In Reply: Birther/Deather/Truther Conspiracies

In reply to several comments made by a particular person (or maybe two folks) at the following post (or maybe more generally, throughout this blog): The idiocy that is Noam Chomsky - Common Sense Political Thought:
---
Sorry, Blu... Cannot join you on the truther bit (anymore than I can buy into the BHO birther or OBL deather nonsense). I have no problem with folks not automatically accepting common knowledge and established truth; asking questions and positing theories--indeed, that's often how we human beings learn stuff, even as folks armed with "what we've always known to be true" laugh and point at the questioner, (if they don't kill him for heresy)--but I think too many people confuse "having questions" about a given event with "proof" that what we all believe isn't true and we're all being lied to. I'm good with folks investigating and experimenting and looking to answer those questions... but having questions isn't the same as offering answers. I don't believe that conspiracies can be maintained for very long... The truth always finds it's way out... (And yes, I am aware that that's just what they WANT me to think...)

That said, you're certainly not wrong about everything.
---

Posted 23 May 2011 at 09:09

In Reply: Conspiracies, Glorious Conspiracies...

In reply to: The Google/Nightcruzr Tyranny Story That Won’t Die - Common Sense Political Thought
---

Just another in a series of right wing conspiracy theories.

I'm knee-deep in another, thankfully more limited one, but even so, the whining and egoistic self-important bellowing about how "I'm right, and there can be no other explanation for this but that ('liberals' / 'this/these particular liberal(s)' / 'Google/this guy at Google/this liberal guy at Google) are conspiring to... (whatever they're conspiring to do)" is getting really very hard to take at all seriously.

No doubt Nitecruzr got testy--and yes, he said and subsequently deleted some things he should never've said in the first place--but Ann's prima donna "Don't you know who I AM!?!" act, along with her minions clogging up and whining in the help cue stream, was the reason the guy got testy. Add that to the fact that the guy was and likely had been, for some time, dealing with a whole lot else due to the Google meltdown (lotta questions, lotta folks being testy toward him because he couldn't snap his fingers and make it all better, ...), and it was a recipe for trouble. No, that doesn't excuse him for being testy himself (maybe it would've been better if he'd just logged off, and not helped anyone at all, for a little while), but it should mitigate things, at least for those who can manage to see past a sinister political motive for everything that happens.

Every time you get a flat, drop the ice cream off your cone, or have to work overtime, it's not a part of Obama's (or the Republican's, or the Democrat's, or the Illuminati's) evil plan for one-world domination... Sometimes, these things just happen. (Who am I kidding? EVERYTHING is a part of the Illuminati's evil plan for one-world domination. I've seen that pyramid on the dollar bill... I know they're always watching... Can't fool me... Not no way, not no how...)

Full confession: The Illuminati made me write this comment. I feel so much better for having come clean. But if I don't comment again for awhi...
---

Your comment is awaiting moderation. Released and posted 16 May 2011 at 11:05
---

Bummer... My comment was released from moderation too soon. This was my next comment:
--------

WE ARE THE ILLUMINATI.

PLEASE KEEP REPSAC3'S LAST COMMENT, SUBMITTED 16 May 2011 at 11:05, STUCK IN MODERATION. (BAD ENOUGH, IT'S REPOSTED HERE. No ice cream cones for that guy.)

YOU WILL BE HANDSOMELY REWARDED IF YOU DO.

THAT IS ALL.
-------

Didn't post it, because my comment had already been released from moderation. (Which is a good thing... except that I really liked my Illuminati comment.)

In Reply: "...this country recognizes no legal authority higher than the US Constitution."

In reply to various comments made at Typical United Nations idiocy - Dana Pico - Common Sense Political Thought:
---

"One American value is that there is no substitute for victory. In war, the winners make the rules."

Winners write the history. The rules of war (and of post-war, too) are largely already written.

"Truman gave himself the “Right” to nuke Hiroshima..."

I'm pretty sure the right to drop bombs on a declared enemy during wartime existed prior to Truman. A new kind of bomb doesn't require a new "right," (though there were some spoken and unspoken negotiations and "rules" made about the use of such bombs, afterward.)

"...this country recognizes no legal authority higher than the US Constitution."
"There is no legal authority higher than the US Constitution and there is no legal authority over the US outside the US, period."

Sadly, this isn't as true as you folks'd like to believe. There are judgements made by the WTO and IMF that contravene our Constitution and US law. The Geneva conventions that Hitchcock cited earlier are "one world" laws, though they do largely fit in with US law. And, while they don't always have the force of law, we seem to give a good bit of deference to UN judgements, rules, and mandates, too. While I'm viscerally opposed to any body outweighing our sovereign US law at first thought, I also believe that there need to be rules governing the interactions between nations, just as there are rules that govern smaller sovereign bodies (states, cities, and we individuals). As I keep saying 'round here, I believe there are God-given, inalienable human rights that apply to every living person across the earth. (While "God bless America" is a wonderful slogan, the fact is that Tiny Tim's utterance was closer to the truth; God blesses us all, every one...) And while I believe that man is basically good, I also believe that we need laws and a means of enforcing them because man obviously isn't universally good... not even we Americans.

I believe in US sovereignty, but I also believe we need to make and keep legal agreements with other nations, and that there has to be a penalty for not doing so, that applies to every signing nation across the board (because otherwise, any agreement we make becomes meaningless.) For the most part, I believe that the international agreements we make and laws to which we agree are like the Geneva Conventions, in that they comport with our US Constitution and don't call our sovereignty into question. And to borrow Eric's point, being the biggest, baddest mofo's on the planet, I'm pretty sure we have the necessary leverage to maintain our US sovereignty and fealty to the Constitution in future international agreements and bodies, as well... YMMV...
---

Posted 7 May 2011 at 13:40

In Reply: Torture Creep

In reply:

Hoagie sez:
One other thing, repsac3. Sometimes you are unaware of a “ticking timebomb” until you push enough buttons to uncover it. Saying “pretty-please” usually won’t work. Trust me.

Good article on the "torture creep" that Hoagie may or may not be advocating in his comment above about being unaware of ticking timebombs until you've "pushed enough buttons" to uncover it (a potentially ominous phrase, if ever I read one.)

Torture Opponents Were Right - Conor Friedersdorf - Politics - The Atlantic. The key paragraph:

The return of the torture debate is striking because its apologists no longer feel the need to advocate for a narrow exception to prevent an American city from being nuked or a busload of children from dying. In the jubilation over getting bin Laden, they're instead employing this frightening standard: torture of multiple detainees is justified if it might produce a single useful nugget that, combined with lots of other intelligence, helps lead us to the secret location of the highest value terrorist leader many years later. It's suddenly the new baseline in our renewed national argument.

---

Posted 5 May 2011 at 18:43

Added, 7:15 PM: Reading this comment over, I was far too kind... Not only is it what Hoagie was advocating, it's what every person who offers some variation of "Waterboarding / Enhanced Interrogation Tactics / Torture Works!!" is advocating. (For the record, one of those is a real right wing blog post title, right down to the exclamation points.) The fuse on the potential time bomb can now be seven years long, and the torture is still justified... and that's just nuts.

In Reply: Do It, But Then Stand Behind Your Actions

In reply to the following comment at Obama Waited 16 Hours (Good) Bush Waited 10 Minutes (Bad) - Common Sense Political Thought

Hoagie Sez: I don’t know how many battles you’ve engaged in Whistler, but as a man who spent 520 consecutive days in a theatre of war and participated in 42 battles, torture does work. You may not like it. You may not have the ability to inflict it. But it really does work. If it did not work no one would use it now would they? You may sit in your ivory tower and pontificate about the dignity of America all you want, but when our lives and those of our fellow warriors or families are at stake there is no line we will not cross to achieve victory. That’s why war sucks. All wars suck, even when we know we are right. It still sucks.
---

“…when our lives and those of our fellow warriors or families are at stake there is no line we will not cross to achieve victory.”

