« Robert Gibbs doesn't know what he's doing | truthseeker77's Blog | Number-one story on Countdown last night: Miss California has fake boobs »
TPM member Steve Katz wants the USA to opt out of the Convention Against Torture
TPM member Steve Katz wants the US to opt out of the Convention Against Torture, which calls for investigating (AND prosecuting if necessary) torture suspects.
Katz wrote an awful diary yesterday calling for the following punishment for Bush-era torturers: Humiliate them by reminding them what they did, without prosecuting them of course, since retribution is bad.
Oh my. Bush, Cheney, Gonzalez must be shaking in their boots at the thought of an investigation putting their actions in writing.
"Stick that up your Presidential library, George," The soft Katz screamed. "Put that in your Hall of Shame."
Katz does not mention the Convention Against Torture once in his entry, nor does he mention that this administration would earn a top spot, too, in his imaginary "Hall of Shame" if it does not prosecute by whatever means necessary those who tortured terrorist suspects in black sites and elsewhere.
It is impossible for Katz to believe in the validity of the Convention Against Torture to which we are signatories, AND call for a truth-finding commission and only a truth-finding commission.
Nowhere in this entry do we see Katz' express his desire that other nations do what we won't.
Let's just "find the truth" and call it a day.
Nowhere in this entry does Katz tell us that prosecutions should come AFTER this truth-finding commission which he advocates. Contrast Katz' entry to a recent op-ed by Mark Danner, who broke the news about the now-famous Red Cross report on torture techniques:
Even after all we know, the political task at hand -- the first task, without which none of the others, including prosecutions, can follow -- remains one of full and patient and relentless revelation of what was done and what it cost the country, authoritative revelation undertaken by respected people of both parties whose words will be heard and believed.
That's right. Danner wants what Katz wants, but, unlike the latter, the former's ultimate goal is justice, not some wimpy thoughts of impunity in the form of "humiliation" alone.
Steve Katz does not want justice. He wants a whitewash, and he wants Nicaraguan officials (to cite a hypothetical torturing nation) to walk free if they torture Americans in the future, in the event that they found it difficult to prosecute Nicaraguan lawyers who toyed with the definition of torture.
And all because some David Corn said so.
Think before you type next time. And if you meant to say, but forgot, that prosecutions must follow an investigation, you are welcome to append an update to your post saying so.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/steve_katz/2009/04/torturegate-is-a-special-prose.php
Advertisement
You know, I'm really getting tired of readers calling out other readers in a whole new and completely unnecessary blog post - especially when it's as uncivil and downright nasty as yours.
Just sayin'.
April 29, 2009 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi LisB, you once said "God forbid that our men and women are taken prisoner by another country and treated the way our detainees were treated."
But don't worry, Should this happen, we'll round up a few senators or respectable independent figures and make sure those criminals know what they did, in a nice 800 page report. That'll show them!
April 29, 2009 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not saying I disagree with your stance nor that of Katz, I just think this should've been posted as a comment on Steve's own blog. Calling out another reader like this is rude and unnecessary and a waste of space.
And I think calling his post an "awful diary" was a pretty freaking low blow, especially when his post was highly recommended and is even now still receiving thoughtful, well-considered and -- most of all - polite comments.
I'm with jsfox (below) on this one.
Think before you type next time, indeed!
April 29, 2009 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Duh, this is mainly a cultist website. I've been aware of that since I signed up. Opposition to my diaries come naturally, given my independent, non--Obama-ass-kissing nature, and my tendency to want to look back.
April 29, 2009 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you hate the cult so damn much, stop reading our posts and comments. Oh, but then you'd have nothing to read but your own damn shite.
April 29, 2009 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
DITTO LISB. I liked Steve's blog and there were good comments to go along with it.
Truthspitter is more like it.
April 29, 2009 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
TS77...I'm as much a minority here as any, but I speak gently and respectfully and in turn I am almost always treated gently and respectfully. You might try it.
April 29, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have different personalities, I guess. Suggestion welcome but declined.
April 29, 2009 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then don't complain when you get hollered at!
April 29, 2009 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
yeah, what she said.
April 29, 2009 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Co-sign!
It's enough to comment on his post. Great topic and good comments are over there.
I agreed with your comment there, truthseeker, but not this personal attack. Uncalled for.
