Category Archives: Civility

A whole bag, just for you

33 Replies

As a public service, I’m going to elaborate more prominently upon what I just said at the end of a response to some comments…

Some folks are unhappy with my increasing aggressiveness with people who are determined to make this blog into something that is the opposite of what I founded it for. I’m not going to let that happen, and I’m determined to convince you of that.

My whole purpose here is to provide an alternative to the hyper-partisan, bad-faith, yelling-past-each-other game that far too many people believe is political discourse. I’m certainly not here to play that game with you. You try to play it with me or anyone else here, and your comment will disappear.

If you don’t like that, go someplace else. Most of the blogosphere
is set up for just what you want to do. If you stay here, and don’t
change your habits… well, to quote Dr. Evil, "I have a whole bag of ‘Shhh!’ with
your name on it."

Bartender’s had it

43 Replies

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.

I experience a miracle

19 Replies

I‘m having lunch at a LongHorn Steakhouse in Savannah. It smells better than our LongHorn in the Vista.
Here’s why:

When I walked in, I asked for a table in nonsmoking. The hostess dismissed my request with the finest words I’ve ever heard in a restaurant:
"There’s no smoking in Georgia."

AND SHE WASN’T KIDDING!
I am stunned. This is so fantastic. I’m just sitting here, breathing freely and deeply, as though it were the most natural thing in the world.
Which, if you actually THINK about it for a change, it actually IS, even though it is a departure from what I’ve experienced my whole life up to now.

Why, in the name of God and all that makes any kind of sense, did I have to wait 53 years for this? Why will I NOT be able to experience it when I go home?
I can think of no reason.

Peggy gets it wrong

15 Replies

Watch closely, now — you especially, Mary: Here’s how we disagree with someone respectfully.

You’ll recall that I had nice things to say about Peggy Noonan. My attitude on that point is unchanged.

But she was 180 degrees wrong when she wrote "He’s Got Guts," in defense of Chuck Hagel. (In this, my attitude is ALSO unchanged.) She quotes at some length his speech in favor of the spineless resolution griping about the Surge, but doing nothing about it — except, of course, signal to the enemies those 21,500 Americans will be fighting that if they just kill a few more of our boys (and yes, for those of you who are sticklers, sometimes girls, but in this case we’re talking combat infantry), then we’ll probably cave, because we are SO divided about this already.

She includes in her excerpt this quote, which I had read elsewhere in forming my previous judgment:

"Sure it’s tough. Absolutely. And I think all 100 senators ought to be on the line on this. What do you believe? What are you willing to support? What do you think? Why are you elected? If you wanted a safe job, go sell shoes."

Precisely. So if you don’t want the troops going, stop them. Don’t holler, as they climb on the plane, that you really don’t think this is a good idea, but you’re not going to do anything about it.

If that’s your idea of being a stand-up guy, maybe you should be selling shoes.

Yeah, I get Peggy’s point about all the falseness and cowardice in Washington. But how that resolution is a departure from that rule is beyond me.

And no, I don’t want him to stop the troops from going. That would be disastrous. But passing a resolution saying they shouldn’t go, but taking no concrete action, is contemptible.

Mary Unroshed

30 Replies

You know, Mary is so close to making a positive contribution to this blog. I’m going to show you how.

As I’ve made clear when I posted this, I intend to have a serious, grownup discussion about energy — without the pointless partisanship, rancid ideology, and ad hominem childishness that has plagued this blog, and held it back from broader participation, since the beginning.

So I made an example of "Mary Rosh," unpublishing two of her comments. I hesitated to do it, because she was actually on topic, although her ideas… well, I’ll let you decide how constructive they are. But since they had violated the higher standard of civility I had set for this post, in the hope that some of our more serious and fastidious participants would warm up to it, they had to go.

But here they are, translated into normal, sane, grownup language (and Doug or anybody else who wants them — I’ll still e-mail you the originals). Glean from them what you will.

These thoughts were posted on Friday (in slightly different form):

I think it’s time to get realistic.  It’s just not going to be that easy to replace Middle Eastern oil that can be gotten out of the ground for $3.00 per barrel.  There’s a lot going on right not with respect to conservation and alternative energy sources, but all these crash course, consequences-be-damned proposals (are in vain).

… For example, build nuclear power plants as fast as safely possible.  First, that’s been done.  No nuclear power plant has been put on line since the Three Mile Island accident, and that, as it happens, is as fast as is safely possible.  Second, electricity generation mostly doesn’t use oil.

Drilling in ANWR wouldn’t get a significant amount of oil…

Light rail is just (impractical) unless the population is dense enough, which it isn’t in most cities in the U.S.

The $2 per gallon gasoline tax wouldn’t bother me much, but it would be economically crippling to a lot of people, especially in a place like South Carolina, where there aren’t too many alternatives to passenger cars, and where the incomes aren’t that high….

That was it, boiled down to basic concepts. Here’s the one from today (Saturday):

1.  The nuclear energy idea is (unwise), because

a) the plants are dangerous and expensive. 
b) electricity generation uses relatively little oil.  TWO PERCENT of U.S. electric generation in 2001 was oil-fired.

So (we would) waste vast sums of money and … expose the population to considerable danger, and create waste that will last for hundreds of centuries, without saving any oil to speak of.

2.  The light rail idea is … too expensive and too inconvenient unless the population is pretty dense, which is not true in most American cities.  Imagine light rail in South Carolina, for example.  You have to get people from their houses to the station, and you have to get them from the station to their destination.  That’s a huge pain, requiring bus transfers at both ends, unless the population around the train station is dense enough to support the train, and the workplaces and other destinations at the other end of the line are clustered around closely enough.

3.  The $2.00 per gallon gasoline tax wouldn’t bother me, but it would devastate a lot of people, particularly in South Carolina and other conservative states where the income isn’t that high.  It would create an insurmountable hardship for millions of people, and be borne by those who could least afford it.

4.  Drilling in ANWR wouldn’t supply a significant percentage of our needs….

5.  … Any energy policy should be analyzed in terms of what our needs are and what is the best way to supply our needs.

6.  I don’t object on principle to the idea of developing new technologies, including hydrogen.  The main problem with hydrogen, though, is probably distribution.  And it’s vitally important not to use technological initiatives simply as mechanisms to transfer federal money.  For example, any hydrogen fuel initiative carried out in South Carolina is likely to amount to nothing more than a simple transfer of federal money to South Carolina, because South Carolina doesn’t have the educated population necessary to carry such an initiative through to success. [Editor’s note: Even if Mary tried another pseudonym and stopped the sore-thumb practice of calling me "Warthen," we would know her by this signature obsession. It’s like a nervous tic. But despite the implied insult to 4 million people, it doesn’t really break the rules.]

7.  It’s not going to be easy to develop an economical way to replace 100% of the oil that lies under sand and costs $3.00 per barrel to get out of the ground.  We need to concentrate first on managing our demand so that we avoid shortages that drive the price way up.  Sometimes shaving 2% or 3% off of our demand will do that.  There’s no need to lurch into some crash program to replace 100% of our imported energy, without considering the alternatives and consequences of doing so.

8.  … There are, of course, plenty of ways for us to provide for our security without trying to change the Middle East by military force, or by devoting excessive resource or accepting excessive negative consequences in order to achieve an arbitrarily set goal of complete energy independence. Using diplomacy, for example. For example, when Iran offered in 2001 to help us pursue al Qaeda, and offered numerous other overtures of friendship and assistance, we could have talked to them instead of making threats.

That’s it. Oh, one other thing. Just for fun, I’ll give you an edited version of a still-published comment from Mary. Weirdly, it was one in which she was trying, in spite of herself, to give positive feedback, however ironic — but it just stuck in her craw. Here’s the cleaned-up version (see how much time she could save, if she dropped the hostility):

Actually, it’s not that bad an idea….

Of course, there’s the distinct likelihood that she meant NOTHING positive at all — in other words, that the insult was the point, rather than a cover-up for her embarrassment at saying something positive. But I like to give people the benefit of the doubt.

By the way, did any of y’all get ANYTHING out of all those releases I posted? If not, I’ll drop the practice right away, and feel relieved. (I was a little manic yesterday, wasn’t I?)

Lovely thinker, graceful writer

88 Replies

Ford_funeral

I first heard of Peggy Noonan as a speechwriter, credited with Bush the First’s "thousand points of light." Since that phrase didn’t seem particularly remarkable to me, I wasn’t particularly impressed, and didn’t think any more of her.Bush_ford_funeral

Then, sometime around 15 years
ago, give or take a couple, I was channel surfing and paused on a documentary, my eye caught by a fine-featured, red-headed woman who spoke with great dignity and intelligence. I don’t remember what she was saying; I was just struck by the overall gestalten impression. Cate Blanchett — whom we knew not at that time — sometimes tries to portray this combination of ageless beauty, intelligence and grace, and does pretty well. But this was someone who lives that way. Who is that? I thought. They showed her name. Oh. This time, I was impressed. She presented herself and her ideas better than the man for whom she had written.

Finally, I came to know her better through her columns on the OpinionJournal of the WSJ. Her latest is a good example of her work. It’s about the importance of ceremony to the life we live in common, about how we live together when we are at our best, our enmities set aside, when we actually become each other’s points of light, as it were.

Of course, I can’t help being struck by the amount of time she always seems to have on her hands. Imagine being able to sit and watch Gerald Ford’s funeral on the tube — the Times Square thing, or Nancy Pelosi’s swearing-in. Who’s got that kind of time? Obviously, she does. So do a lot of people she knows, since they’re writing to share their observations.

Actually, come to think of it, so do a lot of commenters on this blog (judging by appearances), since they seem to sit around reading blogs and watching the tube and getting whipped up over this or that partisan non-issue of the moment.

Peggy Noonan make far better use of that same time — and better than I would, too. If my life ever slowed down a bit. (To use something from the popular culture, picture me as one of those characters — Cary Grant, if you’re inclined to be generous, someone else if you’re not — in a fast-talking screwball comedy about newspaper life in Ben Hecht‘s day. I may rip the latest bulletin off the teletype machine as I pass by, long-ashed cigarette flipping up and down out of one side of my mouth as I yell at a copy boy out of the other, and see that Gerald Ford has indeed died — but sit still for his funeral? When?) If I had that time, I’d probably cram a DVD into the machine, anything to take my mind from work for a moment.

