I‘ve just typed my last good-faith response to someone who refuses to deal with me — or the rest of y’all — in good faith.
As I explained before, we are going to have a serious, grown-up conversation about Energy, whatever it takes. And yet I found myself actually trying seriously to answer this comment from "Doug:"
And by "we" you mean everyone else, right?
Still waiting for a response on whether you plan to take your "tax
the SUV" idea to the automobile dealers who advertise in The State…
or to lobby your bosses for The State to reject advertising for gas
guzzlers.
Also waiting for a response on what kind of cars your family drives…
"Doug" didn’t deserve it — he was being an ad hominem jerk — but I tried to answer him patiently and frankly, without animus. In over 30 years in the news business, I’ve dealt with a lot of jerks, and I’ve told myself to treat them far better than they treat me. I still try to do that, and do it fairly well, with lapses. I have a responsibility as an officer of the company to represent the newspaper in a civil manner.
But this is MY blog, and my patience is at an end.
Anyway, I started out very low-key, and morphed into fed up. To wit:
What kinds of cars do we drive? Old ones. That’s what we can afford. I drive a Buick that was a hand-me-down from my parents. We bought our last NEW car in 1986.
You’re corresponding here with a guy who, until our fourth child was
born, drove a VW Rabbit. My wife drove a Mazda GLC. (Thanks to the lack
of public transit, we had to have two cars for me to get to work and
her to take the kids where they needed to be — but only after they started
school; before that, we made do with just the Rabbit.)
As long as there were just three kids, we could just barely get them
into either vehicle when the whole family went anywhere — two car
seats, and one jammed in the middle. When the fourth came along, we had
to give up the Mazda for a mid-size station wagon. A four-cylinder
mid-size station wagon, which, let me tell you, doesn’t work very well.
That was our last new car.
What I want, and badly, is a Camry Hybrid. I go out to the Toyota place occasionally and lust after them. Trouble is, they cost about four times what I last spent on a car (and more than twice as much as the most I’ve EVER paid for a car), and it’s hard for me to make even my much-lower payments on used cars.
I actually thought we might have been able to come up with enough down payment for one our first new car in two decades (it would have to be new, since they just came out for the 2007 model year). It would be for my wife, as I want her driving something dependable (at the time, I was still driving my ’89 Ford Ranger, which several months ago spontaneously caught fire on the Interstate and died; hence the Buick).
But the one-time infusion of cash I was counting on for that didn’t materialize, for complex reasons that are none of your business.
Come to think of it, none of this is your business.
Something I really don’t understand about the Blogosphere is people who, instead of engaging ideas, waste their typing energy exhibiting very PERSONAL hostility.
There is not a single proposal that I set forth that I would be exempt from. And if you think my income somehow exempts me from the pain, you are nuts. But once again, the necessary information to refute your presumption is none of your business. That’s convenient to your purposes, but it doesn’t benefit the world or our country in the slightest…
At that point, this ceased to be a comment response, and I turned it into this separate post.
What this site is supposed to be about is ideas, not whom you like or dislike. The difficulty in getting people to carry on grownup conversations has brought me very close to dropping the blog altogether as a waste of my and everyone’s time — something that is even scarcer for me than money.
I don’t know how much longer I’ll carry on. But if I’m close to quitting, there is one thing you will see me do first — start eliminating ALL messages that don’t discuss issues and ideas on their actual merits, without all this childish personal animus. THAT might make this a more worthwhile enterprise.
I’ve held off on doing that, and instead tried to make an instructive example of "Mary" by unpublishing "her" most egregious offenses, and explaining to all what I’m doing and why. I don’t mind deleting "Mary" because "she" possibly doesn’t even live in South Carolina (she certainly has no interest in our state, beyond deriding it), hides behind a phony name, and most likely a phony gender — therefore making herself irrelevant to the conversation I’m trying to have with newspaper readers and other who care about our community. One who deals with the world in such bad faith and with such deception does not deserve the courtesies I extend to others who can sometimes be just as hostile and pointless. I would just block ALL "Rosh" comments, except I believe in rewarding good behavior — or behavior that is "good" for "Mary."
But the bartender’s getting fed up. I like it that y’all want to drink what I serve, and have been pleased by the readership numbers. But the rowdiness is still chasing off the respectable folks — and riff-raff like me, too. And I’m not going to let that happen. I’d rather have three or four thoughtful readers than hundreds like Mary.
For that reason, I’m going to start examining every comment with a mind to whether to extend the "Mary" rule to everyone — which I probably will do. I haven’t started yet, though. As soon as I delete anyone but "her," I’ll let you know.
Related Posts
If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the blogosphere.
I think my question was legit – what are YOU doing personally to support your Energy Party. Much like John Edwards claiming there are two Americas while building a $20M home in NC, asking for all sorts of sacrifices by everyone else doesn’t hold much water if you can’t back it up by demonstrating your own personal willingness to do so first.
Why is it an attack to ask you whether you have considered the impact on your own company if your “idea” regarding taxing SUV’s might drive down ad revenues? What you call “ideas” are basically rants without consideration of the consequences.
I’m a resident of Columbia. I sign my name to every post. Those were supposedly the rules. I’m sorry you can’t find an audience that agrees with you. That’s your issue.
To demonstrate my dissatisfaction with the editorial policies of The State, I actually did something about it. I cut my subscription last week from 7 days to Sat-Sun only…
Jerk: (n) someone who disagrees with me
Mary is away from her computer at the moment, but asked me to relay these thoughts of hers. Mary believes that Doug’s remarks were not an attack on Warthen, but raise a vital point that has to be considered in any plan to change the way the United States produces and consumes energy – in fact, this point is vital for consideration of whether and how any person or group should do anything.
Doug’s point is simply, how are REAL PEOPLE affected by the different proposals. What are the costs of the proposals, on whom do they fall, how would their lives be affected by these costs? Who benefits from the proposals, how many people benefit, to what degree and how do they benefit, and to the benefits to some people overbalance the costs to others?
What is the harm to be avoided, what are the benefits to be gained, and on whom does the burden fall? EVERY human endeavor, except the most trivial, should take those considerations into account.
Doug’s questions simply get at two important considerations:
(1) On whom does Warthen believe the burden should fall?
(2) How important is the goal that is to be achieved?
Does Warthen believe that some of the burden should fall on the State newspaper? Is the goal important enough that Warthen is taking his own personal steps to achieve it?
Now, let’s look at some of Warthen’s remarks above:
[Discussion about Warthen’s cars, and the various alternatives he considered to reduce his oil consumption, along with their benefits and drawbacks, leading to. . .]
“But the one-time infusion of cash I was counting on for that didn’t materialize, for complex reasons that are none of your business.
Come to think of it, none of this is your business.”
YES IT IS! YES IT IS! Don’t you see? Not because it’s our right to know what kind of car Warthen drives, but because it’s important in understanding Warthen’s view of the importance of the goal he promotes.
Elsewhere, Warthen has said that achieving total energy independence is absolutely vital, casting it as an important initiative toward victory in a war. If I understand it correctly, achieving energy independence is vital as war. But Warthen is unwilling or unable to take what he sees as a step toward achieving such independence, because:
“Trouble is, they cost about four times what I last spent on a car (and more than twice as much as the most I’ve EVER paid for a car),”
So as I understand it, Warthen is saying that he doesn’t get a hybrid, and therefore doesn’t do what he sees as his part in winning the war, because…
It costs too much.
But…but…but…
we’re AT WAR, and this total energy independence idea is a vital contribution to the war, and you’re not taking what you see as a step toward victory, because…because
…because…IT COSTS TOO MUCH??????
So, how important is the goal, really? What level of hardship should be tolerated in order to achieve it?
That’s a key point, and that’s a point that Doug was raising. The point should be carefully considered and answered, because only in considering and answering the questions of how important is the goal, what burdens might it impose, and how are those burdens to be minimized and distributed, can we evaluate the goal and the proposed means to achieve it.
nd neither Mary nor I understand this obsession with the use of real names. Who cares who someone is? What’s important is, what do they say, and do they identify themselves sufficiently that their words can be identified as coming from the same source.
Atrios used to be known only by his pseudonym. Digby is still known only by a pseudonym. But you can still associate all of Atrios’s posts with Atrios, and all of Digby’s posts with Digby. The exact human identity of the person isn’t important, the important point is that the source of the posts is known.
It’s not like somebody creating a false persona to praise his or her book on Amazon.
It’s not disagreeing, Doug. It’s how you do it.
And I don’t HAVE a company. I work for one. I’m the editorial page editor; someone else is the ad director. We have a rule that is as close to a religious precept as our secular racket gets: I don’t try to influence advertising, and advertising doesn’t try to influence me. This is very costly to the newspaper, as we sometimes have advertisers pull more money out of the paper than my departmental budget — simply because they’re angry about our editorial position. We don’t change our editorial position, and no one in advertising asks us to. In the same manner, we don’t ask advertising to conform its business dealings to our opinions. It’s a sound arrangement that works to the benefit of our readers — even less-frequent readers such as yourself.
FYI to all, I just “unpublished” 8 of the last 11 “Mary” messages. Thus far, I’m leaving everyone else’s alone.
