as in content for an article at one of your outlets) that may send traffic to my site, then I am interested in furthering the conversation. If a grating tit-for-tat, is what you want, then don't waste my time.
Cordially,
-Tim
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Barrett Brown
<barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
Tim-
Thanks for getting back to me. Regarding your questions, I write for Vanity Fair, Skeptic, The Skeptical Inquirer, Huffington Post, New York Press, The Faster Times, and a few other outlets and also serve as director of communications for an atheism-oriented political action committee called Enlighten the Vote as well as the instigator of a media reform movement called Project PM. My purpose in doing so is to impress girls. More fundamentally, my purpose is to advance the Obama Agenda by means of avarice and deception because all is permissible under dialectical materialism. This is the key motivation of everyone who writes for such publications, of course. Normally I don't tell people this outright but, having examined some of your output, I gather that you've already gotten it all figured out, so there really is no point to keeping up pretenses, is there, Mr. Bond? I mean, Tim.
Of course, you were really asking me what my specific reason is for writing to you about your recent defense of Jan Brewer in the wake of her performance at what I assume to be some sort of thing involving Arizona. I'm going to be imperfectly honest with you; I wrote to you because I admire you. Whereas many other movement conservative pundits were unwilling to defend Brewer's unusual decision to smoke a bowl of salvia before giving her opening statement or whatever the fuck was going on over there, you came right out and characterized her as having exhibited the qualities of a "real person." Presumably this is a good thing, one that ought to further incline Arizonans to vote for her; just as presumably, or perhaps even more presumably, but probably less presumably, she would have come off as even more of a "real person" had she fallen out of her chair and then just sat there on the ground making gurgling noises, and thus given Arizonans even more of a reason to vote for her. In such a case, I imagine you would have defended her even more vocally whereas other conservatives of less rigorous ideological commitment might have just given up on her and gone back to writing about how Islam, unlike other religions, has prompted violence. In this, you are very much akin to one of those Japanese soldiers who stuck it out on some Pacific island long after the emperor had signed the treaty, except that in this case the Japanese are about to take back the House, which is what I get for using sloppy metaphors.
Having said all of that, I will come clean and state that my intention here was to prompt you to defend Brewer even further and then point out cases in which you have attacked your political opponents for having exhibited far lesser instances of "nervousness" and then write something to the effect that you might be a disingenuous person. Pursuant to this, I did a bit of Googling to find those instances and immediately came across something else that caught my attention, which brings us back to the emperor of Japan.
On a certain occasion, you criticized Barack HUSSEIN Obama for having bowed to the emperor of Japan. This being noted, I would like to ask you three questions.
1. What do you think would motivate an American president to bow down before the emperor of Japan or any other monarch?
2. How obvious is it that the first question is intended to get you to double down on the implication that Obama had done some terrible thing by bowing to a monarch?
3. Why do you suppose I would want you to do such a thing?
I look forward to your response.
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Left Coast Rebel
<leftcoastrebel@gmail.com> wrote:
Mr. Brown,
Yes I would be willing to discuss further but who are you with and for what purpose? Are you with a newspaper? Online source?
Cordially,
-Tim, Left Coast Rebel
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 2:43 AM, Barrett Brown
<barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
Howdy-
I was wondering if you'd be willing to discuss your assessment of Brewer's performance - as well as your assessment of those who have commented on her performance - at greater length. If so, please let me know.
--
Regards,
Barrett Brown
512-560-2302
--
Regards,
Barrett Brown
512-560-2302
--
Regards,
Barrett Brown
512-560-2302