Bayosphere

So, electing John Kerry will mean that folks like Ben H. Bell III will be barred forever from
leaving government service to apply information technology expertise in the private sector? Or
will their passports will be taken away as a condition of government service?

Dan is outraged because a private citizen leaves government service?

“We’ll stop the revolving door” said Bill Clinton in 1992 (who also said elect me and “you’ll
get the most ethical Administration in American history”).

It never really works out that way, because (i) Democrat demagoguery and socialist wage leveling
for unionized government officials has prevented for generations the development of a civil
service compensated at fair market value, and (ii) it’s all lies from the Left anyway — they
have no intention of “reforming” the revolving door, they *REVEL* in it.

Propose sweeping reforms of civil service regulations — eliminating most of the hard union
Left concessions that make wages level and firing/discipline non-existent — offer to make
government service a career alternative to the private sector, and maybe we can talk.

The Democrats will never do this because they are heavily funded by big Labor, and government
unions are the only growth sector for their economic interference and corruption.

(Except maybe the hotel sector in San Francisco, where the unions are disrupting the daily
lives of everyone without reasonable restraints).

Dan…
> a tactic of choice for the Bush administration other privacy invaders <
Here again, it’s not limited is it?

Last post got hosed.
———-
Dan…
>> a tactic of choice for the Bush administration
Do you know anything about other administrations, either republican or democratic? I know you like to smear the Bushies but I have the feeling it isn’t that limited. Do you know what the Kerry position is or are you just making a presumption it’s better?
>> other privacy invaders
Here again, it’s not limited is it?

George, I don’t have any great comfort that Kerry would be significantly better, though he’s said he’d try to roll back pieces of the “Patriot” Act (which he voted for).

I was tough on Clinton’s administration for whacks at privacy and civil liberties, and I’d give Kerry no quarter on this, either. But Bush is in a league of his own. In my lifetime, there has been no government remotely as contemptuous of privacy and liberty as this one, and if he’s reelected he’s going to work to make it immeasurably more invasive. He’s made no secret of this; heck, he’s bragged about it.

Why can’t we just adopt the European Community information privacy standards? Isn’t that something that any company operating or doing business in Europe has to do anyway?

P.S. I have an economic table pertaining to some of your recent columns at http://www.bovik.org/jobstable.html

I would say, that this tiny ‘episode’ is just a tiny piece of the “puzzle” – EVERYTHING’s going offshore… and with an ever growing pace, I would admit. Why? Because hi-tech economy is sort of jet-propulsion engine tied with rubber bands on top of obsolete steam engine of political system still carrying coal back and forth over railways. Rubber bands are extended to ‘offshore’ now… some day they will tear up altogether, guys.

Hi Dan. The URL is actually http://www.williamgibsonbooks.com/blog/blog.asp. The one you are referring to leads to an HTTP 403 error.

Grrr. IE considers the “.” that terminates the sentence to be part of the URL in my previous post. So the correct URL should be: http://www.williamgibsonbooks.com/blog/blog.asp in the above post. Sorry for the double entry.

Thanks, Jeff, I’ll fix it.

What makes you think the before and after images are at all different?

(Did he do it? I don’t know. But this particular civil suit doesn’t bug me anywhere near as much as the Kobe Bryant one does.)

I’ve removed off-topic postings. Please keep on topic in comments. Thanks.

I’m in big agreement with you on this one, Dan. Now please call my wife and explain to her why we can’t string up Scott Peterson until the trial is over, and then only if he’s convicted!

🙂

But in this case the coverage (lead by Drudge of course) started with an O’Reilly attack where he accused Andrea Mackris of extortion. So who is the accuser here? Whose guilt has already been decided?

Senator John F. Kerry made one, and I mean *just* one, public commitment to give a hard news interview prior to the election.

Bill O’Reilly.

This “case” has given him an “sexual harasser” out, and I’m sure he’ll take it.

I agree the news media give too much emphasis to this sort of stuff. But why does it follow that the lawsuit is presumptively “something other than a legitimate complaint”? And as Mr Tippett points out, do you extend the same presumption to O’Reilly’s lawsuit?

I extend the same presumption to the countersuit.

Boy, are the other cable news outfits all over this one. Just another example of our “up the stimulus” culture.

The Left tore up its credentials on sexual harrassment in the 1990s for naked expediency. Does Dan actually think we’re so blind and foolish to forget?

But did Dan stand “neutral”, and extend equal “presumptions” to accuser and alleged culprit, when Juanita Broderick accused President Clinton of rape?

Did Dan side with Paula Jones while she argued all the way to the Supreme Court for the right to have her sexual harassment case against Bill Clinton heard during his Administration? (She won that point before the Supreme Court, which ruled that Executive Privilege did not shield Clinton).

Did Dan critique Clinton for — as is now well documented — directing surrogates to attack Monica Lewinsky as a disgruntled, “mentally unstable stalker” for 10 days after “I did not have sex with *that woman*”, before he did a 180 and confessed to his inner circle?

Now that it’s a case against Bill O’Reilly, Dan wants to be balanced. Sheesh!

Sorry, Dan, you gave up any semblance of balance on this issue long ago, and any claim to *genuine* overriding concern for the interests of alleged women victims.

You have been willing to put the political needs of the day ahead of the rights of women proclaiming sexual abuse, harassment and even rape, when the Left was the target. Your motives for inserting your opinion in this case are suspect.

Let’s see — the image of a cowardly bully before; the image of a cowardly bully after. Where is the difference indeed?

After reading the complaint on The Smoking Gun, it’s impossible to look at him the same way.

Mental images just creep in, and they are just so wrong.

Whether Bill O’Reilly is guilty of anything or not, I have great sympathy for him since he has now entered the legal Twilight Zone of “sexual harassment” proceedings. In a rare moment of agreement between Mr. Gilmor and myself, I am also upset at the “accused = guilty” reasoning in all too many cases.