And if I choose not to handle the aggravation any more, I WILL get out of the blogosphere. For now, I’m still trying to change my little corner of it.
Brad,
Don’t give up the ship. I haven’t posted anything lately because energy policy is not a strong suit of mine. But your columns and some of the responses are instructive and I’m learning.
I, like you, can’t understand the vitriol on this blog. You strike me as sincere, civic-minded and thoughtful. You are humble and have a self-deprecating sense of humor that is genuinely funny. One of your most redeeming qualities is that you’re not afraid to admit a mistake or recognize the merits of an opposing view. It’s clear by your post above that you’re not in it for the money. I believe your motives to be unimpeachable.
That said, I disagree with you on occasion, particularly about the war. I respect your opinion and understand your arguments but believe the window of opportunity in Iraq has closed and that the operation has been hopelessly bungled by Bush; best to draw down the troops and get back to the hard work of diplomacy. Despite this significant disagreement, I still consider you a decent human being. How strange.
I know that revealing this may subject me to a lifetime of ridicule, but your blog is the site I visit the most. Despite its limitations, this blog serves an important purpose. I certainly learn as much here as from reading the State. The ability to have dialogue, to rebut and cross-examine, helps give a texture and perspective to the news that a hand-held newspaper can’t provide.
Cheers,
Paul
Cheers!,Bartender,I’m driving a new used Buick too.Gets great mileage but the brakes ain’t so hot.I’ve seen too many total losses to share that great American love affair with the automobile.Last time I got rear-ended by a pregnant teen put an end to that.I would LOVE to see a good public transit system in Columbia.West Columbia’s drop in service has really put a cramp in my lifestyle of the whiplashed and pedestrian.
And Hey,No matter how mad I get at you,I’d never cancel my subscription.My astigmatism won’t allow me to read at length online.
Finally! Brad, I was beginning to wonder. I mean, at times people can be almost civil that one thinks things might be changing, but then it becomes the same old, same old, and for what my part is worth (which I realize isn’t much), I thought I would leave for good.
Paul, you said it well.
Here’s a quote from another blog, but it fits a lot of the time here:
“And if I choose not to handle the aggravation any more, I WILL get out of the blogosphere. For now, I’m still trying to change my little corner of it.”
I have to say, I don’t think you’re going to be able to change it like you want. I’ve been reading and commenting on blogs for a long time, and things are never going back to the way they were. You’re used to being able to write anything you want. No matter what you say, no matter how dishonest or incompetent you are, you never faced an accounting. It was difficult for a reader to respond to you; the only way was to write a letter to the editor, and you decided whether or not the letter was to be published.
But now, any of your readers has the same power to place material into the public view that you do. That means if you want respect, you have to earn it. If you want civility, you have to be civil. If you want people to respond postively to your ideas, you have to produce sound ideas and support them. You can’t just slap down anything you want, no matter how incompetent or dishonest, and expect it to generate praise, or at least to pass without a response.
I know it’s tough for you that you are no longer the only one that gets to talk, but that’s how it is, and it’s not going to change.
What you should do when you receive criticism, is to take it to heart and work to do a better job. If you did, you might have more than 12 readers.
John, your statements are very strange.
1) How do you know how many people read this blog? That isn’t the same as the number who comment, and you know it. I generally read it every day, and have sometimes not posted a comment for weeks.
2) A public forum like Brad’s blog has a lot more visibility than Joe Blow’s, simply because it is connected to The State newspaper. The fact that some people use it to bash Brad is simply disrespectful, even if at times their frustration over an ill-conceived war is understandable. It is still like entering someone else’s home and depositing a load of manure all over the place. I don’t care if that’s the way the “blogosphere” operates. My mother taught me that I don’t have to necessarily act the was “everybody else” does. Just because they’re doing it doesn’t make it right. Did you ever hear that?
3) Every blog has it’s own rules. One that I also like, in addition to Brad’s, is getreligion.org. Every posted comment there that is off the subject (which is “how journalism treats religious topics”) is unceremoniously removed. Ditto posts with personal attacks. Bravo to Brad for having the courage to do the same. If people can’t converse respectfully with others, and follow the guidelines of the boss, then their right to a public forum that has its own purpose should be removed–just like if people abuse their privilege to drive, their license should be revoked.
Brad’s taken more than his share of criticism, and he’s been far too lenient. To me, this blog is a bit like a German Stammtisch. You can sit around the table, and you can state your opinion, and you can drink what you want. But there are unwritten rules: you tell people your name, you don’t cuss anybody else out, and you leave before you get drunk. And the bartender can throw you out, any time he wants to. After all, it’s his Gasthaus.
