by publius
Karl Rove, Super Genius:
Speaking on PBS’s “Charlie Rose” talk show last week, Rove said Congress pushed to have the vote before the election. “The administration was opposed to voting on it in the fall of 2002,” Rove said. Asked why, he said: “Because we didn’t think it belonged within the confines of the election. There was an election coming up within a matter of weeks. We thought it made it too political. We wanted it outside the confines of it. It seemed to make things move too fast. There were things that needed to be done to bring along allies and potential allies abroad.”
It’s god’s honest truth, just see Bizarro World.
Sometimes Karl’s mouth gets ahead of his conscience.
Card has already debunked this. The question is why Rove would say this. Let’s see, if we lose, then it’s the Dems fault. Wait a minute, if we win do the Dems get credit? My guess is that either way the Dems get screwed.
Just another object lesson from the master of The Big Lie.
And you have got to love Bizarro World — particularly the snark in response to someone who tries to object to The Official Line.
Enjoy your brief RedState Experience™.
and
Look, another one hour wonder.
Red State — the reverse Gong Show.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/30/card-discredits-rove/
Scarborough: We have to start with something that we all are talking about a couple of days ago where Karl Rove went on Charlie Rose and he blamed the Democrats for pushing him and the president into war. Is that how it worked?
Card: No, that’s not the way it worked.
….
Scarborough: Is that just Karl spinning beyond the White House?..
Card: Well, Karl is very smart. He’s..Sometimes his brain gets ahead of his mouth. And sometimes, his mouth gets ahead of his brain.
That Karl!
A regular little dickens, eh?
As I recall, some in the Democratic leadership did push to get the vote done sooner rather than later (Gephardt!). And as I further recall, the White House weakly insisted they didn’t really need the authorization, but would like to have it prior to a UN vote, or conference, or speech.
I need to find an authoritative timeline…
On preview: Ahh, porcupine_pal’s given us Card’s comments. I still need to find a timeline.
This reminds me of an interview with David Chase in which he explained that nearly every character on “The Sopranos” was lying the vast majority of the time they said anything at all. He allowed that (he thought/felt) it wasn’t necessarily so much that they always did so intentionally, but that they were so in the habit of doing it, it had become their standard means of communicating anything to anyone. An automatic self-defense mechanism they had trained themselves to do through years of intentional lying.
Don’t stop believing, indeed.
And as I further recall, the White House weakly insisted they didn’t really need the authorization…
Actually, there was nothing weak about that insistence — think about this for a moment.
The official position of the Bush White House was that they did not need Congressional approval for the war in Iraq. It was a repeat of the same tension for Gulf War I (and several wars before that).
But the White House decided to go get the approval anyway — right before the election. Obviously, someone (Rove, obviously) figured that seeking the “unnecessary” approval right before an election was good politics even if it made Cheney grumpy to deign to ask for permission in the first instance.
Ah, always nice to hear from The Moderate Moe Lane. He’s so reasonable!
uhm yes…and … uhm…. Iraq did 9/11!!! wwoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Speaking of The Moderate Moe Lane™, this is possibly even more ridiculous.
Note those bold Bizarro World editors, bravely signing on to the “do-over” with their pseudonyms.
Did anybody catch the “debate” held at Pat Robertson’s “university” a few weeks ago and shown on C-Span last weekend? The “question” was whether the US should “bring democracy” to other nations.
MODERATOR: Charlie Rose
PRO TEAM: Jeb Bush, Karl Rove
CON TEAM: Barry MacCaffrey, Max Cleland
It was a sorry, sorry spectacle. The lowlight came when Karl Rove, responding to Cleland’s statement that Dubya botched Tora Bora, “resented” Cleland’s “slur” on “our troops”. And Cleland did NOT walk across the stage and kick the shit out of him. That’s America’s current moral muddle in a nutshell.
As for little Karl’s version of October 2002, somebody should collect Dubya’s press releases from that month and cram them up Rove’s Blackberry. Dubya was publicly and loudly insisting that the Senate must pass the AUMF because it would pressure Saddam enough to AVOID WAR. The GOP’s last best attempt to hang blame on the Democrats really does amount to this: the Democrats KNEW that Bush was lying about that.
— TP
Yet another example of how Rove isn’t so much a genius as he is an amoral dirtbag who will say anything with utter disregard for either factual accuracy or the truth.
@ Ugh (1:49p): At least Our Charles used his own name: although even if “Bird Dog” had appeared on that RS list, it wouldn’t have made it any less hackish or dumb….
@ TonyP (1:53 p): Ummm, Max Cleland can’t “walk across the stage”: no legs, remember? – but you’re quite right: he should have immediately crammed Rove’s BS right back down his throat. Any “slur” (which isn’t really a “slur”, since it is true) about Tora Bora reflects far more on the Bush White House in command of the Afghan campaign, rather than GI Joe on the ground in Helmand or wherever. “Sorry spectacle”? Amen: but sadly, par for the course these days.
Forgive me, but I’m probably misunderstanding some exchanges. I’m not reading people who give only “Ugh” and “Jay C” as their names, criticing people sarcastically for their “brave[ness]” and “bold[ness]” in not using their “real” names, since not doing so is a sign of being “hackish” and “dumb”?
That can’t be right, surely?
Jay C: “At least Our Charles used his own name: although even if ‘Bird Dog’ had appeared on that RS list, it wouldn’t have made it any less hackish or dumb….”
People who don’t use online their legally-recognized name are “hackish or dumb”? Really?
“Note those bold Bizarro World editors, bravely signing on to the ‘do-over’ with their pseudonyms.”
If you use a pseudonym, you’re the opposite of “brave” and “bold,” you’re cowardly?
Gee, guys — Ugh, and Jay C, that is — I’ve never thought so, but how hard do you want to insist on this curious point?
If I’m misunderstanding the point you’re making about pseudonyms, and the people who use them online, please do clarify what point you are making about pseudonyms, and the people who use them online, and what it says about them.
You Go to War with the Killers You Have, Not the Killers You Want
By: Bernard Chazelle
“Marines shot this boy!” he roars… He wants the boy evacuated to a field hospital. The major on duty informs him that Lieutenant Colonel Ferrando is sleeping and can’t be disturbed. Fick is livid. “I wanted to tell the major that we were Americans, that Americans don’t shoot kids and let them die, that the men in my platoon had to be able to look themselves in the mirror for the rest of their lives.”
