On Ann Coulter, “Our Blacks,” and Political Correctness

So quickly on the heels of condemning outrageous leftist condescension toward the candidacy of Herman Cain — now sprinkled with Clarence Thomas-style double standards regarding race and sexual harassment (depending on whether you’re liberal or conservative) — I’m obliged (in that whipsaw fashion of current events) to note a grievous misstatement by conservative attack-dog Ann Coulter.

Speaking with Sean Hannity yesterday, Ann Coulter came to the vigorous and persuasive defense of Herman Cain, and had this to say on the “liberal establishment’s” attacks on Herman Cain:

All they see is ‘conservative black man.’ Look at how they go after AllenWest. Look at how they go after Michael Steele. All of them have wonderful qualities. That’s why our blacks are so much better than their blacks. To become a black Republican, you don’t just roll into it. You’re not just ‘going with the flow.’ You have fought against probably your family members, probably your neighbors, you have thought everything out, and that’s why we have very impressive blacks in our party.”

I agree with the point she was making, and have made the same essential point about the courage of black conservatives myself. I disagree profoundly with her choice of words when she said, “That’s why our blacks are so much better than their blacks.”

To speak of “our blacks” in any context is a semantic minefield. The pronoun “our” can signify associations — that is, friends or supporters, or even standard-bearers — but it can also signify ownership — as Robert Pierre at The Root aptly notes. Any hint of ownership of blacks, given this country’s slavery history, is bound to be incendiary. And it is frankly stupid in political discourse ever to trip into that minefield. Ann Coulter should own up to this misstep and apologize — not because she intended a slavery subtext (she plainly did not), but because she used language in a sloppy way, and a person of her authorial credentials whose very currency is language should own up to missteps in the use of language.

The more precise framing would have been “that’s why black Republicans are better than black Democrats.” That’s still a combustible and contestable proposition — in the Ann Coulter style — but it doesn’t use language sloppily in a way that dredges up actual ownership of blacks in the history of this country.

This is not mere “political correctness” — with all the baggage that term conveys. I join with some of my liberal friends in defending, at times, what has come to be known as “political correctness.” I do so because much of what gets characterized as “political correctness” is actually semantic precision. It’s using words carefully and it’s urging greater awareness of how particular words and phrases are heard by others.

When Bubba says, “well heck I think Negroes are just as good as anyone else, and they’re a damn sight better at basketball,” Bubba thinks he’s issuing an enlightened complimentary pronouncement — and he and his defenders don’t get the backlash, and consign the backlash dismissively to “political correctness.” Well, no, Bubba may well be a candidate for good will in racial relations — but he’s using language in a horrible way. “Political correctness” intervenes to say, first, Bubba, we don’t use the term “Negroes” anymore, and second, we don’t highlight anymore that people of different races are “just as good as anyone else” because that’s a given, and third, we don’t compliment blacks, as a race, for their athletic skills, because to do so invites the very kind of racial stereotyping we’re committed to overcoming.

I care enormously about language. In the political context, particularly in a democracy, language is probably the most powerful, and potentially horrible, weapon at the disposal of competing factions. Use of language matters enormously. “Political correctness,” while given to preposterous abuses at times, correctly identifies language as the culprit in frequent needless misunderstandings, needless polarities, and needless squandering of opportunities for what could have been respectful connections.



23 Responses to On Ann Coulter, “Our Blacks,” and Political Correctness

  1. Snoring Dog Studio says:

    I applaud your description of her as “attack-dog.” That this woman has any audience at all is revolting. She missed an opportunity to have a discussion that was far more enlightening, but then, that’s not her shtick. Her role is to inflame the conversation and to give the party faithful some more fuel.

  2. Jacqueline says:

    Bravo, Kendrick!

  3. Jeff says:

    I, too, though woefully guilty of losing my temper and reason and using words as weapons even when they grossly exaggerate my true feelings, have a deep and profound love for precision in language. The history of political correctness fascinates me. We started out trying to keep polite conversation polite and, somehow, this movement toward a more civilized, respectful way of speaking to and about each other, became a pejorative.

    Of all of the offensive things Coulter says, I found this one low on the list. Maybe it’s just because it seems clear to me that Coulter doesn’t care what she is saying as long as she is in front of a camera and her ears are not showing. To me, it did not have that Ross Perot “You people…” moment feel to it.

    The comment that raised my eyebrows more was the last sentence containing the phrase “very impressive”. Very impressive to me is an often condescending phrase (Doh! Hello? Consider the source.) often used to describe one’s surprise and delight at unexpected sophistication, i.e. “He’s a very impressive young man.” The phrase is usually spoken by someone with the intellect and experience to make such a pronouncement. “That’s a very impressive presentation.”, said the CEO. Coulter’s lack of innate impressiveness, prohibits her from judging anyone else’s. Now, if she wants to offer up an opinion on attack dogs, she is highly qualified. “Very Impressive” reminds me of the last 20 years of the last century, when, upon meeting a black person, white people would comment, even to their face, on how “articulate” the black person was. This was usually the first comment you would hear from white person. My own mother would return from the bank and remark, “There was a nice young black man working at the bank. He was very articulate.” Lowdie have muhrcy. Eyes din knows youse black foke cuda speak.

    And that brings me to my point. We are sloppy with our words and fairly insensitive to who might be offended. Generally, it does not mean we are racist or bigoted. Even Ann Coulter. It just means we’re inarticulate and don’t care enough to correct it. That makes us as a language using people, including Ann Coulter, less than impressive.

  4. Sedate Me says:

    I was fully expecting a defence of this worthless sack of shit. Thanks for disappointing me.

    She is probably the very first person that made politics stomach churning for me and is exactly what I have in mind when I think of what’s wrong with political discourse and the media. This woman is so vile, she could read a Shakespearean love sonnet and make it come across like The Nuremberg Laws without even trying.

    Yes, she is a professional actor, but an actor who has taken her role way too seriously. Even when she laughs, she gives the laugh a school girl who sits on the chest of a much smaller girl, tortures her for hours and only gets off after slitting the throat of the little girl’s kitten & holding it up to her face.

    But I give credit where credit is due. She’s kind of right on this. It does take a “special” kind of person to be a black Republican (or a Log Cabin Republican). I think the term is masochist. The sheer amount of abuse you have to take from your own race, your political enemies and, perhaps worse, even your so-called political “friends” requires a lot of -er- commitment. You’ve also got to know that you are the member of the Star Trek landing party who’s wearing red.

    See: Colin Powell knowingly eating a shit sandwich at the UN and completely sacrificing his future for Cheney, Rummy & Co who still like to rub his face in it.


    See: Ann Coulter inferring that you are somehow somebody’s property. I wouldn’t put it past her for a second that said it this way just for the benefit of black Democrats. That’s just how she rolls.

    • Am truly pleased to disappoint one of your vastly pessimistic assumptions (have you ever read E.M. Cioran, by the way?) — though it will likely come as no surprise that I do not share your vitriolic view of Ann Coulter. I don’t like her tone, never have, but I respect her intellect, and I don’t believe she differs a whit in tone and “what’s wrong with political discourse” than, say Keith Olbermann or a handful of other leftist commentators. There is a difference, in my mind, between brazenly misstating facts (which, to my knowledge, Ann Coulter has rarely if ever done), and using facts in an incendiary fashion, which Ann Coulter does in all of her waking hours, and likely some of her sleep. These are people with a niche profession catering to the respective bases and media ratings. Incendiary is their currency. I view that phenomenon with a greater measure of equanimity than you because I don’t consider it representative of how ordinary Americans speak to each other about politics (which is far more important to me, as a civic phenomenon, than the behavior of the professional left and right attack dogs). You could say, perhaps, I don’t care what Ann Coulter or Keith Olbermann (or pick your favorite left/right bete noire) say, but that would overstate a bit. I do care what they say, when I can identify a violation of precision in language, discuss, and draw hopefully constructive conclusions about better ways to discuss the topic du jour.

      Ken Kesey praised the fluidity and integrity of Jack Kerouac’s “fastashandscantype” method of writing fiction. There was, inevitably in this gush, mind-blowing gems and mind-boggling embarrassments — and that was sort of the point. The realness of it, warts and all, all of us were invited to see and assess without suspicion, to see a single human mind working rapidly in real time. Ann Coulter, and her counterparts on the left, have popularized the fastaslipscanmove method of political journalism — and frankly, I don’t think anyone’s lips move faster or more articulately than Ann Coulter’s. So she’s got some mind-blowing gems and some mind-boggling embarrassments as a consequence. Unfortunately for political journalism, Jack Kerouac strove for a kind of authenticity that I don’t think has ever occurred to our professional political journalists, because authenticity is not their schtick. They do fastaslipscanmove political journalism to serve a market and secure their place in that market, and I don’t condemn their market choices per se. I just think we treat them as wild educators — sometimes on the merits, often on political rhetoric, and almost always on how to speak with each other, despite them.

