September 30, 2004

Believe it or not, there is a matter of strategy that goes into what I post on this website. I do not buckshot, nor do I generally shoot from the hip (I stress generally). This is not CNN, CSPAN, or any other affiliate and therefore I am not obligated to cover every angle and matter of media. That would be boring. That would be ordinary. That would be Barbara Walters. And guess what? I don't have advertisers, nor am I running for public office or being paid by my viewers or some immoral publisher and thus I have no loyalties to what I can and cannot discuss 'round these parts. It is a position I quite like as of now. How I discuss issues is always up for debate, but in all things, I believe I am at least civil.

The driver's seat from this weblog is interesting in that I can pretty much predict who will comment on what I write and how. The rare times that the predictability is gone amazes me. Still, I always enjoy the feedback and tangents people go on. I learn a lot from my commenters.

That said, I do find it highly amusing that certain people have suggested that I "harp" on a few issues a little too often. My understanding of "too often" implies that there is some sort of norm for how many times any particular subject can be discussed on one's personal website that they in fact pay for out of their own pocket. This ladies and gentlemen, is just silly.

I also understand that for whatever reason of personal offense and/or sacredness, tunnel vision often sets in as well as the illusions of grandeur and the "discerning reader" now becomes the dramaturg/editor/conspiracy theorist, searching out my weblog for key words to further prove their suspicions that I have purposed my entire identity as a writer on the discussion of one single, solitary issue.

A few people on more than one occasion, have suggested that I discuss "gay issues" too often. More often than say, Andrew Sullivan? And since I'm certain no one is complaining about me talking about being "happy" and "merry" too ofen, by "gay issues", I suppose they mean the same issues that are first being reported in increasing measure by our very credible, very un-biased newspapers and MSM, discussed in our very non-partisan Capitol, and taught in our very even-sided public schools.

I would prefer not to embarrass those making such accusations by reverting to my inner math nerd and pulling out the hard statistics which can prove that not only do I talk about "gay issues" less than I make of fun of the NAACP, Al Sharpton, and Michael Moore, but in all my 333 some odd posts thus far, I've probably discussed the "non existent agenda" in less than 2% of them.

I regret to inform said individuals that if they are offended by less than 2%, then perhaps I should be offended by the more than 75% I have to see every time I attempt to watch television or go to a movie.

It is rather telling however, that no one seems to voice a problem with me discussing abortion, John Kerry, black politicians, or any other matter of politics in increasing frequency. Yes, rather telling indeed. It seems we've hit the taboo subject of the century. The subject everyone else can discuss openly so long as its praised and accepted. I find that highly amusing.

Posted by Ambra at September 30, 2004 12:22 PM in Politics
Bookmark and Share





Predictably, i'll brave the chilly waters first ;-)

Hey, I did my own li'l ditty (pardon el cheese plug ;-) on blog owner perogative, so you'll hear no argument from me on that.

i'm gonna s'pose that what those folk might be gettin at is that some subjects are a mite personal. It's easy to talk about BigTopic when it does not directly concern you. It'd be like me goin to a blog and agreeing with much of what is said til they get around to Black-bashin. Cripes. Now that's personal. And, more to the point, way ouchy.

Time to leave.

I suggest the same for the others who find certain pet subjects too painful in this particular environs. Don't come back. There's a zillion more channels the blogverse.

I completely recognize that as the owner of this blog, you have the perogative to discuss whatever you choose. However, you are writing in a public sphere and allow individuals to comment on your post, which opens you up to criticism from people who choose to read your blog, which is what I did. If you want an amen corner of posters, then make your entire blog password protected and give that password at your discretion.

If you feel that I have attacked you, that was not my point. I was commenting on what you wrote.

Yes, somethings are very personal. And when you continually attack someone, then yes you will get feedback based on those attacks.

It continues to amaze me how many people really don't understand the First Amendment. So many think it protects only speech they agree with -- ha!

Of course we should all be glad we're not in Canada, where such a frank discussion of non-existant agenda would get us brought up charges.

I understand the First Amendment, thank you very much!

However, all that I ask is for people to recognize and be responsible in regards to the link between sentiments, speech, and violence.

If I remember correctly, the charges were based on the threat, not on the discussion of the "non-existant agenda"

Nappi, first off, don't think too highly than you ought. This post was actually not in response to your comments on PinkTV, which you're certainly entitled to, but rather other feedback I've received in the past.

Every week I get emails from people who tell me they like my blog but disagree with what I say. I love it. If you hadn't noticed, I'm not into "Amen corners". I'm not above dissention, correction, or opposition. If I was, then voicing such controvertial opinions in a public forum would be mighty dumb dontcha think?

In this case, I just felt the need to point out something I hadn't done yet in all my 9 months of blogging: I run 'dis show.

And with all that talk about traditional conservative family values, not a word about Maya Keyes or her dad. Wonder why?

Nate, Alan Keyes having a gay daughter is irrelevant to the question of whether or not homosexuality is immoral. I would imagine that,if keyes is as principled as he would have people believe,then he wouldn't change his view on morality simply because someone in his family lacks it. And Nappi I would ask you also to remember the link between sentiments, speech and parades in San Francisco and televison shows in France.

Eric, thank you for taking the words out of my mouth.

And Nate, don't put anything past me. I have an opinion on nearly everything.

Hmmm... I guess the very fact that I've responded to this thread is "predictable"...
But I just wanted to point out that 2% of 333 is 6.66, (mark of the devil?!)... you said less than 2%? Ambra, I think you have clearly discussed the "gay agenda" far more than in 6 posts... Then again, I'm sure you meant 2% only metaphorically... uh huh.

Jab: Actually, in fact, 2% is about right. You can attempt to disprove me if you'd like (and I'm sure you will). But I went through all my posts and counted those in which I discussed the "gay agenda", the number was 7 times, and a few of them were a stretch if you ask me. But here's the beauty, I can discuss it as much as I want! I just did this little excercise to show certain people how certain perceptions blow things out of proportion. Kinda telling don't you think?

7 only if you count posts specifically focussed on the narrow issue of the "gay agenda"... certainly far, far more if you broaden it to posts that make any reference to gays/homosexuality...
so it all depends on how you define it...

and of course, i never said you can't discuss it as much as you want... it's your blog, you need not justify why you post on any issue to anyone but yourself...

Jab, are you not one of the people who said I discussed it "a lot". Sorry bro, not so. No justification here. Just proving you wrong. For my thoughts on the "any reference to gays/homosexuals" which is very broad and well within the realm of topical matters if anyone with sense attempts to dicuss the hot political issues of this election, see the body of the post.

Nuff said. I expect not to hear on this matter again.

Not quite Ambra. Not quite.

In the thread about "Mamby-Pamby Christianity", I made a passing reference to gay marriage NOT being the reason why American Christianity is so "mamby-pamby", but socioeconomic and materialism were the real problems... that was the focus of my comments... You chose to ignore that point on socioeconomics, and instead make some snarky comment that I only comment on gay issues because I'm gay... I responded that on that particular evening, I left comments in two threads, one having nothing to do with gay issues, and the other only tangentially so... and I turned the question around on you and said it might be you who commented too much on the issue...

I NEVER said you couldn't/shouldn't... that of course would be ridiculously presumptuous of me... If i don't like what you say, I am quite free to ignore this blog and go elsewhere... this of course is your blog... you seem a bit too defensive... perhaps you protest too much?

At the same time, if you allow comments, you will get comments... and obviously not all of them will agree with you... as you well already know.

I'm confused... where did you "prove" me wrong?
I didn't know this was a contest... I thought it was dialogue... that is the whole point of allowing a comments section, is it not?

Jab wrote, "But you have to admit that you do bring up gays quite a bit..."

Or maybe that was the other "Jab" that only chimes in when I use the word "homosexual" or "gay" in a post.

"Quite a bit" apparently means 7 times and I never said that you told me I couldn't. Are you actually reading my comments?

This is dialogue, and this dialogue is finished because there's nothing else to talk about. I brought the facts, what's left?

This excerise of this post was purely to state something I'd failed to state in the past and probably won't say again.

I'll expect to be hearing from you more in the future however...

All I can say is Aye Carumba... I think your posts speak for themselves... we'll just leave it to "objective" observers to decide...

I think your posts speak for themselves

Yep they sure do...

Tee hee! That was fun.

Anyway, this is rather trite. Forget server logs. There's always Google. Now theres' bound to be some overlap and who knows quite how up to date it is, or how far back/deep it goes, but it's just for fun...

"Gay Agenda": 14

"Gay": 59

"Homosexual": 36


The (other) Deadly Sins:

"Pride": 26

"Envy": 3

"Gluttony": 2

"Anger": 14

"Greed": 0

"Sloth": 0

And for even more fun...

"Adultery": 1

"Murder": 16

We can go on and on (try the rest of the 10 commandments). Stats freaks can go nutty if they wanna. In fact, I hope y'all do. I'll be turnin up the burner under the jiffy pop and warmin up a comfy chair settin up for the show ;-)

OK, couldn't resist -- just three more...

"Fashion": 291

"Politics": 90

"Abortion": 45

Memer, you do realize those counts are entirely inaccurate? Google pulls multiple pages discussing the same post. The fact that fashion shows up as 291 should be rather telling.

I expect better journalism from you...

"Now theres' bound to be some overlap..."

Yeah, I know, Ambra. Said that awready. This def ain't no journalism. It was just for fun (not that journalism can't be fun) -- sides, the duplication should be about the same for all of em.

It's not the absolute numbers, it's the numbers relative to each other wot's possibly interesting.

Aw man, you missed your chance!
{ Comments are now closed for this entry. }


Enter your Email



Why I'm Not a Republican Parts I, II, III, IV
Reflections on the Ill-Read Society
The ROI of a Kid
The Double-Minded Haters
Hip-Hop in Education: Do You Wanna Revolution?
Oh parent Where Art Thou?
Requisite Monthly Rant: the State of the Nation
College Curriculum Gone Wild
Walmart Chronicles
An Open Letter to American Idol
Gonorrhea and the City