It's worth repeating...

Navigation

User login

Online users

Laurian
Bert
einmaleins
JMK
Rick
ontheroad
OperaGirl
JT
oldtimeydave
FRESH

Support OlyBlog

OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation:

OlyBlog is powered by:

Who's new

wilybadger
Mariner719
stiks071
banyantreenich
RenaissanceMan

It's worth repeating...

Submitted by Tschida on Wed, 08/15/2007 - 3:57pm.

A letter to the editor in the Olympian today regarding TJ Johnson.

TJ Johnson isn't the Pied Piper

I watched the Lakefair parade in disgust this year as I observed local anti-war/anti-military activist and Olympia City Council member TJ Johnson, leading his organization members through the streets of this town as if he were the Pied Piper.

I found their entry into this family oriented and close community event to be extremely political and distasteful.

They chanted loudly as they marched through the parade spewing their anti-America messages.

Wasn't this organization and City Council member also responsible for discouraging the military from attending this years Lakefair festivities? Didn't they claim that they would stage protests if our military made an appearance at the Port of Olympia?

They have used this parade to promote their political agendas.

Perhaps the Lakefair committee should take that into consideration before allowing this anti-American group to participate in next years festivities.

Anybody but TJ!

Shelley Weber, Olympia

Read the article here.

Well said. Could anyone imagine the result if a group had been in the parade with equal but opposite pro America and Support for our military and even anti-terrorism messages?

It seems to me that Mr Johnson enjoys the media attention, and believes his freedom of speech trumps the law as we saw in his illegal port protest. Ms. Weber was right in saying "Anybody but TJ!"

Tschida's blog

Ms Weber should stop whining

Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 08/15/2007 - 4:03pm.

and join the parade. And I'm sick and tired of the "can you imagine if" scenario. Stop imagining and do it. Then tell us about the brutal reception you recieved at the hands of your fellow Olympians.

Angry much?

Submitted by Tschida on Wed, 08/15/2007 - 4:39pm.

How about that angry response to a suggestion that people stand up for the military, our nation, and against terror? I would not call your anger 'brutal' but I would say it is indicative of the left in Olympia. Particularly from people like TJ Johnson.

Project much?

Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 08/15/2007 - 4:54pm.

My response had nothing whatsoever to do with the "suggestion that people stand up for the military, our nation, and against terror?" I am simply fed up with people who whine about what might happen IF they express themselves in Olympia. They are creating an offense where none has even had the opportunity to occur.

Furthermore, my response was no more "angry" than the letter you posted. You need to learn how to distinguish anger from disagreement my friend.

Got your back

Submitted by Norm on Wed, 08/15/2007 - 5:03pm.

Gugli doesn't seem like an angry person. You should have a beer with him sometime, pretty relaxed persona.

Thanks Norm...

Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 08/15/2007 - 5:14pm.

I like to think of myself as a kinder, gentler America hater.

Is this the same TJ Johnson....

Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Wed, 08/15/2007 - 4:13pm.

Is this the same TJ Johnson that protested the war and his "opposition" publically called for him to be jailed and gang raped in jail?

Is this the same TJ Johnson that is an American citizen and has the right to disagree with the government and STILL BE PRO AMERICA????

Since when did blind allegence become Pro-American? Since when does anti-war equate to pro-terrorism? Since when does sending our troops to their death with no real purpose equate to "pro-troops"?

The rhetoric game can be played from both sides, C.

I don't find TJ's opposition to be pure as driven snow either.

"There is only one race, the human race" - The Neville Brothers

Good questions...

Submitted by Tschida on Wed, 08/15/2007 - 4:57pm.

If someone said that about TJ Johnson they are no better than he is. I wouldn't say that about him. I would say he should be chucked from the OCC. Blocking shipments of equipment to our troops in the theater of battle does not support them in anyway, is not excusable, and for an elected official to disregard the law should get him tossed out of office. He is not pro America. He sees America as the source of conflict and a belligerent super power and a force for evil. Who called for blind allegiance to anything? How do you negotiate with people sworn to kill infidels by their religion? How does that work exactly? Remember when we didn't fight terrorism and the result of not stopping the likes of Al Qaeda? Hell, even Bill Clinton's stated policy on Iraq was regime change, and how many UN resolutions were defied by the Iraqi government as they sponsored terror? Stopping terrorism is a pretty good thing to fight for. Keeping terrorists from flying planes into our buildings, killing thousands of American's at a time seems a pretty good idea. Defending the only democracy in the Middle East seems a pretty good idea. But I know... a Republican president did all this and thus it is totally intolerable. But hey the previous liberal administration did such a good job dealing with terrorists and those who support them. How exactly do you support the troops but want them to fail in their mission, and actively work to prevent them from getting the tools that allow them to perform their mission? Of course the rhetoric game can be played on both sides, but I don’t see much in the way of complaint when the rhetoric comes from the left. Do you?

