Scorched Earth

I have to go link crazy for you to understand why I'm putting this up, but via Tim F at Balloon Juice, here's an amusing excerpt from Thomas Levenson's takedown of Megan McArdle's explanation of why she is opposed to a public option for health care:

There’s a lot more wrong in McArdle’s screed. She has very little understanding of the actual daily life of biomedical research — this next paragraph is so full of false statements it wearies the critic, which may be a deliberate feature rather than a bug of McArdle’s prose. Think of it as a form of rhetorical pesticide, an analogue to the tactics of plants that generate so much poison that those that would munch its leaves recoil in horror at its bitterness.

This is extraordinarily harsh, but I completely understand what he means. This is because I can remember that the hardest part of writing this blog post refuting Megan McArdle's claim that debtors have some moral obligation to pay was untangling McArdle's arguments in the first place, so that I could attempt to refute each of her points in turn. The only reason I've ever bothered to read McArdle is because I think she's a handy point of reference for what conservative-ish libertarians are thinking, but like Levenson, I finally had to give up because I was tired of reading arguments that are intellectually inconsistent and not well-thought-out just because the person making the arguments at least tries to sound reasonable about it all. And that's the case with the post that Levenson is busy dissecting; as with many who oppose a public option for health care, a lot of fantastical assumptions are made without any direct reference to how such programs work in other countries, that is, other than to (usually) highlight horror stories of people not getting certain kinds of experimental treatments (without mentioning the millions here who get no treatment at all) or apocryphal reports of waiting times (without mentioning the wait times many American with health insurance endure.) And why should I waste my time reading McArdle's 5,000 word dressing up of these arguments, when I can just get it at lesser (right-wing) blogs in 500 words or less?

Thoughts on Starting and Nurturing a Blog

Xanthippas is on vacation, so I'm posting this blog he wrote in commemoration of Three Wise Men's five-year anniversary for him.

To mark the occasion it might be more useful to title this post "Five Years on the Interwebs" or something similar, as what prompts it is the fact that today marks the beginning of this blog's sixth year in existence. But our little anniversary prompts me to reflect upon exactly why I started this blog, what I've learned in the process, and what I think we've accomplished. This is what I wrote in my very first post, five years ago:

This is my new blog, which I've created purely on a whim. I figure I'll post some commentary on politics, or things I find amusing, or somesuch. We'll see.

That qualifies as a mission statement as much as anything and surprisingly, we've stayed pretty true to the purpose of posting commentary on mostly politics, but also other interesting things that catch our fancy. At the time, my friends and I were in the habit of e-mailing each other articles, and then going back and forth in e-mail about them. Having learned from a friend about the ease with which a blog could be created and run, I decided that it might be more efficient to simply post those articles online, and then go back and forth in comments as we saw fit. That didn't exactly happen; we still go back and forth in e-mail over interesting things, though who I send articles too has changed to some extent and sometimes I send an article out and blog about it here as well.

So, since my original purpose hasn't panned out, why have I kept blogging? Quite simply, because I like to. Like most people, I have strong opinions on a range of topics. I happen to believe my opinions are mostly reasonable, well-informed and well-thought out and, like many bloggers, I have a certain presumptuousness that leads me to believe my opinions are worth sharing with the world. Naturally, a blog that is accessible to anyone with an internet connection is perfect for me. At the same time though, I find blogging to be a fulfilling way of both recording and working out my opinions on subjects. Few things will force you to be prudent and careful in your thinking and writing, than knowing that the product of your effort is open to criticism by anyone who feels the desire to stop by your blog. Blogging spurs me to think more carefully about subjects that I might otherwise take too casual an intellectual approach to.

I've also learned more about the world while blogging. Since nearly the beginning, we've aspired to make our blog something that would be useful to others. Instead of reading something that inspires me to throw up a few hastily written sentences, I've sometimes found myself instead researching what I've read for an hour or two or longer, to collect enough information to put together a meaningful and useful post. And in the process, I've become more informed about a subject whose knowledge of which I might have been otherwise content to leave at one or two briefly skimmed articles.

Also, this blog has led me to connect with people that I might otherwise never have met, such as my colleagues in the Texas Progressive Alliance, and other bloggers whose work I've read and who occasionally stop by to read us. In that manner I've become much more personally involved in politics, an outcome I certainly didn't imagine when I typed that very first blog post. For that alone this blog has been worth the time and effort.

No doubt we've aspired to gain some measure of recognition for our blogging. We've all done our best at some point to market our blog to readers and other bloggers, and that's met with mixed success. I certainly wouldn't mind having more regular readers, who comment on our articles, and enjoy with those readers the sorts of back and forth exchanges I see and envy on other blogs. That being said, perhaps we've accomplished our true goal, which is to make this blog interesting and useful to the three of us who contribute to it. Who could ask for more?

All of our lives have changed considerably since we started our blog, and the time we've had to devote to it has fluctuated as well. That will almost certainly continue. However, I don't imagine circumstances will ever change enough for the three of us to want to stop blogging, and making our own tiny contributions to the vast world of ideas that can be found online. We simply get too much joy out of doing this.

Here's to another five years!

Protect Texas Bloggers!

Vince Leibowitz of Capital Annex writes about a bill presently before the Texas House that would offer Texas political bloggers the same protections currently granted the mainstream media under Texas law. He's given us permission to copy and past him verbatim on this issue, so here you go:

On Monday, the House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence Committee will hold a public hearing on a bill which will give Texas bloggers and citizen journalists some much-needed protections under Texas law.

The committee will take public testimony on House Bill 4237 by State Rep. Aaron Pena (D-Edinburg).

This bill gives bloggers and citizen journalists the same protections that the mainstream media has when it comes to covering matters of "public concern," such as legislative proceedings, school board meetings, and the actions of state officials.

Under current law, commonly known as the "Privileged Matters Clause" of the Texas Civil Practices & Remedies Code (Sec. 73.002), coverage by the mainstream media of matters of "public concern" such as those listed above cannot be used as grounds for a libel action.

Texas bloggers and citizen journalists, however, do not have similar protections. In theory, if a politician or officeholder wanted to cause a blog a great deal of problems, he or she could file a libel or slander lawsuit over writings discussing a matter of "public concern." It would then be up to the court system--after, no doubt, significant expense for the blogger or citizen journalist--to determine whether or not the "Privileged Matters Clause" applies to bloggers.

Texas bloggers have been fortunate in that no one has been forced to be a test case for this yet. Rep. Pena's bill ensures that no Texas blogger or citizen journalist ever will. It gives us the same protections as the mainstream media in this regard.

Texas bloggers and citizen journalists have pushed for "Privileged Matters" protection since 2006.

The fight for "Privileged Matters" protection was triggered after State Rep. Vicki Truitt (R-Keller) filed HB 129 in late 2006. Truitt's bill was a broadly-worded bill which would have essentially subjected every blog and citizen journalist in Texas to frivolous lawsuits.

Truitt said the bill was designed to allow people legal recourse if someone knowingly publishes information about them online that could lead to identity theft.

However, her bill was poorly drafted and opened bloggers and citizen journalists to frivolous lawsuits.

Truitt ultimately pulled the bill after Republican and Democratic bloggers (as well as party-neutral bloggers) raised outcry significant enough for the mainstream media to notice.

After Truitt announced she had screwed up on the bill, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram editorialized that bloggers and citizen journalists needed "Privileged Matters" protections, which I first wrote about a couple of days after Truitt's bill was filed:

The law specifically protects "a newspaper or other periodical" from being sued for libel when reporting on things that happen in a court of law, the proceedings of a government body or meetings dealing with public issues.

The protection also extends to "reasonable and fair comment on or criticism of an official act of a public official or other matter of public concern for general information."

One way to look at it is that the Star-Telegram is specifically protected by state law when it criticizes Truitt for her official acts, but Internet bloggers are not. That's not good.

We're both doing the same thing, and we both deserve the same protection for fair reporting and comment.

During the days before the 2007 session, with the controversy over the election for House Speaker and other concerns, it was difficult to find legislators willing to introduce legislation to give bloggers and citizen journalists "Privileged Matters" protections, and the issue was ultimately laid to rest after Truitt pulled her bill with the intent of trying again for the legislation this session.

This session, State Rep. Aaron Pena (D-Edinburg) was asked to carry the legislation and agreed to do so. Pena is himself a blogger and understands the technology and the legal issues at play for bloggers.

HISTORY OF THE PRIVILEGED MATTERS CLAUSE

The Privileged Matters Clause predates the 1984 substantive revision of the Civil Practices & Remedies Code which was accomplished with Senate Bill 797 in the 69th Regular Session of the Texas Legislature. Prior to that, the Privileged Matters Clause was codified at VACS 5432.

The concept of "Privileged Matters" for the media has existed in Texas Law since 1919 when the Privileged Matters Clause was amended to libel laws enacted in 1901 .

It has remained largely unchanged ever since.

MONDAY'S HEARING

The bill is set for a hearing on Monday before the Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence Committee of the Texas House. The hearing begins upon final adjournment. The bill is set the same day as the HCR on the impeachment of Sharon Keller, so expect the hearing to be packed for that legislation as well as numerous other bills.

