Buy My Book Here

Fox News Ticker

Please check out my new books, "Prosecutors Gone Wild: The Inside Story of the Trial of Chuck Panici, John Gliottoni, and Louise Marshall" and also, "The Definitive Dossier of PTSD in Whistleblowers"

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

My Divorce with Big Government

Last week, I wrote this piece. (and subsequently submitted it as my weekly submission to the Watcher's Council) In the piece, I say that ideological wars are not only boring but destructive. In an ideological war, one philosophy treats the other as an enemy. In the piece, I used several examples including Big Government, as places that engage in ideological wars. Big Government is a site I have been featured on with occasion.

It seems the folks at Big Government didn't like my criticism of them, HERE ON MY OWN SITE, and so they've told me my contribution there is no longer welcome. There is some irony in this banishment. I once contributed to a fairly liberal blog called, Best of the Blogs. There, I expressed sharply conservative opinions and they were also eventually not welcome.

So, I've been banished by Conservatives for being too liberal and by liberals for being too conservative. In both instances, it was my personal opinion that got me banished. In a sense, the banishment proved the point of my piece. Big Government is not a news site. After all, on any given day, you are going to find a large helping of anti health care pieces, anti global warming, and anti big government pieces. That's not news but an agenda.

That was my problem with the site. It's why I haven't contributed in a while. I am totally bored of the health care debate. I don't write much on global warming and I've said all I can about big government. How can I contribute when I don't have much to offer on the subjects they want to cover. That isn't news. News constantly changes. Big Government just continues to hit the same points home.

When I submitted an ACORN piece, it would go up almost instantaneously. Any of my other pieces could sit and wait for months and often they wouldn't be approved at all. I would think that an investigative piece not found anywhere else is more interesting than yet another conservative opinion on ACORN. That's not how Big Government views it. Again, that's part of my problem with the site.

Folks like Big Government aren't interested in something new, different, or unique. Don't take my word for it. Just go to the site. It's an endless stream of anti Obama, anti Democrats, anti health care, and anti big government pieces. That was the point of the article they flagged and banished me for. There wasn't much of an explanation just that the article was "lame" and "ill conceived". It doesn't sound like the folks over there have any use for a debate.

This is part and parcel of the cynicism that I have discovered over the last year. People don't want to hear anything new. They don't want a different perspective, a different news story, or a different angle. We've been having a health care debate for well over a year and we're still having the same debate. It's why I put a piece together about non profit hospitals. What's going on with non profits has been all but ignored in what is supposed to be this long and in depth debate about health care.

That brings me back to Big Government. Of course, it's a conservative site. There's no liberal opinion on there. The difference is that they think that's great and I think it's bad. That's fine. That's what a debate is for. That Big Government will have none of. Instead, my opinion has gotten me banished. I've said that blogs are much like cults. This is a great example. In order to be a member of Big Government, you toe their line. It's right there in their agreement where they say, "don't go after our own". Jim Jones used to purge anyone that disagreed with him also. The mindset is similar only the stakes were higher then.

This is the problem. Folks like that aren't interested in debate. If they were, my criticism wouldn't merely be "ill conceived" and "lame". Instead, they might explain how it's "ill conceived"and "lame". That's not what an ideological endeavor wants. All they want is to push an ideology and anyone that doesn't agree one hundred percent of the time is purged. That isn't news, fair, but simply propaganda.


AG said...

So what would you recommend for reading material?

mike volpe said...

Great question. I would try and read a lot of different media. Also,as you've said, I would be keenly aware of developing critical thinking skills.

No one is perfect. Everyone has biases and so you should try and get many perspectives.

Jason Gillman said...

Its interesting how some folks feel there MUST be a middle ground.

I could care less about a middle ground. I want the truth ground.

If Big Government caters to conservatives who believe they have the truth, then why would they want to change their presentation to suit someone who has an occasional, "yet balanced" view.

In my view, there is so much wrong with the liberal leftist philosophies that exist right now, that I for one cannot give them an inch. Not even credit for the 2% of the time they might have a reasonable argument. Perhaps their editors also feel that way.

Might I suggest this analogy to your wondering why they might not like something that contradicts their particular philosophy?

Perhaps if you considered that Big Government would rather not empty out a clip on liberalism and the lefties, then reload, only to hand the gun over to them for a few shots back..

One of the problems the Republicans have had over the years in my view is the inability to NOT give the democrats any legitimacy when it was unearned. All done in the name of "bipartisanship."

The BEST way to proceed is to educate people WHY one side has the correct idea and showing it logically. Moderation of values and principles has the effect of informing the other side that you might not feel so strongly about it. Intensity can affect belief as well.


I enjoy your writing here, and even the few times I have disagreed with you have never felt unwelcome.