April 29, 2009 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Poor form, TS77, poor form. You have a point that is completely overshadowed by a lack of decency. I could recommend something along the lines of what you are offering here, but the rest of this "calling out" BS is just gang member mentality. As you said, we are a cult here, not a gang. We do not approve of your method. It would have been more palatable if you had left Mr. Katz out of it.
April 29, 2009 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a suggestion. Delete this piece of crap. You have an issue with someone's opinion use the comments section in the diary.
Sorry, but this is just wrong not to mention against site rules and if we had the option I'd HR it.
April 29, 2009 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are site rules? You mean rules like the ones in the Convention Against Torture?
Come on jffox, what's with the thoughts of retribution?
April 29, 2009 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you are saying because we broke rules on torture it's OK for you to break rules here? It's OK for you to go against the practice of not calling out other posters in a separate diary?
You sir or madam are a complete ass.
April 29, 2009 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. I was arguing that YOU thought the rules here were being broken. I don't think they are being broken.
And if I were, the consequences of some blog rules being broken are far from the consequences of torture going unpunished. Yet you equating blog-writing with handling of criminals.
April 29, 2009 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me be more specific, Mr. Rule lover:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/25/nowak/index.html
April 29, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
"UN Special Rapporteur on Torture: Of course, if "
Ooops. That 'if' is crucial.
April 29, 2009 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
How does that "if" negate the fact that investigations are needed in order to find out if war crimes were committed so that the proper authorities can prosecute if necessary?
April 29, 2009 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Assuming war crimes were committed is not the same as doing an investigation or obtaining a just conviction.
April 30, 2009 3:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's more to you jsfox: the rules here are vague, sort of like the rules written by the OLC lawyers, which are so vague that Katz thinks they make it oh so difficult for us to prosecute:
1) I consider my criticism not "personal attack," but criticism against someone's ideas.
2)I would use this language if I were present in a Coffee House.
3) No libel, threat or hate speech is seen in my entry.
Let's face it. You agree with Katz and disagree with me. Hence your kneejerk response.
April 29, 2009 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please show me where I said or suggested that I was against torture prosecutions. My comments are strictly concerning the poor judgement on your part in writing this diary instead of taking your concern where it belongs. In the comment section of Steve's diary.
But no you have to go touting your supposed moral superiority by writing a specious diary.
And on that note I have wasted more time on you than you are worth.
April 29, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can use the report abuse button at the bottom of your screen to the right.
It's a personal attack - in a blog - and title - and that's really against the terms of use.
April 29, 2009 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a piece of shit. The only good thing about this blog is that you're stupid enough to shout out loud the same crap that others have been dropping in comments these past weeks. The self-righteous anti-torture brigade that seems to feel somehow they're on the grand high horse, and can lay the boot into anyone who doesn't say things quite the way they like... or in the order they like... or at the appropriate length they like.... Nice terms like coward, unethical, monstrous, immoral, soft.
You're a moral midget, pal, and so are your buds. You've got something to be outraged about, and that makes you happy, because outrage is all you got. Blowhard.
April 29, 2009 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You called me anti-torture.
NOW I'm mad.
April 29, 2009 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup. You're anti-torture. Good for you. I'll have to think for a moment about whether that excuses you from behaving like a moral midget.
Ok. Thought about it. You're not excused.
But hey, there's hope. If you dress up real tight in that anti-torture T-shirt, and be really really REALLY outraged, then maybe people won't notice your other lacks.
Or you could just apologize, and then shut up for a while.
April 29, 2009 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only suitable apology would be to pull the post, but what are the chances, now that its getting all this attention and all?
April 29, 2009 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you.
April 29, 2009 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then why did you not address your issues with his views in the comment section of his post?
April 29, 2009 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why should I? I want the highest number of people possible to read my reply. One little comment buried at the bottom of a one-day old entry will be mainly ignored.
April 29, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I responded to that one comment! I agreed with it. But I don't agree with what you've done here!
April 29, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now we have the root of your motive - Attention. You take a smack directly at Mr. Katz in the title of your blog and then deny it was a personal attack. Wrong. That's just bullshit. {thanks for reminging me it was okay to swear judiciously. I feel it is called for here.] Not personal means no names are used. You present an argument that stands by itself without bringing up Mr. Katz. Get it?
If your message was so freaking important, it would have stood by itself without bring up Mr. Katz. Instead you've pissed of the whole cult and your message is far down the list of what might have stuck in our heads. You failed in your mission because you went after the man and not the message. Get it?
April 29, 2009 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
TS77,
Attacking a member in a headline... bad form mate, really bad form.
NOT Rec'd
April 29, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Trust me. Recommendations have zero importance to me.
April 29, 2009 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
That seems unlikely, since you always recommend your own.
This post is rediculous, and you know it. Your reasoning is simply to get attention, and unfortunately, it seems to be working. Enjoy your fifteen minutes of ugly infamy.
April 29, 2009 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I recommend my own because I find my own awesome. But there's a big difference between what I find right and what the Cult finds right.
April 29, 2009 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, honey, there ya go. You said it all in that one comment, didn't you.
April 29, 2009 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
OH, and when you get a chance, O, tell us what you think of Katz' proposal.
April 29, 2009 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
TS77,
Now, so you understand I have had a SCREAMING headache since I woke up Tuesday Morning after surgery on Monday and it is now Wednesday and am just trying to stay involved, so nothing real deep here.
You appear to be adding words to SK's post. You will need to show me where in HIS post SK calls for NOT prosecuting, I don't see it.
Truth be told I read it to mean that he would love to see prosecutions but if all else fails, AT THE VERY LEAST have some kind of fact finding commission. Now Corn, he might be someone you have a gripe with, HELL, I might too. But I have no problem, at all, with SK's post.
And once again, bad form, I saw NO comment from you under his post. You should have warned him in the comment section of his post, this post was on its way.
April 29, 2009 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hope you're feeling better soon, face.
April 29, 2009 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
FDRd,
Thanks... Appreciate it.
April 29, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great to have you back, but go easy on yourself. From here, I can't tell you what's too much. That's up to you, but I recommend going easy. Better to skip a day then jeopardize your recovery. You only want to do that once. I was a claims examiner and have had plenty of post-op people push to hard. Their recoveries were lengthened considerably and some even needed to repeat surgery. Don't know why you had surgery, but I'm sure it is never worth having it when it can be avoided. Go easy, my friend.
April 29, 2009 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
TS77,
I AM gonna rec this...people need to see the discussion going on here in the comments.
So Rec'd.
AND... I would urge others to recommend this, so the debate going on about "tactics" can be seen by others.
April 29, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't know how hard that was for me to do, just now, to hit that rec button, but I agree with your idea.
"Rec'd in Protest" - LisB
April 29, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
LB,
Really hard for me too...I actually said I wouldn't at first but then I got to thinking, Crap like this shouldn't happen, in particular without comment in the original post.
THANKS for the click LB.
April 29, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
TS77,
As I read THIS blog you don't want prosecutions or investigations... I mean you really don't take any position at all... but perhaps I am just reading too much or too little into your post.
Point?
April 29, 2009 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
See you around 3, my cultist friends. Gotta take the subway from Manhattan to The Bronx.
Then I will continue to reply to some of your anti-prosecution protests hidden in a veil of opposition towards rudeness and bad form.
April 29, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
For the record, I am not anti-prosecution. Much to the contrary. But I rec'd Steve's post anyway because it was well-written and thought-provoking and I felt it added to the whole discussion.
Unlike yours.
April 29, 2009 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
There should be a button like Amazon.com has for book reviews: "Was this review helpful to you?" Click "yes" or "no"
April 29, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok so the fact that an entry was "well thought" has more weight to you than the fact that the writer advocated immunity for torturers? Interesting priorities.
April 29, 2009 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
That isn't at all what his thread was about.
April 29, 2009 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The position you're taking is the equivalent of saying "you either support the Iraq War or you're a traitor." It's a false dichotomy.
Nothing in Steve's post suggests he is an apologist for torture. He is presenting another facet in what is an extremely complex moral, legal, ethical and political dilemma. Claiming it's a simple issue of justice vs. moral relativism denies that complexity. And, I'm afraid, virtually assures you will be dissatisfied with the outcome.
You're making the implicit assumption that prosecutions will inevitably result in convictions. IMO, the outcome is just as likely to be controversy, further hardening of ideological faultlines, and a neutered administration. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done. I'm saying the decision should be made with eyes open and all the implications on the table.
April 29, 2009 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Consider the possibility--just consider it, that's all I'm asking--that you have succumbed to the charms of the belief that there is sometihng collectively wrong this group of commenters that disagrees with you on this point (e.g. that they are "cultist").
April 29, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Toothsucker, You're coming across as a complete asshole with this post. Calling out another reader in your headline is the height of ignorance and boorish behavior.
April 29, 2009 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think TS77 has a thang for Mr. Katz.
April 29, 2009 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yeah, I have blogged about two out of the zillion entries ever written by Katz, so I have a "thang" for him.
April 29, 2009 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've found it rare for any poster to call out other bloggers by name here, and think doing so is unnecessary. It seems 'interesting' to me that you focused on Katz's writing more than once, by calling him out by name in a separate post. Make your case, link to the subject blog if it helps illustrate your point. The personal aspect is bull shit, IMO.
April 29, 2009 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right. Let's all hate Steve Katz now. That'll be really gratifying...
Humans really are just animals--it doesn't take torture to prove that.
April 29, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The soft Katz screamed? So you are now inserting expository insults into a fictional account of a blog that was made a day ago? I kind of don't get the point.
April 29, 2009 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have made it my personal policy to comment whenever a single member is called out on a post like this. I don't care who the person is, what he/she believes, whether I agree with them or not, it is not right to bash a person's views in a post like this. Make your comment on their post, attempt to contact them through back channels, do a generic post about "I'm shocked at those on this site who want to blah, blah, blah" but DO NOT CALL THEM OUT LIKE THIS.
This has nothing to do with clicks or friends...it comes under the heading of attempting to squelch the flow of ideas and block opposing views. If it is not against the terms of use, it should be.
April 29, 2009 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your blog is dishonest, but you missed a cute typo in Katz's blog:
"Hopefully the full history of what happened will prevent something like this from never happening again. "
'never' inverts the usual meaning!
I thin Katz is not against prosecutions, rather he thinks they might not happen but argues that this should not stop us from calling for deeper investigation.
April 29, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stop spinning, eds. Katz did not ask for prosecutions. And what typo are you talking about?
April 29, 2009 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right on! This debate should not be a secret.
Rec'd in protest.
April 29, 2009 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Hopefully the full history of what happened will prevent something like this from never happening again. "
Read that carefully, particularly the double negative (prevent ... never).
"Katz did not ask for prosecutions."
So what?
April 30, 2009 4:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, paging Jon Taplin, whom I called out recently for making stuff up about Paul Krugman.
Taplin said that Krugman had once said that Hillary Clinton was the only Democrat who could beat the Republicans in '08, but Taplin has never linked to the column or transcript of Krugman's alleged comment.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/truthseeker77/2009/03/jon-taplin-an-angry-obscure-me.php
April 29, 2009 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
truthseeker,
The purpose of my blog was to encourage a lively discussion of a very serious problem facing our country, what can be done about prosecuting the alleged illegal torture perpetrated by the Bush administration. Obviously, truthseeker you are, "lively."
I recommend this post because it, and the ensuing comments bring home what TPM, and reader blogs, and comments are all about, free speech.
truthseeker, I am a "follower" of you blogs and hope you will continue to blog, here. I will be there to read them and comment, and hope you will do the same for mine.
Sincerely,
steve katz
April 29, 2009 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Props for class.
April 29, 2009 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Steve, you are a man of high principle! And I take my hat off to you. I bow to your wisdom.
You have my undying admiration - forever! Kudos!
Namaste.
April 29, 2009 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been called out so I guess I am.
Thera, you honor me with your light...Namaste.
April 29, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
We share the light. But tonight, yours really shone!
April 29, 2009 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah Steve. Your the best!!! And where is Murry anyway? He should have something to say of all this.
April 29, 2009 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good man!
April 29, 2009 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I recommend this post because it, and the ensuing comments bring home what TPM, and reader blogs, and comments are all about, free speech.
Nicely done, Steve. But I would have to disagree that the ensuing comments bring home the value of free speech. Personally, I am not a big fan of the TPM system of "recommend" buttons, "report abuse" buttons, and the in group/out group culture of civility patrolling it appears to engender. If one doesn't like some sort of post, whether due to tone, content or style, shouldn't it be enough that we all have the freedom to avert our eyes and pass it over in silence?
April 29, 2009 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
With all due respect, I usually do avert my eyes if I don't agree with the tone or content. I mutter to myself and move on without comment.
But in my view this particular post was a personal attack and I called truthseeker77 out on it because rules is rules and personal attacks are against TPM rules. I could have, and should have, left it at that.
Steve Katz himself was the better person in the end.
But I don't regret anything I said in the heat of anger.
With that, I'll end my comments here to this thread once and for all. Good night.
April 29, 2009 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure we do. But when a title trashes a user and mislabels the thrust of a post, we choose to stand up. You can move along if you alike. I choose to stand up. Others have done so as well.
April 29, 2009 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, then, I guess we should just avert our eyes from the torture and pass over it in silence, 'cuz just 'cuz it's wrong, isn't enough of reason to speak up...
April 29, 2009 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen! I had a similar thought!
April 29, 2009 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, alright, fine! =D
I'm back in the fight.
April 29, 2009 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fight? Where's the fight? I thought we were having a civilized discussion about an uncivilized subject! :-) Here's to TPM *clink*!
April 29, 2009 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yez. 'tis.
April 29, 2009 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's to good friends
tonight is kinda special
the beer we'll pour
must say something more somehow
So tonight, tonight
let it be highbrow ;)
(CLINK!!)
April 29, 2009 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
DK,
Seeker is just a "sniper". Someone that normally hides in the distance and every once in a while pokes his head out and takes a pot shot at someone, while not really taking a position... well at least not in this post anyway.
If you read further up you will see that even though I disagreed with TS77 I recommended his post. Would you have caught it if it had not been on the rec'd list?
No system is perfect but TPMs is the best I have seen... Hell at redstate. com you must first "submit your post for approval". While I think your description of in groups and out groups is just a normal happening in any "society".
By the way you will also see further up that TS77 asked for my opinion and I told him. Nothing nasty just what I thought and I am still waiting to get pounded with my own words. Think seeker will respond to my answer to his question?
April 29, 2009 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
DanK, that sounds like shirking a responsibility to make a better world. If it's not okay, it needs to be stated. TS77 making a personal post attacking Mr. Katz is wrong. That needs to be said. Torture is wrong. We all agree on that too. We are hardly addressing the post at all because it was so tragically coated with the slime of a personal attack on Steve Katz. Kudos to you Steve for holding Murray on a tight leash. I believe he might have torn off this guy's foot and perhaps severed an artery. You should move your hand around to restore the circulation no doubt compromised by your tight grip. :-{)>
April 29, 2009 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just a few personal reactions to all this:
First, I guess I don't know exactly what "calling people out" means; or why it's considered a very bad thing.
Also, while there is an important logical difference between attacking someone's position and attacking the person, and the former is generally more constructive than the latter, in practice it can be hard to tell the difference when the passions are high. I don't know if this is a rule we want to be sticklers about in the blogosphere.
The tone of the post is aggressive and hostile. That's pretty common fare on blogs. Usually when people adopt that tone it is because they are looking for a similar response from others. Or else they are just really, really mad. Either way, its business as usual in the gloriously turbulent and truculent internets, and an easy thing to let go. Each reader makes a personal choice as to what level of individual response and engagement they want to devote to any post. No one is compelled to read or respond to anybody else's posts.
Also TS77 posted his own separate blog in this particular case. So its not as though he can even be said to have trolled the comments section of someone else's post. It's his free piece of TPM turf, and nobody is required to visit it or engage with him, so maybe he can just do what he wants with it?
I don't see that this is some sort of social scourge or calamity that people need to "stand up to" or denounce or label and punish as bad behavior. Maybe after several years of hanging out on blogs, and from time to time being on the receiving end of hard personal attacks, I've just been desensitized to the tantrums and water balloon fights. But it's really not that big a deal. If someone gets some jollies or vents some steam by yelling from the sidelines "Kervick, you're a Nazi, communist, mother-fucking, maggot-eating baby-killer," what does it really matter to me? It doesn't interfere with my ability to type what I want and to engage with the people I want to engage with. It's just noise.
Remember we're all pretty much safely ensconced in our homes, offices, public libraries or wherever else we blog. Unless someone is threatening that safety by issuing a personal threat of some kind, I'm inclined to just let everything go. Just my philosophy.
April 29, 2009 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have a point. One that makes sense and is cynically logical. Keep your distance, read with no particular commitment and move along. It is the intertubes, after all. If you expect civility and and a certain level of respect you may as well talk to yourself.
But there's a flaw in your logic. This is TPMCafe and we're different than any other site you've visited. We've worked hard to make it a community - including the beautiful, the ugly, the rediculous and the sublime. And all points in between. We snarl and we snipe, we love and we support.
But we never, ever ignore.
April 30, 2009 1:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I've been visiting this site pretty much daily since 2005. I understand that there is a group here now that is very active and has built a sort of online community, mainly in the Reader Posts section. That's good for them. But that group doesn't own TPM Cafe. They can, of course, do what they want to police their own blogs, but does everyone else have to meet their aesthetic and behavioral standards?
April 30, 2009 7:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
And I am not a cynic. I'm just trying to articulate one set of values and attitudes toward blogospheric discourse.
We can turn places like TPM Cafe into prettier, nicer places to be, filled with warm, supportive friends who never disturb our equilibrium with their rude, vulgar, illiterate and sometimes hostile words. But in doing that, I suspect we lose much of the edgy, cranky, feisty and idiosyncratic spirit that made blog discourse so vital over the past eight years.
April 30, 2009 7:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
You probably won't see this, but since I've just happened upon your response I'll give one of my own.
I completely agree with a large part of what you say. Much of what brought me to this site was the discourse - the give and take, the no-holds-barred conversation. Perhaps conversation is a word better suited for the current Cafe, debate for the former. I miss the people who stirred things up and created discontent among the far too contented.
The "group" is not what it was when I began floundering here over a mere year ago. There are disadvantages that I decry and advantages that I appreciate. I miss many ... most of whom never knew my name. What seems too often forgotten now is that it never mattered.
The group think can be stifling. When opposing views are immediately silenced I am troubled. While likely to be guilty of the charge on occasion, I do at least attempt to be broad minded. Once in a while I succeed.
But please keep in mind that the folks that are now part of this place we call TPMCafe are, for the most part, caring and reasonable people with passionate views and considerate voices. For all that has been lost, much has been gained. A fair enough trade, until the next "generation" comes along.
May 1, 2009 4:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks.
I hope you find a way in the future of articulating better the fact that the nation abides by the treaties it signs.
April 29, 2009 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Katz.
I hope you articulate better in the future your desire that we find a way to punish the people who forced our prisoners to go sleepless for 11 days, etc.
April 29, 2009 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brilliant and principled. Thank you.
April 29, 2009 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
This made the post and the entire thread worth my time. You are my hero. Unless Murry wrote this, in which case he is my hero.
April 30, 2009 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
TS77
Ignoring me?
April 29, 2009 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I wasn't sure you had asked me my reaction about anything.
Did you ask me a question worth answering? The last thing you wrote was that according to my blog I want neither investigations nor prosecution, when the truth is the opposite. I want both and you know it. Are you playing dumb? You KNOW it's common sense that if praised Danner for advocating investigations followed by prosecutions, then it follows that I want the same. And you know it's common sense that if I am criticizing Katz for being a whitewasher, then i want prosecutions.
April 29, 2009 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought you asked mine
April 29, 2009 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you were complaining that I ignored your reaction? Weird.
April 29, 2009 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you no decency?
April 29, 2009 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fuck ... why do you always have to do these posts attacking people? If you have something to say that can't stand on it's own merits ... maybe it's better just not to say it.
April 29, 2009 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think everyone needs to take a deep breath here. Yeah, calling people out in a blog by name is lame, but maybe not as lame as calling them out and not naming them. That to me is pretty chickenshit, and I know all about THAT because I have been called out by name and by innuendo many, many times. On the whole, I prefer being named because at least one can respond directly. Do I always do it? No. Am I human? Well, technically.
Look, disagreement is not equal to stifling conversation. Hey, you don't like what someone says, or how they say it. Well, say so.
(shrug)
Ignore it or not.
(shrug)
TPMCafe is a great blog. I started commenting at CSPAN back in 2002, and when they went away came over here. There are many reasons folks run away and start their own blogs. They can selectively repress or remove comments that they don't like, for one. Billy Glad does that, and that is fine. That is what he wants to do. It is a control issue. So he is there, and us wot prefer a bit less of a Nanny state flourish here.
This ain't annals of the hive or whatever, though. This is TPMCafe, and we stay here because we have mutual disrespect and enjoy screaming at each other. We also enjoy respectful dialog where and when it is warrented. Sometimes it is, other times it is not. Depends on the issue. Torture would be a contentious one. To expect cerebral emotionless commentary is a bit, er, newbie, frankly.
What I can't stand, and what no one likely enjoys is a bogo-complaints of some enlightened elitist control freak playing warped hall-monitor from hell and telling people that disagreement equals stifling speech. It just isn't. I can't get my undies in a bunch over this, when folks pile on people for misbehavior on one of the better behaved blogs on the worldwide web with the amount of readership this has. Always has been. I'm proud of our little corner of cyberspace.
So here's my opinion. Naming people in blogs isn't necessarily lame, unless it is used as a vehicle of attack. I think 'ol TS here is actually expanding on Steve's blog and if he'd merely acknowledged that, no one would be annoyed. Seems to me Steve knows it. I think TS does, too. He just likes yanking yer chain. I figured that out a while ago.
So keep breathing, folks.
Personal attacks are always lame regardless of whether people are named or not. I think innuendo is way lamer, frankly. Spit it out. However, realistically, I also think personal attacks are a part of political blogging. You can either deal with them honestly, or not. You can either take them with a grain of salt, learn, and move on, or not.
There's an old saying in blogging. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen
Blog on!
=D
Oh, and, don't sweat the small stuff. It's just a fargin blog.
April 29, 2009 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
On that excellent note, I will happily blog on, and leave this thread to its better self.
Bwak, well done.
April 29, 2009 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
(clink!)
April 29, 2009 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Bwak. Why not post this. We could get into a great discussion.
Oh well. I follow you all around anyway. So I dont miss nothin
April 29, 2009 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nah, I only post about stuff that matters
;)
April 29, 2009 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one expects cerebral, unemotional commentary over hot topics. But I think most people would prefer to not be personally attacked by a cluckhead for their views on an issue. To each their own.
April 29, 2009 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. So why not knock it off?
=D
You feelings are more imporatnt than mine.
Of course.
April 29, 2009 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
FYI I'm not attacking you for your views or positions. I'm criticizing your personal attacks on others based on their opinions. Someone with so little respect for others shouldn't expect any in return.
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Just saying.
April 29, 2009 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yez. Well, we disagree. I consider I was the one personally attacked, first, and rather ignobly.
So, we disagree.
Oh, well.
Have a nice night.
=D
April 29, 2009 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
(clink!)
April 29, 2009 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yez, make it a double.
April 29, 2009 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought we were already seeing double =D
As for personal attacks, yes, things do certainly get heated but when back rooms and emails are available, they are the best place to handle things.
Just my two cents, for wot they're worth. Or, is that four??
April 29, 2009 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could be a nickel. Izzat 'common courtesy' thing that's been oft repeated?
I dunno. Everyone slips. It's just a fargin blog. I'm kinda of tired of Hall Monitors that can't be accurate.
=D
I'm not big on Perfidy. Call it a quirk.
Hey there's a sale of Newmans Own coffee at Stop and Shop. Just sayin'.
April 29, 2009 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not big on decency either apparently. But whatevs. I'd say more but I fear your peeps at DHS would come after me. =)
April 29, 2009 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Incoherence becomes you.
April 29, 2009 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have a nice night, Dija.
I'm sorry we disagree, but in the big scheme of things? I don't much care. There's more important things than egos.
=D
Stay well.
April 29, 2009 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a tad bit confuzzled at this point, but I think confuzzlment becomes me.
Would anyone care for a beer, or...pretzels? Beer nutz? Truck nutz? Ah, how 'bout the old standby: butt sects!
Can't we all just get along?
April 29, 2009 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
"butt sects!"? Don't bring Santorum into this...
April 30, 2009 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
"You've violated my fargin' rights!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dv8tVxk6Nj4
Anyway, I hate liberal on liberal crime. I went off on Ghengis -- of all bloggers -- once in a late-night alcoholic stupor. I've regretted it ever since (I posted an apology the next day; hope he read it even though the post was stale at that point!).
Truthseeker and Katz are both awesome; I have no dog in this fight. But I gotta say, Katz has a Jewish Pit Bull (the Bichon) for an avatar, and that just plain rules.
April 29, 2009 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Last night?
=D
April 29, 2009 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink