U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Janak Joshi
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet
(D) Phil Weiser
60%↑
50%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) David Seligman
50%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Danielson
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
40%↓
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(D) Jeff Bridges
(R) Kevin Grantham
40%
40%
30%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(D) Milat Kiros
90%
10%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(R) H. Scheppelman
(D) Alex Kelloff
70%
30%
10%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Trisha Calvarese
(D) Eileen Laubacher
90%
20%
20%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Jessica Killin
70%
30%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Shannon Bird
45%↓
30%
30%
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
December 23, 2009 04:28 PM UTC
160 Comments
Are you not motivated by anger every time you make comments defending Bennet on a Diary that documents character flaws in Bennet’s speech? And isn’t it anger when that Diary didn’t make the front page due to political positioning by Colorado Pols?
Are you not motivated by anger when you only promote your views and those who share your views in an effort to make the opposition look bad?
Are you not motivated by anger every time you front page a favorable post to Bennet?
If not then why do you do this? I think the readers would like to know.
There’s plenty of evidence.
This site is now, and long has been, BennetPols.com. It’s not some neutral site where politics are discussed by all comers. It’s a site that is manipulated, in as many ways as can be found, to favor certain candidates: Democrats, certainly, and members of the Ritter-Bennet faction in particular.
One doesn’t have to be angry to do this. Just…well, just doing one’s self-appointed job: protect Ritter-Bennet.
The shame, the surprise, the lunacy proclaimed by Michael Bennet of the process that led to this disgusting Senate bill. What a freaking abortion. This SOB voted for the turd, shame on him.
Read more: http://www.denverpost.com/opin…
Lots of us legitimately like Bennet and Ritter. Just because we don’t share your hatred of them, doesn’t make us tools.
are the Bennet haters. That would be you.
Working the refs is a time honored strategy for underdogs, and it also is great for relieving the stress that accompanies so much effort ending in probable defeat. If done well it can be very effective.
Unfortunately, Romanoff’s shills aren’t very good at it, and come across as petty and spiteful. And they don’t accomplish their mission.
I’ve always maintained that Romanoff is a much better candidate than Mike Miles, but his supporters make me think the same childish angst that drove Miles’ supporters is what is keeping Romanoff’s campaign alive.
For tose taht don’t know, a shill is a paid surogate.
A Prop is an unpaid surrogate.
These terms oome from the gambling world.
Dictionaries permit more than one definition, though.
You tried that yesterday, and I should have corrected you then. “Shill” has nothing to do with remuneration. It has to do with association. From the Wiki definition of the term:
From Dictionary.com:
Note the use of the word “or.” Profit is not required, merely loyalty.
What you are talking about is a prop for the house.
A shill for the houose gets paid.
A prop for the house does not.
on anopther side note:
It seems that pheonix rising has been stating “I am droll” since at least
by: Phoenix Rising @ Tue Feb 14, 2006 at least by: Phoenix Rising @ Tue Feb 14, 2006 at
I am droll
——————————————————————————–
by: Phoenix Rising @ Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 23:00:00 PM MST
[ Reply ]
Droll was very upset with Giplin Guy and said that Giplin guy was mean……..
Gilpin guy sounds like another person that knows the street term.
But your use, and your tendency to strike out with assaults on people being “heterosexual” on social netowrking sites like FB make me think that you get frustrated when losing.
You should stay away from gambling.
You go on tilt too easily.
What are you suggesting?
Editing my posts and everything. Go back and check – none of my posts have ever claimed ‘I am droll’. Either that, or I’ve gone back in time just to piss you off, and have now removed all evidence of that action.
(The signature mechanism on Colorado Pols automatically attaches the user’s current signature to each response; it does not save the signature with the comment.)
they are not legitimate thinkers? Wow, that is cynical.
How about, the majority of the time, Bennet, Udall, Ritter and others do a DAMN GOOD JOB. They are human beings. Sometimes they screw up, but for the most part, they work hard, care about people and are movitated by service.
Or is giving credit where credit is due not in fashion this year?
You did get my note, right?
who needs credibility when you can whine about people “attacking” you for posting drivel?
Speaking of unfair, Gilpin Guy! There are far too many people who respond without reading and won’t take responsibility for their posts to single you out. Normally I’d apologize, but what’s good for the goose…
I think to call what they do “strategy” is a bit of a stretch. It’s just whining victimhood by people who have clearly lost their grip.