But sexual harassment is holy war of the left, for which justice has no bearing on attaining the ends: guilt. Like McCarthyism in the 1950’s or the Salem Witch hunts of old, the mere allegation of sexual harassment is “evidence” enought to sustain his guilt. Period. I work for a VERY large company and it’s been made clear — both in policy and in firings — that the mere allegation is sufficient to justify termination. Nowadays, “sexual harassment” can mean almost anything and only needs to be “perceived” by the “victim” in order to have taken place. Several men have been lost all — job, house, career, everything — and been left standing asking, “What did I do wrong?” The answer is befuddling: “It’s not what you did
, it’s how it was how she, uh, ‘perceived’ it.” So there you go; if she *felt* or *perceived* it as harassment — regardless of whether it was — then it’s treated just the same as if he groped her in the hall.

This points to another dynamic in the “accused = guilty” reasoning in these cases: there are no gradations of severity of guilt. Whether he “looked at her in a ‘weird’ way” or whether he outright groped her in front of colleagues, a man merely accused of sexual harassment is met with the maximum punishment — of course after an absurd “investigation” to “prove” the foregone conclusion of his guilt.

Many people rightly decry the seeming injustice of Ashcroft’s kangaroo courts for “terrorists” (wherein the standard of evidence is nill, the proceedings are kept a dirty secret, the prosecution runs the show, and the conclusion is pre-determined). But understand that men — especially white men — have lived under a “accused = guilty” system since the circus of the Anita Hill hearings.

Like many guys living under the fear of mere allegation, I feel for Mr. O’Reilly. Whether guilty or not, I sympathize with him insofar as I can’t stand to see anyone put through McCarthy-style injustice.

I would argue that Dan is being a bit generous in labeling the accused harasser in this case as a “news host”. But I do agree completely with Dan’s sentiments.

I was accused of sexual harassment a few years ago. The charges were completely bogus, but very similar to those in this case. In my situation, only a few co-workers knew about the allegations, so I didn’t have to endure much of the negative publicity and opinion ramifications Dan mentions. But the frustration and anger I felt that something like this could even happen, and the fear of an unknown outcome were damaging enough.

Fortunately, things were resolved in my favor in a matter of days, and the accuser was fired. But the stress was unbearable, and the situation contributed significantly to the end of my marriage. Try explaining to your wife why you need to take a few weeks off from work while you are being investigated for sexual harassment….

I could have (and probably should have) filed suit against my accuser and her lawyer. I chose not to. But I most definitely learned the moral significance of assuming innocence, and waiting to pass judgment until the facts come out in a court of law.

Thanks for the admission. Refreshing candor.

Of course, we’ll be calling you “accused sexual harasser llcooljj ” from now on.

Well, I guess that settles it: the apologists have trotted out the standard “Clinton did it first” excuse, so he’s obviously guilty as sin…

Isn’t this the same O’Reilly who admitted that Fox’s lawsuit against Al Franken was frivolous? Hoist, petard, etc.

While I agree that the allegations are not proven and need to be treated as such–this is not a Senate hearing or a criminal trial, folks. It’s a lawsuit.

Is it okay to feed Castor Oil to the troll?

I’d have to say that the troll is probably thrilled to merit a posting dedicated to him. He’s probably busy vandalizing Wikipedia right now…

In fact, allowing comments on the issue of please don’t feed the troll is sort of like leaving out containers of Purina Troll Chow out where he can find them…

PS, Moderated, nested threads like Slashdot’s help with trolls because people can respond to individual posts more easily and trolls get modded down. Unfortunately, your volume of posts doesn’t lend itself completely to that kind of set up, but nesting could be helpful.

Sorry, Dan — I’m guilty of toll-feeding, as I usually respond to his drivel. I’ll do my best to ignore him in the future 😉

Kerry has issued a statement about *outing* the daughter of the Vice President on his opposing ticket:

“I was trying to say something *positive*.”

Now he’s making references to HIV!

Will this outrageous conduct go unpunished by the voters?

Right, *I’m* the troll heaping ad hominems.

Dan, you’ve sat back for the past weeks as the rhetoric against my postings escalated. I’m “masturbating” on the blog, “spilling my seed of foul words”, I’m “brain dead”, “retarded”, “defective”, “challenged”, “sexually conflicted”.

All not without a word from you, asking others to be civil.

Dan, you are a rank hypocrite, comfortable only within your rigidly narrow ideological spectrum, and you obviously attract the same small minded rabble.

Fascinating link–it’s amusing how trollish behaviors are being categorized into some of the same categories of disfunction you see in antipatterns. ( http://www.antipatterns.com )

Very tempting to LABEL people.

Do we have a globally objective test for what constitutes “trolling” ?

Or is it just that we don’t like what he(she?) says?

Dan –it’s your site and obviously your subjective call on the issue. I think you take the high road by keeping the comments section open to the general public. Closing it would serve the ultimate goal of the trolling right-wingers: to stop free speech and honest debate.

When all is said and done, the trolls are most dangerous to their own prejudices and philosophies. They discredit themselves and their positions without yielding anything of substance…a verbal fart, if you will.

My father taught me it was unfair to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent, and I should be ashamed to score points at their expense. Okay, I understand that, and the logic for not feeding the trolls. but, Lord, it is SO-O-O tempting to provoke them when they are so sure of themselves AND unpleasant to boot.

OK.

So where were we on the outcome of Bush-Kerry debate #3?

I was surprised when my significant other (a female) starting leaning towards Bush after #3. Before that, she was leaning towards Kerry.

What did he do, how did he (Karl Rove) do it?

It went right over my testerone-drugged head. I thought Kerry was so much more “Presidential”. In my opinion, a mind is a terrible thing not to have in the White House. Was it the draft? Was it the “tax relief” line?

