Category Archives: Civility

A teachable moment

This should help anyone out there who is still confused about the standards of this blog.

Someone — actually a regular here (an anonymous regular, of course) — tried to post a comment that called the U.S. commander in Iraq "General ‘Betray Us.’" He did so without irony, and he wasn’t using it as a quotation in condemning the revolting, indefensible use of that bastardization by MoveOn.org.

Of course, the comment was not approved for publication. Nor was a gratuitous second comment from the same source that had no substance beyond a monotonously over-repeated ad hominem slap at me.

It may be that MoveOn.org did not completely place itself outside the realm of acceptable public discourse this week, but there are general indications that it did just that. It has set a new standard for "beyond the pale."

But one thing is clear — such trash rhetoric is most assuredly outside the boundaries on this blog. Those of you requiring sharper delineation of those limits might want to take note.

There might not be such a thing as "polite society" any more. But this will be a virtual version of that. Come here and argue back and forth all you like. And I urge you to have fun doing it. If I don’t find it fun, there won’t be a blog any more, because I certainly don’t have time for it otherwise. But find a more grownup way to argue other than calling those who disagree with you liars, as your default position. That won’t be accepted.

Preview of Sunday column: District 5

14 Replies

This is both a follow-up on this Tuesday post, and a preview of tomorrow’s column. Here we have members of the unanimous Lexington/Richland District 5 school board talking about what’s different about this referendum proposal, and why they think the community Irmo/Chapin community will support it.

The evolving standard: Is this comment worth approving?

1 Reply

Lying fallow among the unapproved comments down in the engine room of the blog is an offering from someone who styles himself (or herself) "bud’s friend."

Come on — I have long been torn about whether to allow anonymous comments in this forum, and up to now have let them in, but subjected them to greater scrutiny than those from folks with the courage and integrity to put their names behind their opinions. But I’m afraid that "bud’s friend" is a bit too much to ask. What sort of credential is that — you don’t know me, but I’m a friend of this other guy you don’t know. That wouldn’t get you in to a speakeasy. It’s not going to get you in here.

Now might be a good time for an update on the evolving standards for comments on this blog. We’ve been through several stages:

For the first year or so, I let in anything, and rejected nothing.

After it became clear that the nasty atmosphere of ad hominem bullying and partisan name-calling was running off the very kind of thoughtful readership I sought, I set a "double standard:" If you weren’t willing to stand behind a comment with your own, verifiable name, your comments were subject to summary deletion.

A few of our anonymous troublemakers made such insistent nuisances of themselves that I banned them from the blog.

Some of the exiles began a ridiculous game of repeatedly coming back (with a frequency that was shocking, in terms of the amount of time they were spending on the site) with slightly changed names, to get around the automatic blocking.

So after a false start or two ("authentication" was a bust), I drew a new line: For your comment to appear on the blog, I have to approve it. I really, really hated this step — and still do (if only for the extra work) — but what are you going to do in a world filled with the Web equivalent of vandals?

That development has given me a much more intimate acquaintance with individual comments. As long as they appeared without any effort on my part, the standards could remain pretty low. Basically, I don’t have time to spare to do this blog at ALL, much less to chase down every comment that lowers the bar. But when I have to spend time on it anyway — when no comment appears without a positive action on my part — a new question enters my mind: "Why should I approve this?" What does it add? In what way does this comment make the dialogue on this blog better?

Once I start thinking along those lines, pretty much all anonymous comments are endangered — by which I mean they are in danger of sitting right where you left them, because I am not inclined to throw MY back out leaning over to pick them up and publish them.

And while I continue to grant much, much greater latitude to those of you using verifiable real names, you are not completely immune. As I announced just over a year ago, those who stand behind their comments "will be free to post pretty much whatever they want." That "pretty much" means there are standards, even for you.

I say all this because I’ve been getting sidebar complaints from some folks who use bogus handles complaining that they don’t always get approved. And once or twice, I’ve heard from NAMED people who didn’t approved. (Those, at least — on the rare occasions that they occur — will get a reply.)

Everyone should remember: The question is no longer, why would I REJECT this comment? Now, it’s why would I approve it. That really moves the line.

Oh, and not to seem inhospitable or anything, but anyone who doesn’t like these conditions can go start his own blog, and say whatever he likes. There are a number of sites where you can do so for free.

That infuriating John McCain, or, How do you pitch to a hero?