Um, just a reminder, when the Democratic Party in this state was cowering under their chairs, wimpering at the awesome power of Ben Switchhorse Campbell, Mike decided that SOMEONE needed to actually act like a Dem and run for the Senate.
He (and everyone else around him) knew it was a longshot, but at least we weren’t afraid to say and campaign that we were Democrats. I guess the Chris Gates formula of being “Republican-lite” was the way to win elections in this state.
R-Lite may have worked before, just as it did for Clinton in ’92 and ’96 (although he never won a majority). That was before eight years of Bush.
For whatever reason and by whatever means, the state has changed. The viewpoint of many insiders doesn’t seem to have.
The center is still in play. That’s where elections are won.
Republican losses have more to do with running hard right and less to do with demographics.
If the Republicans had run a few decent candidates that appealed to the center, they wouldn’t be in such statewide doo-doo.
…but the population growth of CO suggests either a large influx of people from elsewhere, or one helluva fertility rate! I’ve heard natives complain about rude drivers on grounds they came here from out of state (California is a favorite target); maybe they were just natives in a big hurry to get to the maternity ward.
In Mesa and Garfield Counties, it was energy workers. They did anything but make the population more liberal. In the late ’80s, it was “white flight” from California. Same effect.
…flight from CA years ago. CO was sort of CA weather, only with snow. In any case, the Republican era that started in ’68 (some say ’80, but I’d argue that it was earlier) has clearly come to an end–not everywhere and not altogether–but it has ended. The question now is: what’s next? The Rahm Emanuel era? Hopefully not, but we shall see.
doesn’t get out of Denver much.
I’d prefer that our leaders were a bit (not a lot) more liberal. But I also think there is a strong strain of liberalism in this state. And as a democracy, to get elected you need a majority of the voters behind you.
It Bennet prepared to petition onto the ballot?
No, the readers would not like to know. Three of you would, the rest of us don’t give a rat’s ass. Conspiracy theories sound laughably absurd coming from conservatives; they sound even worse coming from liberals. STFU already.
Do you ever get tired of whining?
Maybe to JO, but what has Sharon done to deserve any respect around here?
Their moments of sane and rational behavior seem to be growing further and further apart.
I was just returning the courtesy.
so none implied, none given then. 🙂
Here’s some nutty Bible Thumper who’s religion never matured much past the kindergarten Sunday school.
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpoin…
I love the way the moderator follows up.
Caller: Um, Senator- my tin foil hat apparently has stopped working because recent;y my cat started talking to my neighbors on the phone. I’m pretty sure it’s under warranty, but why could this be happening.
Senator: Uh, talking to your neighbors on the phone sounds like a good thing.
Moderater: Senator, the caller is referring to the theory that wearing a tin foil hat should block messages from alpha centauri and other extra terrestrial locations. DO you know how to block those signals?
If he had a decent bone in his body, he would have immediately decried such an insane call. Where in the world are the sane in this party these days?
Barrasso didn’t even blink when the guy said they had “prayed real hard that Senator Byrd would either die or couldn’t show up at the vote…”
Again.
Something we can all agree on, I think.
The Great Uniter.
Read more: http://www.denverpost.com/opin…
Although the Mann-created data is bogus and any random data entered into Mann’s “formula” will create the same outcome this ethically crippled NCAR gimp {Trenbreth) has the stones to layout some warped defense and abdication position.
This whole corrupt effort has lost it’s credibility because of what was exposed and their lack of response. Why won’t these “scientists” release their data?
Why were these emails and data hidden in the first place. Are we the general public to stupid to understand, to be part of the peer review process? This is like the Ritter budget process – no disclosure.
Why can these “scientists” discuss the the truth only with fellow global warming falsifiers and not to the general public.
This much is clear from his statement … I’m not responsible for my actions.
Its like chum to the tea party sharks …
You will never learn the difference between climate and weather, so I don’t know why I bother.
However, I’ll try to oversimplify it for you. For it to snow HERE, it has to be warm SOMEWHERE; that’s how water is evaporated from the oceans and gets into the atmosphere so it can come out somewhere else as snow.
Ice ages are preceded by prolonged warm periods, which deposit winter snow in quantities that take longer each year to melt. When the snow accumulates to the point at which it doesn’t melt fast enough, more solar energy is reflected from the year-round snow and the earth cools.
This is fun for me for some reason, and seems to be fun for you, so…..
