At NW Citizen, guest author g.h. kirsch wrote an article entitled "When Negativity Might Just Pull You Through." You can read it here: When Negativity Might Just Pull You Through

It was my hope and intent to respond to the post on the NW Citizen site, but alas, I'm unable to post there. I haven't yet been granted security clearance.

Kirsch's lament begins by expressing his displeasure with anonymous posts on the various local political commentary blogs and forums, such as this one. In making his protest, Kirsch strains himself with rhetoric in an effort to take a number of backhanded digs at those he disrespects, and seems to take exceptional umbrage to/with "The Parkenfarker Group."

It is on that site, hosted by Poindexter P. Parkenfarker (a regular at EoW) that a standing contributer posted an article which has, apparently, earned Kirsch an ear-full from his friends. At issue here, seems to be the signature shared by a couple of Whatcom County locals. As stated by Kirsch, "This chap, smart enough to remain everywhere nameless, seems continually to please himself by using this writer's signature initials for articles normally perfect in their complete opposition to my own views. He seems to be unable to come up with any other faceless mark to whom to attribute these writings."

I'm amused at the arrogance of that remark. In 1972, Carly Simon released a song with an ingeniously ironic title and subject: "You're so vain, you probably think this song is about you." Here, we could title it, "You're so vain, you probably think that signature impersonates you." As I know both of these individuals, I can state with confidence that each can make a legitimate claim to the signature; one going by "gk" and the other, in an effort to avoid confusion, "the real gk." Hearkening back to the old "To Tell the Truth" days, will the REAL gk, please stand up? Hmm, I guess they both would.

There are a number of aspects of Kirsch's posting that I find rather disconcerting. Take this quote, for starters, "This chap, smart enough to remain everywhere nameless..." Why smart enough? Is that a threat? Is Kirsch going to physically assault this person for using the initials "gk?" An unwise venture, as he would likely end up in the hospital. Is it a threat of a non-physical nature? Again unwise for reasons I'll leave unstated. Is it because Kirsch disrespects the writer's point of view, and therefore arrogantly assumes everyone else does as well? Thus, if the real gk's identity were known he/she would be publicly shamed? Meh, I doubt it. While I am not fond of either writer's style (Kirsch, or the real gk), the points made in the posting at Parkenfarker Group are valid.

Furthermore, I don't care for the dripping sarcasm he uses to speak down to, and of, those with whom he disagrees. This is a technique regularly employed by Kirsch, and one which strikes me as predominantly counterproductive. Greg, we can disagree, but please, let's do so "agreeably."

Third, Kirsch takes issue with a "name calling" incident in "the real gk's" most recent post on the Parkenfarker blog. Again quoting Kirsch, "His latest ... is to insult a man who will likely be a candidate for the presidency, by calling him 'Osama Obama.'" We at Eye on Whatcom don't care for ad-homonym attacks, no matter who they come from, and strive to keep such attacks from rearing their ugly heads here. I will agree with Kirsch, that this was unnecessary, and did little to advance the writer's point which could have been made without the Osama Obama statement.

Yet, it leaves me wondering if Kirsch even knows the origin of the moniker. It comes from a drunken speech made by Ted Kennedy in which he made roughly three or four attempts to state Barack Obama's name. He never did get it right, and in one of the attempts, he referred to Senator Obama as "Osama Obama." So, the feigned outrage against Parkenfarker guest writer "the real gk," comes across as a bit melodramatic.

Beyond that, Kirsch even admits in his posting that he has, in the past, taken issue with name calling himself. Again, quoting Kirsch, "When I recently criticized Taylor for disparaging one of NW Citizen's writers, calling him a 'gadfly', and included a barbed re-characterization of his pal's nom de plume." So which is it Greg? Do we, in the Whatcom blogging community trade barbs through ad-homonym sniper shots, or do we discuss the substance of issues on which we see things from differing vantage points? Or, perhaps you prefer to do both, opting for whichever suits your fancy at the moment; at times calling your opposition "ding-a-lings," "leftovers" and "rightswingers," and at other times, bemoaning the fact that an opposing point of view quotes a Democratic party leader who repeatedly mispronounced Senator Obama's name?

Not practicing what he preaches, here, Kirsch lobs a little bomb intending to assert that he finds "us" uninteresting. Borrowing a quote from Friedrich Nietzsche, Kirsch says, "One of my favorite philosophers once remarked that, 'At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid.'" Kirsch, just leaves the comment at that, and offers nothing to support his assertion. So be it.

My preference is to discuss the issues, rather than whine about signatures or anonymous postings. I care little whether or not someone openly signs their posts here. So long as there is respect for others, even those with whom we disagree, we will get along fine.

---