Kerry was revealed to the American people as the “conservative senator from the State of Massachussetts”.

He gay-baited his opponents, outing Dick Cheney’s daughter on national television to an audience of tens of millions of people, appealing to the prejudices of extreme right evangelicals in the most vile and despicable manner possible.

He played pander bear, promising that big government will cure all ills. “Got a problem? I got a pogam fo it!”

The extreme gap between his promises and his tax plan — so far Left no Congress, not even a majority Democrat Congress, would go for it — was laid plain. The feeble counterattack, characterizing the President’s plan to let Americans keep ownership of a portion of their social security contributions as “new spending”, was eviscerated by Bush’s pointing out the cost of inaction is GREATER.

Kerry’s rhetoric on immigration “earned legalization” fell on deaf ears, as he was revealed as supporting another amnesty. His suggestion that retinal scans (!) were the key to the problem of illegal immigration from the South was worse than pathetic. He seemed way out of his depths there.

He couldn’t avoid mentioning Iraq, opening himself up to the plethora of horrors facing Kerry on the foreign policy front, with his characterization of terrorism as a “nuisance like prostitution”, his Global Test, his berating and belittling of allies. All his worst one-liner slipups, came back to bite him in the behind.

His demonstrated a failure to comprehend the impact of the dot bom bubble, and the detonation of a tactical nuclear warhead-size weapon in the center of the U.S. financial districct, as contributing to the loss of jobs, and he failed to commend the President for the rapid pace of recent job creation, the pace of economic growth, the significant recent accumulation of unexpected tax revenues bringing down the deficit, and the host of additional Bush
accomplishments — a dramatic aversion of a threatened depression, and a strong recovery now that the tax cuts are in place, which no Kerry Administration could possibly hope to keep going apace.

And, of course, the American people saw the Kerry vision of bigger government, oppressive high taxes on small businesses, an aversion to real reforms of social security and medicare — all sorts of disappointing policy positions worthy of the 1970s, not the 21st Century.

Kerry was also revealed as a pro-abortion absolutist, who opposes restricting partial birth abortion, and intends to apply a strict litmus test for government. This reinforced the view he propogated at the last debate, where he criticized Bush for characterizing Thomas and Scalia as his favorite justices. (Of course, this is an extraordinary flip/flop for Kerry, who voted for Scalia’s confirmation to shore up support in the Italian-American community before a tight re-election contest).

The list goes on and on. A complete government takeover of health insurance with a “single re-insurer” plan for catastrophic coverage. Kerry compared Bush to Tony Soprano, then himself said that “you can take my plan, or you can keep yours with your high premiums, your shrinking coverage”. One of the audience members of the live-blog in which I participated last night said, Kerry’s plan is “the offer you can’t refuse!” ROFL everywhere.

Kerry offered Karl Rove a full panoply for a full scale counterassault for the rest of the month. Kerry is toast.

If this is a normal “query” post, I don’t see why (s)he’s being called a troll.

I do tend to snarl back when a handful of vile post-ers here — who Dan *won’t* police because they are ideological fellow travelers — accuse me of retardation and serial masturbation, etc.

Dan never criticizes the extreme Left for outrageous misconduct. Not here, and not when the standard-bearer of his party resorts to unabashed gay-baiting, appealing to homophobia, to drive support from his opponent.

Hey, pb, you must be Canadian.

In Canada, for those of you who don’t know us, the rule is, The exception is the rule. Americans get the point of a pattern, and it becomes a rule. It’s a rule of thumb, right? In Canada, however, whenever you point out a pattern, someone points out an exception. So there’s a real lack of common ground on what is a good rule of thumb on anything you can think of. Try it on the next Canadian you meet if you don’t believe me.

By the way, I’m an exception. 🙂

Nice to know he was not refering to me. I am the pleasant, informed, kinder gentler troll.

Dan deserves to be called out on some of his flat out bias. But you cant point out how he is wrong without acting like an a******.

“But you cant point out how he is wrong without acting like an a******”

You have it reversed. The extreme Left fellow travelers, the drooling mindless boobs with which Dan feels most comfortable and intentionally surrounds himself, act consistently like arseholes to anyone who breaks the party line.

They’re digital brownshirts, or redshirts.

He let’s them run rampant here, and he *doesn’t care*. In fact, he encourages them, goading on with threads like this one that encourage a mob mentality of hate.

At a time that Kerry, hiss standard bearer, is flaming the fires of hatred against homosexuals!

That’s right, we’re the “trolls”. Pathetic, isn’t it?

That’s it. I’m going home…no troll food for you.

Dan names a thread “Exploiting Terror, Degrading America”, then accuses *me* of “reflexively ultra-right positions on just about everything”.

What a “reflexively left-wing” hypocrite!

Query is burning more energy than everyone else.

Let him (her?) keep going. Just keeps building a longer list of mis-truths.

Query: Even the Higher Son got that first “talking point” more correct than you did. Karl Rove told him (via the back bulge?) to label *Ted Kennedy* as the conservative L-word from Mass. The point was to place Kind Kerry even more to the Left (on the outer bank). You were supposed to have understood that. Didn’t your Puppet-of-the-Neocons Talking-Points pamphlet arrive this week? This week’s sound bark is the “L” sound.

Look:

… JK … L … MN …

See? John Kerry is to the “L”eft of the Mean Neocons (er.. I mean compassionate coo coo’s)

If you gobble this one up, you’re a troll. Let it go.

Got you to *read* it, didn’t I?

LOL! The Left is so predictable.

“If people become abusive, they can be banned from discussions. Not everyone has a right to speak on everyone else’s site or be part of everyone else’s conversation.”-We the Media,184

Wanted to check out what was going on over here after reading Dan’s book for class. Found the current topic interesting 🙂 But I’m sure you all have better things to get back to…

Yes, Di, it was that very personal tribute by Dan in his book, no doubt intended personally for ME, that has kept me coming back.