Ok, you can quote the commenters at Climate Audit all you want, but of everybody who writes there, only two of them have the capacity to understand the statistics and data analysis behind what Mann et al. have been doing. Does that subset include you?
No argument from me. Trenberth is a problem and has been for years. But as I told Laughing Boy, he is one scientist out of somewhere between 5,000-10,000 studying the issue. The science neither starts nor ends with Mann, Trenberth or any of the other scientists that you don’t know, have never met, but have only read caricatures of on the internet.
There are a few answers to this, but I’ll give you one: I got a paper published in 2001, for which the research was done in 1998-1999. That was at least 6 computers ago for me. So if you came to me right now demanding my data, it would take me weeks to even figure out if I still had it. Why in the world would I spend that amount of time trying to satisfy the curiosity of an internet lurker who I know is only trying to assassinate my character?
Hidden? Are your emails public record and easily findable to all of us? If so, can you please post logins and passwords in response to this comment?
Sadly, yes. Put it this way: are you qualified to give me a second opinion on my oncology report? No? Then why are you qualified to give a second opinion on advanced geophysical data analysis, which I daresay is easily as complex as oncology.
I would guess you already know about realclimate.org, scienceblogs.com and dozens of other sites where real climate scientists constantly engage the general public on climate science. This is a golden age of scientist-layman interaction. It’s only your fault that you’re only seeking out a politically-influence choice and not reading everything you can on the subject.
with a direct reference in one sig line (finally!) and I was the referent in the other.
and I didn’t realize that it would back-date the sig lines. I guess I figured comments already made would keep their sig lines. this is like back-dating stock. so I might have to go back to my line that quotes you. 🙂
because it looks like I’m either the direct reference to “great stems”, or the inspiration for same.
as far as you can confirm so far, right?
The Japanese just announced that despite the outcome in Denmark, they are sticking to their 2020 carbon reduction goals (which are pretty steep). In other words, they are not backing out because they think it’s going to collapse their economy, destroy their democratic and capitalistic system, etc. etc. etc. I don’t see the Japanese as socialistic demons set out to destroy capitalism, do you?
You guys can blow the hyperbole out of your ass on carbon regulation all you want, until everybody wakes up and realizes that it’s just that — hyperbole.
I expect that the Japanese recognize the national and economic security that comes from homegrown energy sources. Too bad we don’t, even though we’ve been at war in SW Asia since 2002. If only we’d put that money into such socialistic endeavors as building out infrastructure to support wind and solar power.
building up the infrastructure for solar, wind, and other renewable power generating sources, would require a similar focus and foresight as building a national interstate highway system.
And we all know how awful that interstate highway system turned out after 30 years.
Oh, it was a good thing? Hmmmmm.
“…we’ve been at war in SW Asia since 2002…”
US forces were present starting in the summer of 1990 for Desert Shield. Then Desert Storm, OPeration Provide COmfort and the no fly zone, and etc and so on right up till now. (And by “etc and so on” I mean no disrespect to anyone’s service through the years.)
Ha!
I want my snow white and fluffy, driven by a breeze and drifting around my ankles when I walk. I want big, wet flakes filling my hair, and yes my eye lashes.
I want great piles of the stuff covering everything in a thick blanket of cold white.
Since what is happening outside right now doesn’t match my desire- it’s not really snow.
Though if they move on to my farm out east, that’s a good thing and I’ll give the credit for that to Romanoff.
Just please don’t blame me.
Let me tell you snow – why back in ’82 when the snow was drifting over the roof tops and all I had was a six pack in the frig and none of the good Dr. Jim B…
After skiing 2 miles to the store and back, it was good to see the flag pole again so I could dig out a door. . .
you skied uphill two miles, both ways. 🙂
I was just four but still remember snow drifts up to the window of my second floor bedroom.
I blame that one on George W. Bush.
Anything bad that has happened in the last 100 years or in the next 100 years should rightly be laid on him.
about that. Was the only episode I ever saw.
http://www.gjsentinel.com/hp/c…
Shills, commence your descent.
Yesterday, the Senile ran an AP story about the vote, with the homebrew headline “Bennet has it both ways.”
I’m not sure why that is–I guess I figure liberals are few and far between in that area. I was pleasantly surprised by the op ed and gotta give the Sentinel credit for printing it. Our local rag cuts you off at 500 words which is actually a good thing for the more loquacious up here who can’t seem to make their point in less than 3,000 words.