Due to time constraints, those of us supporting the legislation have made the strategic decision to try and limit verbal testimony to three witnesses. However, we need as many people as possible who can to show up for the hearing and sign cards in favor of HB 4237. You may also submit written testimony to the committee.

If you will be unable to be present at the hearing and would like to submit written testimony, please forward a copy (in .doc or .rtf) of your statement to vince.leibowitz@gmail.com with HB 4237 in the subject line, and we will make sure it gets to the Committee.

Amusing Quote

Amusing, and accurate:

"Creating your own blog is about as easy as creating your own urine, and you're about as likely to find someone else interested in it." -- Lore Sjöberg

Found here, amongst other apt quotes (via Boing Boing.) I think I can safely say that my co-bloggers and I all share this sentiment. 

Good On Them

Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post is recognizing the best state bloggers around the country, and my colleagues at Burnt Orange Report and Capital Annex were duly recognized for their contribution to the Texas blogging scene. Well done, and if you haven't already go check 'em out.

On Intelligent Discourse

I recently discovered that Roger Ebert, the famed film critic, has a blog. Ebert-who blogs about considerably more than just film-is absolutely fantastic and I recommend him to anyone, especially for gems like this one on the diminishing utility of snark:

Snarking is cultural vandalism. I have arrived at this conclusion belatedly. I have been guilty of snarking, and of enjoying snarks. In the matter of snarking, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But it has grown entirely out of hand. It is time to put away childish things. I must restore my balance, view the world in a fair way, hope to inspire more appreciation than ridicule. No doubt there will always be a role for snarking, given the proper target and an appropriate venue, and I reserve the right to snark when it is deserved, as in certain movie reviews. But in general I must become more well-behaved.

A snarker is one who snarks. The word is said to be a combination of snide and remark. There are slithering undertones of shark, bark, and stark. There is also, for me, an association with snipe. The practice involves holding someone up to ridicule not so much for anything they actually did, as for having the presumption to be who they are.

[...]

What concerns me is that snark functions as a device to punish human spontaneity, eccentricity, non-conformity and simple error. Everyone is being snarked into line. All celebrities are under unremitting scrutiny. How dare Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, or Mia Farrow before them, adopt more than one Third World baby? Do they have nothing better to do with their money?

Reading this, I thought also of a this NY Times op-ed I read earlier in the day about Eric Holder and the criticism surrounding his "nation of cowards" remark:

JUST weeks before taking the oath of office in 1861, Abraham Lincoln spoke to a crowd in Pittsburgh. The times were fraught. Since Lincoln’s election, several slave-holding states had left the Union. More were threatening to go. But Lincoln told the worried assemblage, “There is really no crisis except an artificial one!”

Actually, Lincoln said much more than that — hundreds upon hundreds of words, calculated to soothe the public’s fear of war. But had his speech been covered the way the news media cover political remarks today, it is likely that most people would have heard only that one line, and Lincoln, the nation’s greatest president, would have been pilloried as an out-of-touch bumpkin.

Writing teachers everywhere tell their students that context is everything. But if the response to Attorney General Eric Holder’s remarks last week to Justice Department employees is any guide, teachers everywhere are wrong. The speech was written for Black History Month. Now, a week later, what most people know about the talk is that the attorney general accused his fellow citizens of being, on the matter of race, “a nation of cowards.”

The speech itself was more than 2,300 words. The already infamous phrase occurred about 150 words in. Thus we are left with well over 2,000 unanalyzed words — that is, the context for the phrase. For too many critics, the context of Mr. Holder’s remarks (like the context of former Senator Phil Gramm’s accusation during the election campaign that we are a “nation of whiners”) is quite beside the point.

I'm sure quite a bit of snark was directed at Holder for that line, snark which to be effective required that his line be taken completely out of context. In fact, the response to Holder's words proved one of his own points, when he said that our discourse on race "is too often simplistic and left to those on the extremes who are not hesitant to use these issues to advance nothing more than their own narrow self-interest."

So here we have being examined two trends, snark and "fauxrage", the manufactured outrage aimed at crippling a public figure's ability to communicate a message and, during campaign season, to prevent that person from getting elected to office. I don't claim to have conducted a scientific study to prove this, but I don't think it requires any great stretch of the imagination to say that blogs are largely responsible for these trends. The interconnected web of blogs is highly efficient at communication memes around the internet, no more so when the meme is simple and/or outrageous in character.

At the same time, what better way to distinguish oneself from the teeming mass of blogs, but to engage in snark, delivering the most vicious of attacks via the pointiest of elbows and the cheapest of cheap shots? It's true that there are quite a few targets out there in the world that are deserving of snark, but it's also true that witty or vicious snark gets readers. It's not that it's easy to write good (or mean) snark, but it certainly requires less work than actually knowing what you're talking about or thinking about what you're going to write. And thanks to the interconnectedness of blogs you can pop off a nasty-but clever-line and suddenly your words are echoed aroung the blogosphere.