6 Replies

Mccain1

By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
HOW ARE YOU supposed to do your job with professional detachment when every time you see one of the main guys running for president, every time you read about him, every time he opens his mouth or takes an action in public, you think, “Hero”?
How are you supposed to keep your rep when you keep thinking, I admire this guy? Of all things, admire! It’s embarrassing.
On top of that, how do you do it when so many of the smart, hip, unfettered, scalpel-minded professionals around you snort when the hero’s name is mentioned, and use terms like “has-been” and “loser” and “that poor old guy”?
It’s not easy. Maybe it’s not even possible. It wasn’t possible on Monday, when John McCain visited our editorial board.
I presided as usual, asking most of the questions and so forth. But I never quite hit my stride. I was uneasy; I stumbled in bringing forth the simplest questions. It was weird. I’d pitched to this guy a number of times before with no trouble, even in post-season play. And here he was stepping up to bat in my ball park, where the rubber on the mound has molded itself to my cleats, and I can’t put a simple fastball over the plate, much less a curve.
I kept remembering our last formal meeting with him, in 2000, on the day that we would decide whom Mccain3
to endorse in a GOP primary that would either slingshot him onward toward victory, or enable George W. Bush to stop his insurgency cold. I wasn’t out of sorts like this. I had stated my case — my strong belief that we should endorse Sen. McCain — several days before in a 4,000-word memo to my then-publisher, a committed Bush man. I was fully prepared to make it again to the full board once the candidate left the room. And I was ready to lose like a pro if it came to that. Which it did.
But now, 9/11 has happened. The nation is at war, and bitterly divided, even over whether we’re “at war.” And I keep thinking — as I sit a couple of feet from the candidate, aiming my digital camera with my left hand, scribbling the occasional haphazard note with my right, glancing from time to time at the audio recorder on the table to note how many minutes into the interview he said such-and-such, so busy recording the event that I don’t really have time to be there — this is the guy who should have been president for the past seven years.
The odd thing is, a lot of people who now dismiss the McCain candidacy also believe he should have been president — that we’d be less divided at home, more admired abroad, more successful at war. But they talk like the poor old guy missed his chance. It’s like candidates have “sell by” dates stamped on them like bacon, and his was several years back. Too bad for him, they say. But I think, too bad for the nation — if they’re right.
The best thing for me, as a professional critic, as a jaded observer, would be for those people to be right. I have no trouble assessing the relative merits of the other candidates in either major party. I even like some of them. Life could be good, professionally speaking, if that old “hero” guy really did just fade away.
But he doesn’t. There he is, sitting there, being all honest and straightforward and fair-minded and brave and admirable. Dang.
Go ahead, get mad at him. He’s let the moment get away from him. You can’t take a man seriously as a leader when he’s blown all that money only to lose ground, when he can’t stop his hired rats from diving overboard. Focus on his mottled scars. Murmur about how even the best of men slow down with age.
But then you think about how this guy aged early. You look at his awkwardness as he holds his coffee cup, and you think about how the North Vietnamese strung him up by his broken arms, and all he had to do to end it was agree to go home. But he wouldn’t.
That was then, of course, but it’s just as bad now. Think about how you asked him several months ago why he thought he had to do something about immigration now, when the only people who cared passionately about the issue and would vote on the basis of that one thing were the ones who would hate him forever for being sensible about it. He had no excuse; he just thought it was the right thing to do.
Mccainstarbucks
You think of all the Democrats and “moderates” who egged him on when he was Bush’s No. 1 critic (which he still is, if you actually listen), but who now dismiss him as the president’s “lapdog” because he (gasp!) — supports the surge and actually, if you can stand it, thinks it’s working! These political goldfish forget that their favorite maverick criticized Bush for not sending enough troops, so of course he supports a “surge” when the president knuckles under and implements one.
Oh, but don’t speak of such people dismissively. This ridiculously admirable guy at the end of the table, who long ago forgave both his communist torturers and the protesters at home who would have spit on him given the chance, won’t have it. When I speak less than flatteringly of the impatience of Americans on Iraq, he corrects me, and relates a list of perfectly good reasons for them to be fed up.
So when it’s over, you try to produce a McCain column for Wednesday, but you can’t. Wednesday, Sam Brownback steps to the same plate, and your arm is fine. You interrogate the guy, assess him, reach a conclusion, and slap a column on the Thursday page. Three up, three down. You’ve got your stuff back.
But Sunday’s deadline draws nearer, and it’s gone again. Desperate, you think: How about a bulleted list of what he said Monday? There’s plenty of it. Naw, that’s a news story, not an opinion column.
And you know, you just know, that the one thing you can’t write is the truth, which is that you just admire the hell out of this infuriating old guy. The fans won’t stand for it. You can hear the beer bottles clattering around you on the mound already.
But it’s no use. You just can’t get the ball across today.

For actual information regarding the McCain interview, and more, go to http://blogs.
thestate.com/bradwarthensblog/.

The coward that roared

Bear with me

6 Replies

Folks, I think I have the authentication thing going and working now. Trouble is, when you call up an individual post, the formatting is all screwed up. But you can still read it, and everything seems to be functional.

I’m going to continue to screen the comments for a while, though, seeing as how the first two to successfully authenticate and post did so while giving absolutely no information about themselves, which makes you wonder what the point is.

Anyway, things seem to be working, after a fashion. I’ll continue to try to improve the process. In other words, pardon our remodeling.

Was I mean to Grady, or just ‘factual?’

12 Replies

Patterson2

Tammy Stokes over at "Seeding Spartanburg" has filed a post* that among other things, states the following:

Thomas Ravenel won that position for one reason and one reason only.
He had an R behind his name. It wasn’t his experience or his track
record of being a fine, upstanding South Carolinian who could bring
vast knowledge and positive change to the Treasurer’s office.

It was because he ran as a Republican. And with the support of
the SC GOP, they proceeded to drag his opponent Grady Patterson’s name
through the mud in a desperate attempt to unseat one of the only
remaining elected Democrats in our state. Some of the dirty insults —
especially the personal attacks on Patterson’s age — were embarrassing,
hurtful tactics especially when the person who unseated Patterson is
now facing federal drug charges less than 7 months later. Looks like
someone with maturity and experience would have been a better choice
after all.

Personally, I find Tammy’s remarks embarrassing and hurtful. Not really, but she does cause me to revisit an idea that others have brought up in the past, and which I’ve almost entirely dismissed with a clear conscience:

Was I mean to Grady Patterson when I posted this video, and this one? Some folks think so. I know for sure that Trav Robertson, who was the ex-treasurer’s closest political assistant (mentioned in this post, and pictured in the background above), thinks so. Each time I run into him these days, he tells me what an awful person I am, specifically because of the videos. I’d like to know what y’all think.

Back before the Ravenel blowup and the Nazis praising the Confederate flag, the "He makes up stuff" clip was either my first or second most-viewed on YouTube.

That’s no moral or ethical defense, of course, but it verified an assumption I had when I put the footage up: Voters would be interested.

I further believed that their interest would be legitimate. I felt that as long as I had the video, and a means of sharing it, I should. There are certain subjective cues you pick up on in a face-to-face interview that play an inevitable part in your judgment of a candidate, but which are hard to get across to readers in a way that they both pick up on and find credible. Sometimes, the ways in which we set out our reasoning in endorsements are theoretically sound, but fail to get across that indefinable something — just how weird this candidate was, or how dumb that one seemed.

In Grady Patterson’s case, there was something about the impression he gave that caused me to think, "Here’s a good man who has given his life to public service, but it is well past time for him to retire and let others do the work." It would have been far better to see him off with a warm retirement party, with lots of grateful speeches for his contributions, than to turn him out of office so ignominiously, losing to that obnoxiously cocky young Thomas R.

Well, I did say some stuff sort of like that. But it seemed far more useful to the voters if I would just show them. (Otherwise, they might assume I was just looking at a calendar, and inferring that he should retire.) The video clips enabled me to do that.

So what do you think? Did I do right? I think I did.

Claudia weighs in

3 Replies

Poor Claudia. I told her via e-mail that her name had come up in this thread, and she tried to weigh in on the discussion, but came in as I was changing my comments policy — twice.

So she sent me what she wanted to say by e-mail. Here it is:

Hello Brad, Herb… thank you for thinking of me… I’m flattered! I just read the email you sent, Brad, so I’m late joining this particular fray. As to the "subject at hand", are we discussing the banning of LexWolf, Brad’s mendaciousness or the management of blogs in general?? To comment on all three, well, I won’t miss Lex. Sorry, Lex, but you come off like the guy at the party everyone tries to avoid. Know-it-alls are annoying, but tolerable. Slatheringly aggressive know-it-alls don’t make many friends and, truth be known, I had taken to simply ignoring your posts because any value they contained was buried beneath so much hissing vitriol that it simply was no longer worth my time to read them. Secondly, is Brad a liar? Oh come on guys, really! Brad has opinions and philosophies just like all of us who post on this blog. Mostly he defends them with a clarity and articulateness that I envy… sometimes not so much! But, hey, this is a discussion, not an academic treatise, and it’s more like an oral argument than anything else. I don’t always agree with Brad, or several others that post here, but I respect his intellectual honesty and that of many other authors on this blog. Finally, on how to run a blog, I have no idea. Personally, I began posting on this one with a pseudonym, Lily. Yes, Herb, there were personal security concerns… thank you for understanding that! But, at the same time, it began to feel somehow dishonest… I have a reputation amongst my friends and associates as a "what you see is what you get" kind of person, and it’s something I try to remain true to. Yes, my real name is Claudia, but I prefer not to share my last name. It is quite unique, even more so than my first name, and there are some seriously crazy people in this world. My opinions are not always popular ones, especially in this state, and I while I would love to shout them from the top of the Confederate battle flag on the state house grounds that probably wouldn’t be the smartest thing to do.

Thanks for inviting me in, folks… I’ll try not to be a stranger!

Claudia

OK, now you’ve got to get past ME

3 Replies

All right, here’s the deal: The registration thing didn’t work out so well. It was so complicated and so secure and so not working (I think) that I couldn’t leave a comment myself to test it.

So we’ll do the thing I was trying to avoid. From now on — for the duration of this experimental period, anyway — your comments will have to wait for me to approve them.

I will try to check frequently.

Once again, if you run into problems (or think you’re running into problems), e-mail me.

Declaration of Independence from trolls

7 Replies

IN DOMICILE, JULY 4, 2007
The unilateral Declaration of the Blogger

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one blogger to dissolve the permissive bands which have connected him with trolls and to assume among the powers of the Web, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitles him, a decent respect to the opinions of the Blogosphere requires that he should declare the causes which impel him to the separation.

I hold these truths to be self-evident, that all discourse is not equally valid, nor constructive, nor is anyone endowed by his Creator with any unalienable Right to destroy all Harmony and chance for Civil Discourse in a forum provided by the Labour of Another. All men are equally free, however, to start their Own Blogs, where they will be fully entitled to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Etc.

Starting today, if you want to comment on this blog, you must authenticate your identity using something called Typekey. I’m not even sure how it works. I just turned it on, and wrote this post.

This is yet another experiment, designed to make this a civil forum where we can have a lively, constructive interchange of ideas without all the ad hominem, partisan garbage that we have come to expect from a number of malicious people, ranging from merely obnoxious personalities to the truly disturbed. (Most of them have one thing in common, though: They are cowards, as evidenced by their anonymity.) This has kept reasonable people away.

Welcome back, reasonable people. As to those few good souls who actually wished to add to our understanding but had some legitimate (but still mysterious to me) reasons to remain unknown, I’m sorry. This is like the steps taken in response to the Tylenol scare — a few jerks spoiling it for the rest of us. Now, you will have safety seals and a troll-proof cap to get through. Sorry.

We’ll see how this works. If it doesn’t (and within minutes, two or three particularly obsessed individuals who apparently don’t have real lives will be doing all they can to get around it), we’ll try requiring all comments to be approved by me before appearing. I REALLY don’t want to do that, but it’s an option.