Bill Grant writes a column once a week.
It’s the “token liberal” column.
because they didn’t have a conservative currently writing and thought it unfair to have one but not the other. On paper, that seems fair, right?
What they failed to acknowledge is this old rich geezer that writes a quaint opinion column every week and also manages to run 500 to 800 words of it about his detestation of Obama and the Democratic Party. But hey, since he includes little tips and jokes from the 1950s’, that doesn’t count as a conservative opinion.
I love the Estes Park logic. It’s why I’ll never move.
What a great way to start my morning. Another Bennet v. Romanoff debate, Round 367.
buried underneath. Looks like the eastern plains are the ones that are really about to get creamed today, poor bastards.
That’s every day if you have to live on the eastern plains. Or as a woman in Kansas once called them, “The Great Plains of Boredom.”
That woman had a point.
I have to say though that the Plains have a stark beauty that I sort of love. I drove out to Burlington a few years back for a Democratic get together and I found it quietly beautiful (emphasis on quiet.) Then again, I grew up on a farm so I think sunsets over cornfields are nothing short of magical.
but prefer to find it amongst the trees instead.
I moved around a lot when I was young and somehow always ended up across the street from a wheat field. I’m horribly allergic to wheat. Too much sneezing for quiet and eyes too watery to see the sun. 🙂
My sister and mom both have terrible allergies. I’m thinking you can understand far better than most what it was like for them living on a farm surrounded by corn, soybeans and wheat fields. And yeah, I love the plains but I live in the mountains, in the woods, for a reason, because I love it here. Love it.
The plains have their own beauty and splendor. I actually prefer them to the mountains but I think you have to grow up on the plains to grok them.
So MADCO & Indipol have been tweaking me (in good fun) about channeling my inner Steve in this diary. And my first reaction was “hey, this matters.”
But on re-reading it I have to agree – I went on and on and on. It did not need that many words – it could have been 1/2, maybe 1/3 the length without losing anything important.
So be nice to Steve – it can happen to any of us.
I actually think contributions of the length that you and Steve provide are valued and valuable. And if I lived in his district, I’d vote for Steve in a second. But I still like ribbing you guys for them. On a site where the peak of the curve is at comments of 6 words, 2000-word entries are far out on the tails. But I like fat tails. (You can take that in the Nassim Taleb sense, or the Sir Mix-a-Lot sense, whichever you prefer.)
I appreciate that. For me, itВґs all about the intentions behind the comments.
Never met Sir Mix-a-lot, but Nassim Taleb is fully of the same self righteous self importance as the investment bankers and risk managers he criticizes. I say that even though back in 2002 I agreed with him when I met at a risk management conference and few people were saying VAR is not the architecture to build risk management around.
Likewise, it is also usually true that almost any piece can be made shorter and retain it’s clarity of meaning and impact.
For example: “Nuts.”
But you’re right – it does matter.
And I am nice to Steve, aka SH, TFO.
“I hate editors, for they make me abandon a lot of perfectly good English words.” Mark Twain
I wish we had a modern day Twain.
and is a large part of the reason for the length of some of my posts.
I write them as a stream of consciousness, rather than as careful compositions, as should be evident from the number of typos. Of course I could make the longest ones shorter, to their benefit, if I were willing to spend much more time on them. But I’m not.
Even so, despite the joke that has been attempted on its basis, I still believe that my posts rank as at least “above average” when measured according to density (that is, how much is expressed-per-word). I donВґt mind others disagreeing with that assessment; I just mind them thinking that their disagreement justifies persistent personal harrassment.
I would agree with you–your posts for the most part are far above average here. You are obviously intelligent and also a man who puts quite a bit of thought into your responses on issues. And I hope you take my comment at face value and not read any other intention into it. I haven’t given you much reason to believe otherwise but perhaps this will be a new beginning for us.
master.
I appreciate that. A new beginning would be good. 🙂
It would be good indeed and there’s no time like the present for me to start.
and thank you as well. You have only my respect for making things right once they’ve gone wrong, and there are absolutely no hard feelings on my part.
But, hopefully, some day you’ll get it too. ThatВґs what we should all be working toward, on scales large and small.
I hope this place can settle back into a calm sort of crazy. The last few weeks have been kind of torturous and traumatic for non-debating lurkers like me. I’ll stop by to read and waste time and the next thing I know it’s the Sharks and the Jets going at it in the worst of ways.
Peace and love to all and I mean it, dammit!!