I'll address one question at a time...

Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Wed, 08/15/2007 - 7:03pm.

"How do you negotiate with people sworn to kill infidels by their religion? "

The same way that they negotiated with the Protestants and the Catholics in Ireland that were committing acts of "terrorism".

Sorry, C, that dog don't hunt. Demonizing the opposition after you pissed them off into a war is nothing more than a rhetorical game.

"There is only one race, the human race" - The Neville Brothers

Protestants and Catholics

Submitted by Tschida on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 8:09am.

So you think that Protestants and Catholics who were fighting, to settle the type of government they would have or if they would split apart, is the same as the calls to destroy or subjugate infidels in Islam? What we have here is moral relativism. And then you go on to say that A) we started the war, and B) that dog don't hunt. That is laughable. C.

The more militant of the

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 8:16am.

The more militant of the Protestants and Catholics want to see the opposing side shipped out or shot. Just because they're white and allegedly Christian doesn't mean that their killing and terror is more acceptable.

It's a fair call, but Society's to blame. ~ Right! We'll be charging them too!

I didn't suggest

Submitted by Tschida on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 9:16am.

I didn't suggest the terror in the UK was acceptable, I don't think it was or is.

It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with a so called religion. From the time of Muhammad up to today, Islam calls for the destruction of infidels, or subjugation of them. Christianity is quite the opposite.

Quite...

Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 10:30am.

Soups on

and beginning about 315

Are we talking about the same Christianity?

Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 10:43am.

The same one that has been responsible for the killing of doctors?

The same one that was practiced during the Inquisition?

The same one that has scripture passages that speak of wars between believers of their faith and non-believers?

The same one that talks about the destruction of our world as we know it and only Christians will survive in Heaven?

Sound pretty terrorist to me

"There is only one race, the human race" - The Neville Brothers

"Sound pretty terrorist to me"

Submitted by Tschida on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 11:01am.

Sure if you take things out of context like you have. Revise history like you have, and wring your hands and gnash your teeth because the Bible illustrates consequences for rejecting God and the love, forgiveness and redemption he has offered us.

But hey, it is fashionable to decry what happened during the dark ages. The problem is the stuff that was perpetrated during that time is not justified by the Bible, but rather the deeds of evil men. Killing doctors is sanctioned in the Bible? Of course not! But it suits your world view to try to say that this is what Christianity is about, rather than put the blame squarely on the likes of evil men like Eric Rudolph. As for your statement “scripture passages that speak of wars between believers of their faith and non-believers?” I would be happy to know what verses you are referring to, and then explain how you have taken them out of context.

Didn't someone say something in this comment stream about one way logic and use of non sequitors?

Fashionable to recognize history?

Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 11:12am.

Uh, okay. Guess I don't want to be an ignorant dork. Christianity does not have a monopoly on virtue and Islam does not have a monopoly on violence, that's all. I'm a Catholic, by the way. I was born nashing my teeth, but for different reasons.

You're missing the point.

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 11:15am.

You're missing the point. There's plenty of muslims who would never dream of killing anyone, just as there are plenty of Christians who would never bomb a clinic.

I find it curious that you disregard examples of wrongs committed in the name of Christianity as revised history and of being taken out of context. Do you deny that these atrocities have happened? Maybe there aren't Crusades and Inquisitions anymore but there's still plenty of hate hiding under the Christian banner (Rev. Phelps, Pat Robertson, Army of God, etc.) It's one thing to say "that's wrong, and I don't condone that.", it's another to say "you're taking that out of context."

and wring your hands and gnash your teeth because the Bible illustrates consequences for rejecting God and the love, forgiveness and redemption he has offered us.

Enough with the preaching for Christ sake. Why's it okay for you to fall back on the Bible whether people want to hear you or not, but a Muslim reading his Qu'ran is looking to destroy America?

Uh...we DID start the war in Iraq

Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 10:38am.

Without provocation on the part of the Iraqi government or the people of Iraq, the United States attacked. That is a fact and not deniable nor laughable.

Let's not start with the "9/11" stuff, because that dog don't hunt either.

"There is only one race, the human race" - The Neville Brothers

Maybe you need a new dog...

Submitted by Tschida on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 11:10am.

Clinton's stated policy on Iraq was regime change. Iraq was materially supporting terror specifically against Israel, by paying bombers and their families. Iraq had WMD's and was building more. Iraq tossed out the UN inspectors and most likely sent his weapons stores to Syria. Iraq repeated violated UN Security Council Resolutions. Iraq repeatedly fired upon American and British aircraft in clear violation of those UN SC resolutions. Iraq was given an ultimatum to allow inspectors back in under threat of conflict for failing to comply. How about you stop pretending there was no provocation? C.

My dog is working fine...his nose detects...

Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 11:24am.

First of all, I took nothing out of context on my questions about Christianity. Another blogger said it best when saying the Christianity doesn't have the market cornered on goodness and Islam doesn't have the market cornered on terror.

What my dog has flushed out of the BUSHES is someone that is talking Clinton, who left office in January of 2001, when we attacked Iraq in March of 2003. BUSH was the President.

There were no WMDs found. Calling Iraq wrong to "support bombers" would be in the same category as calling the US wrong for providing Saddam the weapons to kill his own people. The failure to comply that you speak of was not supported by the United Nations, who wanted to continue to work peaceful solutions to the challenge. Did you forget, or did I re-write history in 5 minutes from my head?

"There is only one race, the human race" - The Neville Brothers

Expansion

Submitted by The Original Yoda on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 12:08am.

Excuse me, but when you go from a local city councilperson's stand on a controversial war to wide ranging tactical definitions in a "war on terror"...

Just seems a little silly...

What parade was Shelley

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Wed, 08/15/2007 - 4:19pm.

What parade was Shelley Weber watching? I saw plenty of military, about as much as I've seen in years past.

Last I checked Veterans for Peace consisted of, get this, Veterans, not necessarily an anti-military group of people.

The port protest was legal. Some of the actions, such as destroying property and blocking roads, was illegal.

I guess it's Anti-American not to be a sheep sucking off the Prez. It's Anti-American not to want to kill peoples of different races and religions for no good reason. It's Anti-American to expect our military to conduct themselves with impecable standards.

Really...?

Submitted by Tschida on Wed, 08/15/2007 - 5:01pm.

Isn't the very name Veterans for Peace connote an anti-military image? If the military is not used for support and defense of our nation how do they achieve peace when we as nation are attacked?

"I guess it's Anti-American not to be a sheep sucking off the Prez." Who was calling for anyone to be a sheep? Are you being a sheep of the uber-liberal left like TJ Johnson?

"It's Anti-American to expect our military to conduct themselves with impecable standards." Who said that? Ya just making things up now? Or are you just that angry that someone disagrees with you?

Pro-peace

Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 08/15/2007 - 5:10pm.

is anti-military? So if you're pro-military, then I can assume you are anti-peace? You can understand my confusion, I'm sure.

No Guglielmo your confusion is beyond me.

Submitted by Tschida on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 8:14am.

No I am all for peace. If in order to keep American safe from terror attacks, we use military strength, I am fine with that. I am sure you have heard of peace thorugh strength?

So your "logic"

Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 8:40am.

is a one-way road and you change directions at your convenience. Okay. Now that I know that, I won't be confused again.

???

Submitted by Tschida on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 9:19am.

How did I change direction?

You are pro-peace and pro-military

Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 9:58am.

but you say Veteran's for Peace are anti-military because they are pro-peace. Anyway, you aren't at all interested in confronting these contradictions. It seems to me you're more interested in prompting reactions that reinforce your status as a target of the "intolerant" left. Enjoy.

Preemptive measures?

Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 10:45am.

If we were to use preemptive measures against the terrorism of the KKK, how much of the South would have survived

"There is only one race, the human race" - The Neville Brothers

.....would that have been a

Submitted by Norm on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 11:01am.

.....would that have been a bad thing?

Crushing slavery and the

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 11:21am.

Crushing slavery and the horrors committed during the Civil Rights era would've been a good thing. I don't think burning all the plantations and imprisoning all the racist white folk prior to the actual war would've been the right way to go.

It's a fair call, but Society's to blame. ~ Right! We'll be charging them too!

I thought that the KKK

Submitted by Norm on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 11:32am.

I thought that the KKK started long after the civil war?

Right, but it was in

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 11:38am.

Right, but it was in response to the collapse of the Plantation life along with xenophobic fear of Blacks gaining new power. Since the whole point was in response to "pre-emptive" that's where I went.

Now, if we were to send The Terminator back in time to assassinate Col. Forrest Lynch, or whatever the founder's name was, that might be alright.

It's a fair call, but Society's to blame. ~ Right! We'll be charging them too!