Very interesting. Put out troll food and they come scampering in from the dark. Dan was right.

“He gay-baited his opponents, outing Dick Cheney’s daughter on national television to an audience of tens of millions of people, appealing to the prejudices of extreme right evangelicals in the most vile and despicable manner possible.”

Outed Dick Cheney’s daughter? Hardly. This wasn’t a secret or anything. It has been reported that Mary Cheney “publically ‘declared’ herself a lesbian, and has worked as the gay and lesbian corporate relations manager for Coors Brewing Co.”

Prior to this, Alan Keyes also called Mary a “selfish hedonist” because or lesbianism.
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040901-093347-1067r.htm

Dick Cheney’s daughter has discussed her sexual preference privately, never — EVER — on the record.

It is indisputable, and the Kerry team’s internals show it, that most of Bush’s evangelicals supporters did not know this.

Kerry outed her in from of 50 million Americans.

Fortunately, if the latest polls are any indication, this outrage sliced at his own jugular.

Kerry, with his damned insensitive remarks re Vice President Cheney’s daughter, simply proved once more he is “Unfit for Command”. See the Swift Boats and the “Stolen Honor” web sites.

James O. Dirden
CSM, U. S. Army
’44-’49/’50-’73

James Dalton Bell put together an idea for a distributed system of political control called ‘ assassination politics’. It was such a good idea that, like Inslaw’s PROMIS software it was stolen by the government. ( renamed PAM )
We know just a handful of hateful individuals are guilty of much of the spamming and virus propagation we all have to endure and as trolling fits that profile and Jim Bell suggested his system might be used to control car thieves one day, I would like to suggest the modified use of this net based P2P anarchistic system in this case.

Lunar right Troll’s permanent retirement by Xmas?

‘ I’d buy that for a dollar! ‘

“Kerry, with his damned insensitive remarks re Vice President Cheney’s daughter, simply proved once more he is “Unfit for Command’.”

No, I would put it as, “The evangelicals, with their damned insensitive response re Vice President Cheney’s daughter, simply proved once more that they are ‘unfit to be American.'”

I like many posts Dan makes but why do so many liberals try to squelch speech that disagrees with their point of view, often attempting to demonize those with alternate points of view. I thought liberalism was about openness and hearing all points of view (indeed, even relativism)? That’s one of the things I like about what liberalism is supposed to be.

But it seems like we’ve let emotion get the better of us and have gotten personal with this stuff. So what if query posts opposing ideas – skip the post for godsakes people if it bothers you that much. How are you any better than some supposed troll if you have to get down and sling mud and insults, etc.

Anyway, can’t we all get along? 😉

I wish Dan would make this blog more about technology and less about politics. As it has become more and more political, I’ve read it less and less.

VoIP Dude

There is politics in everything.

You can’t hide your head in the machine because the politicians are going to come around sooner or later, snatch your machine, and decapitate you in the process.

Remember that old song, “Where Have all the software jobs gone? Gone to outsourcing my son. When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn … “

If you didn’t know Cheney’s daughter was gay, you live under a rock. And her sexuality was also covered in the VP debates, so to say Kerry outed her is just silly.

Why can’t the right focus on bigger issues then whether the dems are talking about Cheney’s daughter being a lesbian? Just sheer stupidity. Why not talk about ideas instead of a he/said she said about something completely irrelevant.

Aren’t there three levels of conversation? Look what level your stuck at.

I am a firm believer in freedom of speech. Why can’t opposing view points be heard?

It would be pretty boring if it was just a one sided talk with everyone patting eachother on the back.

If this is an ongoing piece of advice for commentators, you might want to link to this blog entry right in the comment form, next to the ‘Comments:’ textarea box.

BlogGirl –You hit the nail right on the head. Yes you are correct.

There are 3 levels of conversation.

Karl Rove (RNC psych ops master) knows it all too well. Two of the conversations are with the more primitive, limbic and reptilian parts of the human brain while only one is with the higher-thinking, cortical part. The “mixed messages” get through to all 3.

For many Americans, the final vote is decided by the lower 2. But we do not phrase it that way. Instead, we say “I have a gut feeling that I like _____ better” (pick Kerry/Edwards or Cheney/Bush) as we pull that voting lever.

If you cannot articulate the reason, then you are probably voting with your limbic and/or reptilian brains.

The reptilian brain reacts to fear & hate.
The limbic brain reacts to love & loyalty.

That is why the Cheney/Bush team has wrapped themselves in the American flag and proclaimed war against “those who hate our freedom” and security for the children of all soccer moms.

Now on the issue of Loving Lynn and her Left-behind Lesbian daughter –I was listening to a radio talk show this morning and all the pro-Republicans were calling in with rage and rag in their arguments. They were angry for having been “outed” –as Hypocrites.

How can those who “Love Life” and who “Leave no child behind” not agree that the Vice Pesidential daughter has a right to “be who she is”.

Kerry kicked them where it hurts with that one. It was slightly below the belt –yes– but I’m sure they understand because they are such “compassionate” people.

Karl Rove wanted the “L”-word to be a code for “Liberal”. But as seen on NBC’s Today Show this morning, the Democrats have re-directed that arrow to mean Lesbian rights. The Republicans have been temporarily beat at their own game.

Tomorrow’s Sesa-mean letter will be “H”

Haughty Hate-mongering Hypocrites

“Step Back,” you seem like one angry person, so filled with hatred and contempt for others. That’s a shame I think, and I hope you someday come to value the thoughts and opinions of others – even if you happen to disagree with them.

Yo Dude –no hate
in my heart of hearts
… honestly

Everyone (even lesbians and neocons) is/are equally entitled to express their thoughts and to partake in rights that are given to other Americans.

That’s what makes America, our collective America, so great.

I don’t want to see that America destroyed by brain washing tactics. I’m outing the brain washers.

Instead of talking about taking daughter Cheney’s name in vain, let’s get back to the BIG issues, the real issues:

1) How are we going to get out of the mess in Iraq?
2) How are we going to kick start our faltering economy?
3) How are we going to fix our collapsing school systems?
4) How are we going to combat eco-destruction and global warming?

These are the big issues, not what color of clothing Laura is planning to wear for the next outing.

VoIP Dude, did you miss the headline? “Don’t feed the troll”.

Can’t respond on the objective issues. So you try to make it personal –eh ?

Let’s add to the list of unanswered questions:

5) How are we going to cure diseases if the Fed. govenrment will not fund R&D due to faith-based concerns?

6) How are we going to keep Social Security alive if the administration funnels all taxpayer monies (our money) to Halliburton and other friends-of-the-family ?

This is not trolling, this is sinking you under the weight of unanswered and fact-based (not faith-based) questions.

You want truth ? You can’t handle truth.

“Why can’t the right focus on bigger issues then whether the dems are talking about Cheney’s daughter being a lesbian?”

Because right now they’re losing on every important issue. (And that’s not my opinion — it’s what every poll is showing.) If you can’t run on your record, you spend the campaign trying to tear down the opponent.

(The irony is that Cheney’s daughter *has* publicly discussed her sexual orientation, and has even used it to campaign for Cheney. Lynn Cheney and Dick Cheney have both discussed it in campaign speeches. The right’s whining on this issue simply has no basis in reality.)

What seperates a troll from legimate discussion? That is the true question on this topic.

For me a troll is a poster of any opinion that is over the top in their posting. Constant ad hominem attacks, disrespect for other’s opinions and general over-the-top behavior characteristize a troll. No change of opinion or politenes occurs. Confrontation is the only goal. I apply the Daffy Duck rule: if you can picture Daffy Duck jumping up and down yelling quoting the message while you remain calm, it’s probably a troll.

What I don’t understand about trolls is their seeming compulsive need to be heard. After a while I tend to avoid places I am not welcome, but trolls seem to enjoy it.

step back: I am not sure I reach your third level often, but I am aware of the issues you mention and the distractions you cite. That really concerns me and quite frankly, scare me.

A Z: There is another issue going on at this “Don’t Feed the Troll” site.

Suppose I tell you that this has been an experiment by a psychology class.

We want to see how an ostracizing LABEL affects free speech.

Instead of labeling someone as a “liberal” or as a “neocon”, we use the “troll” label.

A certain percentage of the public is composed of ostracism-phobic personalty type. They are horrified by the idea of being identified as a “troll” and of thereby being shunned by the community. So they will instantly cease particiapation for fear of being labeled a “troll”. That is one bullying tactic. Create a repugnant label, attach it to one member of the community (Yes you query, even though you’re probably not a troll and you don’t hide under the bridge teasing the toads), and make an example of that one, picked out individual.

Luckily query has guts. He was not fully intimidated by the “troll” label.

So next bullyng tactic, is a sign on the lawn: Don’t Feed the Trolls. Now anyone in the group who talks to the to-be-shunned member is himself a no-good troll-feeder who is to be harranged.

Did this bullying tactic squelch free speech?

I think the answer is yes. At least here.

P.S. In the fairy tale, The Three Billy Goats Gruff, the third and biggest goat comes off the mountain and boots the troll off the bridge. The smaller goats live happily ever after.

PPS Blog trolling is a real problem. There are technical solutions. It has to do with how much energy readers have to expend to circumvent a posting that they deem as “troll-some” and move on to the next.

One last thing.

Note the connection to Dan’s next Posting: Ugly Accu-sation

Should O’Reilly be shunned by all men (the mark of Cain is upon him) because one person has called him a sexual-troll ?

Good question.

step back wrote:

>Let’s add to the list of unanswered questions:

>5) How are we going to cure diseases if the Fed. govenrment will not fund R&D due to faith-based concerns?

John Kerry is the candidate whose program promises drastic reduction in R&D over faith-based concerns.

Democrats, including John Kerry, have an overwhelming *faith* in the power of government, one that extends so far that it considers the private sector satanic.

Under Kerry, we know that drug prices will be subject to rigid government controls (a “negotiation” you can’t refuse), while junk science lawsuits against drug manufacturers run rampant. New drug development will collapse, and we’ll be stuck with drugs whose R&D began in the last *millennium*.

The elderly will be hit the most, because the government will control what drugs are covered and what constitutes a “fair” price.

We’ll lose out on drugs for Alzheimers, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and that’s just for starters.

Walk again! Vote for Bush!

I agree with query. It was *horrible* of Kerry to try to use the evangelical right’s hatred of homosexuality for political gain.

Good thing our President would NEVER do anything like that!

The next thing you know, Kerry’ll be accusing the Administration of trying to pass pro-homo Constitutional Amendments, just to rile up the right-thinking people on the right-most wing of the Republican party.

GO GEORGE BUSH YOU PRO-HOMO FAG-LOVER; DON’T LET JOHN KERRY GET AWAY WITH SLANDERING YOUR LOVE OF LESBIANS!

Trolls need love too.

Query couldn’t make it so I’m subbing.

“Kerry attitude towards terrorism is DANGEROUS and WILL DESTROY US ALL! If you can’t understand that, then you’re a shrill, fringe, hack, partisan LUNATIC!”

Ah, who am I kidding? I just can’t do hyperbole and hysteria quite the same way as our favorite baby-snacking troll. Sorry, Query.

The man who voted — at the height of the Cold War — to cancel the B-1B, the B-2, the Apache, the Patriot Missile, SDI research, the Aegis Missile Defense System, and the “dangerously provocative” equipping of our troops with countermeasures for chemical and biological weaspons, CANNOT be criticized as a poor potential commander-in-chief!

