*sigh* … can we start again please?

Sounds good, Pippin. So, who are your heroes? (I think that was the point of the post, after all.)

I like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, who campaigned tirelessly for women's rights and women's suffrage. (And argued forcefully against the 14th and 15th Amendments, arguing that ignorant "Sambos" shouldn't be granted rights over white women. Whoops. I like them anyway.)

And Roger Williams, champion of religious liberty is pretty cool. (Sadly, I can't think of anthing bad about Roger Williams to put here, but maybe one of you can fill me in. )

Then again, when has Presidents Day ever been celebrated with anything more than a day off of school and tons of mattress and furniture store sales? Even when I was a kid I can't remember anyone making that big of a deal about Presidents Day. It was mainly just a way to make that long stretch of school between Christmas and Spring Break a little more bearable. I don't think MLK day had much to do with it, it was already a lame-duck holiday.

As for MLK, I don't like things that smack of worship, but if remembering someone who lived and died according to the path of non-violent resistance on behalf of the oppressed, can inspire us to go and do likewise, then I'm all for it.

It's your right to not appreciate certain groups of people. I don't worship the founding fathers. I do appreciate what they did to make it possible for people to have their first amendment right to dis' them.

I already wrote who my heroes were in an earlier posting. I thought that the point of this all.

Mike, I'm not just talking about one comment in the post. I'm talking about the entire 1st paragraph of the post – its overall tone including the "couldn't resist it" satirical picture (c'mon, after two or three years following this blog do either of you really expect me to believe the reason Julie couldn't resist that pic was because she wants to make fun of people who are critical of the founding fathers), the way it is phrased, and the timing of the whole thing. I wrote in an earlier post: "Imbalance is still imbalance, whether it’s in the direction of hagiography or condescending distaste and scorn." That's what comes across in the first paragraph. Backhanded stuff like "not that they don't deserve freedom too" doesn't mitigate the tone.

See my response to AH in #20 and the example of how a similar post by a conservative blogger on MLK day would strike me much the same, even if it contained factually truthful statements about MLK. Tone. Attitude. Timing.

To refer to questioning the tone, timing and emphasis of that first paragraph (but NOT questioning the list of other deserving heroes, as people bent over backwards to emphasize) as freaking out, jumping all over, seeking to shut down dialogue, and fighting to keep the list of American heroes limited (where did that one even come from?), etc. doesn't seem to accurately reflect the tone or content of the comments in this thread.

I still think it comes down to a difference in approach. Trying to *cause* balance vs. trying to *model* balance. Actually, rather than "balance" a better word to use might be "fairness." I think that gets closer to my meaning.

Maybe the difference lies in how we think balance is best achieved. Mike and Julie, you recognize imbalance in American Myth/hagiography emphasizing only the positive about the country and its founders while turning a blind eye to their sins. You therefore seem to want to work a little bit toward *overall balance* by emphasizing the negative as a counterbalance to all that hagiography.

That's the problem though Karl, she didn't try to "emphasize the negative" in this post. That wasn't even what this post was about. It was about inviting people to add to their pantheon of heroes and "freedom fighters". It was the rest of y'all who freaked out because she dared to make one negative (yet accurate) comment about the Founding Fathers. If a person can't even make one less-than favorable comment without being jumped all over, THAT is a little extreme IMHO.

DAnderson – maybe I'm not understanding you. How is celebrating MLK Day "revisionist history"?

Pippin makes a good point that while there are real differences represented here, we may not be as far apart as we seem. It seems clear from Mike and Julie's comments that they want "balance" as much as I do.

Maybe the difference lies in how we think balance is best achieved. Mike and Julie, you recognize imbalance in American Myth/hagiography emphasizing only the positive about the country and its founders while turning a blind eye to their sins. You therefore seem to want to work a little bit toward *overall balance* by emphasizing the negative as a counterbalance to all that hagiography.

Rather than work to *achieve* balance in that way, my sympathy lies with those who to try to *model* balance. That seems more third way to me.

Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, have been trying to "balance" each other's voices out in the public sphere for a long time by using loud voices to act as a counterweight to the voice of the "other" in the grand scheme of public opinion. How's that working? Looks like just a bunch of polarized equal-but-opposite imbalance to me and like Pippin, I get bothered by it whether conservatives or progressives are doing it.

As for communication shutting down, that runs both ways.