John Morgan of Pennsylvania Progressive has ended his blog. I have only been reading it for a year, but it was one of the most informative of all the blogs anyone interested in Pennsylvania Politics could read. No, I didn't always agree with his opinions, but I knew I could always get an honest perspective from Mr. Morgan's blog. I found out it was shutting down when I was checking the Blognet rankings of influential blogs. This week his was #5.
Mr. Morgan is facing legal issues that I am not privileged to know, but they involve free speech, and a complaint filed by an Obama volunteer who didn't like his criticisms.
After reading that this morning, it gave me pause to reconsider what has happened on this blog in recent weeks, and much of the criticism several contributors have faced for their opinions. I had come to the conclusion Friday that I should stop doing this altogether, but a discussion with a good friend Saturday has swayed me to stay with it for now. I won't be writing any commentary, but I will continue providing a clearinghouse for information on campaigns.
I used to teach History, and I consider one of the darker times in America the fear mongering and intimidation of the McCarthy era. The intimidation, using the law, of those whose speech, thoughts, and ideas you oppose is a weapon used only by those who wish to make their speech, thoughts and ideas equal above all others. That someone has been forced to stop speaking their opinions through intimidation is frightening to me, and should be to everyone.
Today it is John Morgan's speech. Tomorrow it might be yours, and the day after that, mine. The Pennsylvania Progressive may not be Thomas Paine's "Common Sense", or any other great classic work of freedom, but it is a work of freedom, none the less, and it has been squashed.
I can be contacted at janetharrigan@yahoo.com
Monday, April 14, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
You wrote "I used to teach History, and I consider one of the darker times in America the fear mongering and intimidation of the McCarthy era."
I'd be interested in your opinion then of the tactics used by Woodrow Wilson and FDR to stifle dissent. The finger always gets pointed at McCarthy (certainly with justification) but how about a consideration of some true constituional abuses (although Wilson had no use for the Constitution insisting it no longer fit the era) by two lions of Progressives/Liberals
Anon 12:40
I agree with your assessment of McCarthy, although he had very good reason to weed out some of the people he did. I don't believe he used the proper tactics, however. You are 100% correct about WW and FDR abusing their power to intimidate people they disagreed with. Bill Clinton also abused that power but mostly for personal reasons. This is why the Clinton records won't be shown to the public for a long time. I wouldn't vote for any politician that abused their power to intimidate others. The problem is that we don't always know this until it is too late.
I certainly do agree with A.D.'s broader point about free speech and I would hope that she would reconsider her notion of discontinuing her commentary. After all, this is NOT a news paper, it's a blog site, mostly for opinion. I do believe that when we wish to state facts, they should be stated as such and researched as fully as possible, at least within a reasonable amount of time. All of us have opinions but not all opinions are valid or carry the same weight. Another point I would like to make is that we shouldn't judge another unless we know that person well. I knew a man once that was very anti-gay. I later found out that he was molested by a gay man when he was a small boy, something that happens quite often according to statistics.
LOLV,
I deleted your comment because of a certain word inappropriate for a family blog. I happen to agree with the sentiment you expressed.
"Family blog?" Is that what this is now? PG?
Anyway, I still don't understand the events happening with PAProgressive. Something else has to be going on there...
Isn't John Morgan a paid advisor to the Clinton campaign, something that he failed to clearly disclose on the main page of his blog? If so, that certainly might explain why the Obama campaign has issues with his "criticisms" and honesty.
http://pennsylvaniaprogressive.typepad.com/about.html
Biography
In 2004 I was Berks County Field manager for Lois Herr for Congress and also on the state glbt steering committee for PA Victory 04. In 2004 I began working for Chuck Pennacchio and in spring 2005 became his Interim Campaign Coordinator. Chuck ran for the U.S. Senate in this spring's Democratic primary for Senator Santorum's seat.
I'm a Deaniac and worked as a volunteer on his campaign in 2003 and 2004 organizing Berks County.
I sit on the Boards of Planned Parenthood Advocates of North East Pennsylvania and Planned Parenthood Pennsylvania Advocates.
I am also doing local consulting for Berks County For Hillary.
--Needless to say, his Saturday endorsement of Senator Clinton is hardly surprising.
"Berks County For Hillary" is NOT the Hillary Clinton for President Campaign. It is a group of Berks County Hillary supporters that wanted FEC regulations advice.
Giving FEC advice to a couple of local Hillary supporters is hardly working for the Clinton Campaign and certainly not reason enough to endorse Hillary. From reading John Morgan's blog and the comments on the blog, I believe it was the continuous bashing from the Obama supporters, accusing him of lying about working for Hillary's Campaign, that pushed him too far. The truth will be told when this quarter's FEC reports are posted. I wonder what the bashers will be saying then. I predict the only sound that will be heard is the chirping of crickets. I don't think that the bashers are capable of admitting that they are wrong.
Working as a paid consultant for a candidate's group, then being less than forthcoming about that relationship while aggressively blogging against her opponent is certainly unethical. It is little wonder that elements of his readership felt betrayed or misled.
Of course, as John is shocked and outraged that his first amendment rights do not extend to contracts that he has entered with commercial entities, perhaps it would be too much to expect him to have a rational perspective on this or any such issue.
anon 6:25, since you seem to have intimate knowledge of the situation, perhaps you could tell us what progressive initiative led to John joining the Clinton camp. Don't Ask/Don't Tell? DOMA?
Agree or disagree, I'm not thrilled about someone gertting shut down by an opposing voice. That is the core issue here. This is what the Obama Clinton contest is coming down to, Dems destroying Dems, and Karl Rove is smiling down in the Beltway.
Post a Comment