Vilification

You know it's actually flattering to be vilified by the opposition to an extent.  To see someone from the "family values" camp become so blinded with anger that he is reduced to defending a man who, by his own admission, became uncontrollably enraged when his wife called someone on TV "hot," is priceless.  That's the kind of argument you use when . . . well, when you don't have an argument. 

It's called vilification of the messenger.  Kevin Richert at the Idaho Statesman predicted it;  I knew it would happen and was prepared for it.  So when Adam Graham said this in a comment at IdaBlue, I just had to laugh:

The issue has been worked out between the Thayns at this point. She was hurt by the abuse, but having some spiteful blogger publicly make a name for herself by exposing her pain and lessening your husband's economic and job prospects as you're expecting a new child only adds insult to the injury.

You know I'd keep laughing if it wasn't so tragic.  Family values indeed.  But it doesn't stop.

The fact remains that MGR chose to intentionally harm the wife of Damon Thayn and his child in order to prove a political point.

So at what point do you quit trying to reason with a person making such arguments?  At what point does it become pointless to continue what has become so obviously a pretense of civil discourse?  Does one more do it?   

[I]t's really little more than shallow justification for becoming a political hatchet woman.

Since day one as a blogger, I've attempted to encourage discussion and debate.  That's why in my blogroll you'll find many blogs whose political views I don't agree with—there's even one there with which I've had another public dispute.  The only thing required was respect and tolerance.

Until now, no blogger has ever crossed that line—and it was a pretty broad line.  But in making those comments yesterday, Adam Graham finally did.  So, regretfully, you'll no longer find Adam's Blog on the blogroll here.

Now why is that a big deal?  Well, I'm new at this but the way I understand it, search engines like Google use link counts to determine page ranks; the more links, the sooner that page will appear in a search.  Also if you're running ads on a site, payment is usually, not always, based on the number of page views; each site that links to yours represents a potential for revenue.  Also sites like Technorati that rank blogs, use the number of links to determine blog authority; the more links the better.

But that's not why removing Adam's Blog from my blogroll is a big deal; removing my one link isn't going to affect his blog that much.  It's a big deal because it signifies one less opportunity for civil debate in the Idaho blogosphere.  That's a shame.

Comments

[Sisyphus]

I love this quote from Serephin referring "to those who religiously practice self-inflicted ignorance". I see Richert is actively seeking other bloggers besides poor Adam from whom to gain perspective. Can't blame him really, having only Adam and Fisher to choose from.

[MountainGoat]

Be sure to read all the comments at IdaBlue. I just added a new comment there that should clarify my argument somewhat.

[Bubblehead]

While it's your blog, and you can do what you want, and I understand how Adam's words hurt you, I'm generally opposed in principle to delinking someone for disagreements. Hopefully this won't start a trend, because up to now the Idaho political blogosphere has been become more cohesive due to cross-linking. (That being said, I admit to not permalinking in the first place to places like 43SB and morialekafa because I strongly disagreed with the content, even though I was pretty much the first Idaho political blogger to actively link to both sides. So as not to be a hypocrite, I should probably permalink them too.)

[Bubblehead]

..but that's not why I came over here. I was going to point out that Halli seems to have come over to our POV with respect to the Family Task Force. Here's what she says in her latest entry ( http://www.trishandhalli.com/2007/11/28/politics/massachusetts-spanking-children-to-become-illegal/ ):

"... government and overly zealous, self-appointed do-gooders attempting to dictate parenting styles should be kept out of private homes and the families who live there."

Of course, she said it in the context of supporting the spanking of children as a means of defending the traditional family, but maybe she's coming around...

[MountainGoat]

I understand what you're saying Bubblehead and trust me this was not done lightly. It's been an ongoing issue with him for awhile now. I think maybe since I exposed Hoffman. Anyway, had it been just these comments--shrugged it off. Even had it been these comments plus the ones from a week ago--shrugged it off. You know I'm open to arguing and you and I have gone at it once or twice, but this has been an ongoing personal attack from Adam for months now and enough is enough.

[MountainGoat]

That's priceless.

[MountainGoat]

I hate that typepad doesn't support nested comments.

[JDem]

So much drama involved in the whole linking game. It's hard to avoid the game.

[scootermom]

I won't miss him. He never added much value to any conversation. If I want a dose of crazy, I go visit Fischer's website.

[sharon fisher]

It's very odd, because I've met Adam personally, and talked with him several times (a couple of years back, perhaps before he even had a blog) and he was a perfectly nice, rational, interesting guy to talk to.

[sharon fisher]

gack. I confused Adam Graham with Clayton Cramer, whom I have met. Sorry, they all look alike.

[d2 at 43rdstateblues]

I suspect you're not the first to mistake Adam for gack.

(You did say *THEY ALL* look alike, something that makes me chuckle on about umpteen different levels of humor. I just picked the low-lying fruit here, but there's the application of a racial stereotyping cliche to - guys, republicans, wingnuts, unabomber wannabes, WASPy dudes and just 'them'. There's the 'nice guy... loner' tone to your description, there's a personal note of irony).

Apologies in advance to MGR if the opinions of your readership (me) are misconstrued by the lame (Adam) into something that violates your truce. Please direct Adam to focus his ire on me. I take full responsibility for my words.