I had the following heated political email exchange at work today following a heated lunch time political discussion. The moral of the story is; don't discuss politics at work. I don't think this guy has any power to actually cost me my job, but he can darn well cause some trouble.
(email in extended section, first mail in the thread at the bottom)
From: Brian
To: <Name Withheld>
What are you talking about? You started this thread. I am trying to extend an olive branch here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Name Withheld>
To: Brian
When I said I'm serious, I mean it. You initiated this. I warned you. My patience is spent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Brian
Sent: Tue 6/8/2004 10:02 PM
To: <Name Withheld>
Subject: RE: Backing it up: Journalists (and Academia and Ex-Convicts) are predominantly liberal and democrat.
Relax dude; you stepped up the inflamatory rhetoric - particularly implying that I am mindless and too inexperienced to have a valid point of view. We both feel very strongly about our politics, and we just need to realize that things which are obvious fundamental truths to us sound like absurd poppycock sophistry to the other.
I promise not to bring up politics at lunch with you anymore if you don't. :)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Name Withheld>
Sent: Tue 6/8/2004 9:41 PM
To: Brian
Subject: RE: Backing it up: Journalists (and Academia and Ex-Convicts) are predominantly liberal and democrat.
Okay, don't talk to me anymore. I'm serious.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Brian
Sent: Tue 6/8/2004 5:07 PM
To: <lunch group>
Subject: RE: Backing it up: Journalists (and Academia and Ex-Convicts) are predominantly liberal and democrat.
Congratulations on your ability to dismiss all arguments and points of view based on pure ad-homonym. It is amusing that you criticize me for citing non-credible partisan sources even as you link the Washington Times and AIM. And is Editor and Publisher just partisan buffoonery as well? Are 2-1, 3-1, and "a narrow margin" not quantitative enough for you?
I've already dismissed your mindless obsession with ex-con political leanings as irrelevant guilt-by-association fallacy. You ignore the point that many democrats, some ex-con and some not, were removed from the voter rolls illegally in Florida.
You live in a bizarre universe where the deck is always stacked against you, yet somehow miraculously your team generally wins.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Name Withheld>
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 4:54 PM
To: <Lunch Group>
Subject: RE: Backing it up: Journalists (and Academia and Ex-Convicts) are predominantly liberal and democrat.
Numbers please. None present or accounted for.
Conason and Alterman are flat out partisan baffoons of > Franken and Limbaugh magnitude, i.e., zero credibility. I'm embarrased that you read Alterman's twisted, steaming pile and seemingly admired it. These are screaching treatises for the left cause, squirted out the ass-end of a dense fact filter in order to support predetermined theses, nothing more.
The vast right wing conspiracy :D (re Goldwater) somehow fabricating a myth of left bias in acadamia and news media is poppycock, a liberal-left sophistry aimed at the impressionable young and mindless. Incarcerated cons being democratic was only manifested in election 2K. The numbers regarding cons and ex-cons are reality, like it or not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Brian
Sent: Tue 6/8/2004 3:03 PM
To: <lunch group>
Subject: RE: Backing it up: Journalists (and Academia and Ex-Convicts) are predominantly liberal and democrat.
Strange how your points of view are recital of facts while others are simply baseless presumption.
The Goldwater conservative movement has 40 years of "working the refs" invested in this liberal media myth, so you will certainly find a lot more research and commentary supporting the notion than refuting it. In fact it has only been in the last decade or so that liberals, alarmed that the myth had actually become commonly accepted conventional wisdom, have bothered to acknowledge it. During the 2000 election and through the first 2.5 years of his presidency, the media was distinctly pro-Bush and anti-Gore. Today it has turned against Bush to some degree, but it is still easy to find examples of bias on both sides. Good places to start sifting through the archives are
http://www.dailyhowler.com
and
http://atrios.blogspot.com/
Also, I urge you to read the liberal media chapter in Joe Conason's "Big Lies," or Eric Alterman's book "What Liberal Media"
Here is a note from Editor & Publisher about political contributions this year, although it is just a sampling and not an official tally or necessarily a valid cross-section:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=2076212
The nation's papers endorsed Bush in 2000 by more than a 2-1 margin, including our own local liberal rag, The Seattle Times. Also, Editors and Publishers intended to take their endorsement to the voting booth. "Publishers will vote for Bush at a 3-1 ratio, with editors favoring the Texas Governor by a narrow margin."
http://www.tipponline.com/articles/00/ep110200.htm
Or you could just ask your fellow intelligent conservative, Bill Kristol:
"I admit it," he told a reporter. "The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."
Or
"The press isn't quite as biased and liberal. They're actually conservative sometimes,' Kristol said recently on CNN"
I don't think your guilt-by-association fallacy is going to fly with this group. There are plenty of bad and/or stupid people in both parties. Also, you may be misinterpreting the "let cons vote" issue. In Florida in 2000, there was a "mishap" with the voter rolls purge where they removed a large number of people that in fact were legally eligible to vote.
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/exesum.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Name Withheld>
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 2:04 PM
To: <Lunch Group>
Subject: RE: Backing it up: Journalists (and Academia and Ex-Convicts) are predominantly liberal and democrat.
Also, just to keep peace at lunch and elsewhere, I ask - sincerely - that we avoid politics from now on. It can only be destructive, never constructive, in terms of team unity and personal respect.
If that's not possible, then when the words "absurd" or "extreme" are aimed in my direction, I will translate these expressions to mean "my baseless presumptions are at odds with your recital of the facts". So it's best we not go there.
<Name Withheld>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Name Withheld>
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 1:33 PM
To: <Lunch group>
Subject: Backing it up: Journalists (and Academia and Ex-Convicts) are predominantly liberal and democrat.
Btw, found many hits regarding voting demographics for journalists, some of which also include other professional groups, such as academic faculty, etc.
Note: I searched google on "journalists registered democrats." I also tried "journalists registered republicans" and turned up the same articles. I found none that found an opposing trend, but I didn't spend too much time looking, they may exist. Also, I found nothing that lended weight to Brian's assertions about editors being Republican, but rank-and-file journalists being Democrat.
If any of you have the time, please find articles or papers that present quantitative evidence for the opposing point of view.
The Washington Times April 18.doc
http://www.roguecom.com/roguescholar/kuypers.html
http://www.aim.org/media_monitor_print/582_0_2_0/
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=5668&catcode=10
Also, on another topic of party demographics I've touched on before:
From a left-wing political site: http://talkleft.com/new_archives/003179.html. The links cited (one on MSNBC) was pulled down. Imagine that.
Another advocate of allowing ex-cons to vote to bolster Democratic support: http://www.marijuana.com/420/showthread.php?t=27420
<Name Withheld>