John,
Brad has already earned my respect for several reasons;
1) He’s a fellow human being
2) He acts in good faith
3) He’s been selected as editorial page editor of the best newspaper in SC. (If you have no respect for the judgment of those who operate The State and elevated him to his position then I don’t know why you’re wasting your time on this blog)
4) He provides a valuable, informative blog as a service to his readers to improve and expand civic discourse
Even if I never agreed with him, he would have my respect, since his positions are always well argued. Indeed, I learn most from the posts with which I disagree since they force me to examine my own beliefs and assumptions.
Is there anyone with whom you disagree that you still respect? Or does simple disagreement with your obviously superior, infallible positions qualify them as “dishonest and incompetent?”
“2) A public forum like Brad’s blog has a lot more visibility than Joe Blow’s, simply because it is connected to The State newspaper.”
Well, Herb, what that tells is that Warthen has a huge structural advantage, but due to the lack of merit of his writings, that structural advantage is gain him a significant following. He has a blog that has been placed in a prominent location, entirely apart from any merit or lack of merit. But it has only the barest handful of readers. That’s a function of the democratization of information, I think. Let me show you something. This is from Atrios:
********************************************
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Happy Jonah Goldberg Day!
Poor Jonah, always wrong.
-Atrios 9:58 AM
Comments (246) Trackback (0)
********************************************
So in less than 2 hours, Atrios (just some nobody who, by work and talent, produces a blog with tens of thousands of readers) gets 246 comments in response to an 8-word post.
Warthen is not entitled to special privileges or prominence for his viewpoint, and he will never again be able to command special privileges or prominence for his viewpoint. He depended for a long time on the fact that substantial barriers to entry existed, which kept out people who might have had more insight than he did, who might have been more informed or more honest, but who did not have a mechanism to place their ideas into public view.
“The fact that some people use it to bash Brad is simply disrespectful,”
So?
Respect must be earned. Warthen doesn’t earn my respect, or the respect of any decent person, when he advocates a war to “shake things up in the middle east”, when he accuses those who were right about the war from its beginning of defeatism, and when he claims that no one knew for sure that there were no WMD’s before the invasion when numerous documented instances exist (from Atrios, Slacktivist, and numerous other dirty hippies) of observations that the evidence for WMD’s was fraudulent.
even if at times their frustration over an ill-conceived war is understandable.
That’s what you call it? Understandable frustration over an ill-conceived war? Over 3000 American soldiers dead, over half a million Iraqis dead, hundreds and hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars wasted, contractor employees sent into danger zones with no armor and no maps, billions of dollars of Iraqi money stolen, all the U.S. goodwill in the world wasted, the U.S. military unable to respond to genuine threats, the danger of terrorism increased. Shame and outrage, I call it, and I want to know why someone who advocated all those things, the way Warthen did, is entitled to a place in the discourse at all, let alone why it is MY responsibility to avoid hurting his feelings.
It is still like entering someone else’s home and depositing a load of manure all over the place.
No it isn’t. It’s like clearing out a little bit of the mountain of manure that Warthen shoveled into my house, and having to listen to him cry when a little bit of it gets onto his property.
“I don’t care if that’s the way the “blogosphere” operates. My mother taught me that I don’t have to necessarily act the was “everybody else” does. Just because they’re doing it doesn’t make it right. Did you ever hear that?
I heard, that, yes. It’s irrelevant, though. It isn’t about “doing what everyone else does”. It’s about whether or not “civility” is the most important value.
The people who advocate “civility” in discourse on public issues do so in order that their viewpoints can be privileged. Warthen is, for example, one of the least civil persons alive. He operates by presuming that his viewpoint is correct, and discerning deficiencies in those who oppose his viewpoint – for example, his detractors don’t understand what’s going on as well as he does, or they’re cowards, or they’re unpatriotic. But let someone else point out that he takes positions that burden other people without burdening himself, and he goes through the roof.
Advocacy of “civility” is a way for those happy with the status quo to marginalize those who challenge it. But if the status quo is bad, what’s more important, changing the status quo, or protecting the delicate sensibilities of those who favor it?
“Brad has already earned my respect for several reasons;
1) He’s a fellow human being”
He didn’t EARN your respect by doing that, because that wasn’t something HE did.
“2) He acts in good faith”
No he doesn’t.
“3) He’s been selected as editorial page editor of the best newspaper in SC.”
First, if the State is the BEST newspaper in SC, OH MY GOD!
Second, THAT isn’t something HE did. And that ties in with what I’m saying. Thinking someone is entitled to respect because he has been put in a position in a newspaper is analogous to seeing the dissemination of information as a sort of feudal system, in which there is an aristocracy entitled to respect, no matter what they do, and a great mass who are not entitled to respect, no matter what they do. That’s over. There are now mechanisms for the great mass to promote their own views, and those whose views are found to have merit gain prominence.