      With apologies for doubling back and disappointing you with a partial defense of Ann Coulter, I hope you see more clearly what matters to me and what doesn’t.

      • Sedate Me says:

        You double-backing bastard! You just had to go and disappoint the disappointment of my disappointment, didn’t you? For that little subterfuge, I’m not going back and editing out any “less refined” parts of this comment before posting.

        Who’s kidding who here? You think she’s hot and, combined with her conservatism, that probably adds up to a bit of a free pass. Admit it. You probably have a boner right now. What’s actually surprising is that I don’t find her remotely attractive, even though I find most of these repulsive Republican women hot. (Which says something about me.) If I can find Michelle Malkin hot, that tells you how repulsed I must be by what oozes from Ann Cunthair’s jaws, which she I’m sure she can open wide enough to swallow large rodents or small children. (I think Anna from the show V was modelled on her https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkL-s7Sskzc )

        Like with FOX, she was the first one (I remember) to break the sound noise barrier and help the media reach a new low that triggered a cascading effect of lows. It is no coincidence that her airtime rose in perfect correlation with the decline in media quality, because you can’t have one without the other. You can’t have a toxic media without toxic media whores. If Cunthair hadn’t established herself as a “legitimate” source of opinion, I’m not sure FOX Noise could have been created. And without FOX, MSNBC wouldn’t exist as it does.

        I don’t care if she actually is intelligent, quick on her feet, has a command of the facts, or the tenacity to stick to incorrect facts even when they aren’t remotely relevant to the conversation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmcZG87Fmxc , she is in the entertainment biz. She is a professional wrestling villain. She steps into the ring, not just to engage in fake combat, but to engender hatred. In her case, not just hatred from her side toward the other side, but hatred from the other side toward her and her side. And she loves it more than anybody I’ve seen. She loves turning political discourse into monkeys throwing shit and she loves being hated more than Andy Kaufman ever did. Saying “our blacks” is probably an example of her deliberately phrasing something just to provoke anger.

        I may respect their abilities and usually agree with their positions, but I force myself not to watch Olberman or Maddow either. They are also just professional wrestlers. You may be able to pick the odd undigested peanut of utility out their shit, but it doesn’t change the fact that the entire landscape is covered in the shit they’ve collectively thrown to generate personal wealth and corporate profits. The very 24 hour combat format is drowning America in shit and, while too late, it needs to go. Even when they deal in “facts”, they ultimately do nothing but teach people how to blindly hate “the other side”. It’s the stuff wars are made of.

        I’m glad you have equanimity for it, but there is just NO way your equanimity can possibly surpass my spleen bursting rage.

        (P.S. Sorry, no E.M. Cioran. However, I do have a Corian counter-top in my kitchen. But, if I understand your reference, why read it when I can write it myself?)

  5. Jeff says:

    Sedate Me, prepare for the rath of Kendrick! Thanks for saying far more emphatically and succinctly than I, much of what I have been trying to get across. For my trouble I have been skewered as a juvenile for making fun of Ann’s ears, been talked down to in a condescending manner on almost every topic, berated for my rants against all right wing commentators (false, just the nutjobs), tutored on my illogical thought process, etc., etc. And my posts are not nearly on point, or as pointed, as yours! Remember the rules here: Kendrick is always right on the big issues, though he may smile and wink or nod some small approval at some tidbit. However, I’m hard pressed to find anything that he will absolutely love in your post. Get ready, I suspect he will come across like Rush Limbaugh and think his response is like David Brooks. He’ll use words like vile and disgusting to describe any “Nazi” language from the left while never calling out Fox and Hank Jr., or any of the scores of clearly racially motivated insults toward our President. This is the quandry of the blog we follow. I laugh, I cry, I wince, I think, I throw up in my mouth a little bit. This blog teaches me stuff, like the definition of a teabagger and that Conservatives can dish it out, but they can’t take it. They just have to believe that their intellectual superiority proves that they are incapable of logical flaws. If only they knew they were human and capable of all of the same japes and pratfalls that liberals ignorantly display. That is their achilles and I do love banging it with a baseball bat. But I’ve just about learned all I can stand, here. My brain just isn’t that big. My only remaining question is, how does one unsubscribe? Good luck, Sedate Me. I hope you stand forthright and weather the predictable onslaught that is surely coming your way.

    • This is truly sad Jeff. Our responses to Sedate Me crossed in the mail as it were. Look at mine, and please assess your message accordingly. Honestly, I cannot tell you how devastated I am that you, my friend, feel compelled to respond in this way. It’s not about politics anymore. It’s about apparently, from your message, losing a friend. Losing a friend, at our age, matters vastly more than politics. Losing a friend, at our age, is like losing a limb. I think you overstate what you have been subjected to, and understate what I have been subjected to from you — and the latter is evident in this very harsh message from you, on my blog, the one thing I try to do that is all mine, just me. But so what? We’ve been agreeing to disagree for a very long time. We just had some very heartfelt exchanges via Facebook messaging about who we are and how we communicate — and how you are actually a better human being than me. You do many more good things for people in the real world than I do. You care more about many more people in your life than I do, and you treat, as a given, the obligation of people to look out for other people and do right by them. You win. I thought that was clear. You’re a better human being than me. I thought that would stead you well as to the disagreements on the vastly lesser plane of politics.

      I’m actually one of those people affected by how friends perceive me. Always have been, even in my wee bubble of self-confidence. The fact that you could write the message above sends me reeling, because it tells me you don’t even know this rudimentary fact about me, this sensitivity, specifically with respect to friends. You evidently think you’re writing the message above to someone who couldn’t give a rat’s ass (either that, or you’re simply malicious, and that is not true about you) — so, to you, I am some sort of Rush Limbaugh-like commentator who puts it out there, come what may, and the fact that you perceive what was our friendship that way tells me I have failed. Something didn’t connect that I thought was connecting.

      Anyway, you’ve bested me on my own blog my friend. You’ve done the one thing, thrown the one most incendiary bomb, most calculated to leave me with little appetite for doing this anymore, because if it means losing friends, it’s not worth it. Now I must think and feel.

    • Snoring Dog Studio says:

      Jeff – I don’t know you, but I do know that much would be lost here if you were to go away. I’ve enjoyed reading your comments and thoughts. I’ve learned a lot by reading your words. I look forward to reading more!

      You said this: “We are sloppy with our words and fairly insensitive to who might be offended.”
      Aren’t we all like this? Sloppy, misspoken, often prickly, words get thrown about on these blogs. We can’t see the raised eyebrows, the frowns, the puzzled looks. We can’t see how many times the writer rewrites the comment or post, trying to get it just right. All we’ve got are these clunky words.

      I’ve been reading Kendrick’s stuff for a long while. He’s never sounded like Rush Limbaugh. Though I disagree with him heartily on many, many topics, the fact that I can find some common ground makes me feel that I’ve not completely gone leftist bonkers and shut my ears and eyes to opposing viewpoints. At least not here on this forum most of the time, and not outside of this forum some of the time.

    • Sedate Me says:

      All this touchy-feely stuff is making want to barf.

      Don’t worry Jeff. There is nothing a guy whose name rhymes with (apologies in advance) “Schmendrick” can possibly do to me that living on this planet for the last couple of decades can’t.

      OK, back to your group hugs.

      • Snoring Dog Studio says:

        You are in desperate need of a hug, Sedate Me. Or sedation. Someone take your binky away when you were a mere babe in the crib?

      • HaHaHaHa… Gotta’ remember that one Schmedate Me! Hadn’t heard that one before — what with my Israeli ex-wife, and my Jewish son who lives in Israel. Why didn’t the Yiddish-speaking ex-in-laws have the decency to clue me in?!?

        • Sedate Me says:

          It’s hard to believe none of them thought of something so obvious. If it were me, I’d have taken the fact that none them ever used the term jokingly toward me as a bad sign. But I’m paranoid.

          • Duh dunderhead. I was joking. Heard it a million times.

          • Snoring Dog Studio says:

            Yeah. We’re so dimwitted and slow here. We were robbed of one really hilarious name play.

          • 🙂

  6. Jeff says:

    SDS, I appreciate your thoughts. Clearly, I’ve crossed the line and offended a good friend deeply. I hate that but don’t feel I am any more zealous than he – louder, less-articulate, obnoxious Texan, yes, but not more zealous -but Ken does and when someone is hurt, their feelings deserve serious contemplation. The Ken that I can sit and have coffee with and talk for an hour and a half, only briefly mentioning politics, is clearly not the Kendrick who exists, for me, in the blogosphere. My failure to remember the former, and his failure to remember me as the guy who delightedly plotted to move him back to Texas and volunteered to come move him, an offer that stands open, has both of us really hacked off at the other. I hope we’ll survive as friends but it is really a time for me to stand down and reflect. How is one able to respond with equal passion in disagreements? I am reminded of the Heinlein axiom about teaching a pig to sing – It wastes your time and annoys the pig. For two years Ken and I have tried to get each other to sing. I got exasperated and the reaction was as far off target as possible. I guess I was thinking of how funny Don Rickles could be at those Dean Martin roasts… I am now a leftist (is that like a Sandinista?) in Ken’s book. I assure you, the leftists would shoot me, within a day in their camp. I do stand up to “WHAT I SEE AS” inconsistency and double standards, using my own brand of inconsistency, double standards and “flawed logic”. But then, I could just be mean- spirited, rude and delusional. Our “blogo-selves” threaten to sweep into our real lives. For some time it will be best if I leave the “Blogo-as-the-world-turns” and stay within my real life. I apologize to anyone I may have offended here, especially Ken. It isn’t good to take advantage of one’s hospitality, it is even worse to hang around once you have made a nuisance of yourself. I’ll excuse myself while a semi-civil departure is still possible. And in the end, shouldn’t we all be spending as much time as possible working for whatever change we envision the country needs to make and keep our private conversations to a minimum during this critical time in our history? Onward, through the Fog!

    • Snoring Dog Studio says:

      Sedate Me, shield your eyes because what follows will probably be the written equivalent of ipecac for you.

      Jeff: To quote Jack Handey:
      “It’s too bad that whole families have to be torn apart by something as simple as wild dogs.”

      And that’s what we’re a bit like on the blogosphere sometimes. Like feral children, raised without language and customs. At our worst that is. At our best, we’re just clumsy with words and insensitive.

      I’ve been in the spot before on these forums. I made enemies who then later became friends. It’s possible some of my friends don’t think so highly of me anymore. I’ve said things that hurt people without even being aware until much later. Thankfully, many of these incidents provided opportunities for greater understanding and compassion.

      Kendrick – To you I say, I’ve noticed lately that you’ve devolved into strenuous denouncement of leftists. I don’t think I recall you using that term so much before or directing so many posts to criticizing a segment of liberals of whom none of us liberals would be that proud. I’m not expecting you to rise above the rest of the fray, really. But I sense something has happened. I could be wrong. I kind of miss the other Kendrick. I saw most of the points you were trying to make in your last couple of posts, but I was surprised you bothered to address what seems like trivial issues. These people who make these intemperate comments don’t define the nature of politics. They mess it up a little, but we’ll forget them in time.

      I’m not trying to mediate. Oh, hell, yes I am. I hate to see friends part way over ideological positions. We can’t live in a world where politics create such a divide. It just won’t work.

      You can look now, Sedate Me. It’s over.

      • Thanks Jean, as always, for your extraordinary attentiveness and sensitivity. But please indulge me in some exasperation of my own. (And keep your eyes wide open for this one SedateMe.) Do you, or anyone else, see the irony of a self-professed conservative blogger posting a piece actually criticizing Ann Coulter — which then spurs the most vitriolic spewing from liberals I’ve yet experienced here? Including a dear friend denouncing me in vicious personal terms, and not merely to disagree with me, but to predict (quite wrongly, as it coincidentally happened) that I would respond to someone else in some despicable fashion? Ladle on a spate of wincing vulgarities from the guy who needs his medication doubled — and for good measure, you tell me my choice of topics is off and I’m denouncing liberals too much and focusing on trivia. All in a post where I criticized Ann Coulter and defended political correctness! Astounding!

        Lessons I’ve learned. This isn’t fun anymore. Honestly. I began blogging as a project to keep my mind away from some very negative experiences in my life, and what do I have to show for it? A tiny handful of regular readers who are very dear to me, such as you, whom I wouldn’t have known otherwise, an overwhelmingly liberal chorus of critics (conservatives rarely comment here), at least one fully broken friendship, a few others strained, and a vague sense of dread every time I open up my blog these days. See, that’s no fun. Here’s an idea. I’ll start a new blog, and call it I Hate Liberals, No, Really, I Loathe Them, Their Families, and Their Pets. I’ll have only conservative readers, probably thousands, and by god we’ll have some back-slapping good fun — probably the way Ann Coulter and Keith Olbermann actually have fun. Good for them, the more I think about it. Because life really is too short to choose the path of a lion in a den of lecturing Daniels, whether you’re conservative or liberal. Hey, stick to your own people everyone, marry only your own kind, inbreed ideologically unto idiocy, and have some rollicking bad-teeth good fun!

        I’ve also discovered there’s no percentage in being the guy who urges civility. Just makes the vulgar come out of the woodwork and friends crap on you. And it opens you up to perpetual and tiresome charges of hypocrisy if you dare use a word like “slanderous.” So again I say, stick with your own kind. Then there’s no need to be civil, because all you ever need to say is “damn fine point there Bubba.”

        Okay, no, I probably won’t start a new blog called I Hate Liberals, No, Really, I Loathe Them, Their Families, and Their Pets. But it gave me a tiny bit of pleasure writing that line again. It made me smile. And I need to do a bit more smiling in my life. Jeff may be onto something, and perhaps we’re the clashing crashing mountain rams who knocked each other out of politics and more fully into things that bring us joy. And SedateMe is probably onto something as well. Politics is filthy business. It brings out the worst in people — and not just politicians, but commentators, citizens, protesters and friends.

        Okay, I’m done with my rant. Thanks for indulging me.

  7. Snoring Dog Studio says:

    I meant “trivial” in the sense that each week all of us bloggers could cover the inanity and nastiness that arises from these pundits – and what would that prove? Would we add to knowledge or simply take away from it and create more noise?

    EEK -“no percentage in being the guy who urges civility”? What? Who gives a doodoo whether a person benefits in doing something that’s admirable and worthwhile? Yeah, you could have more readers by being a name calling, liberal baiting, demagogue, but would they be the readers you’d want?

    You and Jeff have more substantive stuff in common than not. And it’s the stuff that matters. This other politics stuff – it’ll be there with different faces next year.

    About a month ago, I decided I’d never write another political post again. It seems, in this climate, to breed anger and hostility and controversy. I don’t need that in my life any more. But you’re missing what made your blog different from any other conservative blog and it’s precisely that you garnered an audience of liberals. That welcoming platform gave me hope. It gave you a lot of heartburn. I’d not find fault if you decided you didn’t want to play that role any longer. But don’t go away MAD. Don’t.

    I love the title of your proposed new blog, by the way. Let’s flesh that out, hon.

    Peace. Breathe.

    • You LIE! You don’t love the title of my new blog because you’d never tolerate hatred of pets! You lying liar quintessence of lieosity!

      Still trying to breathe. Peace a couple of light years away.

      I sometimes cover the inanity and nastiness of pundits because I think it teaches us something. If the point were only to be Church Lady and purse my lips and say, could it be Satan?? then, yes, it would be pointless. But I don’t think that’s what I do. In the case of Ann Coulter’s misuse of language, I wanted to make a larger point about the potential value of political correctness, in a way that would be less effective if I simply launched a sermon defense of political correctness. In the case of Chris Matthews, I wanted to talk about the very prevalent phenomenon of demonizing all Republicans based upon outlier screeches, and I wanted to explore certain hypocrisies as regards the two parties in Matthews’ particulars — e.g., “love of executions.” I get that any focus on the inanity and nastiness of a pundit tends to generate a protracted inventory of counter-inanity and nastiness. Which misses the point — or in the case of my Ann Coulter post, generates bile because I evidently didn’t criticize her enough. Like any liberal blog, ever, has criticized Keith Olbermann…

      Oh dear, I’m still ranting. Peace. Breathe. Thank you Jean.

      • Snoring Dog Studio says:

        You’re welcome.

  8. siezup says:

    I occasionally read this blog and always walk away enlightened. On a good day, with a better understanding of opposing viewpoints. One of the things I like is that Kendrick always leaves the points out in the middle of the room. All viewpoints are welcome and he will respond accordingly. He doesn’t make it personal, his challenge is the topic and the viewpoint. That was the forum, those were the rules. All welcome. While I sometimes wish he would respond in kind to some of the posts, he doesn’t. While I sometimes wish he would screen the posts better, he doesn’t. While I don’t always agree with his view on things, he grants everyone the same rights of speech that he exercises. Jeff and SedateMe made this personal and I’m very offended on many levels as part of the blog audience – please don’t do this again. Kendrick, blogs evolve as does everything in life – please push through this evolution. And for the future, let them holler on the curb next time, don’t let them in your home. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: