Pittsburgh Magazine Reader Poll!

Hey, I just saw this on the Macyapper's blog.

Every year Pittsburgh Magazine does this poll, right? Well this year they've included the category "Best Local Blogger."

Yes, I want you to vote for me.

And no, I don't expect to win (shouldn't we all just congratulate Ginny now and get it over with??)

;-)

Here's the link.

In Which I Defend Ginny...Sort Of

Let me start with my comment at Ginny's blog and work backwards:

For the record…

I have nothing to say about Ginny’s party affiliation or self-identification as a conservative.

My blog post only questioned the quotation marks that Ginny used around the phrase “war criminal”. In itself that’s neither a left/right, Democratic Party/Republican Party issue. Torture’s a human rights issue and the fact that it happened in this country should forever disgrace the president who allowed it and the political party that supported that him.

For the record.

For those few, those happy few, unacquainted with the story, I'll try to sum it up in a nutshell.

• Virginia Montanez, aka Pittgirl, admits to being a republican (and a conservative) here.
• There's something of a loud response from her many (MANY!) fans (250+ comments in the comments section of that blog post).
• I question what looked to me like the irony quotes around the phrase "war criminal" she used in describing George W Bush - more on that in a bit.
• Sue Kerr responds quite positively on her blog with this, And gets a short, teary-eyed thank you from Ginny herself.
• The comment on my blog post was neither short nor teary-eyed.

That's about where things stand now.

Let me reiterate what I said in my comment on Ginny's post: I have nothing substantial to say about her political or party affiliations. We live in a free society (we're still free, right? The Koch Brothers haven't bought out the entire political process yet, have they? Just checking.). Each of us is free to believe what we want to believe; politically, religiously, morally, and so on. And so it's rather disappointing to learn of Ginny's now-former fans who, in a fit of anger, decide not to read her very funny (if mostly non-political) blog on account of these up until now mostly unacknowledged politics. The two have little if anything to do with each other.

If, on the other hand, they want to avoid her site because of her conservative politics so be it. They loose the giggle but gain...I am not sure what. But that's not for me to say anyway.

However, while we are free to believe what we want to believe, we also have to acknowledge that by labeling ourselves as a member of a group (in this case a political group), we have to accept that that comes with a certain amount of baggage. When the group does something good we have the right swell with pride at our membership. But we also have to accept some responsibility when the group does something not so good. That's the baggage of membership.

If you don't want the baggage, leave the group - especially if you don't agree with it.

That being said, Ginny walks back the irony quotes. From her comment:

Sorry I missed all the drama. Because my quotation marks around "war criminal" seem to be what has irked so many, let me explain.

I wrote that post in under ten minutes, didn't proof it, posted it. I had no motive behind any of my punctuation. I put quotes around war criminal not to be ironic, but because, and I mean this honestly, I was quoting the reader who said that. Honestly.

Do I think that those that view George Bush as a war criminal have a valid opinion. Of course I do. That day that I came out was honestly one of the hardest days of my life and to have people suddenly jump on me for voting for Bush, write about how I voted for a war criminal, etc. on top of all the other shit that happened that day, honestly was unexpected.

I'll take her at her word that she didn't intend any irony. I am not sure that gets her off the hook, though. Here's what she wrote:

This resulted in some uproar from readers who were shocked I ever voted for a “war criminal.” Yes. WAR CRIMINAL. I voted for him because as you already know ME LOVE KILLING! GRRRRR.

Not sure I'd want to make a joke minimizing either torture or the deaths of 4500+ American servicemen and women (not to mention the countless Iraqis who died). Deaths, let's all remember, that were a direct result of the actions and decisions of the man who won the 2004 election.

I'd not want to make that joke - but that's just me.

My question at the end of my blog post, however, is still valid. If the quotation isn't ironic, then why the vote for the war criminal?

But Ginny, He IS A War Criminal

My friend Ginny wrote yesterday:

The very day I outed myself as Virginia Montanez instead of PittGirl, Chad Hermann at the Radical Middle latched on to this letter to the editor I wrote when George Bush was re-elected, wondering how my readers were going to like me knowing I was a Republican. This resulted in some uproar from readers who were shocked I ever voted for a “war criminal.” Yes. WAR CRIMINAL. I voted for him because as you already know ME LOVE KILLING! GRRRRR.

But Ginny, why the use of the ironic quotation marks? Bush IS a war criminal and he was when you voted for him in 2004. He approved the waterboarding of Khalid Sheik Mohammed and KSM (as he's known in intelligence circles) was waterboarded in 2003 - well before the 2004 election.

I don't think I need to spell out (again) how waterboarding is torture and how torture is against international and US law and how torture is a war crime, do I?

Even without the Bush-approved torture, the case could be made for war criminal by the invasion of Iraq itself and the dishonesty he used to support it - where were the connections to al-Qaeda? the sale of uranium in Niger? the WMD? They were no where to be found. The foundations for the war were fraudulent even if the war resulted in halting Saddam Hussein's murderous regime. Bottom line is that all that blood (American, Iraqi, British, etc) IS on Dubya's hands.

Whatever else belongs in your otherwise thoughtful and nuanced blog post, the irony quotes don't.

Perhaps I misunderstood (and if I did, then I apologize in advance) and you DO think that Bush is a war criminal and you were merely quoting one or more readers with your use of the quotation marks.

If that's the case, then why the vote for the war criminal?