Thus, Atrios is entitled to respect for this post of his, dated February 8, 2003, THREE DAYS after Powell’s UN presentation:
********************************************
Powell’s Dud
Slacktivist gives us the run-down on Powell’s dissolving case.
********************************************
-Atrios 6:48 PM
While this remark of Warthen’s, dated January 30, 2007:
********************************************
. . .feeling betrayed that there was no WMD (which of course no one knew, not even the few with the chutzpah to claim that they “knew all along”).
********************************************
identifies him as lazy, dishonest, or both, and therefore not entitled to respect.
Warthen’s position in the information industry isn’t important, nor is the fact that Atrios is some nobody. What’s important is WHAT THEY WRITE.
“It’s like clearing out a little bit of the mountain of manure that Warthen shoveled into my house, and having to listen to him cry when a little bit of it gets onto his property.”
Hey,John,I disagree with Warthen most of the time,too,but he’s not shoveling anything into my house and I don’t have to listen to him “cry”.What’s important is WHAT WE CHOOSE TO READ.
Methinks Mary Rosh has morphed into John Lott.
Bill, if that’s true (and there’s quite a bit to be said in its favor), then the same analysis applies to what Herb said about Warthen’s critics entering his house and spreading manure.
Herb, pay no attention to the scurrilous articles, such as in wikipedia and elsewhere, intimating that I am merely an alterego of my friend and mentor John Lott, one of the greatest professors of econometrics the world has ever known.
Herb, “John Lott,” Brad’s newest nemesis, is probably the latest incarnation of “Mary Rosh” persona.
Read the wikipedia entry on the real John Lott/Mary Rosh and you’ll begin to get the joke.
The irony, of course, if that the real John Lott exemplifies the intellectual dishonesty fostered by the wingnuts. Meanwhile, the “John Lott/Mary Rosh” posting here merely holds Brad to a rigorous intellectual and moral accounting.
[signed]
“Richard Saunders”
“.. sock puppets.. ”
That’s funny.
Meanwhile, the foolishness at the Statehouse keep right on rolling, yet where’s the coverage?
I’d be interested in Mary/John/Peter/Paul/Mary’s take on Joan Brady’s plan to forcefully innoculate middle-school girls prior to allowing them into school.
Just curious.
THE BLOGGING ADDICTION:
CAUSES & CURES
by Dave Bonta
If you are not a blog addict,
someone you love is. A son or daughter, perhaps. A close friend. Perhaps it is your lover’s secret sin. No family is immune to the addiction; no relationship is impervious to the personal storms unleashed by rampant, out-of-control blogging.
How do you identify a blog addict? Perhaps he says he has other things he’d rather do than watch a movie with you on Friday night. Perhaps she sneaks off to the computer desk once she thinks you’ve fallen asleep. Perhaps he is bleery-eyed and unable to track when you talk to him about plans for next weekend. Perhaps she plays at you again and again with the tips of her fingers, as if trying to see if you are real.
The blogging addiction occurs for a variety of reasons. “I spend all day working at this computer – it’s so lonely,” one might say. “No one listens to me at home. At least someone out there in bloggerland is willing to read what I have to say,” says another. Some may take to blogging simply for the pleasure of it, like recreational sex. For others it may fill a deep-seated need to “be somebody.”
Whatever the cause in a particular case, the enablers are everywhere: Blogspot, Bloglines, Journalspace, and Typepad are a few of the more obvious ones. All of them are readily available at the click of a mouse, and some of them are free. Free like maybe the little bag of free sample your heroin dealer offered you at the beginning of that addiction.
You’ll see that one who is tempted to blog starts by hanging out with bloggers (in a virtual sense) and soon enough gets sucked into the endless cycle of Post-and-Read-and-Post-and-Read. And soon enough, something that started out as an innocent and fun way to pass the time turns dark and ugly and begins to ruin a life – and not just the blogger’s life, but the lives of those around him.
Unlike the heroin addiction, the cure for the blog addict is not necessarily total abstinence. Rather, as with many sexual addictions, the goal is to change the habit and the mind-set, so that the patient gains control of the activity, rather than allowing the activity to control him.
Is it hopeless? Not necessarily. The loved one of a blog addict needs to:
(1) Ensure that the blogger posts no more than once or twice a day.
(2) Aid him in reducing the number of blogs he reads – get it down to no more than fifty per day.
(3) Assist her in lessening the number of comments she leaves on other blogs to no more ten per day maximum.
