Skip to main content

Why say "apologize" when you mean "grovel?"

Don Suber thinks that "righties" should apologize. Not Ben Domenech, who has (and certainly should) but "righties" should apologize to the Washington Post.

I'm a bit confused what this "apology" is supposed to look like.

This is, of course, assuming that I qualify as a "rightie."

But how did anything that any "rightie", myself (assuming as I said) or anyone else *other than* Ben Domenech harm the Washington Post? Because an apology assumes something to apologize for, and although I realize that "lefties" are always insisting on associative guilt (unless, of course, it involves some other group indentity than whites or conservatives) I refuse to play that game.

There's a whole heck of a lot that I'm NOT guilty of and refuse to apologize for. My own sin is weighty enough and I will not borrow and grovel over the sins committed by people who may look like me or have somewhat similar philosophies.

What is this "apology" supposed to look like?

Is Don Suber going to "apologize, apologize, apologize" to the college students of Colorado for Ward Churchill's sins? Why the heck not? They're all "lefties" right?

"Right" blogs have been forthright in their expressions of disappointment. Obviously that's not an "apology". If a few people assumed the "lefties" were talking out their rears, scraping the bottom of the barrel for dirt and determined to find it, and so they leapt to his defense, well, they were right about that... it wasn't plagiarism that *promted* the witch-hunt, it was the simple fact that they hated the idea of the Red America blog. They'd hate it every bit as much if Domenech was a pure as fresh driven snow. That they actually found something real isn't proof of precognition. The irrational witch hunt, based on outraged sensibilities, came first.

So. I'm disappointed. And I'm sorry.

I'm sorry that some people think that other people are guilty because of their associations, race, or politics rather than their own actions.

I'm sorry that some people harbor irrational hatred toward those with diverse political opinions.

I'm sorry that Red America blog didn't work out and hope they don't drop it altogether.

I'm sorry that I refuse to grovel just because someone else told me to.

Will that do ya, Don?


Update: So I go over to Wizbang on my normal "down my list of bookmarks" browsing, and in the open trackback post find this.

Comments

Rich Casebolt said…
I'll be more amenable to apology, when the oppositon is more amenable to truth ...

... and less amenable to folding/spindling/mutilating such apologies into "proof" that conservatism is wrong on principle.

This is why I don't get concerned when the President doesn't talk to the MSM ... or is reticent about admitting its mistakes to those who see them as a rotweiller sees red meat.

Popular posts from this blog

Some times some people.

 

It's Not Projection

Take the case of "fascism". When you can see clear as day that the person who is accusing you of fascism is a fascist, they aren't projecting. They're talking about something ELSE. Basically, in the case of fascism, the basic set of fascist government controls are the default assumption of reality for a whole lot of people. The government is supposed to control every part of your life. The government is supposed to make you moral and good and reflect "justice". The government is supposed to do this by picking winners from the good people and losers from the bad people. The government is supposed to control the way people do business, how businesses (and farmers) function and what they produce. And people should be made to cooperate with this control because they are part of society and society is dependent on everyone being in compliance. This is simply the Truth. It's how the world works and how the world is supposed to work. The Socialist Nationalism, ...

Tyranny.gov vs Tyranny.com

Compulsion is Compulsion, no matter who does it.  This is Brilliant Theft is Theft, no matter who does it. Freedom of Association has no room in it for *private* action   that takes that away Freedom of Association. If I have a business and have voluntary associations such that I choose to serve some people and to not serve others, that might make me a jerk and it might lose me business, it might make me smart and it might gain me business, but it's got to be my choice.  If I would normally serve the current disliked minority in my shop except for the fact that if I'm SEEN to serve them by the wrong people I'll have a private campaign against me as those people do everything possible to ruin me by preventing me from doing business physically or by attacking my customers or suppliers, then I am NOT free to make those choices. Does it really make a difference to losing my CHOICE to voluntarily associate if there's a law that says I may not serve "those people" o...