Now I'm not going to play the role of blog-snob here, and try to claim that we've never engaged in any cheap shots, or snark in the place of actual analysis or opinion. Sometimes snark is the appropriate response, and everybody succumbs to a moment of rhetorical weakness now and then. But I think Ebert and Carter are right, and we do a disservice to national discourse when we resort to simply trying to one-up each other's snark or outrage. 

Jeffrey Goldberg is a Moron

It's self-explanatory. Though for me to say as much must mean that I think all Jews are genetically programmed to be morons.

Never Heard of This Guy?

Me neither (via Sadly, No!):

James G. Cummings, who police say was shot to death by his wife two months ago, allegedly had a cache of radioactive materials in his home suitable for building a “dirty bomb.”

According to an FBI field intelligence report from the Washington Regional Threat and Analysis Center posted online by WikiLeaks, an organization that posts leaked documents, an investigation into the case revealed that radioactive materials were removed from Cummings’ home after his shooting death on Dec. 9.

The report posted on the WikiLeaks Web site states that “On 9 December 2008, radiological dispersal device components and literature, and radioactive materials, were discovered at the Maine residence of an identified deceased [person] James Cummings.”

The section referring to Cummings can be read here.

It says that four 1-gallon containers of 35 percent hydrogen peroxide, uranium, thorium, lithium metal, thermite, aluminum powder, beryllium, boron, black iron oxide and magnesium ribbon were found in the home.

Also found was literature on how to build “dirty bombs” and information about cesium-137, strontium-90 and cobalt-60, radioactive materials. The FBI report also stated there was evidence linking James Cummings to white supremacist groups.

[...]

An application for membership in the National Socialist Movement filled out by Cummings also was found in the residence, according to the report. Cummings’ wife, Amber B. Cummings, 31, told investigators that her husband spoke of “dirty bombs,” according to the report, and mixed chemicals in her kitchen sink. She allegedly told police that Cummings subjected her to years of mental, physical and sexual abuse. She also said that Cummings was “very upset” when Barack Obama was elected president.

So, a crazy right-winger, neo-nazi and white supremacist was apparently involved in a credible plot to build an actual "dirty bomb", a plot that was thwarted only when his wife did us the favor of shooting him. Strangely, this news item is not being splashed all over blogs that are apparently obsessed with terrorism. Why is that?

The Left Is To Blame?

Usually I think Glenn Greenwald is dead on, but I just don't get this:

The New Republic's John Judis today has an excellent analysis of the politics behind the stimulus package -- one which applies equally to most other political controversies. Judis argues that the stimulus package ended up being far inferior to what it could have been and points to this reason why that happened:

But I think the main reason that Obama is having trouble is that there is not a popular left movement that is agitating for him to go well beyond where he would even ideally like to go. Sure, there are leftwing intellectuals like Paul Krugman who are beating the drums for nationalizing the banks and for a $1 trillion-plus stimulus. But I am not referring to intellectuals, but to movements that stir up trouble among voters and get people really angry. Instead, what exists of a popular left is either incapable of action or in Obama's pocket. . . .

A member of one liberal group, Campaign for America's Future, pronounced the stimulus bill "a darn good first step." MoveOn -- as far as I can tell -- has attacked conservative Republicans for opposing the bill, while lamely urging Democrats to back it. Of course, all these groups may have thought the stimulus bill and the bailout were ideal, but I doubt it. I bet they had the same criticisms of these measures that Krugman or The American Prospect's Ezra Klein or my own colleagues had, but they made the mistake that political groups often make: subordinating their concern about issues to their support for the party and its leading politician.

During the 2008 election, Obama co-opted huge portions of the Left and its infrastructure so that their allegiance became devoted to him and not to any ideas. Many online political and "news" outlets -- including some liberal political blogs -- discovered that the most reliable way to massively increase traffic was to capitalize on the pro-Obama fervor by turning themselves into pro-Obama cheerleading squads. Grass-roots activist groups watched their dues-paying membership rolls explode the more they tapped into that same sentiment and turned themselves into Obama-supporting appendages. Even labor unions and long-standing Beltway advocacy groups reaped substantial benefits by identifying themselves as loyal foot soldiers in the Obama movement.

The major problem now is that these entities -- the ones that ought to be applying pressure on Obama from the Left and opposing him when he moves too far Right -- are now completely boxed in. They've lost -- or, more accurately, voluntarily relinquished -- their independence. They know that criticizing -- let alone opposing -- Obama will mean that all those new readers they won last year will leave; that all those new dues-paying members will go join some other, more Obama-supportive organization; that they will prompt intense backlash and anger among the very people -- their members, supporters and readers -- on whom they have come to rely as the source of their support, strength, and numbers.

Okay, I'm not as politically savvy or focused as either Glenn Greenwald or John Judis, but I have several problems with this. Here's Judis again: "Of course, all these groups may have thought the stimulus bill and the bailout were ideal, but I doubt it." Let's examine that. First of all, why does it have to be ideal to be supportable? Any halfway politically savvy group will realize that getting an "ideal" bill past Senate Republicans was impossible. What's wrong with it being good enough for now? Second, I think it is highly presumptuous and insupportable to assume that liberal advocacy groups know what an ideal bill would look like. Even leaving out economists of the right (who I assume, perhaps wrongly but I don't think so, aren't being widely read by people on the left) reading the various op-eds and blog posts by economists of the center and the left doesn't really give you a clue about what size the stimulus package should be (trust me on this.) Reading them, you could arrive at a range of anywhere from $800 billion to $1.5 trillion, and most economists-understandably-can't be pinned down on an exact number because they can't in good faith provide one. So what's so wrong about being in favor of the size of this bill?

And what's so wrong about mobilizing public opinion in support of this particular bill? If you think this bill is the best that you think your side can get, why wouldn't you go on the offensive against Republicans for opposing it? Or target fiscally conservative Democrats who are waffling on it? How is that selling out to the Obama administration?

Greenwald takes it even further. Apparently acquiescence on the political realities that surround the stimulus package are evidence that liberal groups have "voluntarily relinquished -- their independence." And yet nowhere-and I mean literally nowhere-have I seen anything like support for the Obama administration's decision to maintain the Bush administration's position on the state secrets privilege. Not on blogs, and not by liberal advocacy groups. Greenwald is not exactly afraid to take people on so I'm not sure why he goes with the much reviled "some say/some do this" approach. I read a lot of blogs, and I just don't see that much evidence for the point he's trying to make. Maybe I'm reading just the non-sellouts, but I don't think so. 

People like (presumably) Judis and (certainly) Greenwald, have routinely and harsly criticized Republicans for their willingness to toe the line for whatever the Bush administration wanted, demonstrating aptly the right's lack of principle at times. But Greenwald himself has focused on completely untenable positions that the right-wing has taken that failed to have any impact on the Bush administration, and the lesson we're supposed to take from that is that left-wing groups should do the same? So far no left-wing group has approached the hero-worship of the right, nor have they been willing to participate in frustrating and fruitless demands for action the Obama administration won't take. And this is a bad thing?

I simply don't understand. Or I should say, I don't think these arguments make much sense. Judis' argument is a turnaround of the usual attacks on the "hysterical left"; only this time, they were apparently not hysterical enough. Greenwald has gotten up in arms about liberals giving Obama too much credit and leeway before, so he's just expanding on an already-running thesis. But I just don't see it here. Liberal advocacy groups and bloggers, faced with a difficult-to-understand issue and a stonewalling Republican party, decided to get behind the best package they thought they could get. This is wrong, how? 

More on the Printed Blog

A few weeks ago I mentioned the Printed Blog, a new service that takes blog postings and solidifies them in the form of a weekly paper/magazine. The first edition is out here and I have to say, it looks pretty decent (though the approach of some of the columns(?) is very Onion-like.) Well Simon Owens interviewed the man behind this novel/anitquated idea for the PBS website MediaShift; he was kind enough to send us a link to his interview, so here it is for your reading enjoyment. I have to say, I'm intrigued. I hope it works.

Anonymity

Professor Brian Leiter links to a story about the online law school forum Autoadmit, which he characterizes as "cesspool of infantile morons, anonymous sociopaths, and misogynistic and racist freaks" (it's all true, trust me.) It's a fascinating story in its own right, but it also serves as a useful reminder to us denizens of the internet that generally, what you say is recorded for eternity (or long enough to count at least), can actually do real harm to others, and can come back to haunt you if someone is determined enough to track you down. So just as a reminder, be prudent out there, okay?

The New Media

Welcome to the 21st Century...where the printed blog will replace the newspaper (via Megan McArdle.) Yes, they're completely serious.

Thinkers, eh?

As we are want to do, we indulge in the latest blog fashion, the Typealyzer. And what does it say about us?

The logical and analytical type. They are especialy attuned to difficult creative and intellectual challenges and always look for something more complex to dig into. They are great at finding subtle connections between things and imagine far-reaching implications.

They enjoy working with complex things using a lot of concepts and imaginative models of reality. Since they are not very good at seeing and understanding the needs of other people, they might come across as arrogant, impatient and insensitive to people that need some time to understand what they are talking about.

Of course, any analysis by a machine of the writing of this blog necessarily includes a lot of things we didn't actually write, but simply cut and pasted from people who are considerably smarter than we are. Come to think of it, that might explain this as well.

Second Us?

Jon Swift, in my opinion the most inclusive and encouraging pseudononymous blogger in the whole blogosphere, has nominated us for the 2008 Weblog Awards in the category of "Best Hidden Gem." If you enjoy our writing, please feel free to second our nomination. If you don't...well, then nominate somebody else! 

UPDATE: Oh, and if you'd like to nominate some other quality bloggers in their various respective categories, the list of categories can be found here.

Just Doesn't Get It

My co-bloggers Adam and Nat-Wu are familir with my raging contempt for the left-wing blog "TalkLeft", and most particulary for one of its two bloggers, Big Tent Democrat. BTD is one of the most witless "liberal" bloggers in the entire blogosphere, and he demonstrated that time and time again during the primary season as he engaged in the most shallow, superficial and thoughtless analysis of the campaigns to criticize Barack Obama for every action he took or every minor connection to notorious people (Wright, Rezko, Ayers...you name it) while all the time proclaiming to support Obama for President. BTD is infected with the sort of knee-jerk contrarianism (with a healthy heaping of condescension to boot) that he mistakes independent thought, and he seems to regard himself as some sort of hero for not being in the tank for the Democratic Party like the rest of the progressive blogosphere supposedly is. Here he is today, writing about a piece by Matt Stollers and Chris Bowers who discuss why the progressive blogosphere doesn't get more respect from Democratic politicians:

Therein lies the problem. Most of the Left blogs work for politicians, not for issues. THAT is why the Netroots gets no respect.

Bowers is making the point that progressive bloggers should not expect Democratic politicians to come running to them because the bloggers support them. Which is entirely sensible. But not enough for BTD, who feels the need to indict the whole left-wing blogosphere for uncritically supporting Democrats:

To gain respect, fight, with the truth, for what you believe. Not the politician you believe in (as I said it is a mistake to believe in any politician). The "Netroots"/Left blogs stopped doing that for the most part. They became a Wurlitzer for Barack Obama, during the primaries against Hillary Clinton and now of course during the general election - without regard to issues.

When it comes to McCain, the choice is easy it seems to me. While I strongly disagree with Palinpaloooza for political reasons, I must say that I owe the Netroots a modicum of respect because they are acting in detriment to Barack Obama's political fortunes because they despise Sarah Palin. Palin seems standard issue to me and I REALLY despise John McCain and what he stands for so it is easy for me to do the politically smart thing - focus on McCain.

This is beyond stupid. The reason many in the progressive blogosphere came around to Obama is because they believed Obama to the be the more progressive candidate based on their evaluation of the candidates stances on the issues, which anyone who read progressive/liberal blogs from last year on would easily realize (for an example see us in our endorsement of Obama, where we laid out a list of reasons-based on the issues-for why we supported Obama over Clinton; we were not alone in this regard.) BTD is so clueless that he doesn't even realize that his point leaves the reader wondering exactly what criteria he progressive blogosphere used to select Obama over Hillary. In BTD world, liberal and progressive bloggers unfairly hitched their wagon to Obama over Hillary at the outset (for unknown reasons) and then never wrote a critical word about Obama again. Reading that, you might be startled to see BTD write this:

It surprises many people to know that I supported Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton in the primaries. I considered the two to be identical on the issues (except for health care, where I felt too ignorant to take a position on which of the two positions was superior) and preferred Obama because I believed him to be more electable. Weak tea for many people I imagine, but that was my view of the race.

Why does this surprise people? Because I have been extremely critical of Barack Obama since 2005 and was before, during and after the Presidential primaries.

The reason people are surprised by this is because BTD has never written anything indicating he supported Obama over Hillary other than the words "But I support Obama over Hillary"which he appended to the end of every post wherein he attacked Obama. Everything, and I mean almost literally everything, he has written about the primaries has been critical of Obama, or critical of the left for supporting Obama. What little actual analysis of their positions he offered is epitomized by this gem, wherein he argues that Obama demonstrates his naivete by stating that nuclear weapons don't deter terrorists. He says he thinks Obama is more electable, but this appears to be the case only if certain conditions that he demands are met, such as Obama selecting Clinton for VP, or the Democratic Party allowing FL and MI to revote (otherwise the Democratic party would be torn asunder and McCain will most assuredly win.) And now he lambasts the progressive blogosphere for being uncritically supporting of Obama and praises himself for his own critical eye, when the progressive blogosphere time and again detailed the differences between the two candidates in a thorough and informative manner, while BTD wrote post after post explaining why Obama wouldn't win based on his silly and superficial analysis. 

Although I have written my co-bloggers many times to complain and criticize BTD's witless condescension, I've refrained from criticizing him or TalkLeft in general on the blog because frankly there are too may other things to write about, the idiocy of left-wing bloggers is low in the hierarchy of things to be concerned about and I enjoy far more training my sights on idiotic right-wing bloggers. But idiocy is idiocy, and is not to be tolerated even from supposed "allies." BTD insults the progressive/liberal blogosphere with his comments, and he insults our blog in particular. I consider us members of that community (if not prominent ones) and we have done nothing but illustrate over and over again why we think Obama was the better candidate based on the public stances and comments that both Obama and Clinton made on the issues, and it is an insult to us to state otherwise. And I don't lightly take insults about my intellectual integrity from people who are clearly far stupider than I. 

Children and Happiness

Via this Sadly, No! post about something completely unrelated, I stumble across Megan McArdle, who agrees with Will Wilkinson, who says that nobody should really be all that surprised that studies show that people who have children are less happy than people who do not. Here's McArdle:

I don't understand why Will Wilkinson finds this so surprising: children don't make you happy, even though society tells you it does. Surely, a great deal of our raising involves society tricking you into doing things that are not in your immediate self-interest.

And here's Wilkinson:

To accept that we have been made less happy in a real sense by our children threatens our sense of the profundity and the value of that bond. So people get upset when they hear this.

Hmmm. Well, despite Wilkinson's assumptions, I have no interest in arguing with the empirical results of these studies. In fact, I'm perfectly willing to admit that many parents are less happy with children than they were without, and that's why many children in our country are treated so atrociously by their parents. It seems to me that the issue is more about expectations, and how they skew one's view of parenthood. Wilkinson appears to think so as well, but he and McArdle both overstate the case; instead of admitting that some parent's perceive themselves to be less happy, they seem to think that having children actually makes people less happy. Wilkinson again:

We yearn to love our choices, and our lives, with whole hearts. But to do so is to lie to ourselves about ourselves, to close our eyes and cover our ears like children to the profundity of what we have given up.

Okay, but not everyone feels like they've given up more than they've gotten in return. Or really even misses what they've given up. Some parents do, and perhaps they secretly hide their bitterness, or perhaps they drink and scream at their children, or hit their children, or abuse them emotionally. Maybe those parents thought they'd love having kids, maybe they knew they'd hate it and had them anyway, or maybe they didn't care one way or another. But some people eagerly await becoming parents, and enjoy parenthood fully and profoundly, without feeling like they've really given up much at all. They don't do this because society "lies" to them, as McArdle seems to think, or because they are unwilling to admit that they are actually less happy, as Wilkinson seems to think. In fact, they are genuinely happy. I would even go out on a limb and say that some people who were unsure how happy they'd be having children, turn out to be quite happy indeed with the turn of events and never spend a moment thinking about life absent their children. So even though they failed to fall for society's lie that having children makes you happier, they managed to be happier anyway.

Lastly, I would add that it really makes no sense for non-parents like Wilkinson and McArdle to write posts about whether or not having children actually makes you happier or not (and not simply what studies say about how parents feel, which anyone can write about.) Truly, you cannot know what having children makes you feel like until you have them, and I know this as someone who at one time had no children and wanted none, and who now has children and does not desire to imagine life without them. I don't say this because I think parent-hood is an exclusive state and that only parents are permitted or qualified to discuss it, but only because it is difficult for one to truly write about something that one hasn't experienced ( for example, who among us who hasn't experienced the death of a parent could convincingly write about how painful it is?) Wilkinson, absent this experience, can only talk about the "profundity" of the parent-child bond that somehow makes you less happy anyway (and condescend to parents, whose love of their children he equates with puppy love) and McArdle can only pen nonsense about a "noble lie" that perpetuates our species. Had they children of their own, they might sense the disconnect between this study's conclusions and their own. But absent children, and apparently eager to stay that way, they over-reach to demonstrate that they, child-free, are demonstrably better-off than parents...and these studies prove it. Which is as silly as those who condescend to the childless, and question how they can possibly be happy without children in their lives.

Well Hell

I just realized that as of yesterday, our blog has been on the intertubes for four years now. So..yay us!

Texas Blogger Round-Up 4/28

North Texas Liberal analyzed the arguments from Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Flower Mound, and Newt Gingrich in favor of the flat tax. See our conclusions here.

The Commissioner of the General Land Office of Texas is a monumental ass. PDiddie of Brains and Eggs has the dirty details in "Discussted".

Gary at Easter Lemming Liberal News informed his readers about the local elections and other events taking place in a Local Early Voting Edition.

WCNews at Eye On Williamson has This Week's Transportation Wrap-Up.

WhosPlayin resumes his watch on GOP Congressman Michael Burgess, and joins North Texas Liberal in rejecting his "flat tax" proposal as a tax increase on the middle class.

Hal at Half Empty wonders why Texas' junior senator, John Cornyn, doesn't support our troops.

Over at McBlogger, Captain Kroc has a real problem with some of the concessions the City made to a certain developer looking to build condos on Lake Lady Bird.

The Texas Cloverleaf promotes a story about more shenanigans in the Texas Youth Commission, this time forcing a Denton County superintendent to quit before she is fired.

Last week, KUHT (PBS Channel 8) in Houston ran a special on immigration and public attitudes towards it called Houston Have Your Say, which included public officials, activists, ordinary citizens, and a couple of bloggers. Off the Kuff was one of those bloggers, and he wrote about his impressions here.

Vince at Capitol Annex notes that the Texas Association of Business is calling for education reform and wonders if anyone else sees the hypocrisy in that situation.

BossKitty at BlueBloggin looks at yet another VA screw up and continues to ignore the welfare of our troops in the VA Caught In Suicide Coverup.

Apologies

Apologies for the lack of blogging as of late. Our blog appears to have gone into a sort of hibernation, awakening only for a moment here and there to scratch oneself and belch out a short post. That mostly has to do with the fact that my personal and professional circumstances at the moment leave me little time to blog, and that my co-bloggers have about as much time to blog as they ever have. So we're sorry to our readers who find themselves without much to read these days, but hopefully circumstances will permit more comprehensive blogging at some point in the not-too-distant future. 

It's Illegal

I didn't have much to say about the Spitzer debacle before now except perhaps "There goes another one!" But frankly, some of the commentary coming from people on the left about it is beginning to rub me the wrong way. The responses on left-leaning blogs thus far seem to be "Prostitution ain't so bad!" to "Republicans set him up!" to "Don't give Republicans cover by going after him too hard!" (that in email from colleagues.) Here's Glenn Greenwald, for example:

With all of the intense hand-wringing abounding, it's very difficult to discern the standard being applied here. Are any public officials who commit adultery engaged in such morally intolerable behavior that they ought to resign, because that didn't seem to be the standard back in the 1990s? Or is that any illegal behavior of any kind -- no matter how serious or frivolous, whether victim-creating or victimless -- merits resignation? If a political official smokes pot, or gambles in a poker game, or commits adultery in a state where adultery is a crime, are they now so morally beyond the pale that it is time for them to go? Is that the standard here?

I like Greenwald, but I couldn't disagree with him more here. I for one tend to think prostitution should be legal. That does not change the fact that it is certainly illegal now, and any man who secretly engages in the services of a very expensive prostitute as arranged by a service that provides for such, certainly knows that he is engaging in a highly illegal enterprise. Spitzer also allegedly went out of his way to hide the money he was using to pay for the prostitute's services, further indication that he was quite aware of the wrongfulness of his acts. Greenwald and others seem to think that prostitution, as a consensual act between two adults, should not be considered disqualification for political office anymore than adultery. And Greenwald downplays the illegality of the act by comparing it to silly examples like gambling in a card game. But what if that official shifts his money around to hide his thousands of dollars in gambling losses? What if that official routinely spends thousands of dollars going out onto the street to personally buy pot that he then smokes while he's on official business? Greenwald seems to have trouble discerning a standard of conduct here, but I can tell you that it's not difficult to discern at all. If you systematically engage in illegal conduct, fully aware of the illegality of the conduct, and you make every effort to hide that conduct from others, then you are not fit to be the mayor of a small rural town, let alone the governor of a major American state. No, Spitzer is not guilty merely of hypocrisy (though he is certainly guilty of that too.) He is guilty of flouting the law, doing so deliberately and in a manner that reflects a capacity for deceit. Why wouldn't he resign?

I pay no heed to what Republicans have to say about Spitzer. But the fact that the Republican party has its own issues with sex and prostitution does not excuse Spitzer, nor is it a reason to let him off the hook. If Democrats want to attack conservative pundits and bloggers for their willingness to defend disgraced politicians, then we cannot hypocritically defend our own politicians who are clearly undeserving of our defense. As for the conspiracy-mongering...I'm more inclined to be suspicious of conspiracies to pervert justice when the targets don't deserve to go to jail. Spitzer is no Siegelman.

UPDATE: Glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks this way.

UPDATE: Spitzer resigns.