What?

Submitted by Tschida on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 11:18am.

We did use preemptive measures against the KKK by infiltrating them, and so on. Maybe in hindsight, the government should have done more to preemptively stop the terror of the KKK and more 14 year old black girls would have lived to adult hood. Maybe we should have removed and prosecuted elected officials who openly supported the KKK. Is dealing with a terror group on American soil the same as dealing with foreign terrorists? No! Why would you make that connection? I don't understand. C.

Is dealing with a terror

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 11:24am.

Is dealing with a terror group on American soil the same as dealing with foreign terrorists? No! Why would you make that connection?

You've got to be kidding me. What, foreign terrorists are less acceptable? What's the difference? Maybe you see a difference because, for all their wrongs, the KKK at least consider themselves Christian and read portions of the Bible? Is that it?

Isn't the parade a private

Submitted by Norm on Wed, 08/15/2007 - 4:48pm.

Isn't the parade a private affair? or is it open registry for anything?

As for TJ, he's an attention whore and should be ignored. Ms. Weber shouldn't have even written this piece imo. I may have to celebrate his leaving the council when the time comes.

TJ is whiny, childish, and

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Wed, 08/15/2007 - 4:50pm.

TJ is whiny, childish, and detrimental to the causes he stands up for. I don't like it when "the opposition" automatically assumes I'm one of his groupies just because we allegedly share some of the same beliefs.

Just so we're clear, I was

Submitted by Norm on Wed, 08/15/2007 - 4:55pm.

Just so we're clear, I was replying to the original thread, not you Merwyn. I couldn't tell if that's what you were thinking or not. I'd never accuse you of being a TJ groupy.

No worries, all was

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Wed, 08/15/2007 - 5:00pm.

No worries, all was well!

It's a fair call, but Society's to blame. ~ Right! We'll be charging them too!

Gosh,

Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 08/15/2007 - 4:57pm.

I thought TJ had the power to summon thousands of protesters to Olympia with his "I hate America" bat signal.

No no no

Submitted by Norm on Wed, 08/15/2007 - 5:02pm.

It's not the "bat signal" it's the "Hippy Beacon"

Man, I want a Hippy Beacon

Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 08/15/2007 - 5:16pm.

You turn it on and ... you wait ... and wait ...

No silly

Submitted by Norm on Wed, 08/15/2007 - 5:27pm.

it's not a light like the bat signal.....the beacon is a "smoke" signal. Your results will vary depending on what you are burning

I object to the name-calling in Norm's comment

Submitted by jlw on Wed, 08/15/2007 - 6:10pm.

I'm referring to the comment posted at 4:48. I find it inappropriate and offensive. Perhaps we could express differing opinions without resorting to name-calling?

What name would you prefer?

Submitted by Norm on Wed, 08/15/2007 - 6:20pm.

What name would you prefer? Here is a definition from the urban dictionary. I believe TJ falls under #2. I find it funny that all of the name calling here ( ie the BIGGER politicans ) and you have a problem with THIS term? Didn't someone have a picture of dick cheney eating a baby not too long ago?

TJ is a politican, as such he is the target of public ridicule when he does something that his public finds ridiculous. I'm not making fun of his race, religion or gender so I fail to see the problem here.

Frankly, name-calling makes YOU look bad.

Submitted by jlw on Wed, 08/15/2007 - 9:12pm.

Can't you make your point without using offensive names? Can you give us examples that back up your argument, rather than pointing us to some irrelevant website? I doubt if you can, because your characterization is wrong. Where do you get your information about TJ, anyway? Is ANY of it firsthand, or is it all strictly via the Olympian? I've spent a lot of time in TJ's presence, at City Council meetings, at demonstrations, and at meetings. I don't know him to be eager for attention, at all. He generally seems to be a very good listener, he makes his point by using FACTS, and he tends to be very solutions-oriented. He gets a lot of attention because of his position on the City Council, but I have never felt that he was seeking it out.

BTW, I don't really endorse name-calling in general, but it certainly bothers me less when it's directed at Dick Cheney, George Bush, or Bill Clinton. Know why? Because I don't know them. I do know TJ, and I like and respect him. Your glib name-calling is unfair, wrong, and childish. Really, Norm, can't you do better than that?

Firsthand? Well there are

Submitted by Norm on Wed, 08/15/2007 - 10:03pm.