So let’s try this.

If you are a legitimate, verifiable commenter who has trouble authenticating with this system, write to me at bwarthen@thestate.com. And be patient. It might be tomorrow before I can do anything about it.

Goodbye, LexWolf. Goodbye, Mary… uh, ‘Hal’

23 Replies

I just banned the Green Lantern from this blog. I believe that a full investigation would probably reveal that he/she had a previous identity that was also banned.

While he/she avoided certain key phrases and obsessions, there were habits — particularly a certain preferred method of covering tracks — that caused me to eye this individual from the first use of this nom de plume. But you know what? Even if this is not our same old familiar nemesis, it doesn’t really matter. The problem is with the behavior pattern. I think I’ve put up with it long enough — again. And I’m sure I’ll get the opportunity yet again.

I’m in one of those moods. I think it’s time, after warnings in the past, to ban LexWolf, too. This is a place for good-faith discussions. This recent comment is a classic example of how he imputes motivation without grounds. I have this blog so that I can explain what I think, and other people can explain what they think. It’s not for people who get their jollies from saying, "No, this is what you think…."

I’m certainly not going to allow it from people who hide behind pseudonyms. Y’all know the long-standing rule.

Not that rules are not subject to change. I’ve been considering taking a big step. For over two years, this has been a sort of Wild West town where I play sheriff and occasionally toss somebody out of the saloon or even lock them up — while all the other cowboys keep blowing off steam, but hopefully with a greater awareness of where the limits are.

The wild and woolly stuff is way past tiresome, though. I’m considering, but have not decided to adopt, a suggestion that one of y’all made a couple of months back: To require registration — everybody with his or her real, verifiable name. Maybe I’ll doing it on a trial basis.

What do y’all think?

Making friends, of a sort

8 Replies

I received this missive today, and while it’s hardly a welcome development to have someone turn his back on you, he did it in a civil way:

Mr. Warthen,
This will be my last note to your newspaper. We’re not getting anywhere so I will bow out.
I do thank you for communicating . . . . That is more than some newspaper folk do and even if we disagree, that’s our right, OK?

Thanks,
Irvin Shuler

I was just about to write back and say, sure, that’s cool; different strokes and all that … when I decided, just on a whim, to see what this correspondent had most recently had to say to me. I found that among my yet-unread e-mail was one he sent yesterday:

Why would "you" not want to talk about those n_____s brought across the
Atlantic by the damn yankee, money gruggers? Were they "your" ancestors
and just how much did YOUR family make off of us?????? AGAIN ?????
Please,
Mr. Warthen……just get the hell out of our state….yes, b___h, leave this
state and YOUR
State Paper should be forgotten.
Remember……there was a "State Paper"
editor once that pushed a little too far and
got…..well….just what he
deserved. He spoke against Southern Folk and got just what he
deserved. He was killed………thank goodness !!!!

Irvin
Shuler……………..NEVER ANOTHER APPOMATTOX !!!!!

You will now, no doubt, remember this gentleman from previous correspondence.

At least, as we parted, he was in a better mood. That’s something.

Mike Cakora on Civility

Confederate Flag: The Ugly Underbelly

76 Replies

OK, so you’ve read, along with lots of encouraging remarks, some of those ridiculous rationalizations that some otherwise decent folk use to justify continuing to fly a Confederate flag on the State House grounds. You know, Heritage not Hate, etc.

I feel obligated to inform those of you who have led sheltered lives as to one of the main reasons why the flag remains. It’s because lawmakers who would otherwise remove it fear getting messages such as the one I am about to share with you.

First I must warn you. This is something that I would never, ever put in the newspaper. We have standards in the newspaper. Nor would I mail anything like this to you. I am sharing this only so that you no longer entertain innocent thoughts about the flag or the purity of all its defenders. You may be really fond of your heritage and all that — the same heritage that I share, mind you, having had five great-great-grandfathers representing South Carolina in the War — but you must not blind yourself to the kind of evil with which you ally yourself when you insist on flying that flag.

I get anonymous messages like this frequently when we bring up the subject of the flag. Out of common decency and the love of, my yearning for, the kind of civility I keep writing about, I never share them. Perhaps that’s part of the problem. My delicacy on this point allows some of you to preserve precious illusions. But we don’t have time for such illusions any more.

This message is not only hateful, it is extremely obscene. But I’m not going to clean it up. I’m just warning you NOT to read it.

Only read it if you doubt me that ugly, hateful racial attitudes play a part in this debate. If you do doubt that, you should read on.

Again, this is highly offensive material! Do not read on if obscene words and sentiments will disturb you!

Its sad that bigots
such as yourself and the majority of your peers write for a publication known as
the state. The views expressed in your pathetic publication certainly do
not represent the views of the majority of the voters in this state, and I plan
to wage war against the purchase of your product! Perhaps when your liberal
publication is no longer in demand you can stand in the unemployment
line with the "fine" minorities you sarcasticly pretend to embrace! Hopefully
you will become impoverished to the point that you will be forced to commit
crime, therefore, being locked away in the jails and prisons with these animals
who represent the minority of the population but the majority of the criminals.
Then when they slap you around, take youe food, force you to do their
chores,like the little bitch you are mabe then you will be enlightened to your
ignorance in showing passion and empathy to the "poor" ol’ blacks, half breeds,
or what have you! You ,and those who share your views are a fucking disgrace and
should be forced to live with these sub-humans for the rest of your sickening
lives and at the end (which won’t be that long, for you will probally kill
yourselves) be ALLOWED to tell how wrong you were and apoligize to
your kids and others for forever fucking up the country and making the pure race
non-existant! Thanks asshole! Hopefully the spot in HELL you are sent to will be
full of these disease ridden criminal-minded animals who are the majority, and
then let us all know how fair you were treated !!!

