The Teddy Bear Blog
"The Teddy Bear Blog" ( http://teddyblog.blogspot.com/ ) is the mostly political blog of a died-in-the-wool Republican conservative named 'Jay' from Massachusetts. It may be being discontinued, and the format changed while I was looking at it.
"Teddy Bear" is much more nearly what I think of by 'political blog' than is "Farenheit 911:" almost all of "Teddy Bear" is the blogger's comments, even if those are taken wholesale from the RNC brain-control office.
Like F911, though, TB highlights what I think is an unfortunate trajectory in American politics: complete bifurcation and thorough antagonism across the schism. Who is informed by anything written on TB? No one: the preached-to choir is exorted to sing louder; and any unbelievers listening at the window are calculated to be angered and offended.
I expect that Jay is a lot more thoughtful than he comes across as in TB, but it has become acceptable in American politics to bray like a howler monkey, with sheer volume substituting for reason and coherence. And, helpfully, the monkeys on the other side are howling too, and justifying every decibel anyone can manage against them.
It's all good fun, until you consider that people around the world are possibly going to live or die based on the results of this nonsense.
What is missing in TB is debate. Jay gives half or even just a tiny fraction of a story -- whatever part supports his opinion -- and runs with it. There's no one there to say, "Hold on, Jay -- no one is saying that 'Unfit for Command' should be pulled off the shelves; they're just saying that some of the accounts given by people involved with it -- accounts broadcast prominently on television in several closely contested election states -- are missleading and dishonest. And some of the accounts pretty clearly ARE missleading and dishonest!" No one is there to say, "Hold on, Jay -- clearly Kerry didn't mean that we should fight wars with wet noodles instead of with bombs and guns. Why don't we look at the context in which Kerry made his odd comment about fighting a 'sensitive' war, and discuss what he really meant, instead insisting on discussing the screwiest misinterpretation we can come up with about what he might have meant, were half of his brain removed?" Et cetera.
But it's not just Jay -- the link he provides to the National Review article is (a) full of crap that a more professional journalist would have cleaned up (but which Mark Goldblatt drops as fully accepted background information), and (b) insists on addressing the very silliest arguments against Bush as though they are the only arguments against him.
Writing: 7
Personal/Public: 8
Content Quality: 4
(New category for political blogs:)
Thoughtfulness: 2
Overall: 3
"Teddy Bear" needs an overhaul. At the moment, it provides a look into what the opinion of a deeply partisan Republican is, as though that was something hard to find. An unquestioning, unchallenged political opinion is about as useful as a solar powered flashlight.
"Teddy Bear" is much more nearly what I think of by 'political blog' than is "Farenheit 911:" almost all of "Teddy Bear" is the blogger's comments, even if those are taken wholesale from the RNC brain-control office.
Like F911, though, TB highlights what I think is an unfortunate trajectory in American politics: complete bifurcation and thorough antagonism across the schism. Who is informed by anything written on TB? No one: the preached-to choir is exorted to sing louder; and any unbelievers listening at the window are calculated to be angered and offended.
I expect that Jay is a lot more thoughtful than he comes across as in TB, but it has become acceptable in American politics to bray like a howler monkey, with sheer volume substituting for reason and coherence. And, helpfully, the monkeys on the other side are howling too, and justifying every decibel anyone can manage against them.
It's all good fun, until you consider that people around the world are possibly going to live or die based on the results of this nonsense.
What is missing in TB is debate. Jay gives half or even just a tiny fraction of a story -- whatever part supports his opinion -- and runs with it. There's no one there to say, "Hold on, Jay -- no one is saying that 'Unfit for Command' should be pulled off the shelves; they're just saying that some of the accounts given by people involved with it -- accounts broadcast prominently on television in several closely contested election states -- are missleading and dishonest. And some of the accounts pretty clearly ARE missleading and dishonest!" No one is there to say, "Hold on, Jay -- clearly Kerry didn't mean that we should fight wars with wet noodles instead of with bombs and guns. Why don't we look at the context in which Kerry made his odd comment about fighting a 'sensitive' war, and discuss what he really meant, instead insisting on discussing the screwiest misinterpretation we can come up with about what he might have meant, were half of his brain removed?" Et cetera.
But it's not just Jay -- the link he provides to the National Review article is (a) full of crap that a more professional journalist would have cleaned up (but which Mark Goldblatt drops as fully accepted background information), and (b) insists on addressing the very silliest arguments against Bush as though they are the only arguments against him.
Writing: 7
Personal/Public: 8
Content Quality: 4
(New category for political blogs:)
Thoughtfulness: 2
Overall: 3
"Teddy Bear" needs an overhaul. At the moment, it provides a look into what the opinion of a deeply partisan Republican is, as though that was something hard to find. An unquestioning, unchallenged political opinion is about as useful as a solar powered flashlight.
posted by Marsden at 8:14 PM
2 Comments:
Thank you for taking the time to review my blog.
I do, however, have to point out some errors in your review and in your poltics (which is what I care about more):
What is missing in TB is debate.How am I going to have a debate on my blog? Am I to have split-personalities? Should they each have a password and username? No, of course not. I have a section (always have had it) for comments of anyone who wants to spend the time to type them out. If you have read some of my past posts, you would see a post with an 11 comment debate I got into with another blogger.
In fact in my profile I have the quote: "I love a good debate"
I do not see how it is my fault that people do not want to take the time to leave comments.
If you do not like National Review that is not my fault. If you have a problem with them, tell them about it. But the tone you take against it speaks volumes, as does your well placed and sugar-coated insults.
"Teddy Bear" needs an overhaul. At the moment, it provides a look into what the opinion of a deeply partisan Republican is, as though that was something hard to find. An unquestioning, unchallenged political opinion is about as useful as a solar powered flashlight.Thank you for proving my point that I make in my profile. Anyone who holds a Republican political philosophy must be deeply partisan and get his/her ideas "wholesale from the RNC brain-control office." (to use your own words and by the way what and where is that place anyway?) One cannot have a Conservative opinion unless one is brainwashed by the RNC? Is that it? Of course my support of some labor unions would fly in the face of your opinion that I get my ideas only from the "RNC brain-control office".
I have been challenged on my political opinions in my life countless times, including on-line. (and not just including this review) But thank you for making judgments on a person’s life that you have never met. Although you should have know that a Massachusett's Republican would have his views challenged on a daily basis simply because of where he/she lives. Judgments on my blog are fine, but not my life.
For every "deeply partisan Republican" you claim is out there in the world, I can show you a "deeply partisan Democrat". If by "partisan" you mean "a person who has views and believes in them" as it seems you do. I will not overhaul my blog because someone happens to disagree with me. It is my blog and I will do with it as I see fit. And that debate that I had on my blog that I mentioned. It was with a Liberal and this is what he had to say after we were done:
"I enjoy this site, there is a great deal of insight that most conservatives (and for that matter liberals) lack. Keep up the good work!" --Tom
Different strokes for different folks I imagine.
You say that I "give half or even just a tiny fraction of a story -- whatever part supports his opinion -- and runs with it."
Well Mr. Pot, Mr. Kettle would like to have a word with you:
Hold on, Jay -- no one is saying that 'Unfit for Command' should be pulled off the shelvesNo one but John Kerry (from a source that I hope agrees with you):
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/08/19/swiftbook/index_np.html
The Kerry campaign calls on a conservative publisher to withdraw book after the Washington Post torpedoes the veracity of a Swift boat veteran.
Thanks for your comment, Jay.
A couple clarifications. When I wrote, "a died-in-the-wool Republican conservative" and "... even if those are taken wholesale from the RNC brain-control office," I was echoing your own comments about yourself:
"Just your normal, brainwashed, brownshirt Republican. I spend most of my time getting my marching orders from georgewbush.com and also my ideas. If I ever lost talk radio or the internet I would not know how to think."
I thought about toning down my remarks, or making more clear that they were reflecting your own ironic comments, but I decided that you were a big boy and could cope. Let me know if I was wrong about that, and I'll apologize to you. And, I am sorry if you think I was passing judgement on your life rather than just on your blog.
Regarding lack of debate, while you have explained why you do not have much debate on your blog, you have not really explained what the point of your blog is, given that you have not figured out a way effectively to include debate in it. And, how comfortable would you feel having a debate through leaving comments on someone else's website, a website over which he exercised editorial control, and whose readership (if any) was likely people pre-disposed to agree with him and possibly to flood you with attacks?
As you say, Jay, it's your blog. I just think it could be much better if you abandoned the style of ridiculing and antagonizing people with different viewpoints and instead sought out debate as something worthwhile for its own sake. But of course you'll probably tell me that deeply partisan Democrats don't do this, so why should you? And the answer is that deeply partisan Democrats' blogs aren't worth a damn, so you shouldn't want to imitate them.
Post a Comment
<< Home