Dear Anonymous Heckler,
For more than a month you have been leaving confrontational comments on the Fairbanks Open Radio site. During that time you have been one of the most committed participants in our community. I'm pretty happy with the community response to your heckling -- no one seems to have gotten too angry, though in a perfect world replies to your posts might have been a little less condescending. For the rest of this letter I will try to be respectful, though it may be difficult because of the strong differences in our beliefs. The purpose of this article is to explain how I understand your criticism of the Fairbanks Open Radio site, so that you can correct any misunderstanding. I also hope this letter may pave the way to some common ground between you and the rest of the Fairbanks Open Radio community.
In a quick review I've found eight articles that you have left comments on. The first one that I found was "Vote could take health benefits from Alaskans." In that comment you object to the comparison between gay rights and native rights and argue that the author of the article is trying to take advantage of the esteem held for native communities like Kotzebue and Nome to advance the agenda of the opponents of the 3 April 2007 advisory vote.
You left your next comment in response to the article "How could somebody spend $15,000 to take away people's health care coverage." In that comment you express exasperation with the Fairbanks Open Radio community for what you describe as Sympathy for Communism during a time of war. You argue that we should care about making this country a better place rather than worrying about Iran, Iraq or Venezuela.
Moving forward to April 12th you express disgust with the current Democratic candidates in response to the article "2008 Pres Candidates' Answers on Iraq." You are quite confident that none of these "college educated idiots," sufficiently understand the needs of the people of the United States, to qualify to be our chief executive. You condemn them as socialist and liberal. You go on to applaud Bush for invading Afghanistan and Iraq to fight Islamofascism saying that you think there are dangerous historical precedents that we are ignoring.
Two days later you objected to the way "Alaskans Together Community Meeting," to describe state representatives who you support as extremists. You again express exasperation that the Fairbanks Open Radio community seems to be focused on criticizing exactly those politicians who you feel are trying to make this country a better place. You argue that our efforts are destroying this country and state your belief that we hate America.
On April 20th you commented on the article "Peace Witness Sentenced." Here you express annoyance with Rob Molders' attention getting tactics. You assert that the Fairbanks Open Radio community does not deserve a radio station because we are fixated on criticizing President Bush, are socialist, liberal and hate everything this country stands for.
April 28th you commented on the article "White Privilege." You argue that talk of racism is an attempt to divide the people of the United States, to push our agenda which will "ruin the country," at which point you expect us to blame George Bush for the trouble we've caused.
You responded to "Living Better Multiculturally," with the phrase "diversity is perversity," borrowed from the book "The Savage Nation," by commentator Michael Savage. That was April 29th.
The most recent of your comments is in response to other comments responding to the posting "Art imitates life." You express surprise that anyone would compare the activities of the United States in Iraq unfavorably with the oppressive government of Saddam Hussein.
First I would like to address the issue of "division tactics." I've been reading A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn. A recurring theme in that book is Zinn's argument that elites in our country try to create divisions between us to protect their elite status. For example, before the civil war, there was a law that prevented poor whites from talking with black slaves. The author of the article you were commenting upon, a university professor, spoke from a position of great privilege, perhaps she is not the best source of information about who has unfair advantages in our society.
You used the term "college educated idiots," several times in your comments. I'm going to respectfully object to the label "idiot," but you bring up a valid criticism when you accuse the Fairbanks Open Radio community of having a college educated bias. One of the goals of Fairbanks Open Radio is to have a radio station in this town with truly community driven programming. But, as far as I am aware, the people who are currently involved in this project are mostly college educated. For that reason, we may not understand the concerns or priorities of people who do not have the luxury of a college education. That bias is an obstacle to achieving the goal of community driven programming.
On several occasions you use the word "socialist" as an epithet. I consider myself a "socialist," though I would like to point out that the word is used very differently by different people. In any case, I can see how the word could be applied, fairly, in a negative way, to members of the Democratic Party. For example, Bill Clinton was largely responsible for the widely hated HMO system. The less money you earn the more likely you are to turn to an HMO for health insurance, a system where patients lose control over their own medical care. Another word you use as an insult is "liberal." I consider myself a liberal too, but I have to admit that a lot of terrible politics happens under the banner of liberalism. While it is true that I hate Bush, perhaps it is some consolation that I hate both Clintons too.