Firsthand? Well there are the city council meetings I have been to, close to a dozen I would say. He always seems to have that little sign on his laptop. Being different you know, getting his say out without speaking. Some would call that attention seeking behavior. I would, and I'm not the only one. Speaking of city council meetings, how long ago was it when he got pissy about the Rafah sister city bs and decided to make a motion to dissolve any other sister city agreements that Olympia had? Yeah, that seemed like a drama-queen kind of thing to do....attention seeking. FYI I got that one from the Olympian, but considering it was televised I'm sure someone else can back me up there. How about this one, I was down at the protest when he was there. I saw him firsthand (again) doing what he does best. Nothing like having a local politician in your corner eh? How about the comments for the papers during the protests? I suppose he could have said "no comment" but instead he brought attention upon himself (he knew folks in the community would pay attention and most would probably disagree) and gave us a few of his thoughts on the subject. His arrest in Tacoma?

I don't read the Olympian very often so most of that came from other sources. The website was COMPLETELY relevant. It pointed to the definition of the term "attention whore"! How can that NOT be relevant????

Can I make my point without using names? Probably but the names feel awfully appropriate and very colorful given the man they are pointed toward. I realize you have a soft spot for TJ, but realize that I don't agree with the man, or his behavior and I will talk badly about him as long as he is representing me. So there are your "FACTS" that I based my OPINION of this guy on. If he wants to earn my respect he should try representing the city a little better and representing his cause(s) a little less.

Is that better Janet?

Cute little tirade

Submitted by jlw on Wed, 08/15/2007 - 10:27pm.

It didn't convince me, though. I still think name-calling is unsuitable for intelligent discourse.

Thanks!!!

Submitted by Norm on Wed, 08/15/2007 - 10:30pm.

Normally I agree with your last sentence but it's been a tirade kind of week. I honestly didn't think I would convince you of anything. TJ is someone you consider a friend and I respect that, even if I don't respect him.

PS I would have changed the "attention whore" comment, but I couldn't (and still can't) seem to edit the post.

How does a person take this seriously?

Submitted by Tschida on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 9:04am.

You don't know Clinton so its ok to call him names? Ever heard of hyperbole? Is it possible people find a guy like TJ Johnson repellant and would use hyperbole in order to make a point about his character?

For someone who throws around literary terms, Tschida....

Submitted by jlw on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 11:46am.

... your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. I wrote "I don't really endorse name-calling in general." How did you get from there to "You don't know Clinton so its [sic] okay to call him names?" Then, you go on to justify name-calling by calling it hyperbole. Hyperbole can take many forms, many of which are not name-calling. I really don't endorse name-calling in general, even hyperbolic name-calling.

And I get accused of personal attacks!

Submitted by Tschida on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 3:54pm.

I can't always find every persons nuance, nor am I going to try. You said, "but it certainly bothers me less when it's directed at Dick Cheney, George Bush, or Bill Clinton." As for "throwing around literary term" did you think no one knew the meaning of hyperbole? Should I not use it because you don't like it? Should I dumb it down to suit your taste?

It is a ridiculous contradiction, and either using the term media whore is ok or it is not. I for one don't care for dull PC games. I think you should worry less about my reading comprehension and more about your moral relativism. I concluded from what you wrote that name calling is permissible, if you don't like or don't know the person.

Media whore is a commonly used term that most people understand. It is also hyperbole. I don't care if you like or dislike the term media whore, but I find humor in the fact that you are offended by its application to TJ Johnson, and not so much with Bill Clinton.

Oh, and by the way, thanks for noticing that I forgot my apostrophe in the word 'its'. Well done!

Some advice...

Submitted by Rick on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 4:00pm.

...if you'd like to become part of the community at OlyBlog, then I recommend that you do pay a bit more attention to what others like and don't like. That's how it works here.

Janet said "it bothers me less." You inferred "it's ok." When she brought this discrepancy to your attention, the appropriate thing to do would have been to say, "Ooops, sorry for putting words in your mouth."

When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion. -C.P. Snow

Attention whore?

Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Wed, 08/15/2007 - 9:23pm.

Such an interesting terminology. I was once called an "attention whore" because I was involved in debate with several people at once in The Olympian thread. Several people happened to disagree with me, so I was the "attention whore"....hmmmm.

Let's see, other attention whores - football players that celebrate after making a tackle or touchdown? Basketball players that dunk when a layup would do the job on a fast break (although one might say it's prudent to ASSURE a basket with the dunk)? Baseball players that stand and watch their homerun leave the park then run to first base?

A few other thoughts on attention whores - Presidents of organizations that hold rallies in cities right after children are killed with guns? People that stand outside of hospice centers praying in public to be seen by men (check the Bible for Jesus' stand on that one)? How about Presidential aides that bug their own office and then claim that someone else did it?