Y’know… I’m not actually opposed to that. If you really believe you’re in the classic ticking time bomb scenario, and truly believe you can end it Jack Bauer-style via torture, you do it. But then you stand trial, and justify your actions before a jury of your peers. I have little problem with jury nullification, and believe that a guy whose act of torture saved the lives of tens, hundreds, or thousands would never be convicted.
---

Posted 5 May 2011 at 13:12

In Reply: "Enhanced" Interrogation; It is what it is, and few minds are gonna change, either way

In reply to a whole bunch of comments at Dana Pico's The best result - Common Sense Political Thought
---

I don't know, guys...

The fact that some bit of useful intelligence might've been discovered as a result of "enhanced" interrogation methods, up to and including the "now-it's-torture-now-it-isn't-now-it-is-again" practice of water boarding, does not vindicate either the "enhanced" interrogation methods, or the torture.

First off, we'll probably never know for sure, as most of the folks there to tell us what we learned when and how have a vested interest, one way or the other. It's no accident that it's largely one political pov and folks who worked under 'em saying the death of bin Laden never would've happened without these methods, and the other political pov and folks who didn't work under the first political pov calling those assertions into question.

Second, there's no way to prove that it couldn't've happened the opposite way. The facts surrounding our interrogation history as regards all that lead to finding bin Laden are what they are. Maybe less harsh interrogation methods might've achieved a more reliable or a quicker result, or maybe without harsh interrogation methods, we never would've gotten bin Laden at all, and had we water boarded every detainee we captured, we might've caught/killed bin Laden years sooner. There's little point theorizing though, because the bell was rung, and it can't be unrung. We did our interrogations the way we did them, and obtained the information we obtained. There's no way of knowing "what might've been, had we used more (or fewer) harsh interrogation methods on fewer (or more) detainees, more (or less) often." As the saying goes, it is what it is (and it was what it was, too.)

This is also why I can't take seriously the occasional mini-meme of folks who say "Obama was opposed to such'n'such an interrogation method or detention facility, but had no problem using the info gleaned from them to kill bin Laden." The info was already obtained, however it was obtained... It wasn't as though Obama & co. could unlearn it, and then interrogate it out again the "right" way. Whatever the moralities or legalities of torture or other bad acts (I'm thinking of the syphilis testing done on black men, or other unethical bits of human experimentation over the years, for starters), we neither could or should unlearn the facts obtained because of their use, even as we criticize the methods, themselves. To suggest otherwise is nonsense.

I've voiced my bit on morality, values, and the American way as regards "enhanced" interrogation methods--whatever their effectiveness in this particular case or overall--and I've seen nothing so far that'd change my position.

So, while I'm sure the debate will rage on, I'm not sure there's any winning this one, for any person or point of view.
---

After giving it a whole lotta thought, and in the absence of solid facts to the contrary, I have decided to believe that bin Laden made a move or otherwise acted in some way that made his killing justified. I choose not to believe that the US government authorizes or condones summary execution of anyone, no matter how evil a person is or how many people he's killed. It was the best result, but even the best ends don't justify illegal or immoral means. We are a nation of laws, even in time of war, and even on the battlefield.

I pray I never have occasion to learn any different.
---

And just as an aside...

Dana Pico says:
4 May 2011 at 12:34
Casper wrote:

I see Pico deciphered my super-secret pseudo-pseudononymous nom-de-keyboard. Congratulations are in order. (It took some folks years to do the same, complete with cries and gnashing of teeth about how I was a coward unwilling to stand behind what I wrote, in a few cases.)

James Casper III... Pleased to meet'cha... You can call me whatever you wish or think you need to (as long as you're not breaking the rules here, and you don't call me late for dinner), but personally, I'm stickin' with repsac3, which I've been using at AOL and in/on newsgroups, e-groups, yahoogroups, and blogs (in order, as best as I can recall) since the mid-90's, on my very first teeny-tiny 100 mb Mac Classic. As long as you steer clear of the caps lock and the equals sign, we cool...
---

Posted 5 May 2011 at 11:21

In Reply: God-given inalienable rights apply to everyone, all the time.

In reply to the following comment by Dana Pico at the Common Sense Political Thought post, The best result.:

If he had a suicide vest on, it would mean that he was prepared for the attack, that he knew it was coming, in which case he’d almost certainly have tried to escape before the SEALs arrived.

It’s got to take some time to put on a suicide explosive vest and get it right, a lot more time than it would to grab an AK-47 and start defending yourself.

“Arresting” Osama bin Laden would have been like capturing Adolf Hitler, nothing but a circus. We did capture Saddam Hussein, and the Iraqis put him on trial, and, even without the idiocy that American jurisprudence has become, the trial turned into a circus.

Your God-given, inalienable rights are something to be considered in a trial, in a criminal proceeding. But this is war, has always been war, and when you encounter the enemy, the automatic prejudice is to shoot him.

I’m only going with what what I read, Dana… Perhaps I should’ve said "IED" rather than "suicide vest," but ObL blowing himself up really was a legitimate concern…

Osama bin Laden: Osama bin Laden's surrender wasn't a likely outcome in raid, U.S. officials say - latimes.com: "Bin Laden could have surrendered only 'if he did not pose any type of threat whatsoever,' White House counter-terrorism chief John Brennan said on Fox television, and if U.S. troops 'were confident of that in terms of his not having an IED [improvised explosives device] on his body, his not having some type of hidden weapon or whatever.'"

(In fact, there’s a more in depth version of this story I read somewhere, that tells of a team who tried to take a terrorist into custody in a similar situation (at night, at home, not expecting to be caught) where the guy did blow himself up (and took some of his would-be captors with him. I’ll post the link, if I ever find it, again.) [After looking around all day, I'm beginning to think I imagined it. The closest I came was the story further down at the very link I provided, that described the Jordanian who we believed to be working with us, who detonated a vest after several CIA agents gathered around to greet him.]

I agree with you about arresting the guy, and like I said, I do agree that this was the best result.

But no... God-given inalienable rights apply to everyone, all the time. Even in war, shooting folks who’re obviously unarmed isn’t kosher, morally or legally. I’d like to think he posed some immediate potential threat that justified his killing, because if this was an execution, I’m going to be experiencing a little bit more cognitive dissonance than I’d like, vis-à-vis who we are and what we stand for.
---
Posted 4 May 2011 at 12:51

In Reply: ObL: The Best Result, But... (Ends/Means)

In reply to The best result - Dana Pico - Common Sense Political Thought
---

It almost certainly was the best result.

But me and my pesky American values and firm belief in those God-given, inalienable rights, is having a little trouble with our executing an unarmed man, no matter who he was or what he “allegedly” did. (assuming that’s what we did, of course… The story is apparently still “fluid,” and I wouldn’t be surprised to see it change, yet again.) Once we make exceptions to those inalienable rights, they run the risk of devolving into wishy washy situational ethics, and I’m just not cool with that.

It helps to buy into the meme that he might’ve had a suicide vest on under his speed racer pj’s, and thus the men who shot him acted in defense of themselves, the innocent civilians, and the others in their squad… …but it’s a kind of thin cover, where rights and values are concerned.
---

Posted 4 May 2011 at 12:20

In Reply: Whether or not torture "works," it's still a filthy immoral thing

In reply to this comment at the Common Sense Political Thought post Osama bin Laden Is Dead UPDATE: He Died In A Mansion? UPDATE: He Died Today In A Firefight UPDATE: GWB Congratulates BHO, Troops UPDATE: Dies On Holocaust Memorial Day (Too much to repost. Please visit CSPT for more info.)
---

I stand by what I've said. I do question the effectiveness of "enhanced" interrogation techniques, on the grounds that many interrogators have said that they elicit too much false information, and because the world wouldn't willingly choose not to engage in such methods if they really did lead to more reliable information, and/or do so more quickly. Obviously, others, both "expert" and ordinary citizen, believe otherwise. Whether such methods work, either as tools to get reliable information themselves, or to "break" a prisoner's spirit and thus get reliable information later--and the attendant questions of whether either/both outcome(s) are possible via more traditional and widely accepted means--will of course continue.

But to me, the effectiveness of "harsh" "coercive" "enhanced" interrogation techniques is a secondary issue, even if they did provide the key info that lead to the killing of Osama bin Laden.

From all I've read, and from what my own common sense and experiences tell me, water boarding -- the intentional drowning and simulated death of an unwilling participant, is a form of torture. We here in the US have successfully prosecuted both our own citizens and military men in other countries for committing the same/very similar acts on US citizens and servicemen. And while redefining the word torture and the act of water boarding can make once illegal acts legal, it cannot change the morality of committing them. (Whatever one's stand on abortion or homosexuality, the same rule applies; legality (or illegality) doesn't affect morality.) For me, it's that simple. While I have my doubts about the effectiveness of torture, my position would be the same even if it could be conclusively proven that torture produces the most reliable intelligence, and does so in half the time. Like the man said, "...sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie, but I'll never know because I won't eat the filthy motherfucker." We're Americans, and we live by a set of ideals. Whether or not torture "works," it's still a filthy thing, and I'm going to continue to speak out against anyone willing to lower our American standards and values enough to metephorically swallow it.

Posted 3 May 2011 at 21:31 and 3 May 2011 at 22:19

If Torture "Works," Why Do We Not Torture ALL of Our Legal/Military Detainees?

In reply to the following comment at the Common Sense Political Thought post Osama bin Laden Is Dead UPDATE: He Died In A Mansion? UPDATE: He Died Today In A Firefight UPDATE: GWB Congratulates BHO, Troops UPDATE: Dies On Holocaust Memorial Day"

But really — why do we maintain black sites if “ordinary” methods work just fine?

The answer to your question, of course, is that there are individuals who believe as you do, that torture works, or perhaps that, whether it works or not, it's use creates fear in the minds of our enemies and makes us appear more resolute in their eyes... ...and perhaps in the eyes of some of our own citizens, as well. We maintain (or maintained, I hope) black sites because the people in charge believe(d) that harsh interrogation methods that would not withstand the scrutiny of the US citizenry had some actual or propaganda value, and they also had power to put their theory into practice.

Of course, Hube, there is a correlation to the argument you're offering. If enhanced interrogation was significantly more effective than non-coercive means, it's use would be far more widespread and accepted here in America and throughout the world. However we choose to classify the "water cure" and other such methods, they've been around for a very long time, and countless military and law enforcement theoretical experts and in-the-field practitioners have had plenty of time to evaluate the effectiveness of such treatment on a detainee's willingness to provide truthful, reliable, actionable intelligence. So the question is, if the interrogation methods used at black sites are so effective, why are they not more prevalent in military/law enforcement interrogation rooms throughout the world?
---

Posted 3 May 2011 at 13:45
---

Added: Besides, Hube... While the theory that “if it exists, there must be a need for it” may be persuasive to some, one only has to consider the pet rock, or the KFC Double Down sandwich to realize the folly of the idea as a useful or accurate meme.

I’m just sayin’…

In Reply: "...it doesn't mean they didn't commit the crime. It just means they couldn't be tried for doing so."

Revised and extended, in reply to the following comment at the Common Sense Political Thought post "Pool Reporter Banned For Publishing Video Of Protest":

Hube says:
30 April 2011 at 11:36

"No, only Armitage. Cheney and Libby were not involved in outing Plame.

What Hitch said, Perry.

Nevertheless, let’s play a game and actually agree with your point. So what? It wasn’t a crime now, was it? Else, Armitage would have been prosecuted, would he not? And that’s my point: Armitage was not prosecuted for outing Plame, which the Left claimed consistently was a crime. Yet Libby was convicted of lying about a non-crime. Still, perjury is perjury, right Perry? Just ask Bill Clinton."

It's my understanding that it was in part Libby's dishonesty that prevented other people (including, perhaps, the actual leaker(s), and perhaps including Armitage.) from being prosecuted. Because Libby committed perjury, Fitzgerald was unable to gather the evidence required to charge other targets of his investigation. There's knowing a guy is guilty, and then there's being able to prove his guilt in court.

So, while these others may be legally presumed "innocent," it does not mean they did not commit the crime. It just means they couldn't be tried for doing so. Nor does it mean that intelligent folks can't weigh the evidence and draw their own conclusions as to those responsible for leaking Valerie Plame's name, or their reasons for doing so, in the same way folks judge the moral guilt of OJ Simpson, in spite of what the jury decided. There will always be a cloud hanging over the head of Cheney, Rove, and a few others in this regard... ...though legally, they never were charged, tried, or found guilty.
---
Posted 30 April 2011 at 14:12

In Reply: "Generating interesting comments is all about what a good blog does."

In reply to the following comment at the Common Sense Political Thought post "Trying Something New":
---

"Perry’s definition of a “good blog”:

Generating interesting comments is all about what a good blog does.

Sorry to break it to you, Perry, but there are many political blogs that don’t allow comments of any sort that have a higher readership than APB. Blogs cannot be judged by the number of comments made. That’s a very unwise yardstick to use. That’s like judging a college class by its in-class participation. My calc-based physics class had virtually zero in-class participation and 80 percent lecture. And it was a very high-quality and demanding class."

If ya ask me, blogs can be judged by any criteria one wishes. If hits is important to you, judge based on hits. (In my opinion, hits say nothing about quality. I'd much rather watch a PBS documentary on monarch butterflies than American Idol, but the Neilson "hits" say AI is a more valuable contribution to American society.) Those who value numbers can count comments if they wish, though I don't think that's any better than counting hits... That said, more power to the hit or comment counters. They know what they like, anyway... If good writing and high quality commentary rings your bell, judge blogs based on that... It's all a matter of what the blogger values, and what the reader values, and I'm not sure there is any one right answer that fits everybody, or should...

For the record, I'll take a relatively low hit blog (not that I'm casting any aspersions on CSPT; quite the contrary, in fact.) that allows and appreciates commentary over those high hit yield one-way lecture blogs any day of the week. I'm with Perry, in that I value well-written posts that generate interesting comments for and against, and like him, I believe that that is an important measure of what good blogging is. If I want cut and pasted articles and "talk at me, rather than with me" verbiage, I'll read a newspaper or a book. Other folks milage may vary, and more power to 'em if it does... There's all kinds of blogs for all kinds of people...
---

Posted 29 April 2011 at 15:16

In Reply: Hits, Coblogs, and Not Calling Folks Cobags Just Because You Disagree With 'em

In reply to various comments at Trying something new - Common Sense Political Thought
---

As far as blog hits, every blogger has to decide how important those hits are, and what s/he is and isn't willing to do to "earn" them. I'm sure CSPT (and American Power, for that matter) could easily double or triple their hits by appealing to the lowest common denominator with stories, photos, and keywords offering sex and violence, but that comes at the expense of integrity and quality writing. Meet The Press (or FoxNews Sunday) could greatly increase their "hits" by being more like American Idol or Glee, but to the extent that they do so, the cease to be quality news shows. (For those in the know, even RSM's "Million hits rules" seem kinda cynical to me... Rule 5 softcore T&A and keyword placement comes off as a bait & switch... Sure, folks give a hit to see the daily or weekly softcore "bikini babe," "naughty pics," or "nude video," (all recent top hitting page headers at AmPow) but that doesn't mean they're reading the political content or have the slightest bit of interest in it. Unless one is looking to do whatever it takes to earn money via ads, or hosting "whose got the biggest blogging penis?" ruler parties, I don't really see the point. But then, maybe I'm just jealous... I get about 5 hits/day...)

As far as having Left and Right authors on the same blog site, I've found it always sounds better in theory than it works in practice. When it works best, it's two bloggers who know each other well and respect each other as people, taking "point/counterpoint" on agreed upon issues. And even then it sometimes devolves...(Hell, even group blogs where the authors all purport to be on the same side have issues with finding a coherent identity, both from within and without. I'd daresay we're seeing a little bit of that right here in this thread and the "open letter" commentary, though it's mostly via criticism from without.)
Those in favor of trying the Left / Right thing certainly ought to do so... but on a new blog, that hasn't already established an identity and way of doing things. Good luck.

From what little I've seen, I like the way Dana runs this place, and support the changes he's trying to make to the tone of the commentary. (I'm not a big fan of editing other folks comments, though. I understand why, but I wish there was another way, and wonder whether a straight removal, with an opportunity to rephrase and repost by the comment author, might not be better...) As long as he's consistent and even-handed, I suspect folks will get the message and either adhere to the standards or give up and spew their bile somewhere else. Echo chambers, right and left, are boring places, in my humble opinion... How many times and ways can a person peck out the comment "I agree," (or the old AOL variant, "me, too.")? While I'm sure it's an ego boost for some bloggers to see those like-minded fans agreeing with 'em in comments and via personal e-mail, that illusion of conformity comes at too high a price.

It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable, and while no one's perfect at it all the time (least of all me--I've most definitely been disagreeable, and no doubt will be, again), I applaud those who try...
---

Posted 29 April 2011 at 14:24

In Reply: "...the blogger is God, and can run his blog "creation" any way he sees fit..."

In reply to Open Letter To Dana Pico - Common Sense Political Thought (and to this comment, a little. [Appended at the end, because it shows how afraid of being challenged the man really is...])
---

Not being a regular here, I have no idea who is and isn't causing trouble, or on what political side they hang their hat(s) but, having read the Comments & Registration page, it seems like Dana has a pretty good policy... in theory, anyway. No matter how good the policy, one does have to use it when necessary for it to be effective, of course.

There is no reason that any blogger should have to put up with verbal abuse, spam, or bigotry of any kind in their comment sections. If that is the nature of the poison in question, the only argument for keeping it posted (as I often do on my blogs) is to let it stand as a monument of the bad behavior and thus shame the person posing it. Those who don't wish to do that should feel no guilt in removing such posts.

Once you get beyond that into ideological territory (like "the same tired arguments" or "fact-free commentary,") removing comments after the fact gets more sticky. I know in my case, it does get tiresome to see the same individuals make the same generalizations about the same social or political groups, and I'd imagine that they (and perhaps others, not involved) find it tiresome to read my same rebuttals to making such generalizations. Whether their generalizations or my rebuttals therefore deserve to be removed from the comment stream is another matter, however.

Removing commentary before the fact (running moderated comment sections, and only allowing "approved" comments to appear) is cowardly. It is possible to edit or remove offensive (or even simply tiresome) commentary after the fact in just about every blogging software, so to do so before the fact, just in case, is evidence that one is not willing or able to address dissent, and prefers to create the illusion that everyone agrees with whatever it is the blogger is selling.

In the end, the blogger is God, and can run his blog any way s/he sees fit, whether that means taking on all points of view, banning all points of view other than his/her own, or something in between. And whatever a blogger chooses to do, folks are going to judge, and some will be critical of the decisions the blogger makes. It's impossible to please everyone whatever blog/comment philosophy one chooses, and you win some and you lose some... As others have said, it really does come down to one's ideological makeup and the kind of blog one wishes to run. I'm on the side of diversity, but have little issue with taking a firm hand when diversity leads to namecalling, threats, and other unpleasantness, as long as one is open and evenhanded about it.

(Sure, I could address the allegations levied against me, but there's little point. Some folks potentially reading this (including at least two of the folks on the list of authors, here) were witness to what did/didn't happen between Dr. Douglas and I over the course of the last several years, and for those uninformed but interested, there is a plethora of archival verbiage available on our blogs and elsewhere on the web for folks to read and judge, should anyone's interest be piqued. 'nuff said, I think.)
---

Submitted Posted 27 April 2011 at 14:36 (I hit "post," and it vanished... and when I tried again, the system said it was a duplicate comment, so go figure... Moderation? A glitch? Banned, by reputation!?! I'll report back, should anything change.)
-
6:01 PM: 2:40 PM comment still not posted. After noticing that blog owner posted a comment (& presumably, cleaned out any/all comments held for moderation at the post, as well), submitted/successfully posted a link to this comment at original post.
-
6:30 PM: Original comment was caught in spam filter... Just my dumb luck... (New comment from Dr. Douglas over there, too. Same old tired and song and dance, right down to the "Bwahahahaha!".)
---

Donald Douglas' 26 April 2011 at 21:26 comment:

I’ll be perfectly honest: A few trolls aren’t gonna kill the traffic to the blog all that much. What’s gonna matter the most is high-impact content and networking with folks who can send readers and increase traffic numbers. Glenn Reynolds has no commenting feature. I’ve never asked, but obviously it’s not worth the time. I used to get well over 50-60 comments on blog posts routinely, but many of the commenters were left-wing radical progressives who later participated in reprehensible attacks against my livelihood. Repsac3 in particular is a well known troll around the blogosphere who sponsors intimidation campaigns against me. He’s banned. But I had to go to comment moderation in order to do it, since he refused to stop commenting, and that ruined the spontaneity of my community. It’s never been the same, but RacistRepsac3 isn’t the only one. Now by moderating I find a lot of comments that would get through without pre-apporval, so in some sense it’s a wash. So, decide what you want: Do you folks want a blogging and commenting community free of “poison” or are you looking to have a high impact on political debates, and thus high volume traffic? That latter’s going to take way more work than running a community of like-minded bloggers, and I doubt the return will be better.

Roundup and Commentary - 1/30/10

The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine. - Article XI, Treaty of Tripoli, passed by Congress 1797

Commentary:

Hypocritical - "I wouldn't mind watching your brain explode..."<- That's a hateful comment. I think I upset him. LOL http://bit.ly/9l4Dea #tcot #ocra #sgp, and sad - Did you catch my latest article? Have a good laugh at the Left's expense -> http://bit.ly/9l4Dea #tcot #ocra #teaparty #tlot. -
- Update to earlier "Liz Blaine is a hateful hypocrite" blog post

"“Bragging” about what you have vs what someone else has–including extolling the virtues of one’s hometown, rather than someone else’s hometown–is a pretty common back & forth among friends, and I’m surprised Donald didn’t take it in the spirit in which it was clearly intended." -
- Common Sense Political Thought - An apology to Donald Douglas - 30 January 2010, 11:11 am comment

Can't figure out how to successfully permalink these js-kit/Echo comments, but here they are, nevertheless:

"Yeah, Don's addiction to the word nihilism really has gone downhill lately. And we at American Nihilist are very sad about it (or would be, if we didn't think that everything Donald Douglas, Ph.whogivesashit blogs about was meaningless, anyway...)" - 1/30/2010, 10:10:14 AM EST comment -

"Sure, it looks like a toddler's temper tantrum, but it's really righteous wingnut anger at not being able to counter SEC's post with anything more than typos. Toss in a bunch of f@#l language, and it looks (to him, anyway) like he really said something." - 1/30/2010, 10:28:18 AM EST comment -

"And contrary to what our Powerpuffer says, his anger isn't limited to "leftist blog pimps." - 1/30/2010, 12:04:11 PM EST comment -
- Lawyers, Guns and Money: Phony political scientist sees morons at fake Indepedence Hall and is impressed.

"Given the history and shared values that Donald Douglas and Dana have, a better man would’ve given Dana the benefit of the doubt and spoken to him privately, rather than assuming the worst and attacking him in public in a subsequent blog post at American Power." -
- Common Sense Political Thought - An apology to Donald Douglas - 30 January 2010, 8:29 pm comment

Roundup and Commentary - 6/14/09

Blog Post:

Donald "Folks need to be careful about their allegiance" Douglas, and his enemies list

Commentary:

Censorship vs self-selection:
The Left Politicizes Gun Murders -- Politics Daily: "1:26AM Jun 14th 2009"

Congrats on a post well done:
bjkeefe: Time For That Picture Again

"There is no such thing as "the Extreme Political Right" in this country. That is just a Left Wing myth." Whooboy... Another denilalist wingnutter...:
American Power: Understanding Ideology

Internet ephemera I think is worth reading:

Common Sense Political Thought: Political ideology

Roundup and Commentary - 3/21/09

Comments:

Term limits and reading legislation (Read the Bill!): Common Sense Political Thought - Just how gullible do they think we are?

Sweetits and Fatty, and the joys of nicknames - insert clever s.logan here: Let's play a game: name that googler!

Liberals love to laugh, even at themselves... Common Sense Political Thought - Will our friends who screamed “Chimpy McHalliburton BushCo” be offended that some people are making fun of Barack Hussein Obama?

So far, he answer to the question above appears to be "Not so much..." One of the wingnut sites is pretty lame, but the other is a pretty clever idea, and can be kinda funny, too. So may I present: Barack Obama's Teleprompter's Blog (If I had one suggestion, I'd rename it The TOTUS Blog, which is what most folks are calling it anyway... Other than that, it's ok...)