I hope that I have convinced you that some part of the Fairbanks Open Radio community is listening. Jenn Peterson once remarked that she felt your comments were a sign that our web site was starting to be a success. I immediately understood what she meant. It is flattering that you consider what we are doing to be important enough that you would put your energy into criticizing us. I encourage you to continue to comment. If it has to take the form of heckling, so be it. But maybe, if I've convinced you that the some of us really are ready to pay attention to what you have to say, you can drop some of the anger and focus on explaining what it is you don't like about what we have to say. Then, maybe we can learn something from you instead of reacting defensively.
Sincerely,
Seth de l'Isle Fairbanks Open Radio Participant
Bruce Amsbary said,
May 5th, 2007 at 11:25 AM
Goodness Seth,
I thought I was prone to verbosity! :-)
I appreciate your efforts. One item you did not address was the accusations our dear hecler makes that we hate the United States. The accusation is laughable. As Robin Williams noted in his recent commedy “Man of the Year,” “If it was unpatriotic to question the government we’d still be British.”
I find accusations that I hate this nation insulting. Following 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq I had my patriotism questioned more than once because I didn’t march in lock-step formation with President Bush and his handlers from the “Project for the New American Century.” More than once I heard, “If you don’t like it you can leave the country.” Thing is I am an American to the core. My father’s side of the family can trace it’s roots back to the May Flower. My mother’s side includes Civil War General John A. Logan. Members of my blood line have fought in every major war in our nation’s history – my maternal grandfather is a WWI veteran.
This nation is my home, my country, my roots. If I critize the government I do so because of that love for my nation, and my ideals the United States has the potential to be a beacon of freedom and justice to the rest of the world, rather than a nation bent on building an economic and military empire ruling the rest of the people oif the world. When I see my nation straying from that path I feel I owe it to myself and 400 years of my ancestors to stand-up and speak-out. Failure to do so would be a breach of my responsiblity as a citizen of this nation, and the memories of my ancestors. When I critize Bush and what he and his croneys are doing to this nation I do so from a sence of protecting the ideals of the Decleration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, not from any desire to destroy those foundational ideals.
BTW, I do not consider myself a liberal, but rather a progressive – liberals are too prone to trying to play nicey-nice with those who are bent on destroying the growing liberties past generations of progressive thinkers and activists have gained for workers, women, people of color and Gays and Lesbians, to name a few. Those progressive individuals where called militant in their day.
Liberals are too prone to compromising with a set of people who made it part of their strategy in the 90’s not to compromise because they know liverals WILL compromise in order to be nice and make everyone happy. My ideals are under attack by regressive forces in this nation from the radical right largely lead by radical fundamentalist Christians, who at root are little different in their long-term goals than fundamentalist Mulsims – the establishment of a world ruled by laws based on their reading of ancient books of myth.
Anyway, see what I mean about verbosity? Thank you for your comments. I look forward to reading the responce from our persistant critic.
Bruce
Seth de l'Isle said,
May 5th, 2007 at 01:41 PM
I didn’t want to address the “hate America” issue because I don’t have much to say on that subject that is in agreement with Anonymous Heckler. I guess there is a theme of accusing us of negativity that we should think about, it’s the classic criticism of dissenters: “we know what you are against, but what are you for?”
Joshua Holbrook said,
May 5th, 2007 at 11:16 PM
Honestly, the heckler reminds me of the Time Cube guy. Even if his/her opinions are valid, I can’t take them seriously because of the way they’re phrased.
Bruce Amsbary said,
May 8th, 2007 at 08:18 AM
I find the line “We know what you are against, but what are you for?” to be hard to take very seriously. When I say I am against racism,, sexism and homophobia it is implicit that I support social equity for all regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation. When I say I oppose oil development in ANWR I always go on to say that I support the development of energy alternatives that do not rely on fossil fuels such as solar, wind, etc and that the State of Alaska needs to get off its fiscal addiction to oil and focus on economic diversifiction. When I say I oppose big business like Wal-Mart I always say I support small locally owned business – you will never find me walking the aisle of Barnes & Noble, Gullivers Books is more my speed.
I feel those who use that line “We know what you are against, but what are you for?” are guilty of subtrafuge and/or intellectual laziness. In my growing cyniscism, and in the face of people like our heckler I increasingly am of the opinion that most Americans are asleep at the wheel, lulled into complacency by consumerism, Madison Avenue, and organized sports and religion. What progressives support is clear to those who take the time to open their eyes and see. But most people are too complacent to go past what they are spoon fed by the corporate media.