These seem to be reasonable standards; anything more has the potential to become extreme and to push the addict out of control again.
One who loves a blogger has to practice tough love at the first sign of back-sliding, has to remember Lysistrata and tell the out-of-control blogger: “No more driving my bus til you get this under control, buster! (or babe!, as the case may be).”
“I blog, therefore I am” is a great and dangerous fallacy and the blog addict needs to understand that.
BLOGGING IS NOT
LIFE – LIFE IS LIFE
Bumperstickers will be issued.
Yes, blogging can be one facet of a fulfilling life, but only when the blogger is in full control. The Blog is a monster which must constantly be subdued, wrestled down like some wild animal, tamed and made subservient to the blogger’s enlightened self-interest. In its proper context, under strict watch, with a blogger who is in full control of his faculties and in control of the activity itself, blogging can become a useful and therapeutic adjunct in the development of one’s emotional, social, spiritual, and intellectual life.
When the blogging is out of control, the blogger will end up – well – like you and me.
Ok Mr. Bartender here are your words describing several United States Senators:
Shame, cowardice and betrayal
Yes, Brad used those words while at the same time supporting a failed policy that has resulted in the deaths and maiming of 10,000s of thousands of people. How does that type of name calling differ from what Mary/John has written opposing the failed Iraq policy? Although Mary/John does get a little too personal for my taste she/he points out how utterly little the war supporters are sacrificing for this cause. And that is a point that needs to be made.
Trajan, are you opposed to “forced innoculation” for measles, rubella, etc.?
Just as a point of interest, Brad, do you think that the United States is in an existential war with un-Enlightened Islam?
Uh, no.
Next question.
This is the great thing about dialogue; it produces good ideas, even from unlikely sources:
Those are excellent standards for me to apply to this blog. I hope you’ll graciously accept them. Thanks, "John."
Oh, and thanks, Paul. Thanks also to Herb. You too, bill.
As for bud — here’s the problem with all this reflexive “you’re on that side; I’m on this side” stuff: I would think that people who oppose the war would be more likely than I to shout “Shame, cowardice and betrayal” over the NONBINDING resolution. How could anything be a bigger sellout of your point of view than that?
You and I should be finding common ground here.
But … and I’m really trying to grasp this here … you defend those who won’t do anything about the war one way or the other because they SAY they oppose it. They have political power, much of which is derived from widespread public revulsion over the war, and they won’t do anything with it but posture. And posture over posturing.
Why does that not disgust you? Is it all just about the rhetoric, the name-calling, the “us against them” game? If so, what’s the point of wasting time on any of it? And why take umbrage at me when I point out how shameful it all is?
“Those are excellent standards for me to apply to this blog. I hope you’ll graciously accept them.”
You couldn’t even get through ONE SENTENCE without failing to live up to the standard you supposedly set:
This is the great thing about dialogue; it produces good ideas, –>even from unlikely sources:<-- A gratuitous slam against a great friend of mine, from someone who rails endlessly about civility, to the extent that now about all he does with his blog (such as it is) is complain about his readers! Don't you understand that if you want a decent blog, you have to engage in substantive discussions on matters of general interest? Complaints about your readers are not of general interest. The fact that you dislike John Edwards because he is more successful than you are financially, is not of general interest. Why don't you put up a couple of posts about the revelations that have come out during the Libby trial, and what they say about the White House's arguments in favor of the Iraq war? That would be of general interest I am making these remarks, even though your comments were directed to John, because I see that the hyperlink you have for his name links to MY email. Once again, John Lott is perhaps the greatest professor of econometrics of all time. I am merely someone who had the inestimable privilege to be taught by him. We are not the same person. I don't care what you've heard.
“As for bud — here’s the problem with all this reflexive “you’re on that side; I’m on this side” stuff: I would think that people who oppose the war would be more likely than I to shout “Shame, cowardice and betrayal” over the NONBINDING resolution. How could anything be a bigger sellout of your point of view than that?
You and I should be finding common ground here.”
But you’re not.
So why might that be?
Is Bud stupid?
I don’t think so.
Is he a coward?
I don’t think so.
Does he love America?
I think he does.
So maybe the problem doesn’t have anything to do with Bud. Maybe the Senators promoting the nonbinding resolutions are not cowardly traitors.
I have an idea. Why don’t you do some research and see if the proponents of the various resolutions have made any statements about what they hope to accomplish. Then explain why their point of view is sound or unsound.
That would be…what’s the word…journalism?
Or, you could just sit and complain about the cowardice of veterans such as John Warner and Chuck Hagel, in between complaining about how your readers don’t honor you sufficiently for your wisdom.
It’s not like somebody creating a false persona to praise his or her book on Amazon.