That "attention whore" title could be cast in a lot of directions.

"There is only one race, the human race" - The Neville Brothers

Probably

Submitted by Norm on Wed, 08/15/2007 - 10:19pm.

What was that saying about a dog not hunting?

1. I don't watch a whole lot of professional sports. Mostly they disgust me because a bunch of hurking neanderthals are getting paid millions of dollars just to play a game. I don't agree with their dancing after a TD and I think "dunking" should be outlawed so that basketball can be semi-interesting again.

2. I frequently disagree with the NRA. The case you listed is one of those times. They should have rescheduled and done a change of venue. Unfortunately I have no pull with them.

3. Are you talking about vigil prayer-groups? I don't normally pray in a group and prefer absolute solitude when I choose to communicate with a higher power, you lost me there.

4. Yep, and many, MANY things that politicans do are attention seeking in their motive (imo)

Anything else or did you just want to remind me that I should be ok with TJ's behavior because other people within our society, that I have a huge lack of respect for, exhibit the same type of behavior?

All of my examples were rhetorical Norm

Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 2:19am.

I find an exhibition of passion in sports to be part of the show, not an attention getting device. I find the art of dunking to be amazing. There is something about the pure confidence in watching a ball leave the playing field from home plate that is quite amazing to me. As I singles hitter, I was taught to run like hell.

I'm thinking the NRA should have rescheduled also, but I don't think Heston is crafty enough to plan to take advantage of the "attention". There is no question to me, that a group of people praying want to be seen, but regardless of the scripture, it could have a positive reason behind it. Rove used the technique, not for attention, but as a diversion.

Without going on and on, Norm, I could use the tired old term "it's not about you", but that would make you look like an "attention whore", right?

As I mentioned to C in another part of this blog, rhetorical games can be played from both sides.

As far as quoting The Olympian as a reliable source to decide who is an "attention whore", well, I just need to mention the growning number of people that are siting their divisiveness in our community as a method of selling newspapers, as I consider their credibility. They are managed by a man that defended a satirist's right to desecrate a religious icon (Mohammed) and yet charge me with being "abusive to his readers" for standing my ground. Their growing hypocrisy loses much credibility in their assessment of others, in my eyes.

It appears to me that your politics and TJ Johnson's don't mix. I'm not sure that mine definitely mix with TJ's, other than we both oppose the war. I'm not even sure I would go to the same lengths as he has to oppose the war (I did my protesting in the 60s and 70s).

The one thing that I can't agree with is that because someone does something public, openly and in their mind, with honesty for their feelings, they are an "attention whore", nor more than I think I should have backed down to several people who decided to debate me in print. Unless I was exercising mind control over them so that they would debate me so that I could make a spectacle of myself, I was just holding up my side of the argument.

The "other side" of the "attention whore" coin, if you will.

"There is only one race, the human race" - The Neville Brothers

Arguing with folks on the

Submitted by Norm on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 8:45am.

Arguing with folks on the olympian online, vs getting arrested in tacoma, giving quotes to the Olympian (even if misquoted they are still quotes) and making a little scene at a city council meeting. You must see the huge difference in levels here. By some folks reaction I'm sure you can guess that I rarely use the term, and very rarely on the blog. I reserve it for when I think a person is outwardly or annoyingly doing so.

TJ marched with Veterans for Peace in the Lakefair Parade

Submitted by jlw on Wed, 08/15/2007 - 6:05pm.

I have never heard TJ take a pro-terrorist position, however I have heard him make some very thoughtful comments about the increasing militarization of America, and how this works against the best interests of individuals and communities. The Veterans for Peace are well-qualified, I think, to take a stand against war, having experienced it first-hand in many cases. It is my impression that there is a range of feelings about the military among Veterans for Peace. Some are now anti-war, and others are just against THIS WAR, the illegal occupation of Iraq. I think it's silly to immediately assume that anyone who supports Veterans for Peace would be opposed to defending the country if it were attacked. That is certainly not what the illegal occupation of Iraq is about.

The rhetoric never changes....

Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Wed, 08/15/2007 - 6:44pm.

If you don't think like us, you're "anti-American".

Sheesh....doesn't it get old?

"There is only one race, the human race" - The Neville Brothers

I'm not playing the ball...

Submitted by enpen on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 12:36am.

Did we enter a time warp? Is Tsichida actually TFI all grown up and born again?

No way,

Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 1:45am.

TFI is way more reasonable. Trust me, he and I have had many debates on this blog. Tschida is a troll in bloggers clothing.

I don't toe the line so I am a troll?

Submitted by Tschida on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 8:24am.