Because she watches, she’s able to see the truth and beauty, say, in the way Mrs. Pelosi assumed power — something of which the actual opinion page of the Journal itself is incapable. They were busy castigating her for taking a page from Tom Delay. It’s what you might call political opinion as usual. Ms. Noonan’s writing, at its best, has a graciousness that takes us beyond that.

It calms me down a bit, when I find time to look at it, and I am vicariously thoughtful, dignified and full of proper thoughts toward humanity. (I don’t necessarily mean I hold the same thoughts, but she transmits the same calm attitude.) It doesn’t last long, but while it lasts, it’s good.

Pelosi_gavel

Come back when you’re ready to behave

14 Replies

OK, the bartender just did the bouncer part of his job.

I’ve been slack on a number of things lately, and one of them is tossing out unruly patrons. We just had yet another barroom brawl, and this time I didn’t just shake my head and keep cleaning the glasses. I went into this post and reduced the comments from 26 to 9. I cut out ALL the subsequent comments from offenders, not just their worst infractions.

Here are some excerpts from the rantings of the people I tossed out through the swinging doors and into the dusty street:

  • "Really, are you the stupidest person in the world?" (Guess who?)
  • "Your comments demonstrate complete and utter intellectual impotence."
  • "If they make ethical Viagra, consider speaking to your doctor."
  • "Mary, go change your feminine hygiene pad and leave the war strategy to men."
  • "The mad dog wingnuts were dangerous enough before they were cornered by their blind ideology and incompetency."

Admittedly, that last one is on the cusp of acceptability, but I had already let him get away with a bunch of stuff that was teetering right on the edge. When you’re breaking up a brawl, you have to throw out some of those who are merely egging the fighters on, and he had just said "mad dog wingnuts" once too often.

Y’all come back now, y’hear — after you’ve sobered up enough to engage in a rational, civil conversation. Argue all you like — but exhibit a modicum of respect for those who disagree.

And don’t tell me your sad stories…

4 Replies

Bartender2

We’re not the only ones wrestling with how to host a civil, useful blog in these rhetorically savage times.

Today, I happened upon this item headlined, "Think Like a Saloon Keeper." Here’s a salient excerpt:

Gradually I though of the spaces we were providing for these conversations similar to a saloon, with a collection of tables where people gathered to talk about whatever. We were the proprietor of the space — a private proprietor of commercial space — and welcomed the public, and pointed to the sign on the wall that read: "No spitting, fighting, or flamewars." We reserved the right to toss out anyone who was ruining the experience for everyone else…

I like the metaphor. Yeah, I know I haven’t been serving up much booze lately, but I figured y’all were getting enough of that over the holidays.

But with the new year upon us, and the Legislature coming back next week, it’s time to tap some fresh kegs and get ready for a run on the bar. I’ll be the one standing behind it, cleaning the glasses.

Bartender4_copy

Iraq Study Group column

46 Replies

Consensus on an Iraq plan
that works will come a lot harder

By Brad Warthen
Editorial Page Editor
THAT OLD GUARD sure can get things done — so long as you don’t expect too much.
    On the very day that the Iraq Study Group released its much-anticipated report, it produced results. Politicians from across the spectrum aligned themselves with a bipartisan unanimity that would do credit to the worthies on the study panel itself.
    “I appreciate the hard work and thought that the distinguished members of the Iraq Study Group put into their final report,” said Sen. John McCain, Republican presidential hopeful.
    “The Baker-Hamilton report is a first step toward a bipartisan way forward in Iraq,” wrote Sen. Joe Biden, a Democrat who would also like to occupy the White House.
    “I commend the Iraq Study Group for offering a serious contribution to the discussion of how we should move forward in Iraq,” concurred independent Sen. Joe Lieberman, who used to want to be president.
    The man who actually is the president couldn’t have agreed more. After noting that the report was “prepared by a distinguished panel of our fellow citizens,” George W. Bush promised it “will be taken very seriously by this administration.”
    No one could deny that the panel was distinguished. And bipartisan. And serious.
    But before we line up for the victory parade down Pennsylvania Avenue, note that few elected representatives were promising more with regard to the report than what Rep. Jim Clyburn promised: “We will use it for what it is intended to be — recommendations… .”
    Many expected the group’s report would provide cover for both the president and the newly Democratic Congress to… well, to do something, and the most popular “something” was to get us the heck out of there.
    But the release of the group’s report helped clarify again what we learned in the days after the election that many of our antsier citizens had hoped would settle this business: There is no way to conclude our involvement in Iraq that is both quick and satisfactory.
    The 10 elders on that panel brought some sorely needed qualities to the debate — collegiality, maturity, pragmatism and a sincere desire for what is best for our country. The nation will be well-served if everyone involved adopts those same virtues as the debate continues.
    And the job will be a lot tougher than the panel made it look. They labored in obscurity, left in relative peace for most of the panel’s existence — without the frantic, insistent pull of unavoidable constituent groups. Our elected officials won’t enjoy such luxury. But it is, after all, their job to do. It can’t be delegated.
    And approaches that will work will be harder to agree upon than the ones the panel adopted.
Take the widely reported proposal to draw down U.S. combat troops by early 2008 to the point that none are left except those “embedded with Iraqi forces.”
    According to The New York Times, the panel achieved the miracle of agreement on that point via a simple expedient: “The group’s final military recommendations were not discussed with the retired officers who serve on the group’s Military Senior Adviser Panel before publication, several of those officers said.”
    Advisers that the Times spoke to said the prediction is not based in reality. One noted that the panel’s assumption says more about “the absence of political will in Washington than the harsh realities in Iraq.”
    Not that the panel didn’t leave wiggle-room. Few have noted that the 142-page report actually says that “all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq” by the stated deadline. That’s a loophole big enough to drive several divisions through, if you can find the divisions.
    As for working with Iran and Syria, Sen. McCain exhibited his mastery of understatement when he said, “Our interests in Iraq diverge significantly from those of Damascus and Tehran.” Sen. Lieberman and others have rightly echoed that assessment.
    The panel leaders’ defense of the idea has been lame. James Baker said if Iran is uncooperative, “we will hold them up to public scrutiny as (a) rejectionist state.” Ooh. I can just see the mullahs trembling over that one.
    Lee Hamilton said, “We do not think it’s in the Iranian interest for the American policy to fail completely, and to lead to chaos in that country.” Really? It’s hard to imagine an outcome more likely to generate welcome opportunities for Tehran. A weakened, discredited United States and a power vacuum in the Shi’a-majority nation next door? They would see it as final proof that Allah is on their side.
    The fundamental truths about our involvement in Iraq have not changed. The security situation has worsened greatly, and with it the political environment back in the United States — the “absence of political will” described above by retired Army Chief of Staff Jack Keane.
    Well, we’re going to have to muster some to come up with something more realistic than the Baker-Hamilton approach, because here’s what hasn’t changed: As Sen. Lieberman put it, “There is no alternative to success in Iraq.” Sen. Graham said, “we have no alternative but to win.”
    And how are we going to accomplish that? I’m inclined to think Sen. McCain has it right when he says we need a lot more troops over there. You say it’s impossible to make that happen with our current defeatist attitude? You may be right.
    But note that on Wednesday, it was the conventional wisdom that the president and Congress had little choice but to embrace whatever the study group came up with. By Friday, many of its core proposals had been declared toast by the president, Prime Minister Tony Blair, and most of the folks quoted above.
    As unlikely as it sometimes seems, attitudes change. In this case, they’re going to have to.

‘Gut t sin y- gr’ to you, too

16 Replies

Note

As long as I’m giving credit to Ms. Jones for her nice note, I should acknowledge that the governor sent us a nice, handwritten note — the proper kind — after his interview last week.

At least, I think it was nice. I also think that Mr. Sanford may have learned one thing from his primary opponent Oscar Lovelace — how to write like a doctor.

What do you think it says? My best guess is, "Great to see your group." That’s a stretch, but that’s my guess. Maybe you can do better.

A classy note

15 Replies

After our endorsement of her opponent ran earlier this week, Denise Jones sent this note out toJonesmug2 supporters (and was kind enough to share it with us):

Dear Supporters,
 
    As I have gotten up early once again this morning to work on my campaign, I
am greeted by the sight that The State Newspaper has endorsed John Scott.
    I do appreciate the newspaper interviewing me.  However, with only an hour
interview, they really did not get to see the real Denise Jones.  You
know me best!!  You know that my very best qualities are that I am a big
picture person, see things to the end and passionately care about making a
difference in this district and state.
    Today, as a breast cancer survivor, I will take the walk and hold my head
up high.  I am still very fortunate that I found my cancer early and want to
help others do the same.  In July, I completed my 5 years and hopefully, will
not have a reoccurance.  But, who is guaranteed tomorrow?  This episode in my
life really made me understand what   is important. 
    So, not receiving this endorsement is only a bump in the road and drives me
harder.  So, please hold your head up and lets take this to the finish line.. I
still plan on winning!!!! 
    I can not say this enough.. Thank you so much for everything that you have
done.
 
Sincerely,
Denise Jones
 
P.S.  Your support will never be forgotten!!

Denise
Jones
Republican Candidate For State House District 77
803-414-4951 (Campaign HQ)

Hometown Values.
Conservative Ideals.

Anybody who can get up that early, read an endorsement of her opponent and then write a classy note such as this, without a trace of malice, is a real lady. Those of you who still struggle to meet this blog’s standards (and you know who you are), could learn a few things from her.

May God continue to send his healing grace upon her.

Hail Mary (Rosh)

35 Replies

I‘m going to have to go to confession to this one, but I was much intrigued by something Doug Ross’ said. After ironically noting that he had "sinned" against Randy Ewart, he announced that "As penance, I shall say 10 Hail Mary Rosh’s."

Well, that got me to thinking. If I decide I need to amend my new civility policy, that might be a suitable punishment for transgressors that would fall short of deletion or banishment. Say, if someone who uses his or her full name goes a bit too far in exercising the license that identification allows, we could assign 10 Mary Roshes as a penance, after which blogsolution would be granted.

As a serious Catholic myself, I’m not sure how awful it is to be publishing this. But the fact is, my brain started working on it right away at Doug "The Serpent" Ross’ prompting, and I did "entertain" the thought. So I suppose that sharing it here is my way of confessing to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned through my own fault, through what I have done, and what I have failed to do (my work). If my fellow Catholics out there think it’s just too awful (maybe somebody should run this by Andrew Sullivan), I’ll take it down.

Anyway, here is how I think one would say a "Hail Mary Rosh:"

Hail Mary, full of Rosh, the bile is with thee;
angry art thou among women (?),
and worthless is the fruit of thy rant, Venom.

Pseudo Mary, mother of trolls,
prey on us retards now,
and call us garbage with thy breath,
Oh, men!

HE brought it up, not me

120 Replies

Responding to popular demand, I have not mentioned the "C" word for several posts now. But our own Mike C has, over on his blog, so I thought I’d let y’all know in case anyone is still interested (or just masochistic).

By the way, I notice SGM (ret.) — who has announced he is boycotting this blog — has been commenting over on that one. If you see him, please tell him we miss him, and would welcome his return.

The crackdown begins

12 Replies

For those of you who are not completely fed up with the topic (and that’s a dwindling number) please note that I have applied my new policy in several cases in this string of comments. I’m being a little more explanatory than I would otherwise, just to try to help folks understand the new standards. As we go forward with this, I may start making the offending messages disappear entirely.

Civility III: The New Blog Order

30 Replies

I admit it: I’m instituting
a double standard

By Brad Warthen
Editorial Page Editor
SO WHEN AM I going to get off this “civility” kick? Soon. Very soon. After all, electioneering season is almost back upon us in full force; we start endorsement interviews right after Labor Day.
    But that only gives greater urgency to an effort to encourage discussions on public policy issues that go beyond trite, partisan name-calling and sloganeering.
    As you know if you haven’t just tuned me out altogether, I’ve been worrying about the tone of the discussions taking place on my Weblog. Don’t misunderstand: I get hundreds of comments from thoughtful people from across the political spectrum. Unfortunately, some really hostile partisans from both left and right have been running off the folks who want to have a dialogue.
    It’s not that these folks can’t take the heat. They just don’t want to waste their time.
    My greater worry is that such partisan, ideological nonsense is the very problem with politics in America today, aggravating reasonable people to the point that they just want to turn away. My column last week celebrating Joe Lieberman’s independent candidacy was about this same subject. I don’t have the authority to play umpire with regard to the national political discourse. But I can call balls and strikes on the blog.
    So after an online discussion that drew close to 500 reader comments, I’ve come up with a new system that I hope will work. It’s far from perfect, and will be subject to change if it doesn’t appear to be working, but since I want the site to continue to be a place where people are free to disagree strongly, forget about perfect. I’ll settle for better.
    Here’s the plan: I’m implementing a Double Standard (I thought I’d go ahead and call it that before the critics do, seeing as how that’s what it is). Or maybe you’d call it “behavior profiling.”
    Some people will be free to post pretty much whatever they want. With them, I will maintain the same hands-off policy that I’ve applied to everyone up to now. But I’ll have a different rule for everyone not in that select group: I will delete at will any comments that I deem harmful to good-faith dialogue.
    The good news is that you get to choose whether you’ll be a privileged character or not.
    To be among the elect, you just have to give up your anonymity (just as letter-writers on this page do). You won’t have to fill out special forms or show your birth certificate or anything. Just fill out the existing fields that precede comments with your real, full name; your regular, main e-mail address (the one you use for friends or family or co-workers, not something you set up on Yahoo for the purpose of hiding your identity); and if you have a Web site, your URL.
    If it seems necessary (either to you or me) to provide more info to establish who you really are, you can do so either in the text of the comment, or by e-mailing me.
    When would it be helpful to provide more info? Use your judgment — if your name is John Smith and your e-mail is jsmith@aol.com, you might want to tell a little more, such as that you’re a Columbia attorney or a student at USC or whatever. And I’ll use my judgment — if you call yourself Mike Cakora (one of my regulars), but write something totally uncharacteristic of him, I’ll start asking questions.
    To be in the other group, just keep hiding behind anonymity. I’ll still let you through most of the time, but I’m going to start deleting comments that fit into one of two categories:

  • Insulting, demeaning personal remarks aimed at delegitimizing, discouraging or intimidating those with whom you disagree. If you don’t know what I mean by that, you’ll soon find out.
  • Dogmatic, repetitive, sloganeering ideological claptrap that fails to move the conversation forward and just generally wastes the time of anyone who reads through it in search of actual, original thought. If you use partisan buzzwords and labels as a substitute for genuine argument, you’re in this category. Once again, some of you may have trouble understanding exactly what I mean by that (such rhetoric is so reflexive today), but I will do my best to demonstrate.

    Between those two categories, I can tell you already that I will act upon the first with greater alacrity than upon the second. It is the greater offense.
    But, some of you are by now sputtering, this is so subjective! Yep, and to some of you, that’s just plain shocking. Not to me. I’ve had to make millions of such judgments in my 30-plus-year career. It’s what editors do. Every word I have ever allowed into the paper has required, at the most basic level, an unforgiving yes/no type of decision. Space and time constraints require us to leave out a whole lot more than we’re able to put in. Those considerations don’t apply on the Web, but something at least as important does: The need to have at least one place where people can hear each other think without being drowned out by shouted stupidity.
    I expect the number of comments will drop off for awhile. Some will depart in disgust, others in confusion. Still others will be more selective about what they post, which is actually the point of this. I hope we make up in quality what we give up in quantity.
    If you don’t understand how to meet the new standards, here’s a hint:
    Always try to express your ideas in a way that will actually change the minds of people with whom you disagree. Don’t write in a way calculated to win cheers and attaboys from those who already agree with you, or to give yourself a jolt of vindictive satisfaction.
    Oh, and remember: You don’t have to worry about the standards if you have the guts to stand up and identify yourself. Just don’t be a wuss, and you can still be a jerk.
    Unfortunately, given the present polarization of political attitudes, some of you will refuse to believe that “those other people” can ever be persuaded. You think there are people like you, and people like those others, and any attempt to reason across the divide is futile.
    If that describes you, you’ve come to the wrong place. I believe that good-faith dialogue has the power to bring us together over what we have in common. If all you want to do is shake your fist and shout slogans, there are plenty of other blogs out there that welcome that. Just not mine.
    And here’s where you find it: http://blogs.thestate.com/bradwarthensblog/.

How to meet the standard

7 Replies

ROUGH DRAFT
If you really, really don’t understand how to meet the new standards for comments on this blog, let me help you by providing a few helpful hints. And if you really do understand, but just want to be petulant and accuse me of bad faith, playing favorites, yadda-yadda, I’m going to give you the hints anyway.

  • First, remember that you don’t have to worry about the standards, and can keep getting away with being a jerk, if you have the guts to stand up and identify yourself, rather than being a big wuss and hiding behind anonymity.
  • Remember (and yes, I know some of you will refuse to believe this no matter how many times I prove it to be true by my actions), it’s not what you say; it’s how you say it.
  • As you write, always try to express your ideas in a way that will actually change the minds of people with whom you disagree.
  • As a corollary to that, don’t write in a way calculated to win cheers and attaboys from those who already agree with you, or to give yourself a jolt of vindictive satisfaction.

Bottom line is, if you internalize and act in accordance with those last two principles, you will never have your comments deleted.

Unfortunately, given the present polarization of political attitudes, some of you will refuse to believe that those other people can ever be persuaded. You think there are people like you, and people like those others, and any attempt to reach across the divide with reason is futile.

If that describes you, you’re in the wrong place. This blog is not for you. I started it for the same reason I do what I do for a living — I believe that good-faith dialogue has the power to bring us together over what we have in common. If all you want to do is shake your fist and shout slogans, there are plenty of other sites out there for you.

Civility III (draft): Here’s what I’m gonna do, for now

152 Replies

ROUGH DRAFT

The time has come for the Heavy Hand. Big Daddy will now tell you how it’s going to be.

After two weeks of discernment — helped along by close to 500 comments from you on various related posts — here’s what I’m going to do in an effort to make this a more hospitable place for good-faith dialogue.

It’s far from perfect, and will be subject to change if it doesn’t appear to be working (or if it does more harm than good, which is always a possibility), but there aren’t all that many perfect ways of dealing with human behavior — especially if you want to maintain a forum where people are free to disagree strongly. Once again, I’ll be relying upon your input to help guide me as to whether it IS working.

Anyway, here’s the plan: I’m implementing a Double Standard (I thought I’d go ahead and call it that before the critics do, seeing as how that’s what it is).

The bad news is that one group of people will be free to post pretty much whatever they want. I will maintain the same hands-off policy with them that I’ve maintained with everyone up to now. With everybody else, I will delete at will any comments that I deem harmful to good faith dialogue.

The good news is that you get to choose which group you’re in.

To be in the first group, you just have to give up your anonymity. This won’t require filling out special forms or supplying me with your birth certificate or blood type or anything. Just fill out the existing fields that precede comments with your real, full name; your regular, main e-mail address (the one you use for friends or family or co-workers, not something you set up on Yahoo for the specific purpose of hiding your identity); and if you have a Web site, your URL. If it seems necessary (either to you or me) to provide more info to establish your legitimacy, you can do so either in the text of the comment, or more discretely, by e-mailing the data to me. When would it be helpful to provide more info? Use your judgment — if your name is John Smith and your e-mail is jsmith@aol.com, you might want to tell a little more, such as that you’re the West Columbia attorney or a student at USC or whatever. And I’ll use my judgment — if you call yourself Mike Cakora, but write something totally uncharacteristic of him, I’ll start asking questions.

To be in the other group, keep hiding behind anonymity. I’ll still let you through most of the time, but I’m going to start deleting comments that fit into one of two categories:

  • Insulting, demeaning personal remarks aimed at delegitimizing, discouraging or intimidating those with whom you disagree. If you don’t know what I mean by that, you’ll soon find out.
  • Dogmatic, repetitive, sloganeering ideological claptrap that fails to move the conversation forward and just generally wastes the time of anyone who reads through it in search of actual, original thought. If you use a lot of partisan buzzwords and labels, and use them as a substitute for actual argument, you’re in this category. Once again, some of you may have trouble understanding exactly what I mean by that (such rhetoric is so reflexive in our society today), but I will do my best to demonstrate.

Between those two categories, I can tell you already I will act upon the first with greater alacrity than upon the second. It is the greater offense.

But, some of you are by now sputtering, this is so subjective! Yep, and I know that to some of you, that’s just plain shocking. Not to me. I’ve had to make millions of such judgments in my 30-plus-year career. It’s what editors do. Every word I have ever written or allowed into the paper requires, at the most basic level, an unforgiving yes/no, on/off, one/zero type of decision. Some days I can agonize over each such call, other days I have to skim and pray that I haven’t missed anything. But decisions must be made, and space and time constraints require us to leave out a whole lot more than we’re able to put in.

Since space constraints don’t exist for most practical purposes on the Web, I haven’t been exercising the judgment that is so routine in my day job. So why am I changing that now — particularly since I already don’t have as much time for the blog as I’d like, and this will eat up more of that precious resource?

I’ve already explained that: The immaturity and hostility of some respondents — both regulars and hit-and-run types — has discouraged a number of really thoughtful people who had a lot to contribute, and even run some of them off, leaving the field to the slash-and-burn types. Why spend time expressing yourself honestly and thoroughly, they reason, if everything you say is greeted by catcalls and jeers? Being used to such nonsense myself, it took me a while to realize what a problem it was. But I realize it now, and I’m going to do my best to address it.

I’m not going to do it by myself, though. I will still depend upon each of you to keep each other — and me — honest and fair. My hope is that working together, we can set the standard in a way that everyone quickly understands it, and over time I have to hit the delete button less and less.

I expect the number of comments will drop off for awhile. Some will depart in disgust, others in confusion. Others will be more selective about what they post, which is actually the point of this exercise. I hope we can make up in quality what we give up in quantity.

But if the results aren’t satisfactory, I’ll — we’ll — try something else.

Coming up Sunday: The New Blog Policy

38 Replies

Still polishing the new policy to govern comment decorum. Since it’s taken me this long, I thought I’d go ahead and share it with the world as my Sunday column. So you’ll be able to read all about it Sunday, either in the paper or right here.

But here’s a sneak preview, a teaser if you will, just to stir up advance interest:

    I’m implementing a Double Standard:
    The bad news is that one group of people will be free to post pretty
much whatever they want. I will maintain the same hands-off policy with
them that I’ve maintained with everyone up to now. With those in the other group,
I will delete at will any comments that I deem harmful to good-faith
dialogue.
    The good news is that you get to choose which group you’re in.
    To be in the first group, you just have to give up your anonymity.
This won’t require filling out special forms or supplying me with your
birth certificate or blood type or anything. Just fill out the existing
fields that precede comments with your real, full name; your regular,
main e-mail address (the one you use for friends or family or
co-workers, not something you set up on Yahoo for the specific purpose
of hiding your identity); and if you have a Web site, your URL. If it
seems necessary (either to you or me) to provide more info to establish
your legitimacy, you can do so either in the text of the comment, or
more discretely, by e-mailing
the data to me. When would it be helpful to provide more info? Use your
judgment — if your name is John Smith and your e-mail is
jsmith@aol.com, you might want to tell a little more, such as that
you’re the West Columbia attorney or a student at USC or whatever. And
I’ll use my
judgment — if you call yourself Mike Cakora, but write something totally uncharacteristic of him, I’ll start asking questions.
    To be in the other group, keep hiding behind anonymity. I’ll still
let you through most of the time, but I’m going to start deleting
comments that fit into one of two categories…

How will I define those categories? Tune in on Sunday.

You will also be able to read some hints on how to communicate constructively while still making strong points. Here’s an excerpt from that:

    As you write, always try to express your ideas in a way that will actually change the minds of people with whom you disagree.
    As a corollary to that, don’t write in a way calculated to win
cheers and attaboys from those who already agree with you, or to give
yourself a jolt of vindictive satisfaction.
    Bottom line is, if you internalize and act in accordance with those … two principles, you will never have your comments deleted.
    Unfortunately, given the present polarization of political attitudes, some of you will refuse to believe that those other people
can ever be persuaded. You think there are people like you, and people
like those others, and any attempt to reach across the divide with
reason is futile.

Anyway, you won’t have to wait all that long for further explanation. Here’s hoping that this policy — the product of a conversation that involved more than 470 reader comments — will produce a place that all of us find more useful for discussions that move toward real solutions on issues.

If not, we’ll try something else.

Civility II

95 Replies

Readers jump at chance
for a civil conversation

By BRAD WARTHEN

LAST WEEK, I used this space to seek advice as to how to improve the quality of discourse on my Weblog.

Some have been less than civil in their interactions, causing some of the most thoughtful contributors to abandon the discussions – thereby defeating the very purpose of that forum.

I asked readers to join in a discussion (and you can still do so, at the address below), after which I would either require participants to identify themselves by their full, real names or just start deleting offending comments out of hand.

The response was overwhelming, and mostly gratifying. By the end of the day Thursday, there were 217 comments (256 late Saturday). Sure, some were off the subject, but there was plenty to provoke relevant thought. Some folks joined in for the first time, others returned after a hiatus, and stalwart regulars attacked the subject with gusto.

Regular "Herb," whose complaints about "Lee" and "LexWolf" started the whole subject rolling, was inspired to use his full name (Herb Brasher) for the first time, although he asked me not to make that a requirement:

"I’m not sure about the anonymity, but I’ve surrendered mine, as you notice. I’d rather see anonymity continued, in which case a bit of censorship might be needed. I’d go for option two, as long as you really enforce it."

Ervin Shaw agreed:

"I recommend that you (1) remember that yours is "Brad Warthen’s blog", (2) remember that Brad knows a "blog bully" when he sees one, and that you (3) decide to treat blog bullies as you treat spam. You know the type of participation that you want, and you are in control of the delete button. You’ll be criticized, but so what?…what else is new?"

But "bud" spoke for many Web denizens when he asked, "please don’t go overboard and edit this thing to death. We’re all adults and a bit of good natured jabbing is ok with me."

Spencer Gantt took the opposite view:

"Just make the requirements for posting the same as for ‘letters to the editor’. Have people participate on your blog by registering with full name, address, and telephone number. Names are published as above (Shaw & Brasher); address/phone are known only to you (unless one finds them in the Columbia phone book). People shouldn’t be ashamed/afraid to sign their name to their opinion or ‘good natured jabbing’ if that’s what it really is. Most of it is definitely NOT ‘good natured’. I quit with your blog some time ago for the very reasons noted in
your editorial."

From Bill Molnar:

"My suggestion is that you don’t allow respondents to go to far afield of the topic…. Monitoring what people … express is not an easy job. You don’t want to lose good thoughts/ideas or as Bud said, go over board and not allow the humorous jab. However, the blog cannot be a place where 2 or 3 people dominate, attack the person and ignore the issue in any type of intelligent manner. I wish you the best in re-fitting your blog and hope it will become a place that I want to return to for thoughtful discussion on the issue of our lives."

Regular "Randy E" suggested:

"(U)se an abuse reporting procedure  like other sites use. A blogger can report another as being abusive or ‘destructive.’ If the reported blogger meets a threshold of complaints, incremental action can be taken; e.g. warning email from Daddy Warthen, a suspension, and finally even expulsion. This would allow the bloggers to police themselves and preclude censorship. Blogger registration may be necessary. As long as we can say the Yankees suck, I’m  happy!"

I caused "Phillip" to examine his own conscience:

"Your column gave me pause, wondering if I have crossed the line into incivility on occasion. I’ve made strong statements but have tried not to make things personal. I also am not anonymous, as anyone who clicks on my name here can easily find out."

He needn’t have worried. (But then, it seems the people who are the least guilty are generally the first to feel guilty.)

"Dave" was unimpressed with the entire discussion:

"While the Israelis have over 1400 rockets launched at them indiscriminately where mostly civilians can be hit, we have people worried here about blog civility. Why is that? Let’s all worry about  terrorists being civil to the rest of the world and after that is fixed we can worry about people who think other people aren’t nice to them. Sheesh!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

"LexWolf," one of those Herb had specifically identified as a "bully," was unrepentant and took the occasion to paint things in partisan/ideological terms (which I take to mean that he actually considers me to be a liberal):

"The problem for you guys is that you are so used to getting your way and to having everybody just shut up while you spout your illogical socialist (minor expletive deleted) that you are stunned when people point out the truth to you. In your opinion, we are being ‘incivil’ just because we point out some undeniable facts but when your side accuses us of the usual sexist/racist/bigot/homophobe litany, I suppose you are exhibiting the height of civility. NOT!"

Fellow defendant "Lee," in one of his 31 comments on the subject, also remained true to form: "Anytime you ‘liberals’ want to clean up the threads by talking honestly about the thread topic with facts, get to it."

I was gratified by the return of former regular Paul DeMarco, who explained that he now visited the site "only occasionally because of its circular and predictable nature. I wonder if there is a way to make the conversation more linear so that we are driving toward a solution or consensus on a specific issue…. BTW, I agree with requiring full names. I’ve done it from the beginning because I knew it would help moderate my own commentary."

That just scratches the surface of the first half of the responses. Of course, in true blog fashion, the civility deteriorates significantly in the second hundred comments. Still, there is a substantial mass of sentiment here for something better, and plenty of ideas on how to achieve it. Please join in the discussion if you haven’t already. You know where to go, don’t you?

Other blogs on civility

71 Replies

Note that two of my brother bloggers have weighed in on the civility debate from their own respective sites.

Here’s Mike Cakora’s thoughtful reflections on the subject, and here’s Bob McAlister’s silly, dismissive take on it. Not that I would express preferences or anything.

Just kidding, Bob! Seriously, the approach he takes — let the hotheads have their say — was the very position I took for more than a year. Then I realized that my policy was running off some of the most serious people who wanted the blog to be a more useful forum for deliberate, civil debate — as did I.

I will take this occasion to thank Mike C for bringing Tony Blair’s speech to our attention. It was a cruel twist of fate that gave us George W. while conferring the blessing of Mr. Blair upon Britain, which doesn’t appreciate him.

If ever you doubt what we’re doing (or supposed to be doing) in the War on Terror, check with Tony. He can always explain it masterfully.