I read the piece (well done) this weekend and thought you were very fair and treated everyone with respect. The article shines a light on how different people interpret our nation and the constitution differently. I do not agree with them, but I didn’t feel the hate I sometimes do when hearing from those I don’t agree with.
Another good one. It's also nice to hear that good editing isn't a lost art. As for the perspective question, I can't imagine how to make this piece interesting from a third person perspective. The raw details are only half the story (maybe less). Sure, it can be uncomfortable being forced to empathize with people while completely disagreeing with their opinions - it's uncomfortable because it takes effort, but it is absolutely worth it.
I can't decide if I hate the idea of their Constitutional Disney Land more if it turns out to be a scam, or if it actually works. I do know that I've had my fill of the idea of this as a "Christian Nation". What they want is basically Don't Ask, Don't Tell for religion, where we just assume everyone loves Jesus. I'm afraid to say that's not an acceptable option. I couldn't manage it to fit in as a small town kid and I won't choke it down as an adult. Hard no.
I understand and appreciate the reasoning behind the Constitutional convention as it was designed - it's one of those checks and balances they taught us about as kids. The whole idea is that it's ALMOST unattainable, only to be used in a situation where our congress is so entirely out of hand that the states are literally forced to step in and do something lest the country dissolve. The fact that these people believe we are at that point is a product of the same disinformation machine that has dominated right wing thought in recent years. I desperately hope someone finds a way to ween these poor folks off their steady drip of righteous paranoia, but I don't know the solution.
A lot of things ended up on the cutting room floor, and one of those things was a really great quote from Feingold about how Article V is actually a great safety measure, just as you describe...just not like this. The Constitution ought to be a living document, and we certainly seem to be arriving at some sort of crisis point.
I too would do poorly in a DADT Christian scenario
After reading your new article I have a ton of thoughts. First I agree you don't need to hate the person for holding beluefs you find offensive. I do wonder how the amounts of money they bring in are handled. The "Disney land" in Texas sounds an awful lot like Jim Bakker's scam, at least that was my "gut" feeling. Green for all his professed enlightenment falls into stereotypes., " won't have to go to Philly and get shot" "won't have to go to D.C.abd spend a year and a half in the gulag" jumped out at me. I also have zero trust that the country Green and his cohorts want for themselves wouldn't devolve into a theocracy in practice for the rest of us. First I've heard of the 1st Amendment shoukd only apply to monotheistic religions. So the Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster is safe? In any case you did a balanced article without any "bothsidesism" and again I am impressed by your skills as a writer and journalist. Great work Lady!
I'm very curious about how the Disneyland thing goes down...like, Patriot Academy has a history of putting its money where its mouth is but this is a HUGE project and...well, we'll see. I hope they let me visit it if it ends up happening, I simply must see it if it goes down
And yeah, I was...very disturbed by the monotheistic religions thing. Innovative argument to say the least
Bud I write in the first person, this is like the fifth time you've left this comment, thought a month-long ban would send the message but apparently not so:
I think this critique is stupid
I think this critique is lazy
I think this isn't even a critique
I think there are a thousand third-person articles you can read
I read the piece (well done) this weekend and thought you were very fair and treated everyone with respect. The article shines a light on how different people interpret our nation and the constitution differently. I do not agree with them, but I didn’t feel the hate I sometimes do when hearing from those I don’t agree with.
This makes me really happy. I'm very glad to hear it
In addition, that article made me google you and find you here on Substack. I look forward to reading more of your work.
Another good one. It's also nice to hear that good editing isn't a lost art. As for the perspective question, I can't imagine how to make this piece interesting from a third person perspective. The raw details are only half the story (maybe less). Sure, it can be uncomfortable being forced to empathize with people while completely disagreeing with their opinions - it's uncomfortable because it takes effort, but it is absolutely worth it.
I can't decide if I hate the idea of their Constitutional Disney Land more if it turns out to be a scam, or if it actually works. I do know that I've had my fill of the idea of this as a "Christian Nation". What they want is basically Don't Ask, Don't Tell for religion, where we just assume everyone loves Jesus. I'm afraid to say that's not an acceptable option. I couldn't manage it to fit in as a small town kid and I won't choke it down as an adult. Hard no.
I understand and appreciate the reasoning behind the Constitutional convention as it was designed - it's one of those checks and balances they taught us about as kids. The whole idea is that it's ALMOST unattainable, only to be used in a situation where our congress is so entirely out of hand that the states are literally forced to step in and do something lest the country dissolve. The fact that these people believe we are at that point is a product of the same disinformation machine that has dominated right wing thought in recent years. I desperately hope someone finds a way to ween these poor folks off their steady drip of righteous paranoia, but I don't know the solution.
A lot of things ended up on the cutting room floor, and one of those things was a really great quote from Feingold about how Article V is actually a great safety measure, just as you describe...just not like this. The Constitution ought to be a living document, and we certainly seem to be arriving at some sort of crisis point.
I too would do poorly in a DADT Christian scenario
After reading your new article I have a ton of thoughts. First I agree you don't need to hate the person for holding beluefs you find offensive. I do wonder how the amounts of money they bring in are handled. The "Disney land" in Texas sounds an awful lot like Jim Bakker's scam, at least that was my "gut" feeling. Green for all his professed enlightenment falls into stereotypes., " won't have to go to Philly and get shot" "won't have to go to D.C.abd spend a year and a half in the gulag" jumped out at me. I also have zero trust that the country Green and his cohorts want for themselves wouldn't devolve into a theocracy in practice for the rest of us. First I've heard of the 1st Amendment shoukd only apply to monotheistic religions. So the Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster is safe? In any case you did a balanced article without any "bothsidesism" and again I am impressed by your skills as a writer and journalist. Great work Lady!
I'm very curious about how the Disneyland thing goes down...like, Patriot Academy has a history of putting its money where its mouth is but this is a HUGE project and...well, we'll see. I hope they let me visit it if it ends up happening, I simply must see it if it goes down
And yeah, I was...very disturbed by the monotheistic religions thing. Innovative argument to say the least
Terrific article. And what you wrote today is exactly what I want from a newsletter — extra background or context on an important piece. Thanks!
Bud I write in the first person, this is like the fifth time you've left this comment, thought a month-long ban would send the message but apparently not so:
I think this critique is stupid
I think this critique is lazy
I think this isn't even a critique
I think there are a thousand third-person articles you can read
I think I'm going to block you
I hope you have a nice day
I think it’s great that you write in the first person. After 35 years of forcing business memos into the 3rd person, first person writing is a relief.
Clearly no one ever wrote for publication in the first person before Gen X or whatever. As a certified Old, I think you rock.