Really? That is it? If only I would agree with the extreme left I would be more appreciated and valued? I don't recall ever turning down a debate or discussion of ideas. I think you just don't like that someone doesn't agree with you and holds so very different ideals and beliefs.

Has nothing to do with toeing the line

Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 8:48am.

It has everything to do with planting roadside bombs like "isn't the very name Veterans for Peace connote an anti-military image?" Don't just say it, say WHY.

Here is an example Guglielmo

Submitted by Tschida on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 11:31am.

This took about 10 seconds to find on Google.

Anti-War Protests Target Wounded at Army Hospital

link

You will note that VFP is also closely associated with the Code Pink people. Birds of a feather and all that.

Enjoy.

How about finding something

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 11:43am.

How about finding something specifically on Veterans for Peace - Rachel Corrie Chapter.

I agree that the hospital's probably not the best place for the demonstrations; more specifically I think the timing is wrong for sending messages to soldiers still dealing with traumatic injuries. However the message ("Maimed for a lie" etc.) is right on.

So that means

Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 11:51am.

if I am pro-peace then I am anti-military? Let's just move on.

I can agree that just

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 8:50am.

I can agree that just because one has a less-popular view and expresses it doesn't automatically make them a Troll. I've been called that here, they even had a backroom discussion about me once.

I think it's when the opinions are used to denigrate others, or are posted just for the sake of getting a rise out of people, that we have a problem. Or when a person is consistently confrontational, especially without reading thoroughly the posts they're responding to. Or using non sequiter responses to arguments.

Etc.

It's a fair call, but Society's to blame. ~ Right! We'll be charging them too!

LOL! The extreme left! If

Submitted by Meta Hogan on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 8:57am.

LOL! The extreme left! If you think folks here are the extreme left, you need to get out more.

Really Meta?

Submitted by Tschida on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 9:08am.

Do you really think this is even close to a mainstream blog?

As mainstream as any

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 9:12am.

As mainstream as any smalltown blog can be.

Ask how many of the core posters are Pro-Life. or Christian. or Own Guns. or Don't Hate Cops.

Etc.

It's a fair call, but Society's to blame. ~ Right! We'll be charging them too!

Merw, you sparked a thought for me

Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 10:35am.

I consider myself "pro-life" as I don't support killing people and I'm not a proponent of war as an answer to disagreements.

Now, on the other hand, I believe in a woman's right to choose to carry a child to gestation and do not consider "life" to start before "birth".

That doesn't make me "anti-life"

"There is only one race, the human race" - The Neville Brothers

You and I tore into each

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 10:42am.

You and I tore into each other about this back in the Olympian days. (I think it was the only time we were heavily disagreeing over something.) I'd rather not hijack this thread.

It's a fair call, but Society's to blame. ~ Right! We'll be charging them too!

As mainstream as...

Submitted by Tschida on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 11:40am.

This blog is representative of the culture in our area. I didn't try to suggest otherwise. The culture in Olympia Washington is overtly to the left. Not everything is this way, but more often than not you if a person is honest they will recognize that this is the current state of our culture. However, this blog is no where near the center of the political spectrum. There are not a bunch of Joe Lieberman types here. I don't know the core posters stance on issues like gun control or abortion. I only know what I read in the posts and comments. These comments speak for themselves when it comes to placement on the political spectrum. C.

We are assessing the situation

Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 12:10pm.

as we speak. On another thread about our Politcal Compass scores. The most extreme scores in either direction have to pitch in and buy a round for the rest of us.

I can see myself buying one

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 12:14pm.

I can see myself buying one round, but you're not getting three from me. (Besides, I was close enough to the center.)

It's a fair call, but Society's to blame. ~ Right! We'll be charging them too!

To clarify...

Submitted by Tschida on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 9:22am.

Do you think the political aspect of this blog is mainstream?

Not one unified thing

Submitted by Rick on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 9:26am.

People have a lot of different opinions on OlyBlog -- that's the beauty of it. If you'd like to make the argument for your views, I'm sure people will engage you in a conversation.

Yup

Submitted by Norm on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 9:32am.

What he said

That's not the point

Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 9:34am.

You're the one who characterized the blog as "extreme." Now you want "us" to explain how mainstream we are? You're the one who needs to defend your generalization.

I'd like to say...

Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 11:40am.

That although Tschida and I are on opposite sides on this, and possibly many other issues, that doesn't (in my mind) make him or I a "troll" (another of those rhetorical games that is tiring).

Can we collectively get past the labels and just focus on the discussion?

"There is only one race, the human race" - The Neville Brothers

hoo

Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 2:34am.

I think it's been established that use of the word "whore" is offensive, and perhaps we should stop using it. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that's what Janet was getting at.

When did we decide that? I

Submitted by Norm on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 8:39am.

When did we decide that? I must have been absent that day. Keep in mind I used a very different adjective in front of the word. I wasn't calling him that, I was calling him the attention seeking version of one.

You're right, Rob

Submitted by jlw on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 12:34pm.

I do object to the use of the word "whore," but I also object to name-calling in general. And I think it's disturbing that the Olympian publishes letters which encourage such an infantile style of discourse.

No Mr. Richards,

Submitted by Tschida on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 8:25am.

Using the term 'whore' in the context of hyperbole is just fine if Janet doesn't personally know the person. It is only offensive if she likes the person it is being used about.

Actually

Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 8:52am.

the phrase is an artifact of somewhat misogynistic heritage. We should recognize it as such and avoid its use.

There's a difference between

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 8:58am.

There's a difference between calling someone a whore and calling them an attention whore. Few people would mistake one definition for the other. There are plenty of people who proudly describe themselves as Attention Whores, myself included. Maybe we can be more benign and be referred to as A-Hos?

It's a fair call, but Society's to blame. ~ Right! We'll be charging them too!

Yes,

Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 9:29am.

That is why you and some other folks do not find the term offensive. But phrases like "attention whore" and "bitch slap" need to be checked at the door, and for obvious reasons.

I think you and I will

Submitted by Norm on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 9:31am.

I think you and I will disagree on this one. The term is pretty broadly used vs just the term "whore" and certainly used in a different context than "bitch slap". The only time I've heard that term (out of hiphop music) has been as a joke.

You are correct

Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 9:44am.

We disagree on this one.

It's ok G, I still think you

Submitted by Norm on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 9:47am.

It's ok G, I still think you are cool.

No problem Norm

Submitted by Guglielmo on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 10:32am.

or should I say, "Cookie."

Either works. Cookie was

Submitted by Norm on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 10:36am.

Either works. Cookie was more appropriate in the military where I had "Cook" on my name-tape.

Hear, hear

Submitted by jlw on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 12:31pm.

Guglielmo wrote, regarding "whore,"

the phrase is an artifact of somewhat misogynistic heritage. We should recognize it as such and avoid its use. »

I completely agree. Which makes it doubly funny that Tschida would suggest that I condone the use of the term. I guess he cares more about being inflammatory than being accurate. Is there a name for a person who does things like that?

Maybe there is, but enough

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 12:33pm.

Maybe there is, but enough with the name calling ;-)

Hypobole?

Submitted by jlw on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 1:35pm.

If I just hint at name-calling, could it be considered "hypobole?"

Don't misrepresent my words, Tschida

Submitted by jlw on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 11:51am.

I said I don't like name-calling in general, and it bothers me even more when it's directed at someone I know and respect. Your willful misrepresentation of my words says a lot about you, and your blogging tactics.

Ornery enough to say it

Submitted by Norm on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 11:53am.

Ornery enough to say it twice? ;)

Apparently, my computer

Submitted by jlw on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 12:19pm.

Apparently, my computer thought it was "worth repeating"!

Are you having a good day

Submitted by Norm on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 1:07pm.

Are you having a good day Janet?

I'm about to take off...

Submitted by jlw on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 1:11pm.

... for a workshop on Nonviolent Communication! I think you can be assured that I will return with even stronger ideas about name-calling. Get ready for it, Norm! You've got a little reprieve, though -- this evening, I'm hanging out with a couple of non-wired friends, in the woods. I think that will be a welcome respite.

In the woods? Be careful out

Submitted by Norm on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 1:34pm.

In the woods? Be careful out there. Bear and cougar and such. Maybe you should pack a gun ;)

Oh and I'm ready for anything you can bring. =D

Tschida?

Submitted by Sarah on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 12:53pm.

What is going on here? Are you after Janet for some reason? Your comment here reads as a unnecessary personal attack. Hey, remember, we are here to play the ball, not the person.

Not at all Sarah,

Submitted by Tschida on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 3:50pm.

Janet just doesn't like that I quoted her and then drew a logical conclusion from those words. I am not misrepresenting her words at all. That is why I used a quote from her. I do think it is kind of humorous that she would get in a twist about a commonly used term, at the same time she suggests that she is less offended when it is used about people she doesn't like.

Thread closed due to length

Submitted by Rick on Thu, 08/16/2007 - 4:01pm.

OlyBlog.net

OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you.

If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here.

Now playing at: