I begin to understand that Matt Bohnsack and I have a fundamental communication problem. As some know, we’ve gone back and forth on a couple of issues on several different blogs (links below). In his recent response, he writes about the original article: “his article on cock fighting in New Mexico” and, later, “I wasn?t interested it the cock fighting.”
Do check out that article and note, since it isn’t obvious, that it wasn’t really about “cockfighting” except metaphorically. I’ve expressed elsewhere my views about New Mexicans pitting rosters against each other for money and blood.
To me, what that piece was about is summed up here:
[mjh:] You should definitely read for yourself and come to your own conclusions (see the links at the end of this entry). And that is what I am here to celebrate.
By which, I meant the Internet, the Web, and the blogosphere, including people I disagree with. Matt and I both celebrate that one can reach one’s own conclusions by burrowing through the accretions of the Web.
I understand now why Matt is so miffed. He’s very personally invested in Rathergate. I am not. My glib parenthetical remark pissed him off. That observation will surely bother him, as well.
I assume Matt is not reading this. Why return to someone who you believe cannot express himself to your satisfaction? What’s the point. Isn’t a pop-definition of insanity doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results? It might be insane to think I can persuade Matt of anything.
[Matt writes about my] “unveiled contempt for religious beliefs that are protected by the Bill of Rights
First of all, the same amendment that protects me from a State Religion also protects my right to express my contempt. Which right trumps the other? Secondly, my contempt is for those people who believe there IS a State Religion and it is Evangelical Christianity. That is contemptible.
[MB:] “Surely Mark doesn?t believe that only speech he agrees with should be free.”
Correct. In fact, I think it is vital that speech I disagree with be widely distributed. No sarcasm. I actually believe in the Marketplace of Ideas. For some reason, Matt insults me for giving “the weakest lip service to these freedoms.” I do the best I can; perhaps I’m simply weak.
[MB:] “All I want to know is why Mark thinks one kind of speech or press is good and protected, while other kinds erode the fabric of of democracy?”
It’s not the medium of speech (press, TV, blog, etc). It’s the specific expressions. I have a right to disagree with anything and to say so without being accused of repression (a technique for bullying others). Matt has the same right, as do we all.
[MB:] “All Americans should be troubled that Mark finds one kind of speech more precious than another.”
People who speak to or for ALL Americans kinda scare me. Most Americans shouldn’t have the slightest interest in me or Matt.
But, I do like that word “precious.” Freedom of Speech is precious to me. But that doesn’t mean I find every expression equally precious. Consider the grade schooler who called me “a pussy” after reading about my wife and me getting shot in the back by ruthless paintballers (even after seeing a rather grim photo). Note that I left that remark up and I did not notify his school — I let his remark stand, in part because I think I know how some will react. I have to wonder if Matt regards that remark the exact equivalent in every regard to his own writing.
[MB:] “[H]e?s also quite wrong in claiming that I suggested that he would try to to silence bloggers. He?s wrong, because I?ve never made this claim …. I?d ask Mark to please quote and cite the source”
From his first comments at theFix:
[MB:] “[E]xplain how you suggest that we should strengthen this important freedom in the future. Should we ban or regulate blogging?”
I know it’s more a question than a suggestion, but that plus the whole tone of his original comment sure made me sound like a bad guy. That view has certainly gotten clearer: “All Americans should be troubled” by me.
From his second comments at theFix:
[MB:] “You should be ashamed of yourself. … Please stop it.”
Stop expressing myself freely? Stop enjoying my freedom in a way you disapprove of? I’m not about to be bullied by you.
[MB:] “Give me validation or strike me down…. I?m going to keep asking these questions, until he provides me with a coherent answer.”
I clearly can’t satisfy Matt. It would be insane to keep asking the same question. I hope he continues to enjoy his freedom, as I do mine.
By the way, I’m not a member of the ACLU. And I was DTS (“Declines To State” or Independent) for many years. Peace, mjh
Quotes are from:
(1) Media Watch: Cockfighting in New Mexico
(2) bohnsack.com ? Rathergate
(3) mjh’s Blog: Conservatives For a Free Press