It’s not signed, but the e-mail address is Cdavidcatoe@aol.com.

Welcome to my world. I’m sorry — sorry enough that I may think better of this before the day is out and take it down. For now, I’m just telling you that this is the sort of stuff I get, via e-mail, snail mail and phone message in connection with this subject. With me, it’s an occasional thing. With my colleague Warren Bolton, it’s much, much more frequent. Why? Well, Look at Warren. You figure it out.

Civility 2007

17 Replies

Imus3

A society relearning how to behave

Free speech is enhanced by civility.
            — Tim O’Reilly,
            who recently proposed a
            “Bloggers Code of Conduct”

Here’s what David Brooks of The New York Times, a writer I usually respect highly, had to say in defense of the fact that he, and others I admire, had been an enabler of trash over the years:

“You know, most of us who are pundits are dweebs at some level. And he was the cool bad boy in the back of the room. And so, if you’re mostly doing serious punditry, you’d like to think you can horse around with a guy like Imus.”

Imus Perhaps, having been the sort who sat in the back of the class and created distractions while the dweebs were grinding away trying to get into Harvard, I don’t have that deep-seated need. I got it out of
my system. Some of it, anyway. Enough that I don’t need to match “wits” with anyone who makes a living off suckers who tune in to see how creatively he can trash other people.
But the weakness of Mr. Brooks and others caused media critic Philip Nobile, who once authored something called “Imus Watch” on TomPaine.com, to observe that “Imus had made cowards and hypocrites of some of the best minds in America. I hope they do penance….”
I’m not proposing to add to the already-considerable body of commentary on the downfall of an infamous loudmouth. I’d rather reflect today on a culture that would make such a pathological creature marketable.
I mean a culture that holds its breath to find out which “man” among multiple possibilities fathered the child of a dead former stripper — not whispering about it among the guys at the bar, but treating it Imus5
as mainstream, matter-of-fact fodder for polite conversation in front of the kids.
I’m talking about “reality” shows peopled by sad morons whose every utterance contains something that, even today, gets bleeped — not because the producers are sensitive or think that you are, but because the jarring “bleeps” themselves, audible from any room in the house, make content that would bore a brain-damaged goldfish seem titillating. Ooh, that must have been a good one, we’re supposed to burble.
I’m referring here to a political marketplace in which most participants long ago ceased to listen in order to reach practical consensus with those who disagree, preferring to gather into ideological tribes that huddle in the darkness, patting each other on the back for the rocks they heave at that other tribe, the “enemy” who will always lack legitimacy.
In other words, this is a happy upbeat, “good news” sort of column. I thought you could use that to cheer you up on this fine April morning (disregarding the thunderstorms forecast as I write this.)
Really. There is good news out there. In fact, we may even be seeing a trend. I once worked with a labor-averse assistant metro editor who loved to see news repeat itself to the point that he could say: “That’s twice that’s happened. One more time, and we can call it a trend and send it to ‘Lifestyles’.”
Jerry, this one’s almost ready to go to the Features Department.
A few months back, I boldly asserted in this space that “Standards are making a comeback. We may be able to get a civilization going here after all.” As evidence, I cited the facts that Rupert Murdoch himself had just canceled plans to publish a book by O.J. Simpson giving the details of how he “didn’t” kill his wife; the Michael “Kramer” Richards apology; and a column in The New York Times by a doctor bemoaning the low-cut tops and miniskirts worn by some of her younger colleagues. (Yes, that last one was weak, but I enjoyed the pictures. And it was a legitimate trend, because it was in a feature section.)
Well, the trend continues. The Imus dismissal, although it came decades too late, was yet another positive sign. This jaded society of ours got up on its hind legs once again and said “enough.”
The best, the very choicest thing I saw last week containing the word “Imus” was a column in Thursday’s Wall Street Journal, which began, “And so it came to pass in the year 2007 that a little platoon came forth to say unto the world: Enough is enough.” There I read once again about a new phenomenon, known as the “Blogger’s Code of Conduct,” that in draft form begins:

We celebrate the blogosphere because it embraces frank and open conversation. But frankness does not have to mean lack of civility.

Those who read all my hand-wringing last year about the nasty trolls on my blog will know why such a statement, and such a code, would appeal to me. I’m farther along in my quest for civility now. I don’t wring my poor, dry digits so much any more; I just take action. I banned another of my more unruly correspondents on Friday.
You polite souls who stay out of that forum (you who tell me, “I read it, but I don’t leave comments”) for fear of being abused, fear not. I don’t think the bad boys are the least bit cool, and I won’t let them pick on you.
This is all good news — a good trend. Come to thestate.com/168/ and read all about it, before it gets shoved to Lifestyles.

Imus2

Herb, stay. Lee, go.

40 Replies

First, read the following exchange from a recent comment thread:

Brad, if you are still reading this, I’m assuming you notice that we have the equivalent of a troll gang here. Lexwolf and Lee are happy to chase off anybody they can, and gloat over it, as if they had actually won an argument. For the life of me, I cannot understand why Mary Rosh has to go, and Lee and Lex stay. It’s the same anonymous put down and snobbery–a bit more subtle, perhaps, but nonetheless condescending ridicule of all those they disagree with. Sometimes they have a point, but often their contributions are simply toxic.
It would be pointless to read this blog, I think, were it not for the thoughtful contributions of Paul, Claudia, Phillip, Randy, Bill, and a few others, especially the occasional new contributor, like Annee. Even the extremist Dave can laugh at himself and admit a mistake. But I think I am out of here. I’m sure Lee will be glad.
Posted by: Herb Brasher | Apr 7, 2007 7:37:40 PM

Herb, if you don’t bring any facts to the discussion, only liberal propaganda, myth, and personal invective, you can expect me to hammer you with facts, and my opinion based on those facts.
If you find the truth toxic, you need a system overhaul.
Begin by stopping with the whining and insults , and take on piece of information which upsets you. Don’t blame us for shocking you with the truth. Blame the propagandists in public schools and the socialist media for filling your head with years of disinformation.
Posted by: Lee | Apr 8, 2007 4:10:44 PM

Herb, you just provided substantiation for a (favorable) comment I made about you on another thread.
Posted by: Steve Gordy | Apr 8, 2007 4:19:34 PM

I answered your praise for Herb’s bashing, too, with another challenge for you folks to get on topic and post facts. Stop hijacking the threads with personal attacks.
Posted by: Lee | Apr 8, 2007 6:06:36 PM

Back in your cave, troll. Lee doesn’t recognize a fact unless it’s vetted by Rush or Sean or Ann.
Posted by: Steve Gordy | Apr 8, 2007 7:01:37 PM

Try me. Post a fact, or one of your factoids.
Posted by: Lee | Apr 8, 2007 9:13:53 PM

Thanks, Steve, I found it.
Posted by: Herb Brasher | Apr 9, 2007 10:00:22 PM

Found what, a koom-ba-ya site where liberals chant their slogans and recite their myths?
Posted by: Lee | Apr 12, 2007 10:02:06 AM

That’s it. I want Herb, who gets what the blog is about and is willing to put his name behind what he says, to stick around.

Lee, for abusing one of our most thoughtful and civil correspondents, is hereby banished. He can apply to me, via e-mail, if he would like to be reinstated. He will have to persuade me that he is seriously repentant, and one of the best ways he could do that would be to write me using his real, full name, and use it thenceforth on this blog.

But I doubt that he will. Lee has persuaded me that either doesn’t know what civility is, or like the one previous exile, aggressively scorns it. It’s up to him to persuade me otherwise — or for some of you upstanding citizens who regularly respect others to do so; I’ll consider that as well.

Oh, and Herb, with regard to that other exile — he/she went first because he/she wasn’t local, and had no interest whatsoever in our home state beyond lame attempts to deride it. I’ve bent over backwards for Lee — and LexWolf, and RTH for that matter — because they seemed to care just that tiny bit more about issues of particular interest to The State’s readership. (Some may forget, but in an alternate life, I’m that newspaper’s editorial page editor.)

I’ll be interested to see how all of you — particularly LexWolf and RTH — react to this. I’m sure I’ll soon find out. In the meantime, expect to hear more from me on this subject in the next couple of days.

Classy disagreement

19 Replies

After all my efforts to foster constructive dialogue that can promote understanding on issues here on my blog, some of the most thoughtful people still respond via e-mail. Here’s an example of someone I’ve corresponded with since Sunday on my abortion column.

If that subject can’t generate incivility, what can? So it is that I deeply appreciate someone who can disagree with someone so completely, and yet so reasonably:

From: Kathryn Braun Fenner
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 5:07 PM
Dear Mr. Warthen:
I have yet again been touched by the thoughtfulness of your writing about the proposed ultrasound viewing requirements for those seeking abortions. I would like to suggest you consider two additional concerns you did not acknowledge: one, everyone does not believe life in the sense of a human being, rather than a clump of living cells with the potential to be a whole human being when and if born, begins at conception. I believe that fetal cells are living only insofar as cancer cells are or the healthy tissue excised along with the cancer cells. None of these cells can live independent of the host body. I truly respect your views, though, especially as they are consistent — if a fetus is a life, no rape and incest exceptions–even if a family member of someone powerful is involved. Many of our legislators and anti-abortionists waffle on this point, implying that they do not truly equate the fetal cells with a fully born human, such as their wife or daughter. Kudos to you also for pointing out the lack of legislative concern for the afterborn lives!
Two, I do not know that an ultrasound is medically necessary or advisable, especially in the first trimester. If it is, giving the patient the option to view it is fine, but requiring it — I was not required to view the results of my prehysterectomy ultrasound, nor did I desire to do so….If it is not medically advisable, we should not require anyone to pay for it — there is enough life being wasted because of inadequate medical funding, don’t you think?

Kathryn Braun Fenner
Columbia, SC

From: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 2:27 PM
Well, as I said, I don’t feel strongly about it one way or the other.
As for the medical advisability — I just had sinus surgery last month, which only involved going about two inches up my nose, and didn’t even involve cutting anything, just widening the passage with a balloon. Yet I had to have multiple CT scans, and I made sure to see them, to help me decide whether I thought the procedure is worth doing.
And I deeply appreciate the kindness of your note, especially since we obviously view this very differently. You don’t see the fetus and a person, and I can’t imagine how anyone could see anything else. I certainly can’t see a logical analogy to cancer cells. Cancer is a serious dysfunction in which cells grow wildly in a manner that will kill the individual if not stopped. Pregnancy, from the very beginning, is not only a healthy, normal process, but one that is essential to life’s very existence.
I was present each time my wife gave birth to our five children. Six years ago, she developed breast cancer that spread to her liver before being discovered. Only the most aggressive attacks on the tumors that were trying to kill her have kept her alive.
What I’m saying is that I can tell you without any doubt that there is an enormous, night-and-day difference between a baby and a tumor. Our children, when they were growing inside her for nine months, were not the moral equivalent of tumors.
One other point, take that term, "baby." Under our current system, we give one person — the mother — absolute godlike power to determine whether what is inside her is a "baby." If she wants it, it’s a baby. She and her family will speak constantly of "the baby" — when the baby will come, how the baby’s room is coming along, the baby shower, baby names, etc.
If she doesn’t want it, it’s "just a fetus," and can indeed be treated legally as a tumor.
That makes no sense in the world. It’s either a baby or it isn’t. Its existence does NOT depend upon the attitude of anybody toward it. It is or it isn’t. That’s the nature of reality.
Well, you got me started. What I mean to say is, thank you for your kind note, and for the opportunity for dialogue.

— Brad Warthen

From: Kathryn Braun Fenner
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 2:50 PM

Brad-
I am so sorry about your wife’s illness. My thoughts and prayers are with her and your family. Please forgive my apparent trivializing of the pain of cancer by comparing a tumor to a fetus–although as you acknowledged in your piece, to some, a fetus may be a death threat.
I am glad you have five welcome children. People like you and your wife should have enormous love-filled families. I have done a lot of work with juvenile offenders and with DSS "clients." I do believe abstinence is the best option for those who are not going to have loved, two-parent children. The Supreme Court notwithstanding, everyone does not have a fundamental right to sex, or to have children; it is a privilege at least as worthy of respect and control as driving! I bemoan our sexualized society. However, it is what it is, though courageous journalists like you are certainly speaking up to try to change this. Given our culture, and the many generations of "lost children" from DSS-land, can we at least agree that maybe teaching and making available alternatives to abortion that are more likely to avoid pregnancy than abstinence is advisable, the Pope notwithstanding.
BTW, pregnancy is not always a healthy normal process. Ectopic pregnancy is one obvious example. Is that a baby, absolutely not a baby or something in between?
— Kathryn Fenner

From: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 5:06 PM
Well, you exceeded my vocabulary on that one. I had to look it up to learn that "ectopic" referred to what I think of as "tubal."
Indeed, given the complexity of life, particularly in the higher animals, many things can go wrong with otherwise healthy processes. For instance, it’s a good thing to have a strong immune system. But if it becomes TOO reactive, you end up like me, spending thousands a year treating allergies.
I see the Church’s teaching on artificial birth control as something to be embraced by the faithful, NOT to be imposed on a pluralistic society. I would not, for instance, seek to have civil law ban the eating of meat on Fridays in Lent.
But life or death, once the process of life has begun — that’s a different matter. The state has a legitimate interest there; it just depends upon how we decide to define that role. Unfortunately, Roe forbids us even to discuss it, placing the issue of life and death absolutely in the hands of the most interested, least impartial party. That’s not a standard we would apply in any other area of the law where the stakes are so great.
Thank you again for the kind exchange. Do you mind if I post it on my blog?
— Brad Warthen

From: Kathryn Braun Fenner
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 5:59 PM
I exceeded your vocabulary? Wow!
Process of life….What about fertilized in vitro eggs? When is something "living" –in the independent "life" sense (rather than the "my fingertip is living but my fingernail tips are dead" sense) as opposed to merely potentially able to live on its own?
Roe does not forbid US or anyone else from discussing abortion (God bless America–freedom of speech is what makes this country great) I’m not planning on being arrested for this e-mail exchange, are you? We can even publish it (post it on your blog, if you must–I’m not keen on being identified to the nut-jobs like Fetus Man–does he really think he will change anyone’s mind with baby dolls pinned to his jacket?–, but I will stand behind what I say–though my brother, the copy editor, would surely fix up the language!).
Roe says, basically "Congress shall make no law" impeding on an adult woman’s right (with her doctor), during the first trimester, and possibly the second, to decide when the cells in her are a fetus and when they are a baby. (BTW–why do we have a good old word "fetus" but no "old" word for "post-birth baby" as opposed to just "baby." Historically, I believe we have been ambivalent at best about when an independent life begins.)
Absolutely I agree that IF abortion is murder, if a fetus is a baby is a fully protectable legal person–indeed far more so than a corporation, say– then the State has an interest, indeed an imperative, in outlawing abortion. I do not believe that a fetus is the same as baby. You do, and as I said, I applaud the strength with which you stand for that. I truly respect that. I believe that, God forbid, if one of your loved ones were raped, you would protect that fetus with the same fervor as the child of a lawful marriage. Many "pro-life" advocates would not, which makes me think they are a lot about punishment and enforcing morality on a wayward woman, rather than protecting a potential life…and as you say, they pro-life movement is not overly concerned about the welfare of the "afterborn"….
Oh and the Legislature, backed by at least one court, won’t let us outlaw cigarette smoking in the workplace, —which is proven to kill lives-in-being–and as you have written, prevent the allergic/asthmatic among us from fully participating in public life. There are
other "no go " zones besides abortion….but that is a discussion for another day.

Peace–
Kathryn

Peace, indeed. I think I’ll leave it there with her having the last word. No, I’ll let Stephen Wright have the last word. I love this postscript Kathryn tagged onto her last message:

If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the precipitate.

— Steven Wright

The virtues of Virtual Schools

46 Replies

South Carolina now has it’s very own version of the stem-cell debate — unfortunately.

The stem-cell fight, as we all know, isn’t about stem cells; it’s about abortion. Similarly, the virtual school fight has morphed into a surrogate for the "school choice" debate.

Consequently, the virtues, or lack thereof, of virtual pedagogy have been pushed to the back burner. But that’s what I’d like to talk about.

I have my suspicions about the efficacy of the whole idea. I think offering long-distance classes to kids who might not otherwise have access to such pedagogy sounds very good — after all, the greatest challenge in public education in this state is what to do about the kids who live in poor, rural, thinly populated districts that have trouble offering the quality found in the affluent suburbs.

At the same time, after about 25 years of witnessing the limits of electronic communication, I have my doubts. That’s about how long I’ve been dealing with e-mail in one way or another. I’ve also had some experience with teleconferencing, which is a tool of dubious value.

Yet I’m torn about it.

I know virtual schooling can’t be as good as being face-to-face with a teacher. At the same time, it sounds better than no access at all, which is the option many kids are stuck with. Question is, should finite resources be devoted to this approach, or would they be better spent on other priorities? I’m not sure.

We had a long discussion about it in yesterday’s editorial board meeting, and it was inconclusive. We’ll have to return to it to decide what to say. Of course, we discussed other aspects as well. We’re all over the place on the culture-war aspect (to what extent kids not in the public system should have access), but I’d like to address here the underlying question of whether this is a good approach to begin with.

We’ve all experienced the misunderstandings that can occur in what was once called Cyberspace; this blog serves often as a monument to that effect. Of course, some of the misunderstanding is willfully obtuse, but plenty of it is honest miscommunication between people who would be much more likely to have a meeting of the minds if they actually met.

You sit two people who’ve been speaking at cross-purposes down together — as when Randy Page and I had lunch recently — and you’re somewhat more likely to communicate effectively. Similarly, if the problem is that a given subject, or a given child, is hard to teach, do you do any good giving him or her a "virtual" teacher?

Of course, if you want to address the choice aspect, go ahead — but know that I’m not staking out a position on that myself, not yet. If you can get private school and home-school kids in without pushing some public school kids out, I’m for it. It depends on how limited the device is in terms of accessibility. I need to know more about the program, and one of my colleagues is looking into that.

I’m hopeful that we can have a debate here that we can all learn from each other. On this recent post, Randy and LexWolf gave indications of a willingness to carry on real dialogue about this and possibly other education issues. That sounds great to me. Let’s see how we do.

Disappointed in Lindsey

28 Replies

This release yesterday (which I just saw again as I was cleaning house) really disappointed me. Excerpt:

Graham Opposes Democrat Efforts Put Federal Judges and Courts in Charge
of Military Decisions

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham
(R-South Carolina) said he will fight efforts by leading Democrat Senators to
give terror suspects expanded access to federal courts.

Not so much the substance of it — although that’s certainly something worth arguing about — as the "Democrat Efforts" and "Democrat Senators" garbage.

There’s no such thing as a "Democrat senator." It’s grammatically impossible. This is the sort of thing that your cheesier variety of GOP partisan does — refusing to use the adjective "Democratic" to refer to the opposition.

It should certainly be beneath Lindsey Graham — and his staff.

Lindsey walks right into it

37 Replies

Not to stir up another round of "you’re a coward;" "no, you are," but this was an interesting tidbit in
The Washington Post yesterday:

Some Loaded Comments at ‘Abu Ghraib’ Screening
When the lights go up after most documentary screenings, you usually can expect a politely snoozy lovefest at the "panel discussion to follow." So the folks who turned out for the preview of HBO’s "Ghosts of Abu Ghraib" at the Ronald Reagan Building last night were unusually lucky.
Among the VIPs on hand to discuss the Rory Kennedy project (set to air Feb. 22) were Uncle Ted Kennedy and Sen. Lindsey Graham. The latter livened things up in a big way when he denounced Army Col. Janis Karpinski, who was demoted from brigadier general after the prison torture scandal.
"Karpinski should have been court-martialed," said the South Carolina Republican, who sits on the Armed Services Committee. "She was not a good commander."
Awkward! For who was in the audience but Karpinski herself. "I consider you as cowardly as [Lt. Gen. Ricardo] Sanchez or [Donald] Rumsfeld or [former Guantanamo Bay commander Geoffrey] Miller," she shot back. "You’re saying I should be court-martialed — they didn’t want me in a courtroom because I would tell" the truth. Graham sputtered clumsily until moderator Jeffrey Toobin jumped in.
Afterward, Karpinski told our colleague Michael Cavna: "Ninety-nine percent of the story is still covered up. . . . Miller and Sanchez and Rumsfeld should be in those cells" with the Army guards who were found guilty.

Maybe Lindsey Graham has gotten a little too accustomed to speaking frankly on "Meet the Press," and neglected to consider the possibility that at a live speaking event, the person you’re talking about just might be there.

I don’t know who’s right here (although I’ve always blamed Rumsfeld), but I know I don’t want to make Col. Karpinski mad at me. I’m just going by her pictures (although she is smiling in this one, bless her heart). She looks like somebody you’d rather have on your side, or just avoid. Perhaps that’s her misfortune; her rather severe habitual expression makes her a convenient scapegoat (the "evil lady torturer" from Central Casting). Or perhaps she’s just as culpable as Miller and Sanchez and Rumsfeld and the Army guards who were convicted. There were probably no angels anywhere near the situation.

I just don’t know. But it would have been interesting, and perhaps enlightening, to have her testify.

bradwarthen.com

All The News That Gives You Fits