So says Dan Gillmor.

Why not?

Just because. Hate Bush!

I don’t think it’s just terrorism, and I don’t think it’s just Bush.

The third-party folks would argue that there’s so little difference between the GOP and the Democrats that candidates *must* drive wedges between each other in order to seem different.

But I suspect it’s not that. It’s simply a matter of playing to your strong suit. Bush can’t point to the economy (he’s wrecked that). He can’t point to the war in Iraq (it’s going terribly). He can’t point to healthcare, or civil liberties, or a host of other things.

Bush’s big positive, such as it is, is that he was in charge on 9/11. He did well for a few weeks then, and he wants people to think of him as *that* Bush, not the one we’ve seen since.

Hence, “9/11, 9/11, 9/11!”

9/11 delivered the equivalent of a tactical nuclear warhead detonation in the heart of the NYC Financial District.

Very little discussion of the economic impact has occurred, in part out of respect for the dead, and partly (unfortunately) out of a partisan creed that you can’t highlight facts favorable to Bush.

9/11 was the worst attack on our economy in the history of the United States of America. We lost 1,000,000 jobs over the ensuing three months. That on top of nearly equivalent job losses resulting directly from the dot com bubble which burst on the Clinton/Gore 9 months before Bush came into office.

Bush’s record of turning what could have been a decade long, catastrophic depression into the shortest recession in U.S. history is a harrowing achievement. But it cannot be, and won’t be, discussed, just as Kerry’s true record of selling out the interests of the United States to a radical internationalist agenda can’t be discussed.

Hate Bush!

If someone could explain to me what the B-1B, the B-2, the Apache, the Patriot Missile, SDI research, the Aegis Missile Defense System have to do with stopping terrorists I’d be grateful. As far as I understand it, the B1-B is a billion dollar aircraft who job could be done a lot cheaper by firing missiles at the enemy from submarines, the Apache has been crap in the desert and keeps getting shot down, the Patriot missile system doesn’t work (during the Gulf war not one missile was shot down by the Patriot system, see union of concerned scientists for a report), SDI, well, less said the better as it doesn’t work after billions of dollars of investment, Aegis Missile Defense System may stand a chance of working but doesn’t really help against the real threat: terrorists. I think the President’s attitude towards terrorists can be summed up as believing states are the problem, while Kerry beleives (if I’ve understood correctly) that it is non-state actors such as Al Qaeda that are the main threat. In either case, its boots on the ground that matter, not billion dollar weapons systems that even Cheney wanted to cancel. If we had spent all this money on the troops, and on equipment the troops needed to secure Iraq after the invasion, we wouldn’t be in the mess we are today.

Query seems to be masturbating all over this blog, but I’m going to repost part of what I said on my blog:

The real hijackers of the American people are the neocons who saw (or created) an opportunity and grabbed it. They have managed to scare some ordinary, often decent, people into fearful animals who cry for blood and vengence. It saddens me to see my country transformed this way. If we don’t get back to our roots soon, I think the terrorists – intent on striking fear into our collective hearts – and the neocons – intent on destroying American democracy – will have won.

All these weapons systems were used to destroy Al Qaeda’s training camps in Afghanistan and Northern Iraq, and to destroy a number of sites that were thought to contain WMD related materials.

(Clinton said he thought that his assault on Iraq *without* UN approval during his impeachment hearings in 1998 (with the same systems Kerry wanted to cancel) destroyed Saddam’s WMD. Why does he get away with this claim, unchallenged by the mainstream media? Or are you willing to concede that Bush’s aerial assault on Saddam in 2003 preceding the invasion may have destroyed the WMD?)

As his fellow Senate Democrat said, Kerry is not only one of the least accomplished, most liberal Senators in America, he would have reduced our offensive capability to spitballs.

Wow. To Craig, the “real” hijackers were the so-called “neocons”, not the Al Qaeda terrorists who killed so many Americans on 9/11.

Craig, how do you live with yourself? Or do you hide your true beliefs from your friends and neighbors?

President Bush has used 9/11 as a political stratagem. He has used the “War on Terror” to paint himself as a hawkish politician, and mentions 9/11 in every one of his speeches to rouse his Republican base.

Riiiiight, Jay. Because there *is* no War on Terror. It’s made up. It’s an international Jewish conspiracy.

We’ve heard your style of vapid, anti-semetic internationalist pacifism before.

Hopefully, the rallying cry “never again” still holds meaning to the latest generations dumbed down and brainwashed by the far Left extremist public education system.

Query said “All these weapons systems were used to destroy Al Qaeda’s training camps in Afghanistan and Northern Iraq, and to destroy a number of sites that were thought to contain WMD related materials.”

Which indicates he wasn’t following what I said correctly (plus how can a non-exsistent weapon system such as SDI, be used in a real war. Bizarre). Read what I said above. The B1 and B2 were used on some missions, but Tomahawk cruise missiles could have (and on some occasions, actually did) done the job that these billion dollar planes did for a lot cheaper cost. In fact, 50-year-old B-52’s dropped more munition that the B1 and B2 bombers. Why do you need a billion dollar stealth aircraft for a country that had no effective (or in Afghanistan’s case, a non-existent) anti-aircraft system?

I can use a jewel encrusted fork to put food in my mouth, but a plain metal spoon would do the job just as well. On one mission that 32 Apache helicopters went out on, 27 of them were either seriously damaged or shot down from simple AK-47’s and RPG’s. A tank would have been more effective (or an A-10, which is cheaper, and just as accurate as a helicopter). My point is that these expensive dinosaurs are not the cheapest, most effective tools for winning this war, and in some cases, actually hinder them. THe US hasn’t the luxery of being able to spend a ton of money on crappy systems anymore. We need to spend our money on what works. Boots on the ground work better at stopping terrorists and winning wars than a billion dollar aircraft that becomes visible when it rains. I would have thought that you neocons wcould have worked this out now that you’ve screwed up the peace in Iraq.

“So says Dan Gillmor.”

Actually, Dan was linking to, and quoting from, a column by someone else. But don’t let reality stand in your way…

“Very little discussion of the economic impact has occurred, in part out of respect for the dead, and partly (unfortunately) out of a partisan creed that you can’t highlight facts favorable to Bush.”

Um… I don’t know where you’ve been, but there’s been lots of discussion of the economic impact of 9/11. But the fact is that it pales in comparison to the impact of the failed economic and domestic policies of this administration. But you’d have to understand economics to know that, which you obviously don’t.

“As his fellow Senate Democrat said, Kerry is not only one of the least accomplished, most liberal Senators in America, he would have reduced our offensive capability to spitballs.”

Zel Miller is not a Democrat in any sense of the word. But more importantly, his speech was a steaming pile of B.S. Kerry’s plans for the military and homeland security will make us BETTER equipped for today’s dangers, not less. That isn’t partisan spin — it’s according to the people who are doing the work: the military and intelligence communities. As for “most liberal,” have you actually READ the National Journal’s report — the one the Bush campaign cites when they say Kerry is the “most liberal”? If you did, you’d see that they specifically say the Bush campaign is flat-out wrong.

As with most of your statements here, there isn’t a shred of credibility to them.

“the far Left extremist public education system.”

ROFL! Do they pay you to make such ridiculous statements? Or are you just nuts?

The REAL war is no longer fought with bullets & bombs.

It is fought with Words & Ways of Mind Deception.

Those who are hit by its shrapnel don’t even know it.

It is fought here, on US TV tubes, not in Iraq.

The catch alphabet letter from the Oct. 13th debate is “L”.

L as in Massachusetts Liberal
L as in Leftwing Liberal
L as in Litigation Reform (what happened to “Tort” reform?)
L as in “Love Life”

L as in Lying Liars who Loft Lousy Labels at opponents

Bush’s psych ops guys are meaner & smarter –they will probably win

These Bush folks will say anything to push their agenda. They lied to get us into a war. For the life of me, I don’t understand why true conservatives, Christians, and military people aren’t outraged. As to the lies, please check out the ads on my website http://www.hoppervideo.net

Until Wee Willie Winkle gets his wondrous wanderer’s windup time machine gee-by-golly developed so that wonks with wide, watery eyes can use it to further study, wistfully, want-to-be-but-won’t, what-they-wish-were-true-but-aren’t 9/10 dream worlds, I wish to brutally interject, honey buns, that we’ve been at war with terrorism, according to the terrorists, since the 1972 Munich Olympics. Of course we, the United States, weren’t really involved in Munich–just Israel that time, we had to wait a few years for the outright murder of American citizens. But, my lovey doves, they made up for their neglect of us: in Beirut, on the Mediteranean Sea, in Saudi Arabia, in Africa, in Aden and–whoops! what happened, sweethearts? (as Bogart might’ve said)–in New York City on September eleventh, in The Year of Our Lord, 2001. On that day, 9/11/04, whether you blithering, liberal idiots remember it or not, we lost more people than we lost at Pearl Harbor on 9 December 1941. I was sixteen when I listened to the news of the Japanese attack on the radio, in the kitchen of a ten-dollar-a-month behind-the-mill walkup apartment, and I was seventy-six when I watched the planes flying into the Trade Center towers on television, and I fully remember both of them, just as I remember the news that North Korea had invaded South Korea, the news that well nigh one million Vietnamese escaped from the north after the communists took over in Hanoi, the news, and pics that recorded “Hanoi Jane Fonda” playing like she was shooting down American planes, the news that “four month wonder” Kerry declared all American soldiers who served in the Nam (some two and a half million) were murderers, rapists and worse, the news that after we backed out of South Vietnam, giving the North Vietnam Army a clear shot, the North Vietnamese rounded up a million or so people and slammed them into “reeducation” camps and a million or so of the southern Vietnamese forsook the mainland and took to pirate infested waters to escape the communist tyranny. Yeah, honey dolls, I remember all this, and I remember Iserved as an infantry GI in Europe, as an infantry platoon medic in Korea, and as a Medical Group operations sergeant in the Nam. I remember all this stuff cause I played a part, a damned small part, I acknowledge, in WWII, Korea and Vietnam. So whine and bitch all you want, pretty boys, when Bush or Cheney mentions 9/11, memories of the crashes, the flames, the bodies falling through air, the collapse of the towers, the absolute fear and
panic on the faces of the people fleeing this mass murder site should be enough to remind you that WE didn’t declare war, the terrorists, all the terrorists did . . . on us.

I hold only contempt for the left-socialist, neo-communist liberals who agree with the “oil-for-food” scavengers, the perfidious, “let’s not depose Saddam” France and Germany and their ilk. And if the shoe fits, baby dolls, so be it.

James O. Dirden
CSM, U. S. Army
’44-’49/’50-’73

This is a “Whoops” remark on my part. In my previous comment (October 14, 2004 06:41 PM), while referring to the 9/11 attack, I goofed and entered “9/11/04”. Suffice it to say, I should have entered it as “9/11/01”. I guess I’m just too caught in the present. Sorry, all you out there.

James O. Dirden
CSM, U. S. Army
’44-’49/’50-’73

This is a “Whoops” remark on my part. In my previous comment (October 14, 2004 06:41 PM), while referring to the 9/11 attack, I goofed and entered “9/11/04”. Suffice it to say, I should have entered it as “9/11/01”. I guess I’m just too caught up in the present. Sorry, all you out there.

James O. Dirden
CSM, U. S. Army
’44-’49/’50-’73

The wedge was there before 9/11. Each party has their scare tactics. The Dem’s have been scaring seniors with Social Security threats (that Republicans would kill it) for decades. (And they never even try to fix it.) Abortion is an issue with both sides. The Republicans are doing it with terrorists – oh, except we’ve lost 3,000 (4,000+ if you count troop deaths). I live in Chicago and every time I go by Sears Tower, I look around. I’m sure I’m not the only one.

The reality is these militant Islamists are being arrested all the time in various countries because they want to kill people.

Friedman is entitled to his opinion, but it’s exacty because we’re on the offensive that there haven’t been more attacks here.

It reminds me of a headline a few years ago that was something like this “Crime Drops And Yet The Prisons Are More Full Than Ever.” Duh, it’s exactly because the prisons are full. The prisons are full of people with recidivistic behavior.

Specifically to the point about the wedge between Amerca and the rest of the World, excuse me, your missing something important. At least two of our so-called closest friends took big bribes to thwart attempts to enforce the UN resolutions on Iraq.

Dan, you, Kerry and the Democrats who love to put the blame for the differences totally on us are blind to some of these other issues. A few are:
– the bribes (a very big dynamic),
– EU internal politics (another huge dynamic that goes unreported in the US – one thing is France and Germany are trying to maintain power as the former Soviet-block countries get stronger),
– the fact that the US is pulling even further ahead of them (our per-capita GDP is $10,000 per year more than most of Europe’s),
– our employment numbers are so much better (Kerry can complain about Bush, but we’re in the fives and Europe is in the 9’s and 10+’s),
– and last, but not least, there is just plain old fashioned jealosy.
I would venture to say that this dislike for the US is mostly about jealosy. Bush is an easy target for the leftists running many of these countries. It’s far easier to blame Bush for their problems than to try to solve them – so they do.

Democrats don’t even think about these other issues. The seething hatred for Bush is blinding them from the above issues.

So, from what I can see, Friedman is confused.

Friedman isn’t just confused. He has an agenda, one that will be furthered by the policies of John Kerry, which will make America — our domestic and foreign policy, and our economy and defensive posture — more like Europe.

That, friends, is a sellout of a catastrophic order, all in furtherance of an extreme “one world” ideology, the birthchild of socialist propoganda from the last Millennium.

The scary thing is that folks like Kerry, lacking utterly in moral grounding and pursuing lives of self-indulgence and aggrandizement run rampant, have nothing else to fill their empty, pathetic lives.

Kerry didn’t just marry up *more* than the other two gentleman on stage last night. He married up more *twice*.

I see, and approach, a great divide:

Turning first to the right, I smile, wink, and ask “remember when the Republican Party used to actually try to make government smaller?”

Turning to the left, I query, “remember when Democrats spoke out for liberal doses of personal freedom?”

To the center I say, “remember when neither party would have supported the HUGE federal government we have today! Most importantly, can anyone remember the last time Bush or Kerry used the words ‘individual freedom’ or ‘personal liberty’?” If so, did you believe them?

Check it out: http://badnarik.org/plans.php

“Most importantly, can anyone remember the last time Bush or Kerry used the words ‘individual freedom’ or ‘personal liberty’?”

At last week’s debate, in response to the question about the PATRIOT Act.

Kerry kinda-sorta-indirectly acknowledged that Congress had screwed up in their mad dash to pass it, and that some of its more obnoxious provisions needed to be “fixed”.

Bush, otoh, told some of the most outrageous lies I’ve ever heard, almost giving credibility to the conspiracy-theorists’ claims that he’s secretly planning a dictatorship.

Dipstick’s bogosities aside, there actually are some issues that, mirabile visu, actually have something to do with “technology” 😉

“the Patriot missile system doesn’t work”

Well, it didn’t work as an ABM system, but it was originally designed as an anti-aircraft defense. It probably would be useful to protect important sites from kamikaze-style attacks. In fact, I think I’ve read that it’s doing just that in D.C. (Personally, I’d rather see them deployed around targets like nuke and chemical plants near population centers: Congresscritters are cheaper and easier to replace 😉

Do a goooogle* search for the B-1B’s exploits in Afghanistan: it’s an interesting tale of redemption. The Air Force took what was, indeed, something of a white elephant, and modified it to handle conventional bombing missions. Among other things, they used it as a substitute for heavy artillery.

This is important to dealing with terrorists because, contrary to the Bushies’ constant bellowing about being “at war”, most of the military action _will_ be more like police work. The targets won’t be on battlefields, trying to hold on to territory: they’ll often be among innocent civilians, more likely to retreat than to try and stand their ground. As with crime investigations, most leads wo
n’t pan out, and the course of events when they do is not easy to predict. But a key difference is that the nature of the people they’re looking for makes it far more likely that they’ll have to be killed, rather than captured.

Under those circumstances, cruise missiles don’t work, because they have a long delay between the time you fire them and the time they hit. And it’s very likely that the people doing the hunting won’t want to be clomping around with a howitzer or helicopter gunship in tow: it’s bad PR, and tends to take away the element of surprise.

So, as strange as it would seem to someone who grew up on images of B-17s or B-52s, a high-altitude bomber can be the most effective and precise tool, with the lowest risk to innocent bystanders, in many of the situations terrorist-hunters are going to encounter.

Is it the cheapest method? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. But I don’t really care, because the biggest cost isn’t measured in dollars, and the are plenty of examples of what happens when the people trying to nail the bad guys are indifferent to the fate of innocent bystanders.

But you don’t have to worry about the government going too crazy with this tool: inronically, the folks Zell Miller decide to support by castigating Kerry for, among other things, voting to “cancel” the B-1B recently retired most of the fleet…

* For some bizarre reason Dan’s content filters are objecting to the the use of the real name.