Who would do such a thing?
I’m sure I don’t know. . .
Brad, my position on the war is clear. I view stay-the-course, however it’s packaged, as a vile, disgusting betrayal of American values. Our current political process makes my solution to this problem impossible to achieve at this very moment. However, because the stay-the-course approach is so disgusting any tiny action that moves the political ball away from that position is something I feel compelled to support as an interim measure. To slander decorated war veterans of cowardice and then turn around and accuse those of us that point out the hypocricy of supporting a war but without actually making any personal sacrifice is appalling.
At the current rate American soldiers are dying at a faster rate in Iraq this month than at any time other than November 2004. Shame on the stay-the-course crowd. The Liebermans, Grahams and McCains of the world are nothing but a bunch of war-mongers.
Military Fatalities: By Month
Period US UK Other* Total Avg Days
2-2007 33 1 1 35 3.89 9
1-2007 84 3 0 87 2.81 31
12-2006 112 1 2 115 3.71 31
11-2006 69 6 2 77 2.57 30
10-2006 106 2 2 110 3.55 31
9-2006 72 3 2 77 2.57 30
8-2006 65 1 0 66 2.13 31
7-2006 43 1 2 46 1.48 31
6-2006 61 0 2 63 2.1 30
5-2006 69 9 1 79 2.55 31
4-2006 76 1 5 82 2.73 30
3-2006 31 0 2 33 1.06 31
2-2006 55 3 0 58 2.07 28
1-2006 62 2 0 64 2.06 31
12-2005 68 0 0 68 2.19 31
11-2005 84 1 1 86 2.87 30
10-2005 96 2 1 99 3.19 31
9-2005 49 3 0 52 1.73 30
8-2005 85 0 0 85 2.74 31
7-2005 54 3 1 58 1.87 31
6-2005 78 1 4 83 2.77 30
5-2005 80 2 6 88 2.84 31
4-2005 52 0 0 52 1.73 30
3-2005 35 1 3 39 1.26 31
2-2005 58 0 2 60 2.14 28
1-2005 107 10 10 127 4.1 31
12-2004 72 1 3 76 2.45 31
11-2004 137 4 0 141 4.7 30
10-2004 63 2 2 67 2.16 31
9-2004 80 3 4 87 2.9 30
8-2004 66 4 5 75 2.42 31
7-2004 54 1 3 58 1.87 31
6-2004 42 1 7 50 1.67 30
5-2004 80 0 4 84 2.71 31
4-2004 135 0 5 140 4.67 30
3-2004 52 0 0 52 1.68 31
2-2004 20 1 2 23 0.79 29
1-2004 47 5 0 52 1.68 31
12-2003 40 0 8 48 1.55 31
11-2003 82 1 27 110 3.67 30
10-2003 44 1 2 47 1.52 31
9-2003 31 1 1 33 1.1 30
8-2003 35 6 2 43 1.39 31
7-2003 48 1 0 49 1.58 31
6-2003 30 6 0 36 1.2 30
5-2003 37 4 0 41 1.32 31
4-2003 74 6 0 80 2.67 30
3-2003 65 27 0 92 7.67 12
Total 3118 131 124 3373 2.37 1423
Harry Reid said he was going to bring up a resolution, to give the president one more chance to listen. Why isn’t that a legitimate objective – to present Bush with a statement reflecting the will of the Congress and the American people, to give him a chance to act in accordance with that will? The more Republicans they can get to sign on, the stronger the statement will be that Bush’s plans have no support except from Laura and Warthen (Barney has a news conference scheduled for Monday, and the buzz is that he’s going to disavow the surge), and the more chance they have of getting him to come up with some plan that will achieve some outcome other than the worst possible outcome.
Why isn’t that a reasonable step to take?
Congress has the power to remove the president’s ability to wage the war.
The president knows what Sen. Reid thinks. He knows what Sen. Biden (the guy who actually has a plan) thinks. He knows what Sen. Hagel thinks.
He also knows what Gen. Petraeus thinks, and that’s the plan he’s going with. I think the general knows the situation better than anyone else, including the president, and his is the plan I would go with, too. In light of that, I would urge the president — who listened to the wrong people for far too long — to go with that.
Until Congress decides to act rather than merely express itself politically in nonbinding resolutions, that’s what the president should do.
And thank you, "Mary," for posing a plain, straightforward, good-faith question.
And bud, "stay the course" is completely unacceptable. The course Rumsfeld steered was wrong, as I have said now for a couple of years. The president should listen for a change to someone who knows what he’s talking about, and act accordingly.
I’m sorry your tabular material didn’t come out well. Here is a link to an official casualty list, although I realize it’s not the same information as what you were trying to show. If you will e-mail me a link to yours, I’ll put that up. I know how to do that at my end, but I don’t know of a way you can do it. Sorry.
For your convenience, bud, here’s my e-mail address. I meant to put that in the last comment. It’s also at the top of this page, too.
Not that I want to encourage e-mail. I prefer to keep interchanges out in the open here. But it might be easier for bud to give me the link to the chart that way.
Here’s the web address:
http://icasualties.org/oif/
The important lesson we should learn from this Iraq disaster is that it’s much easier to get into a war than to get out. Public support for going in back in 2003 was probably much lower than it is for getting out now. If just those officials elected on November 7, 2006 could decide this we’d be out in a matter of months.
Brad, George Packer, author of Asssins Gate, spoke last night at USC. I didn’t see you there. Too bad.
Packer is just back from his sixth trip to Iraq. He’s as close to an eye-witness observer as you’re likely to have access to.
Packer reports that Baghdad is in chaos. It took an Iraqi friend of Packer’s three days to cross the city for a meeting. The Green Zone is isolated– even the Iraqi staff, a valuable source of intel, is fleeing the country. The Shia and Sunni politicians believe that their side will win the civil war– forget about reconciliation.
Historically, other observers say, full-scale civil wars take about six-ten years until either one side wins or both are exhausted. We’re not even at the beginning of a full-scale civil war.
Do you propose that we keep sending Americans to their death to prevent ful-scale civil war in Iraq for 20 years? It’s more magical thinking on your part.
Packer will participate in a panel discussion at 1:30 this afternoon (Friday) in Gambrell 153. I doubt that your magical beliefs will be threatened by reports from reality– but we can always hope.
Brad, nothing about Iraq is according to Petraeus’ doctrines. He’s been told what we’re going to do.
Petraeus is the levee specialist sent in the day after Katrina struck New Orleans. Petraeus is four years too late but he would have been fired like Gen. Shinseki had he insisted on following his doctrine prior to the invasion.
Like a good soldier, though, Petraeus will do his best to minimize the number of Americans killed due to your stubborn war mongering.
“Until Congress decides to act rather than merely express itself politically in nonbinding resolutions, that’s what the president should do.”
But WHY is this “what the president should do?” I am aware that Bush knows what Senate Majority Leader Reid thinks, and what Vietnam veteran Senator Hagel thinks. But that is different from showing that they are able to build a bipartisan consensus in the Senate decrying the surge. That establishes a clear will of the Congress, reflecting the will of the American people, and serves to isolate Bush. If Bush ignores such a resolution, that helps to establish that he is defying the will of the Congress and of the people, and makes it easier to get additional members of Congress to support resolutions forcing his hand.
What’s the matter with that analysis? More, why do you characterize members of Congress who might be thinking along those lines as cowards and traitors?
And was the plan Bush has announced developed by Petraeus, and does the plan as announced conform in all significant ways to the plan set forth by Petraeus?
Or are you simply repeating “the Petraeus Plan” over and over like a mantra, without having any understanding at all of the origins of Bush’s plan as announced?
Here’s an article from the Washington Post concerning the ‘Surge’. It is definitely Bush’s idea loosely based on the alleged success Petraeus had in Mosul. The manual that Petraeus wrote on counter-insurgency would require far more troops than the current surge. But like the good soldier he is Petraeus went along with the Decider in order to give the idea some credibility. But make no mistake, this is the Bush Plan, NOT the Petraeus Plan.
Tommorrow will mark one month since the Surge idea was first proposed. And during that time dozens more Americans and hundreds of Iraqis have died.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/20/AR2007012001446_pf.html
Here’s bud’s link to the table.
And here’s his link to the WashPost piece.
I drive an SUV, a very large one. It gets 25 mpg on the highway. In the last 12 weeks, I have driven it 12,000 miles to a consulting job, where I figured out how my client could save 65,000 gallons a year of diesel fuel.
And I avoided consuming all the energy it would have required to melt the steel and make the plastic to produce the less safe, more expensive, unconfortable little car that Brad Warthen thinks I should drive.
He is wrong, because he doesn’t know as much about my business as he thinks he does. He isn’t God. And it isn’t any of his business.
Pray tell, which “very large” SUV gets 25 mpg– even on the highway?
EPA figures (all highway):
Chevy Suburban – 21
Chevy Taiho – 22
Chevy Trailblazer – 22
Ford Explorer – 20
Ford Expedition – 19
I’ve never been able to get EPA mileage on any vehicle I’ve ever owned. Typically it runs about 10% lower. And I drive conservatively. So the 25 mpg claim does seem a bit exagerated.