Much as I love thoughtful comments (even by those who disagree with me), one of the problems that plagues me is when commenters jump on me by playing GOTCHA games, misreading what I said, putting words in my mouth, or even attributing to me positions I never took or beliefs I do not hold. This happened over the past couple of days, and I was so disgusted that I just didn't feel like blogging.

Too much work.

Writing is that way. If you start worrying that anything and everything you say might be misinterpreted, jumped on, or used as an invitation to start an argument (which is not why I write), it becomes a distraction, and makes writing feel more like a nuisance instead of the creative, introspective process I want it to be. I write to find out what I think and as a release, and I am often engaged in a dialogue with myself. If someone comes along with a goal of starting an argument, then it makes me feel that the post I wrote was not a release, but only created more work for myself in the form of an argument. Arguments remind me of litigation, and I hate litigation. It is the worst sort of drudgery imaginable, and if a post I wrote creates that sort of work for me, then I end up wishing I hadn't written it. I can ignore people's attempts to start arguments, and I have every right to do that, but that does not prevent the distraction phenomenon from setting in and influencing what should be a totally spontaneous process.

But let no one think I am talking only about the reactions of conservative commenters to the post I wrote about Barack Obama's commencement address. Far from it. I can't even compare and contrast male and female genital cutting without activists weighing in and telling me that I need to "do more research about FGM and MGM before making statements about how supposedly different they are." Must I really? Can't I just say what I think? (But at least the "conservative" versus "liberal" positions are less clear on genital cutting issues, so I'm relatively "safe" there.)

Another, more egregious example took the form of leftist comments to a post I wrote about the raid on the Hutaree militia, in which I said the following:

Assuming they are crackpots, they still have the same constitutional rights as everyone else, and I hope for the sake of the rest of us that they are being respected.

"...they still have the same constitutional rights as everyone else"

To sell pipe bombs?

Or this:

Look at what lengths you'll go to defend these homegrown terrorists.

And oh yeah...way to defend potential cop killers. They're terrorists and should be treated that way.

Anyway, I would have forgotten all about my Hutaree post, except it's now looking as if the concerns I expressed about their constitutional rights hit pretty close to the mark. And that's what the judge thinks:

The United States is correct that it need not wait until people are killed before it arrests conspirators. But, the Defendants are also correct: their right to engage in hate-filled, venomous speech is a right that deserves First Amendment protection...

The Court reviewed all exhibits, testimony, and proffers, and finds that each Defendant produced sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption in favor of detention. The Government fails to persuade the Court, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there are no conditions that will reasonably assure the Defendants' appearance in Court as required. The Government also fails to persuade the Court by clear and convincing evidence, that there are no conditions that will reasonably assure the safety of the community, if Defendants are released.

So, the nine members of group profiled by the Department of Justice and the MSM as representing an imminent right-wing extremist danger have been released on bond by a judge who surveyed the evidence and concluded that the government hadn't made the case that the Hutarees represented a clear and present danger to "the safety of the community." Instead, they appear to be most guilty of shooting off their mouths - a practice still protected, in most cases, by the First Amendment.

Here's the question the MSM needs to ask, but won't: Was this flamboyant raid primarily driven by political rather than law enforcement motives?

I don't know what considerations drove this raid, but the government will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they actually did something beyond shooting off rambling paranoid conspiracy theories, or spouting the sort of anti-police rhetoric which was considered trendy in the Black Panther Party's heyday.

So once again, they still have the same constitutional rights as everyone else, and I hope for the sake of the rest of us that they are being respected.

Glad I can still say that.