Lance Corporal Jeffrey Carazales:
Do you think people at home are going to see this—all these women and children we’re killing? Fuck no. Back home they’re glorifying this motherfucker, I guarantee you. Saying our president is a fucking hero for getting us into this bitch. He ain’t even a real Texan.
Lieutenant Nathaniel Fick:
Worst of all were the accolades and thanks from people “for what you guys did over there.” Thanks for what, I wanted to ask—shooting kids, cowering in terror behind a berm, dropping artillery on people’s homes?
Evan Wright:
As Graves steps back in horror, his boot slips in the girl’s brains. “This is the event that is going to get to me when I go home,” he says.
Sergeant Antonio Espera:
Before we crossed in Iraq, I fucking hated Arabs. I don’t know why. But as soon as we got here, it’s just gone. I just feel sorry for them. I miss my little girl. Dog, I don’t want to kill nobody’s children.
Do you realize the shit we’ve done here, the people we’ve killed? Back home in the civilian world, if we did this, we would go to prison.
Evan Wright:
But when you see a little girl in pretty clothes that someone dressed her in, and she’s smushed on the road with her legs cut off, you don’t think, well you know there were Fedayeen nearby and this is collateral damage.
The problem with American society is we don’t really understand what war is.
Sergeant Antonio Espera:
[The priest] told me killing is OK, for a purpose. Where in the bible does it say that? Where did Jesus say you can kill people for a purpose? As soon as the priest told me I could kill with a purpose, there was nothing he could tell me after that, because he lost all credibility with me.
Sources: Iraq: the Hidden Human Costs, by M. Massing, The New York Review of Books, Dec 20, 2007. (Not online yet.) Excerpts from “One Bullet Away” by N. Fick and “Generation Kill” by E. Wright (interview).
From:
Posted at November 28, 2007 08:40 PM
Gary: Firm adherent to the Major Rule No. One Of Blogging* that I am, I’ll apologize for the unclarity of my remark: the “hackish and dumb” comment was meant to refer to RedState’s hyperventilating post insisting on a CNN-debate “do-over” itself; NOT Charles’ signing-on thereto (or the use of his name/nick).
Personally, I never gripe about the use of pseudonyms/anonyms/handles on the Net: to me, that’s just part of the Internet Thing – even though my own nick comes from the prosaic source of my name actually being “Jay”.
* Rule #1:
Do.
Not.
Argue.
With.
Gary.
Farber.
ADD: More contributions from Mr. Bird – and some ripostes – on the CNN-debate flap at The Forvm -HERE .
“* Rule #1:
Do.
Not.
Argue.
With.
Gary.
Farber.”
I’ll optimistically take that as a compliment, so thanks, but with all due respect, that’s a terrible rule, and if adhered to by all, will make discussions far less interesting, and far more boring, in my completely unbiased and objective view.
The proper rule would be do not argue with Gary Farber unless you’ve checked enough facts to be pretty sure you’re right.
Which is the rule I try to adhere to, myself, save as applied to, you know, other people, as well as the many times a day I argue with myself, taking five or seven different perspectives.
Hey, I don’t have much of an entertainment budget. (Although I just got Tim Weiner’s Legacy of Ashes from the library, and am curious if I’ll learn much I didn’t already know.)
I certainly don’t mean to beat you about the head about your remark, Jay, so please don’t take this query in any such spirit, but I do still wonder just what your point was, as I asked, when you wrote “At least Our Charles used his own name”?
I promise not to hurt you if you’ll be kind enough to satisfy my curiosity. And then I’ll drop it.
Farber’s got good site, though.
Jay C @ 3:49 PM: “Ummm, Max Cleland can’t “walk across the stage”: no legs, remember?”
That, of course, is what I meant by “That’s America’s current moral muddle in a nutshell.” Smarmy little Karl Rove, with all his limbs intact, dares to “resent” Cleland’s comment — on behalf of “the troops”! — knowing full well that his tender little ass is not at physical risk. And the benighted morons in the Regent University audience applaud HIM, presumably for his stalwart patriotism. If that’s not a moral muddle, I don’t know what is.
— TP
If I’m misunderstanding the point you’re making about pseudonyms, and the people who use them online, please do clarify what point you are making about pseudonyms, and the people who use them online, and what it says about them.
i believe the point is : a petition, to get a “do-over” for a debate (a ridiculous demand all by itself), has been signed by people including “blackhedd”, “streiff” and “Dave Poff, aka haystack”. who’s going to take that kind of thing seriously ?
“The proper rule would be do not argue with Gary Farber unless you’ve checked enough facts to be pretty sure you’re right.”
Yes, actually, Gary, it was meant to be a compliment (though you’ve articulated it better than I – proving my point!) – not just idle flattery: your blogcomments are (mostly*) articulate, incisive, and factually-grounded: if you read a lot of blogs, you’ll know that that’s not all that common.
And all I meant by my comment: “At least Our Charles used his own name”? was a dig riffing off Ugh’s 1:49 post: Charles’ name on the list of half-pseudonymous RedState “honchos” stood out: but that even at that, their overheated demands for a debate “do-over” still strike me as whiny, petty and puerile. Which, btw, I have made clear to CB on his Forvm cross-post (as have others!)
cleek:
Are you saying that:
a) using “handles,” rather than legal names, makes people’s views on a petition unserious and ridiculous, but are otherwise fine for making serious points in writing?
or:
b) using “handles, rather than legal names, makes people’s views both on a petition and otherwise in writing, unserious?
or:
c) other?
If it’s “a,” could you perhaps explain what distinctive quality separates a petition from another piece of writing in terms of how seriously we should take the views of the signer/author?
If it’s b, oh, look, Halley’s Comet.
If it’s c: ?
Jay C:
I’m still left with the impression, from this explanation, that your point was that Charles’ name “stood out” because it was a regular-type, legal-type, name, in which case what the point of your dig was, other than to make fun of the unseriousness of people on the internet who don’t use their legal name, remains mysterious to me, but I promised I’d drop it it with you, so I’ll say no more to you about it (although I’ll comment on comments you make henceforth, if you choose to address the subject again, mind!).
