Tuesday, May 30, 2006

Reader Mail

READER MAIL

Anonymous said:

Why do you permit anonymous posting if all you do when you hit some meaningful criticism is essentially say "your post requires no response because its anonymous."

Dear Anonymous,

I permit anonymous posting because several readers who wish to comment feel the need to do so anonymously. I personally think folks should have the courage of their conviction to put their name on their comments, especially when they are critical of others who comment here (not criticisms of yours truly, I could give a rip). Nonetheless, if people wish to remain anonymous, so be it.

However, merely allowing others to take that route does not exempt them from commentary, which at times includes ridicule from me and others for their choice to remain anonymous.

-Fraley

Anonymous said...

Investment in the central city is pork? Are you high?

Dear Anonymous,

Knee jerk calls for increased spending on failed social service programs as a means to combat the violent gang clture in Milwaukee are not solutions, and yes are merely pork. Like it or not, “anti-poverty” and “anti-violence” programs have become a cottage industry.

And, no, I am not high. But thanks for asking.

-Fraley


(Finally, one answer to a whole group of recent emails)

Anonymous said...

What intrigues me about Fraley's blog, and so many of the other conservatives' blogs - - McBride, Sykes, Wagner, Wigdeson, etc, et al - - is how many angry or sarcastic posts are about Black or other minority people or leaders.

These are racist in that they either reflect disproportionate negativity towards minorities, or that they stir the pot in the community against minority leaders or issues.

Deal with it, Brian.

Anonymous said...

Seems to me that you are protesting a bit too much, Brian. You DO post a lot of angry rants about black officials. Maybe you don't realize how that appears.

Anonymous said...

Also, Fraley seems to jump all over petty, meaningless stuff to belittle black elected officials. He can be aggressive with the white folks too but usually over actual issues.

Anonymous said...

The point that people are making is that you hold them to a different standard and treat them differently.

Dear Anonymous (not sure if this is one or several people).

I select the targets of my commentary by the content of their character and by their actions, not by the color of their skin.

As Jim Doyle, Peg Lautenschlager, Kathy Falk, Mark Pocan, Tom Reynolds, Xoff, Teresa Estness and others can attest, I am an equal opportunity ‘ranter.’

I will not be intimidated or shamed into being silent on issues or actions of elected officials based on their skin color or ethnic or religious background. I don't believe in having a sliding scale of standards based on race, class, religion or creed.

-Fraley

1 Comments:

At 4:43 PM, Anonymous said...

1. you missed the point of the criticism. You often dismiss anonymous posts because they are anonymous - you dodge the substance entirely.

2. We can all agree that "knee jerk" anything is not helpful. The fact is, however, that government has a real role to play in sparking stability and development in the central city. To dismiss the central city's need for investment as being about "pork" you are dismissing one of the biggest and most complex challenges we face.

3. Not surprisingly, you ignore the substance of the reader feedback about what is percieved as your differential treatment of african american officials. Its not just about selecting targets but also about what you focus on and the way you present it. The simple fact is that you go after a lot of people - but you get more personal, petty, and frankly mean spirited when it a black official.

and, you shouldn't be so knee jerk defensive to your readers' feed back.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home