I've been consistent in my writing, I believe, in saying that the worst sin is attempting to push people out of the argument (yes, there are probably views so extreme that they are rightfully pushed aside - but they're rare in my view. In fact they'd better be...).

When I see Code Pink mobs shouting Karl Rove down at a booksigning, it's disgusting.

So why, I'll ask, is it any different when Jeff threatens those who arouse his pique with violence? That's not an effort to police a conversation or set boundaries; I can't see it as anything but an effort to bully people out of an argument. To win the game not with thought, skill, or fact, but by shifting the frame of the discussion from ideas to fear.

I don't see it.

Look, the tone in a place like Ace or Cold Fury or Blackfive isn't polite or refined, it's aggressive, it's profane and kinda rude (and usually funny as hell). They target people who - in real life - have done bad things - for abuse, outing, and where possible, legal action. They don't (with one justified exception in Mike Hendrix's case) target people who say things to them.

They don't threaten to break people's bones to shut them up or drive them from the conversation. The fact that Jeff hasn't actually done it may give him some small relief, but in my view it's pretty small. Intentions count, and as I said above, as vile as Deb Frisch was in her words, her actions really didn't give a whole lot of factual basis for believing she was going to act against his kids (note that had her comments been directed against my kids, I would have acted just as Jeff did if not more strongly).

That's my problem in a nutshell. Because I don't see how you differentiate political style from political substance all that easily. The GOP is out of power because for all their talk of limited government, they tried to chain themselves to the platinum trough (see Steele's recent spending problems as a good example of the cultural norm). John Edwards was a narcisstic asshole in person, and I find no reason to believe that his politics would have been any different. At an extreme level, the mindless violence that has characterized Palestinian governance since Arafat is a big reason why the only response the Palestinian polity can make to most challenges - is more mindless violence.

I do buy into the idea that our political system is wounded and that as a nation we're being dragged down by courtiers in thousand dollar shoes. I'm all about kicking them out on their asses and replacing the government by the governing with a government by the governed. I think it's critical that we do that - and do it soon - or we're screwed. I'm to the left of Jeff on some political issues, but I'm right alongside him on this.

But - as I said when I challenged Charles Johnson way back when - it's a problem to me to stand alongside people whose values - as opposed to beliefs - are so different than mine, and whose values I see as being so destructive to what we both profess to believe in.

It's a problem for the 'reform' movement because if we're busting our asses to replace one set of power-mad bullies with another - why bother?

I've got another, personal problem with Jeff, and that is simply that I believe that as a student of violence he has an obligation to raise the standards for his own behavior. I'm not some super-bad stone killer warrior...but I've known more than a couple of them in my life, and being the nosy bastard that I am I've spent a fair amount of time interrogating them on their values while picking their pockets for skills. And those values are, simply, don't be an asshole. Don't be a bully. Defuse conflict when you can, and end it quickly when you must. Use the confidence your skills offer to create the space to minimize the liklihood of violence - not to egg people on and create it.

Those are values I espouse and try really hard to live. They're 180 degrees from what I see Jeff doing, and I'm sure that's part of what makes me so reactive to it.

So that's why I'm comfy with my decision to pull the link to Jeff, and why I'm (potentially) understanding of his teacher's desire to pull his name from Jeff's CV.

I wish it was different. I think Jeff is smart and talented and well-informed enough that he could do what he does without the threats and verbal bludgeons. Someday I hope he sees it that way.
-

« ok, I'm done now

It's the post from the 'poor me' post that Publius (nee John Blevins) put up 'fessing up and explaining all the reasons why it was important to him to blog under a pseudonym.

Now when I first went into this, I have to admit that Publius wasn't a blogger whose work I could immediately put into a frame, and so my initial (wrong) reaction was that he was a poo-flinging monkey like tbogg, and my thought on his being outed was 'fair cop.' Live by the poo, die by it, I said to myself...

But because I tend to try to check my facts before I take positions, I took some time and read a bunch of publius' work, and he's in a whole different ballpark, league, sport than folks like that. He's a serious blogger, albeit an aggressive liberal, and someone whose posts I've read and admired in the past.

But having said that, I think that he's got it completely backward when he talks about why it was important to him to blog under a nom de plume. Here's what he said:

As I told Ed (to no avail), I have blogged under a pseudonym largely for private and professional reasons. Professionally, I've heard that pre-tenure blogging (particularly on politics) can cause problems. And before that, I was a lawyer with real clients. I also believe that the classroom should be as nonpolitical as possible - and I don't want conservative students to feel uncomfortable before they take a single class based on my posts. So I don't tell them about this blog. Also, I write and research on telecom policy - and I consider blogging and academic research separate endeavors. This, frankly, is a hobby.

Privately, I don't write under my own name for family reasons. I'm from a conservative Southern family - and there are certain family members who I'd prefer not to know about this blog (thanks Ed). Also, I have family members who are well known in my home state who have had political jobs with Republicans, and I don't want my posts to jeopardize anything for them (thanks again).

He wrote under a pseudonym to shield himself from the consequences of his words. I think that's exactly backwards.

When I started writing as Armed Liberal - in my very first post - I wrote that

I'm choosing not to identify myself ... right now ... for a variety of reasons. I'll start by standing on the time-honored tradition of anonymous pamphleteering, which I believe blogging fits neatly into. My significant other has a fairly political job (although she doesn't believe so). And finally, I'm trying to disassociate the value of what is set out here from any judgment you might make about me.

[emphasis added]

I didn't believe it was as important to shield myself (and mine) from what I wrote as it was to have what I wrote stand on its own. I'm not insensitive - and I wasn't in 2002 - to the concern that what I wrote might have an impact on my living or on my life.

But first and foremost for me it was a vehicle to put ideas forth deprived of any claim to authority (I was a student of Sheldon Wolin and John Schaar! I'm someone who works inside the process and can explain it!).

And when my real life and my blogging life intersected in a meaningful way, I dropped the pseud and stepped out.

So it bothers me more than a little that the primary defense that Publius wants to mount is that it might impact his work or hurt his family's feelings.

It especially bothers me when he says that

And yes - I criticized Whelan rather harshly. But that's what the blogosphere is about. Blogging is not for the thin-skinned. And you would think that someone who spends their days trying to destroy other people's reputations in dishonest and inflammatory ways wouldn't be so childish and thin-skinned.

I'm sorry, but pitchers who throw at the head shouldn't be shocked when an occasional bat comes loose and soars out toward the mound. People who see the root of blogging as critcising people harshly and offending where they can do forfeit some of the claim to courtesy which is really what weak pseudonymity (it wouldn't be too hard to track down any of the pseudonymous political bloggers, really) is really all about.

So on both of those counts - because I think he was making the claim to pseudonymity for the wrong reasons, and because I think that what he really regrets losing is the freedom to throw elbows and then go sit innocently at his family table, I - a formerly pseudonymous blogger - think that Whelan committed a minor infraction of manners at worst.
-

« ok, I'm done now

Technorati Top 100 Blogs (by influence) as of April 9, 2009

1. Huffington Post - Liberal, venture funded

17. Daily Kos - Liberal, ad funded

32. Andrew Sullivan - Liberal, The Atlantic

42. Think Progress - Liberal, Media Matters

45. Michelle Malkin - Conservative, ad funded

46. Talking Points Memo - Liberal, ad and grant funded

51. Pajamas Media (really, Instapundit) - Conservative, investor funded

53. The Corner - Conservative, National Review

56. Hot Air - Conservative, ad funded

63. Ben Smith - Moderate, Politico

65. Crooks And Liars - Liberal, ad funded

76. Glenn Greenwald - Liberal, Salon

96. Powerline - Conservative, ad funded

So we've got 7 liberals, 4 conservatives, and 1 moderate. Of the liberals, 2 are ad funded - 29%. Of the conservatives, 3 are ad funded - 75%.

So when Hamsher says that 'Right wing bloggers at the top of the food chain don't have to worry about this dynamic, because they're well compensated through a variety of means -- and also conspicuously silent on the subject.' I guess she includes the Power Line guys' income from practicing law...I wrote a long time ago that the top liberal bloggers tended to have been hired to blog, and that continues to be true - Hamsher's dishonest comments to the contrary.

-

« ok, I'm done now