Incidentally, Jay C, I’d be the first to admit that sometimes my comments are muddled, wrongfooted, unclear, confused, rambly, irritating, annoying, condescending, insulting, aggravating, superior, cranky, or outright dickheaded.
Though I’m lucky if I can manage all those at once.
Quoted without further comment.
Gary, a petition is entirely a different animal from a simple comment on a blog. The point of a petition is to attempt to get people to take action based upon the fact that you, the petition signer, are willing to publicly state that said people should do X. A blog comment is just expressing opinion. There’s a world of difference, and suggesting that there isn’t is just asinine.
Quoted without further comment.
Gary, if you could: kindly note that my postings here are not lists of demands, in pseudo-legal language, to CNN and the Republican candidates. i assure you, when i sign petitions, i use my real name – because otherwise, it’s not counted.
context: it matters.
using “handles,” rather than legal names, makes people’s views on a petition unserious and ridiculous, but are otherwise fine for making serious points in writing?
that first part doesn’t make a lot of sense: a pseudonym obviously doesn’t change the views of the person who uses the pseud. and, “unserious” and “ridiculous” are not words i used, of course. and it’s obvious that people using pseuds can make valid points. anyway…
finding a pseud in the list of signatories on a petition complaining that CNN didn’t provide extensive political biographies of the people it took questions from is funnny. why should CNN care that some internet loudmouth, “blackhedd”, is upset that they didn’t tell us everything about Keith Kerr’s biography? what’s blackhedd’s political history? we can’t tell! for all we know, blackhedd could be an Obama staffer trying to sabotage RedState by making it look silly! who’s behind that pseud ? we’ll never know… it’s a big mystery. but, remember, the real problem is that CNN failed to tell us everything about the people who submitted questions, and blackhedd, whoever he is, and whatever his political and employment history is – a guy who names himself after a kind of facial blemish – demands a do-over!
bah – it’s all just hollow manufactured outrage anyway. there’s no reason to take any of of the people shrieking about this seriously, no matter what they use for names.
“Gary, a petition is entirely a different animal from a simple comment on a blog.”
Good, that’s a start.
“The point of a petition is to attempt to get people to take action based upon the fact that you, the petition signer, are willing to publicly state that said people should do X.”
Fair enough. And the difference whether you’ve been publically known to many people, through your writing, as “Frederick Jones,” “Fred Jones,” or “derf542” is…?
“A blog comment is just expressing opinion.”
True. And? I’m sure you’re not saying that reputation and identity don’t matter. You seem to be saying that something about the style of people’s names matters, and that seems rather inexplicable, as yet, insofar as you’ve explained it.
“There’s a world of difference,”
I’m looking forward to you explaining it, rather than asserting it.
“and suggesting that there isn’t is just asinine.”
Ah, well, now you’ve convinced me via the power of your
logicname-calling. Argument by assertion, and argument by name-calling: always compelling.cleek: “that first part doesn’t make a lot of sense: a pseudonym obviously doesn’t change the views of the person who uses the pseud.”
I won’t argue.
“and, ‘unserious’ and ‘ridiculous’ are not words i used, of course.”
Of course. Of course, you never used the word “ridiculous” in the following:
Got me there! You never said wrote “ridiculous,” except for that time that you did.
And you didn’t say that using such names was “unserious,” you asked “who’s going to take that kind of thing seriously ?,” which means something entirely different.
Which would be what?
“and it’s obvious that people using pseuds can make valid points. anyway…”
Indeed. And if you can make valid points under a pseudonym, how is it impossible to make a valid point by signing a petition under the name you are best known for?
Would a petition signed by “Bill Clinton” be considered “ridiculous” by you, since he didn’t sign it “William Jefferson Clinton, Jr.”?
How is the principle of that different from whether Duncan Black signs a political petition as “Atrios,” or not? Or whether, say, Avedon Carol signs with the name on her birth certificate? Or whether you sign an online statement/petition as “cleek,” or some name none of us know you as?
“we can’t tell! for all we know, blackhedd could be an Obama staffer trying to sabotage RedState by making it look silly!”
And if “blackhedd,” whose real name I have no idea of, signed as “Marina Reed,” or “Qin Shi Huangdi,” or “Reginald MacGregor,” this would make clear that that person wasn’t an Obama staffer, how, pray tell? I’d really like to know how that works, cleek.
Gary,
Your defense of pseudonyms here doesn’t hold water. Consider the sentence at the top of the list of signatures:
“Though it is rare we take this additional step from a Directors post, we the undersigned contributors want to make sure our names are attached hereto:”
They want their names on it, yes, yes, very important – they want to make sure their names are there. But then they – some of these outraged people who so emphatically want their names listed – don’t list their names at all. Ridiculous.
Gary, you come across to me as being in a really bad mood today.
I think that the difference between a petition and a blog comment is that a petition is understood as formal, kind of like a business letter, whereas a blog comment is informal.
Partly the formality comes from the tradition/requirement that petition signatures be verified or, at least, be verifiable. Of course not all petitions have verified signatures, but the sense that the signatures COULD be verified lends crediblity to a petition. On the other hand, no one expects to learn the real name of a commenter on a blog. In fact its a kind of stalking to try to discover a commenter’s real name.
So I agree with the commenters who think that the use of handles lessens the crediblity of the petition.
I am sorry to see Charles involved innsuch a juvenile, pathetic project.
Got me there! You never said wrote “ridiculous,” except for that time that you did.
oh for fuck’s sake. again, Gary, context. my “ridiculous” was clearly in reference to…
ah fuck it. you know what? you can chase your own damn self around the obtuse tree. have a blast.
“They want their names on it, yes, yes, very important – they want to make sure their names are there. But then they – some of these outraged people who so emphatically want their names listed – don’t list their names at all. Ridiculous.”
Bernard, could you please define what you mean by “name”? Because they certainly did list their names. Apparently they are names that you feel are invalid, or improper, or illegitimate, in some way, and I’d like to know just how. What are properly allowed and legitimate names, or the form of names, for petition use when posting publically on the internet so as to persuade web readers of the righteousness of one’s cause?
I’d point out that this issue has nothing whatever to do with whatever specific it might be attached to, but I’d prefer to assume that that’s unnecessary.
Wonkie: “Partly the formality comes from the tradition/requirement that petition signatures be verified or, at least, be verifiable.”
That’s for legal petitions. Irrelevant to an online petition posted for the purpose of political persuasion online.
Perhaps that’s the essential point some folks are missing.
“I think that the difference between a petition and a blog comment is that a petition is understood as formal, kind of like a business letter, whereas a blog comment is informal.”
Understood by whom? You’re saying that whether or not a petition is a petition is defined by, among other characterstics, how formal it is in business terms?
And that if I want to post a petition on my blog for some purpose, say to have bloggers and blog commenters condemn Fox News for something we’re outraged by, that there’s some set of formal rules as to the only legitimate ways to run my petition?
Cite?
I’m not trying to be pissy here. I’m just trying to say that this point is considerably more, ah, questionable than some seem to think, and that the content or people involved are absolutely irrelevant to the issue.
I’m with Gary on this one. To the extent that their request has any influence at all, it comes from the very fact that they’re the directors of an influential Republican blog. At this blog, they’re known by their handles, so why wouldn’t they use them in their “petition” (which is a term that they themselves didn’t use, AFAICT)?
“my ‘ridiculous’ was clearly in reference to…”
It was clearly in reference to calling the demand “ridiculous… all by itself,” in which “all by itself” clearly applies “ridiculous” to the larger “demand,” which is the use of those kind of Bad Names, which is what you’re condemning and ridiculing.
You don’t have to address this further: you wrote what you wrote, and now, for some reason, you’re trying to claim that you weren’t saying that using those Bad Kinds Of Names was ridiculous and wasn’t “serious.” No skin off my back if you want to leave it there. I have no trouble believing there’s no better available explanation than that and sputtering and cursing.
Although there are more courteous ones.
“so why wouldn’t they use them in their ‘petition’ (which is a term that they themselves didn’t use, AFAICT)?”
I was sufficiently caught up in lack of interest in the content of whatever was at Redstate, since outrage at the content of Redstate is not, itself, an argument, that I’d missed that. Thanks, kenB.
In fact, actually looking at it (and still ignoring the content as irrelevant), it’s just a statement of the opinion of the Redstate “Directors” speaking in their official capacity.
Why there is a requirement that their attached names be “formal,” or adhere to legal forms, or be names they’re legally known by, to that, I have no idea, and I’m still waiting for a coherent argument as to why such a requirement exists. How, again, is their writing and posting a blog post different from, you know, writing and posting a blog post or comment, as several people have tried to assure me it is?
I’m afraid the fact that cleek considers it so obvious that @#$%@*!!!!!, isn’t, in fact, an argument.
Insults, abuse, cursing, and disappointment in my getting in the way of a good Redstate bash — which I’m not, since you can make fun of their arguments with CNN all you want, if you like, and I won’t get in your way — are optional.
A dude named blackhedd, would scare me.
It’s only because I was helping my daughter study for her sixth-grade history (although it’s called “social studies”, for some reason) test, this very week, that I knew who that was.
“It’s only because I was helping my daughter study for her sixth-grade history (although it’s called ‘social studies’, for some reason) test, this very week, that I knew who that was.”
As I recall, “social studies,” a term I agree is rather vague on the surface, is called that and not “history” because it encompasses a number of other subjects beyond just history, such — this is theory, mind — as economics, geography, world politics, and so on. It’s pretty much supposed to — and I’m just going from memory of the explanations from my own elementary school days, which probably have little to do with contemporary educational language and theory — cover the world’s cultures and its people, not just history.
But your question is surely best answered by someone who actually knows what they’re talking about. Mostly I just wanted to say you shouldn’t bother looking up the other two names, as they’re just made up; I feel competent to wing it in making up names from a number of backgrounds, but for Chinese, among a number of others, I have to steal from a real model, or risk writing gibberish.
Beyond the normal amount, that is.
It was clearly in reference to calling the demand “ridiculous… all by itself,” in which “all by itself” clearly applies “ridiculous” to the larger “demand,” which is the use of those kind of Bad Names
Um, no. The larger “demand” is for CNN to hold another Republican primary debate with questions coming only from properly vetted Republican questioners and/or questioners clearly identified as Democrats or Democratic supporters, whether they are identified as Steve Smith, or Grover Norquist, or Voltron, or Lrrrrrr. The “demand”,” “all by itself,” has nothing whatsoever to do with names.
So, yes, cleek is correct that his use of the word “ridiculous” had absolutely nothing to do with the use of pseudonyms or handles, all your foot-stamping and pearl-clutching about being sworn at notwithstanding.
Gary,
A name is, among other things, a way in which one is identified, or identifies oneself. One may use different names in different contexts. Thus, as you know, in the synagogue men are sometimes identified as, for example, “Yaakov ben Itzhak,” Jacob the son of Isaac.
You are arguing, I think, that because this is an online discussion the names being used are appropriate in context.
But they’re not. This is not an online discussion, where pseudonyms are common. It’s a petition – a demand being made to people outside the group – CNN and the Republican candidates. In other words, it’s a statement addressed to those to whom such names are meaningless.
More important, the act of signing a petition implies a willingness to publicly take a controversial position, to let the entire world know that the signer is willing to face the consequences of making such a demand.
This is exactly what the poseurs who sign this absurd complaint with pseudonyms are not doing. They are deliberately avoiding any consequences of signing. That’s what’s ridiculous.
Petitions are not a great deal of use in persuading people to do something (or not do something). Not even actual pieces-of-paper petitions where people have signed their real names and given their actual addresses. Because it’s too easy to sign a petition.
Electronic petitions – even those carefully set up with name and IP address locked to ensure that people can only “sign” more than once if they have a modicum of computer knowledge and access to more than one computer – are worth even less.
Signing a petition says nothing more than that the sheet was pushed under your nose (or posted on your favorite blog) and you didn’t like to say no.
If you want to persuade someone that lots of people care about an issue, don’t set up a petition: encourage people to write to that person in their own words, with personal examples. Even handwritten postcards can be useful: even faxes: even, at a pinch, e-mails.
A “petition” signed by a lot of well-known bloggers using their blog names is, in effect, more of an open letter than a petition. If the bloggers are not so well-known that it is likely the person reading it will have heard of them, it would be far more effective to sign with their real name and the name of their blog: “Jo B Eturd, who blogs as Stirrer for RedState”, etc. But on the whole, for perfectly good reasons: e-petitions are worth the paper they’re not written on.
Gary,
You are an intelligent person. Sometimes I enjoy reading your comments because they seem to add something interesting and informative to the discussion. Oftentimes, to me, you seem lost in a swoon of attention-mongering.
In my opinion your comments would shine brighter if you would practise some restraint and make fewer of them.
Sincerely, Matt Stern
OT: Jes, I think I remember you saying you wouldn’t travel to the US these days. Turns out you don’t have to. Turns out that if we want you we’ll just come over there and get you.
Sheesh.
It just seemed silly to me that they said they were taking the extra-special step of appending their names to the post, and then some of them did not do so (and yes I do think when a person says he/she is attaching his/her “name” to something that the reasonable interpretation of that statement is that their going to attach their legal name, and not “asdf333”- just as I wouldn’t tell someone my name is “Ugh” if asked).
OCSteve: I think I remember you saying you wouldn’t travel to the US these days. Turns out you don’t have to. Turns out that if we want you we’ll just come over there and get you.
Yeah, I read about that. The US got tired of being told by British judges that if they wanted to extradite someone from the UK they’d have to show evidence, and got the Blairish government to pass a non-reciprocal law, euphemistically called “fast-track”, where the US government just has to say “That’s the one we want” and a court is supposed to give ’em up. Since that too doesn’t work in some instances, the US government is now openly defending what it’s been practicing for years: kidnapping.
And they’re not even pretending this just applies to “terrorist suspects” any more: this is purely a financial crime.
I want the US to reform its electoral system and be able to elect the President you voted for, instead of the one picked out for you, for my sake, as much as for yours…
ah fuck it. you know what? you can chase your own damn self around the obtuse tree. have a blast.
Posted by: cleek | December 01, 2007 at 10:34 PM
I’m using that, one.
(And not that I want to defend Stanley Tollman’s alleged crimes – of all crimes, financial fraud by the wealthy is probably the one I have least sympathy with – but talking of the “right to kidnap” if a judge won’t agree to extradite him, is … scary.)
IOT: Jes, I think I remember you saying you wouldn’t travel to the US these days. Turns out you don’t have to. Turns out that if we want you we’ll just come over there and get you.
How ironic, the US is treating the UK like one of its colonies.
A US colony, that is.
I am not familiar with the UK’s policy with its colonies.
How ironic, the US is treating the UK like one of its colonies.
The US is treating every country in the world like one of its colonies. The UK is better off than some: we’re not dependent on UK aid (which is how half a dozen people got kidnapped from Bosnia in January 2002) and we can be fairly sure that, no matter how intrepid a British judge’s defiance of the US government’s command, the US will not respond by bombing the BBC or Rules Restaurant on a night Gordon Brown is supposed to be dining there.
That may be all we have left of the “special relationship” – that we can defy you without risk of open attack: but such as it is, it’s more than other countries have.
I can see how the “do over” and “heads should roll” business is over the top, but I don’t understand how the complaint itself is absurd. It doesn’t seem too much to ask that the questions in a Republican primary debate come from a Republican/conservative perspective.
“So, yes, cleek is correct that his use of the word
‘ridiculous’ had absolutely nothing to do with the use of pseudonyms or handles, all your foot-stamping and pearl-clutching about being sworn at notwithstanding.”
Phil, you’re asserting that cleek and others weren’t ridiculing the use of pseudonyms and handles by Redstate directors, and wasn’t saying that said use was ridiculous?
What would you say you were instead trying to convey about the use of pseuds by Redstate directors?
I enjoy your passion, Phil, but I don’t think it changes the meaning of words and sentences.
Bernard:
“not an online discussion”
It isn’t? Their post and comment thread was what, a cantalope?
How the hell is their blog post, stating their opinion, different from any other blog post stating the writer(s) opinion?
It’s a blog post.
It’s a plain, ordinary, standard, vanilla, normal, everyday, blog post. It expresses the opinion of the people who created that blog.
It says this is our opinion of what should be done by certain parties. Like a gazillion other blog posts.
If you’d like to explain to me by what rules that blog post is magically different from other blog posts, so that for some reason there are some kind of wording requirements for name formats, you’re entirely welcome. Be specific and concrete, though, please.
Because the fact that it’s just a plain old blog post, not any sort of legal “petition,” or petitition of any kind, where people are asked to sign, at all, that whole argument, which made no sense whatever anyway (if I want to ask people to sign a statement on my blog demanding Ben & Jerry add a FarberFlavor to their ice cream, I have to insist they use legal names? Or what? It’d be ridiculous? No, wait, it’d be not ridiculous?), completely vanished, leaving nothing.
It’s a plain old blog post.
Since when are we insisting that people have to sign their blog posts with their legal names, or it’s oh so so so silly and ludicrous of them?
Using pseudonyms for blog posts is “hackish” and “dumb” and worthy of being sarcastic about how “brave” and “bold” a use of such pseudonyms is, and it’s very much worthy of ridicule, we’ve learned.
But it isn’t.
Unless it’s at a site like Redstate, in which case any old double standard is in effect, apparently.
Bernard: “That’s what’s ridiculous.”
You didn’t get the memo: cleek and phil now say that it is not ridiculous!
Apparently they were merely explaining their great respect for the actions of the Redstate Directors.
Folks, just because something is done by Redstate doesn’t mean that you can have a double standard about ridiculing people for use of pseudonymns in signing their blog posts, without looking like a nitwit when you yourself use a pseudonym to sign your blog comments, and don’t have an equal standard that anyone who uses such names is hackish, dumb, worth taking a “dig” at, and so on.
This has been a very uninpressive performance of defense of the indefensible by a few. Tsk.
Another possible response for folks might be along the lines of “gee, I hadn’t realized that it really was just an ordinary blog post; it’s still perfectly stupid to demand a ‘do-over’ by CNN, and still perfectly stupid that blah-blah-blah, but you’re right, there’s nothing more silly about the use of pseudonymns on Redstate than there is on Obsidian Wings.”
Phil, you’re asserting that cleek and others weren’t ridiculing the use of pseudonyms and handles by Redstate directors, and wasn’t saying that said use was ridiculous?
No, I’m asserting that cleek’s use of the specific word “ridiculous” was in the very, very specific context of characterizing Redstate’s demand that CNN do the debate over. He did not use it to characterize the use of pseuds, as you claim he did. You are wrong, and he is right. Let’s recap:
cleek, Dec. 1, 6:26pm: i believe the point is : a petition, to get a “do-over” for a debate (a ridiculous demand all by itself), has been signed by people including “blackhedd”, “streiff” and “Dave Poff, aka haystack”.
The referent for “ridiculous” here is clearly “do-over” and does not refer to the use of pseudonyms.
Directly afterward, you asked cleek: Are you saying that:
a) using “handles,” rather than legal names, makes people’s views on a petition unserious and ridiculous, but are otherwise fine for making serious points in writing?
To which he replied: that first part doesn’t make a lot of sense: a pseudonym obviously doesn’t change the views of the person who uses the pseud. and, “unserious” and “ridiculous” are not words i used, of course.
Here’s where you got confused, Gary, and I can see it as if it’s happening in real time. In response to a specific question limited to the use of pseudonyms, cleek — quite correctly!!!! — states that he never used the word ridiculous. You went into full on pedant mode and replied: Got me there! You never said wrote “ridiculous,” except for that time that you did.
To which he replied: oh for fuck’s sake. again, Gary, context. my “ridiculous” was clearly in reference to…
So, you said he referred to the use of pseuds with the specific word “ridiculous,” he — again, absolutely correctly — stated he did not, and you somehow thought that the fact that he used the word “ridiculous” once on the thread, with a referent having absolutely, positively, not a single thing whatsoever to do with pseudonyms, handles, or anything like them, proved that he did.
Unless you’re at this point prepared to demonstrate that “CNN debate do-over” — the original referent for “ridiculous” — is a synonym for “pseudonymous blog name,” you’re wrong, and you owe cleek an apology.
Gary,
As I said initially, when someone makes a special emphatic point of how important it is to attach his/her name to a statement, so everyone knows where they stand, it is silly to use a pseudonym. It’s not a question of whether it’s OK in general to sign a post with a pseudonym. It’s a question of whether it’s OK to sign this statement:
we the undersigned contributors want to make sure our names are attached hereto:
with a pseudonym. I think it’s ridiculous.
You disagree. Fine, disagree.
But.
First, nobody made you the scorekeeper for this particular argument. Your declaration of victory is not appropriate.
Worse, your comment about me “not getting the memo” is utterly uncalled for. Cleek and Phil and I are not some sort of organized group. We are three independent commenters. That we don’t wholly agree on this topic is neither an argument against my position nor evidence that I have made some sort of mistake by not sticking to the party line.
There’s no point in my repeating myself, so we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Those who believe it was ridiculous for the Redstate folks to use pseudonymns on their post will have to argue it out with cleek and Phil, who now claim, apparently, that they weren’t ridiculing Redstate, which I’m sure is entirely obvious and inarguable.
Hurrah for double standards, which are okay when “we” use them, because we’re the good guys.
I have no problem whatsoever with saying that anybody, commenting on ObWi or not, who uses a handle to sign a public* petition is deserves to be ridiculed. If they are also the people *making* the petition even more so.
*public might not be the proper English word. I mean a petition inteded for use in general, not just in blogosphere.
“Petition” is the wrong dead-tree model for their post — think editorial page instead. Usually an editorial is unsigned, and so one doesn’t know which of the editors actually support the given position. A signed editorial is more emphatic because it’s made clear exactly which editors are joining in the statement. We know the RS editors by their pseuds, so the pseuds are the appropriate way to sign this online editorial. Anyone who wants to take issue with them (online) knows who to address his/her comments to.
We thought it made it too political.
Spoken by a man who probably examines his own bowel movements for their political implications.
Dear Karl — how can we miss you when you won’t go away?
Turns out that if we want you we’ll just come over there and get you.
Our national policy, foreign and domestic, reflects the character of a man who, due to an accident of birth, has never had to answer to the normal bonds of mutual responsibility and accountability that form the social fabric in which 99.9999% of the people in this world live, and who has never, ever in his life had to bear the brunt of the consequences of any of his actions.
When he’s done presidentin’ and playing cowboy, he’ll walk away, and the rest of us will have to clean up the mess.
Thanks –
Me likee kenb’s point about dead tree models brought on by dutch’s comment, which also removes this from the realm of personal opinion and has us discussing some underlying notions. It’s interesting, and telling, that Redstate can issue such an open letter, because it tells of the narrowness of their participant base imo. I can’t think of the Orange one issuing such a call, though I’d be interested in there were instances that people felt this happened.
In fact, I think the whole netroots phenomenon derives its power precisely from the fact that the sort of ‘we the editors/site managers/etc etc’ issuing such an opinion can’t occur without inviting ridicule. But when they can’t do that, it leaves models like our petition either orphaned or strangely transformed.
ken’s last line is also interesting, cause I think it suggests that there is this parallel world phenomenon. It is hard to imagine a CNN press conference where a reporter stands up and says to Jonathan Klein ‘How do you respond to blackhedd’s accusation that the debate was hopelessly compromised by your network not determining the precise political affiliations of those asking the questions?’ I imagine that the reporter would have to figure out who blackhedd is and then provide a brief statement about his real identity before launching into the question. At that point, real questions emerge about privacy.
Just an observation on “Blackhedd.”
Unlike most of Redstate, he’s actually quite good in his area of specialty: the markets and why they move as they do.
He does six good paragraphs about why the mortgage crisis has metastisized and why the dollar is falling and why risk premiums are up across the board.
You know, the stuff that is happening now.
The 7th paragraph ruins the post with the usual bulls-it Re-s-ate boilerplate:
The real reason the markets are in turmoil is because the quant geniuses on Wall Street are scared crapless that there might be a yacht tax under a Democratic President.
It’s all Hillary’s fault.
I’m watching “Troy” at the moment. It would please me if Hillary was Achilles and dragged the corpse of Redstate around by the ankles until they cry “Apollo!”
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
Signed:
Insurance Guy, Beerman, Big Ben, Little Ben, Gentle Ben, etc.
Lacks a certain ring.
Bernard:
Heroes settle down and need to make a living peddling the banal.
When everyone gets to be “King”, you think to yourself, “So, this is kingliness? I coulda been a contenda.”
Not that I care for Kings, but at least they had harums.
Not that I care about those either.
I am struck by the view – largely unchallenged, and openly endorsed by one contributor above – that only Republicans have the right to question Republicans. About anything. I know this is the mantra at Redstate, but I would have thought they would realize – or would at least be called on if they didn’t – that in a democracy leaders are supposed to be answerable (that word again!) to ALL the people, not just their supporters.
Sure, everyone’s hoping for some fat, slow pitches. Sure, no one likes to be ambushed or totally overwhelmed by hostile questioning. But is it just me, or does the current administration, and their most ardent supporters, carry this to a new extreme? Viz. the phony FEMA Q&A session? Viz. the political fora with only pre-approved supporters allowed in?
Cf. the Parliamentary model, where leaders are required to answer – well, respond publicly to – questions posed by the opposition, at least once a week. It makes for lively political theatre, which often obfuscates as much as it enlightens, but at least it celebrates the idea that in a democracy anyone is entitled to question anyone else, rather than being automatically ruled out of order for not being a pre-screened (I almost said “pre-fabricated”) yesman. Or yeswoman.
Maybe I’m just not jaded enough.
Hard to believe, I know, but I’ve just come through singing three performances of “Messiah” and a little goodness may have accidentally rubbed off on me.
John,
I don’t understand, but I will say I don’t care much for kings myself.
Anyway, my last comment was more an effort at humor – perhaps failed – than argument.
No, Bernard, you were funny.
Me too, he hoped.
Ben Franklin: You have a Republic if you can keep it. What will you do now?
Big Ben: Well, I thought I’d sell annuities with large commissions and high surrender charges to unsuspecting widows.
Alexander Solzheniytsin: I found better material in the Gulag.
Not that I care for Kings, but at least they had harums.
Hmmm. Did you skip the light fandango?
“I’m watching ‘Troy’ at the moment. It would please me if Hillary was Achilles and dragged the corpse of Redstate around by the ankles until they cry ‘Apollo!'”
I saw Troy a few weeks ago. Given that many people don’t like Senator Clinton already, I think she’d be universally considered unbearable if she took to her tent to sulk the way Brad Pitt did.
Besides, if she wore his costumes, we’d have that cleavage discussion all over again.
Though the gay love angle would play into the Republican cliche.
And since Achilles ends up very very dead at the end, that wouldn’t be a story with a happy Democratic ending, even though I’m not at all clear who’d be playing Agamemnon.
“Cf. the Parliamentary model, where leaders are required to answer – well, respond publicly to – questions posed by the opposition, at least once a week.”
One certainly doesn’t see George W. Bush playing well in that arena, which gives a very different sort of verbal training than our Congress does, and in this the British, and their Parliamentary model come off far the better and more clever.
Elected officials have one job, getting re-elected. That is their job description. Given that twenty percent of Americans cannot find their Country on a map, it can be complicated, but there is lots of help available.
CEOs have one job, maximizing return on investment. That is their job description. Money collects interest continuously. It doesn’t take Christmas off, or Martin Luther King Day. Money isn’t affected by Heritage or Culture. Money is mobile so it doesn’t take long-term geopolitical risks too seriously. Money can help elected officials get re-elected, especially with universal suffrage.
I’m finding it harder and harder to tell the difference between the Democrats and Republicans. Rove is advising Obama.
Putin is having a good time tonight. He resents us for having bankrupted the Soviets in the 1980s. Now he’s sitting on a pile of money and we’re $70 trillion in the hole. He’s in Moscow and we’re in Afghanistan (freeing ordinary moms and dads, no less). Now that Bill Moyer’s producer’s housemate has taken a break from selling out Israel for a Nobel Peace Prize, she’s lecturing him about how to hold fair elections. That vodka’s got to taste pretty good.
The Bush administration Sunday called on Russia to investigate claims the vote was manipulated.
From: President Putin, The Russian Republic
To: President Bush, The United States of America
Subject: Voting Irregularities Concern
Date: 02DEC07; 8:34pm
Dear George;
Thank you for your interest in democracy and fair elections for all. I have tasked my top assistant to look into your concerns. He has completed an investigation and has reported to me that the elections were, in fact, fair. Say hi to your Mom, Dad, and Laura.
Your friend with the good heart;
Vlad
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071203/D8T9LR000.html
JakeB.
I skipped the pro(to)col for spelling “harem”.
Thanks for the heads up.
Bill:
“Rove is advising Obama.”
I found this sentence amusing in Rove’s memo, when he speaks of Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy expertise:
“It is true she was first lady, not secretary of state, and nobody will ever mistake her for James Baker III.”
This, from a guy whose boss couldn’t even grab the chance of mistaking James Baker III for James Baker III.
re Putin: Bush peeked into Putin’s soul so he could cheat on his metaphysics exam.
Gary:
” ….. that wouldn’t be a story with a happy Democratic ending.”
Well, now that Rove is advising Obama, we might have a trojan horse of a different color.
Orson Welles or Lee J. Cobb would make a believable Agamemnon. Zero Mostel would be funny in the role, Brando would be oddly interesting, and Olivier could have done the part with his little finger. But ultimately, my choice would have been either Buddy Hackett or Chill Wills.
Marjorie Main would have brought gravitas to the role.
But then I thought Jimmy Stewart would have been a great Hamlet:
“To be or not to be …. wull, that’s the doggone question. That’s right ….. that’s right …. to be or not to be, perchance to find Zuzu’s petals.”
I think that a petition to authority figures signed with typical BBS/forum handles is unwise for the same reasons this would: “We, the undersigned slans, wish to make our displeasure known at the extent to which your merhum{1} interferance has disrupted the latest distros of our respective fanacs.” Or, say, “We, the undersigned, object strenously to proposed bill ### for its denial of TPE and queening opportunities.” Both those fields’ jargon and what most of us would think of us routine handles seem about equally strange and disconcerting to many authorities with less experience of the net or the respective communities whose jargon I cite here. And when you want authorities to do something for you, it’s a sound strategy to reduce the number of incidental sources of bad reaction so that you haven’t used up their attention and hypothetical good will on trivialities rather than the real point.
As someone noted up above, “Person X, who posts as Handle to RedState.org” would be a very good signature format, providing a string that an outsider could use to follow in and keep track of the whole “stable posting identity that isn’t always immediately linked to a real-world name” thing.
Oh, whoops, forgot the footnote. I can’t remember if it’s “merhum” or “meerhum” and invite informed correction if I got it wrong.
“I am struck by the view – largely unchallenged, and openly endorsed by one contributor above – that only Republicans have the right to question Republicans”
That’s not what I was endorsing at all. My point was that in a primary campaign, where it’s largely Republicans choosing a Republican candidate, questions asked from a liberal perspective (or that reflect a liberal view of conservatism) aren’t of much use.
So I agree with the commenters who think that the use of handles lessens the crediblity of the petition.
This assumes that, somewhere in the real world, the outrage of a dozen or so folks on RedState matters to anyone other than them.
I’m not sure that is so.
It doesn’t seem too much to ask that the questions in a Republican primary debate come from a Republican/conservative perspective.
I am struck by the view – largely unchallenged, and openly endorsed by one contributor above – that only Republicans have the right to question Republicans.
I am struck by the same thing.
I guess it depends on whether you want a debate or an infomercial.
Elected officials have one job, getting re-elected. That is their job description.
CEOs have one job, maximizing return on investment. That is their job description.
And there, in two simple statements, is the story of how the good old USA went straight down the crapper.
Putin is having a good time tonight.
No doubt.
Thanks –
only Republicans have the right to question Republicans.
I really don’t get this objection. Granted that the RS editorial is full of self-importance and excessive outrage (wow, that’s a rarity in the blogosphere), but the basic objection seems pretty reasonable to me. Here’s the way I see it — maybe someone could help me see what I’m missing:
– The purpose of these Republican debates is to help Republican primary voters (henceforth “RPVs”) decide whom to vote for;
– RPVs will be best served if the questions that are uppermost in their mind are asked of the candidates;
– Questions submitted by actual Republican primary voters are more likely to reflect the concerns of the average RPV than are questions submitted by Democrats in general and Democratic partisans in particular;
– To the extent that the questions that were asked didn’t reflect the concerns of RPVs, the debate did not fulfill its primary purpose very well.
List of pseudonyms used in the American constitutional debates.
KenB and dkilmer,
In an ideal world maybe the pre-primary debates would be about informing likely primary voters, but we just don’t live in such a world. From CNN’s perspective, it’s as much or more about attracting viewers than informing those viewers. In order to do so, they pick questions that they think are likely to attract eyeballs or that will stimulate discussion about the debate (and CNN) afterwards. RedState and their conservative brethren are making the mistake of assuming that any deviations from the ideal debate must be due to the ever-present left wing bias of CNN and the MSM in general. They never seem to consider that there are other biases in the media that explain its failures, and which do so in a more consistent manner than the non-stop cries of left-wing bias. Media bias may be pervasive, but it’s largely orthogonal to the left-right axis.
“I think that a petition to authority figures signed with typical BBS/forum handles is unwise”
Bruce, there’s absolutely no reason to call it a petition. Please read the post, see for yourself, and tell me if you don’t agree that that’s an inappropriate mischaracterization of a simple and ordinary blog post of opinion.
I think highly of your judgement, so if you tell me you think I’m wrong, I’ll take that seriously.
Gary, I agree that it’s not written primarily as a petition, but it also looks to me like it’s intended for presentation to some chosen folks at CNN as an expression of the community’s will or something of the sort. Half-dissent, maybe?
On further thought, I think I’ll diagnose confused and unclear motives on the part of Red State posters, as opposed to a well-defined multi-pronged intent.
My point was that in a primary campaign, where it’s largely Republicans choosing a Republican candidate, questions asked from a liberal perspective (or that reflect a liberal view of conservatism) aren’t of much use.
I really don’t get this objection
If elected, will you employ signing statements to control what parts of legislation you will comply with, and what parts not?
If elected, under what conditions will you pursue military action against Iran?
If elected, how will you address the impending crisis in the credit market?
If elected, will you endorse Kyoto, or continue the current administration’s policy of not doing so?
You have stated your opposition to gay marriage. What do you have to say to gay couples who own property and raise children together?
I think these are all reasonable and relevant questions to ask Republican candidates for president, and I think any Republican voter would be interested in the answers, regardless of whether the person who asks them is registered R or D.
And, not for nothing, but the debate questions were submitted via YouTube.
Finally, not to pick on RS, but what’s with the Tim Conway ad? What’s next, ads for SansaBelt slacks?
thanks –
Dismissing whether the RS post is a petition or not, I’m curious about the following:
What are properly allowed and legitimate names, or the form of names, for petition use when posting publically on the internet so as to persuade web readers of the righteousness of one’s cause?
For written petitions, most states have clearly defined rules on what is a “legal name” and what is not. Is there any reason an on-petition, whether to a government body or not, shouldn’t use the same rules? Why not?
That’s for legal petitions. Irrelevant to an online petition posted for the purpose of political persuasion online.
So say you. But why should the rules for an online petition be different from the rules for a paper petition?
As a general thing, I think that where a familiar, conventional, conservative usage communicates clearly and isn’t bound to something innately objectionable or immoral, it’s the right usage for communicating to a mixed and unfamiliar audience. Save the novelty and weirdness for when it’s what actually is called for to accurately represent a new and weird situation.
“But why should the rules for an online petition be different from the rules for a paper petition?”
I could answer that, but since we’re not talking about a petition, it isn’t relevant.
Abstractly, I can’t imagine why a “petition” to my hypothetical grandmother asking that she serve chocolate ice cream at every family dinner, signed by me and my hypothetical cousins, would need to adhere to legal forms. But you may have a different relationship with everyone in the world, in which legal requirements are at all time the default, and an exception needs a specific cause.
But the only resemblance whatever the post in question has is that it’s signed by more than one person. As it turns out, studies reveal that not all documents ever signed by more than one person, and not even all blog posts ever signed by more than one person, are therefore magically transformed into “petitions.”
I’d really like to stop discussing this now, as I might otherwise have to kill myself of boredom.
“But the only resemblance whatever the post in question has is that it’s signed by more than one person.”
Should be “But the only resemblance whatever the post in question has to a petition is that it’s signed by more than one person.”