Exaggerated or not, there’s a dominant cultural belief that the boggosphere is characterized by rude and vulgar behavior, and a prevalent preference for vitriolic ad hominem attacks over civil discourse.
On an episode of “The West Wing,” the Josh Limon character discovered an on-line thread about him, and wanted to respond to some comments with his well-informed perspective, to which his assistant insisted he should not, because “those people are crazy” (of course, the story-line bore her out). SNL has a recurring character on “Weekend Update” who is a socially dysfunctional blogger whose entire contribution to human discourse is to hurl smug insults at celebrities. Years ago, I watched Cokie Roberts become as outraged as IВґve ever seen her become over what she characterized as the adolescent bad behavior that dominated internet forums. When Barack Obama posted his measured and tolerant views on Daily Kos as an Illinois state senator, a respondant called him “an idiot.”
Some here, with some justification, take pride that Colorado Pols is not as bad as, say, the comment boards on The Denver Post. But the amount of pride due to a community for being “not as bad” as another, recognizing that neither is it quite as good as it should be, is limited.
The pride due becomes even more limited when that community starts trending toward honoring most highly those who contribute most to the similarities, rather than those who contribute most to the differences.
I know several of Colorado Pols’ most thoughtful and active participants of recent years who have stopped posting here because of the degree of hostility and vitriol that either has come to dominate this blog, or has always been too prevalent. The obnoxious game of “scoring points” by attacking targeted individuals, without any reference to the views they post, who, for whatever reason, offended the poster’s sensibilities, is one of the most identifiable features of this blog.
Sometimes the reasons individuals are thus targeted are more “definsible,” sometimes less so, but, most of us know, they are rarely if ever legitimate justifications for some of the behaviors they elicit.
Norms, in my framework, are informal rules diffusely enforced through social approval and disapproval. They may well play a far larger role in maintaining social order and mutual decency than laws do. In most communities they reinforce what we would normally associate with “good” behavior. In some communities, the reinforce what we would normally associate with “bad” behavior.
And they are everyone’s responsibility. In a sense, every obnoxious and arbitrarily hostile act in a community is the responsibility of everyone in that community who implicitly condones it.
I’ve long hoped that the many reasonable people of good will who participate on this blog, and make it such an excellent forum in so many ways, would voice their disapproval of the behaviors that so many of you quietly disapprove of. But, alas, this blog has tended toward becoming a normless society, or one whose norms do not prevent some very pernicious behaviors.
For those who are interested, IВґve been floating the idea of creating a new political blog in Colorado, one more interested in analysis than sound-bites, and more interested in assiduously maintained mutual courtesy than in generally rewarded or tolerated arbitrary antagonisms. Feel free to email me at steve.harvey.hd28@gmail.com if you might be interested in participating in such blog, in whatever capacity.
.
until I scrolled down far enough to see your name, I thought this was JO defending Libertad’s right to participate.
.
I defend all’s right to particpate, although the are more than a few who annoy me.
Steve point about rudeness is well taken. I believe people should be no more rude online than they would be in a bar full of strangers.
I grew up in a bar (my granny owned a neighboorhood bar full of railroad guys, truckers and other associated working class types and, oh yeah, one clown–but I digress), and people say things that would get their teeth knocked out in the real world.
Just like in bar world, an occassional loss of composure is ok, even expected, but the constant rudeness will get you in trouble.
Back to Libertad. My problem with Libertad is not what he says, but rather his intrusive hijacking of threads. JO and Sharon have a stridency for Romanoff as does Ray for Bennet on occassion, but that doesn’t bother me as they don’t hijack threads. It would be nice to tone down the volume, but I understand the passion on both sides.
Finally on to Steve. I like Steve and I like his analysis, if not always his word count. I still sort of involuntarily design my communication for people sitting on a bar stool afterwork with a high school education. Its not “dumbing it down” to talk to people in a way they can understand. But this is just a matter of style and preference. Steve’s style is different and no less valid than my own and I don’t understand the venom.
you are the voice of reason. Thanks.
The length of the typical post is easy to create and easy to digest. It’s not quite as easy as channel surfing the cable tv, but it’s the same idea.
I like a lot of posters here, less so at DenPo or CS Gazzette, or the Colradoan or the Herald (though there is one guy there who cracks me up). (And yes, I am a media junkie.)
Even the longer pieces at Kos, HuffPo,Slate and the rest of the blogosphere generally are less great than I would prefer.
I aspire to be reasonable- even when disagreeing. I’ve acknowledged here more than once my occasional inability to disagree and aver gracefully. I wish everyone would do the same on both scores, but I think that is unrealistic and unnecessarily exclusionary.
between occasional lapses in self-restraint (of which i am guilty as well), and relentless targeting of specific individuals with the intention of harrassing them. It is the latter to which i refer. I respectfully disagree with you that encouraging social disapproval to be voiced for persistent and intentional predation is unrealistic and exlusionary: I think it’s how well-functioning communities operate. Furthermore, I think it’s more exlusionary to be complacent about the effective ostracization of thoughtful posters who like to participate in the conversation, but donВґt like to be attacked for doing so, than to make some effort to create a more accommodating environment for them.
The length of posts isnВґt the issue here, nor is the ribbing about them. It is the vitriol that accompanies arbitrary and unfortunately tolerated, persistent expressions of personal hatred.
But I appreciate the tone of your response, and certainly can “agree to disagree,” if you donВґt find my arguments persuasive.
I prefer indifference, you want some kind of active shunning or shaming. I would get behind that, if there was a mostly effective way of doing that. I’ve seen it in real world, but hardly ever in cyber space and then only by happenstance.
Some people just take themselves far too seriously. A blog for the self-absorbed, pedantic, I know better than you, anal retentive elite might not be a bad idea. You will let us know when the pillow fights begin, won’t you? And please, let us know how you plan to ban the unwashed dregs of Blogville.
Me, I’ll always prefer Delta Tau Chi over Omega Theta Pi.
Did I stumble across your profile page?
And no, I don’t hate you, Steve. I actually like reading your perspective. But snark and satire has its utility.
bullets and bombs on another level. But both are better avoided when possible.
I appreciate your perspective, and you may well have a point. But I still donВґt think that striving for civility, and for an analytical approach to political economic problems, is necessarily elitist, or a poor choice to collectively make. As I said to MADCO, we can agree to disagree without any hard feelings.
have utility in all but the most gray and humorless of worlds.
As such, they represent the antithesis of bullets and bombs. When people are smiling, they’re not shooting.
You must be a real hoot at parties, Steve.
Sincerity and civility? Not so much.
All the best lines, from Twain to Churchill to Frank, have a nice satirical edge to them.
it all comes down to how mean-spirited it is, what purpose it is designed to serve, and what need it is fulfilling in those who rely on it. To spend six months taking every conceivable opportunity to attempt to undermine, insult, and express hostility toward another human being is a long way from literary satire, or good-humored fun that keeps people smiling. The notion that every expression malice clothed as a joke cannot be criticized is an old one, and a thoroughly discredited one to anyone who recalls racist, sexist, and just generally obnoxious and vicious versions of “homor.”
You’re on the losing side of this argument, Ralphie, in the long run if not immediately, in eventually most other eyes if not your own, not because of my rhetoric, but because people eventually tire of petty vendettas relentlessly pursued where they are trying to divert themselves and enjoy one another’s company.
As I’ve said, I find it particularly annoying, so, in that sense, you are succeeding in your short term goal. But it’s bound to be a Pyrrhic victory in the end. There’s only so long you can get away with claiming that persistent malice, hung out in plain view for all to see, is anything other than what it is.
There’s nothing cute, funny, satirical, or insightful about attacking one individual who once piqued your insecurities with every and any bit of mud you can manage to fabricate in your eager imagination. It’s just small and obnoxious, and while there will always be a few others here to assure you that your self-delusions are reality, there will also always be a silent majority that is not nearly so easily fooled.
Just as with MOTR, and JO, and sxp, and any other who has felt, legitimately or illegitimately, antagonized by me, my hand will always be extended to you as well, ready to put the past behind us, and act like civil adults sharing a common space. Few will shower you with continued respect for being unable to accept such an offer.
by continuously posting these comments pointed at anyone you feel has “petty vendettas?” Dress it up all you want, but you always dig yourself into the same hole. This is you bitching about people you feel are bitching.
Maybe next time just post the beginning of the thread and take your own advice.
we all try to do better, and demonstrably taking my own advice in how rapidly I’m willing to let bygones be bygones with anyone who cares to do the same.
Your post is based on an inability, or unwillingness, to differentiate between proactively attacking specific others due to personal dislike for them, and reactively responding to such attacks. Except for sharp comments occasionally driven by the actual content of what someone posts (usually Libertad or one of his ilk), I engage exlusively in the latter, always willing to stop engaging in it the instant the protagonists decide that they’ve sated their appetite for it.
I perceive a difference in that and what others, driven by what I characterize as extremely and unflatteringly petty impulses, choose to do. If you donВґt, I’m happy to leave you to your perceptions.
You’re always right, everyone else is wrong. It’s all about how anyone disagreeing can’t actually understand what you’re trying to say. But at the same time, we should assume that you actually agree with us because you’re just so damn reasonable.
If Steve Harvey wants to be gray and humorless, that’s his choice.
If we want to notice it, that’s ours.
“the hound of polsterville,” the revised and reprised edition:
With his nose in the crotch
Of his unlaundered briefs,
He picks up the scent
Of his own petty beef,
Yapping with glee,
He’s fast on the trail,
Of the dingleberry
Dangling beneath his own tail,
No purpose, no point,
No benefit sought,
This hound self-annointed
Himself only has caught.
For his nose is well browned
From a sun that don’t shine,
As he chases himself ’round,
And up his own ‘hind.
more completely, and it’s certainly not for your benefit, but your assertion is just too weak to let go unchallenged:
“…continuously posting these comments pointed at anyone you feel has ‘petty vendettas’? Dress it up all you want, but you always dig yourself into the same hole. This is you bitching about people you feel are bitching.”
First of all, you’re relying on the notion that there is some fungible action called “bitching,” in which one sample is the same as the next. By your reckonning, the bitching of a person being robbed at gun point is no better than the bitching of the robber complaining that his victim is taking to long to die after being shot. But, in the real world, as my illustration makes clear, it definitely depends what you’re bitching about.
Furthermore, while it’s hard to argue that I’m not, in some sense, “bitching” about it, I’ve actually kind of bitched my way into a Zen-like appreciation of the beauty of the phenomenon I’m bitching about. In fact, I am grateful for the lack of subtlety and moderation on the part of the worst practitioner, because it relieves me of any need to make sure that others see it for what it is, and leaves me (at least in this case) unconcerned about having to counter the danger of more sophisticated attempts at character assassination.
Secondly, you rely on a convenient relativism, implying that reality is all in the eye of the beholder, and there is no case to be made that is better than any other regarding whether a given pattern of behavior amounts to a petty vendetta or not.
Yes, there are plenty of things that are borderline, and difficult to be sure of, such as, for instance, your own obvious hostility toward me. I donВґt know if it’s a petty vendetta, or just a general dislike, or even a well-considered and completely justified opposition to the form and substance of my contribution on the site.
But there are other cases that fall into an unambiguous zone, in which absurd and obviously highly motivated attempts to fling mud are repeated with breathtaking regularity and predictability. In those cases, it’s not “what I call” a petty vendetta, it just is a petty vendetta.
You may applaud it, it may even be justified and the performance of a service to humanity (if you’re inclined to believe that petty vendettas can be such), but it still is what it is.
I agree that I’m digging, but I consider it an act of archeological excavation. There are truths buried here, in even in others’ attempts at misdirection and obfuscation.
As with all others, for what it’s worth, I have no hard feelings toward you, and am perfectly happy to agree to disagree with you on all of these matters.
With my apologies for being so damn reasonable about it…. 🙂
To not want to wade through 20 fucking paragraphs of prose designed to try to make someone else feel inferior.
I’m someone that likes you, but I don’t even bother to read what you post anymore.
If you want to impress me? Be succinct.
And I mean that with love. Really.
was about whether or not I impress you? Be unimpressed: I’m just suggesting that people, if not try to be civil about it, at least avoid nurturing vindictive grudges for half a year (and counting, in one case), relentlessly pursued at EVERYONE’S expense (see ModerateGal’s post above).
LB, you are completely welcome to be unimpressed by my lack of parsimony. That’s another topic altogether.
And to Droll, for what it’s worth, I can list all of the many ways and times IВґve been unreasonable. I donВґt think I’m always right, recognize that I donВґt know far more than I do, and am trying to learn more than I am trying to do anything else. I donВґt consider this to be about me, but I also donВґt expect to be able to persuade you of that. There are no hard feelings on my part. ThatВґs all I can do.
This isn’t the real world and so it’s different. More thoughtful in some ways (I’ve never heard a discussion of social norms in a discussion of 15 people in a bar), more strident in others. I don’t think the question is do we match a polite debate in person, it’s do we operate here in a way that works best for this medium.
I think part of what “works” in this environment is a more direct, and yes hostile at times, approach than works in real life. But to be effective here, what’s required is credible points to back up the invective.
Personally, I prefer “Dave you’re a moron” to “Dave, your erudite presentation did not wholly convince me of the validity of your interesting proposal.”
there’s a difference between trading good-natured jabs, and actively targeting individuals out of what is clearly (in at least some cases, and one which is beyond all doubt whatsoever) a jealously guarded resource of personal malice toward that individual. The former is fine. The latter is not.
You do okay here for people who are allowed into the clubhouse, and who want to be there. That makes it a less-than inclusive conversation. And, certainly, that’s a choice that can be made: It’s a semi-private space, and, as long as those who manage it donВґt discriminate against protected categories of people, they can pretty much do what they want. The question isnВґt what’s acceptible for a blog to do: The question is what’s optimal for this blog to strive for, or, in the alternative, for those who finding it lacking to strive for elsewhere.
If this is what’s alright to those who choose to continue to participate, and they donВґt mind the many thoughtful former participants who steer clear as a result of their particular (and relatively minor) form of exclusion, then such is the choice of the marketplace. Certainly, there is a commercial aspect to this enterprise, and appealing to people’s baser insticnts has always been more marketable than cultivating their more noble ones.
Fortunately, Pols is open enough to give me a forum to discuss alternative possibilities, whether pursued here, or elsewhere. That, too, is within the bounds of an open marketplace, in which those who’d like to buck the races to the bottom that many of our organic institutions facilitate can attempt to do so.
I think that, for those who want a place to discuss and learn about social and political issues, we can do much better than we are doing here. That’s not to say that there arenВґt many shining bright moments here, or a great deal of information being passed around, but rather that those who care about more than enjoying a harmless diversion have litte trouble recognizing that there is a great deal of room for improvement.
There’s nothing wrong with striving to do better, or striving to create a better alternative. That’s the beauty of aspiration, and the challenge of using the marketplace to cutivate our better angels rather than simply allowing it to exploit and reinforce our baser natures.
I tend to react to what is written and write from that reaction.
Steve, sometimes I don’t understand what you are getting at and I think you are verbose and say so.
Generally, in my comments, sometimes I use four letter words so as not to be obscure and wish to cut through the ….. Sometimes I am blunt because, without realizing it, I am channeling my old man, (R.I.P.) I can barely be civil about the health care debate because I have family members whose futures are hanging on the outcome….it is not academic to me.
Steve, I have learned a lot from you and have said so. But, you are not in charge, here, bud. I find your manner, right now, condescending and nothing you have written here would justify, IMHO, your assumption that you are the one to “reform” this blog.
Seemed, based on other comments (which I won’t search out) that his idea is to start a sort of “Colorado Pols for people who give a shit about things” alternative blog.
I care a hell of a lot about things. I encourage SH to start his own blog. “Colorado Pols for people who are comfortable with academic bullshit.” I am not.
I have no issue with four letter words, good-natured jibes, or sincere and even heated arguments over issues. Nor do I have any issue with people disagreeing with my suggestions here, and saying, “this is what we like, and we don’t want to change it.” Nor should anyone else have any issue with me pointing out that some of what goes on on this blog does not fit into the harmelss categories that several of you keep pretending it is all reducible to, but rather becomes something unpleasant enough to enough people that many who would otherwise love to participate in our discussions donВґt, and many who have stop doing so. I know this to be a fact, and have been one of those people on several occasions.
You’re right: I’m not in charge, and, functionally if not technically, neither is anyone else. We are a chaotic, informal, nearly anarchic democracy, where each attempts to affect the community in the ways that he or she desires, sometimes implicitly, sometimes explicitly. That’s all I’m doing.
And my effort, it seems, bore at least one piece of very valuable fruit for me: MOTR and I have buried the hatchet, and will now coexist peacefully, perhaps even forming a friendship. Every time an enmity is ended, every time people move one step closer to working together as reasonable people of good will facing shared challenges and shared opportunities, whether on large scales or small, I consider that a good thing. That’s what I’ve spent my life working toward, in various ways, and am working toward now.
to particular statements made days ago, I want to comment on your (David’s) last line: Your assumption seems to be that there is no response more informative and meaningful than some version of “Dave you’re a moron,” whether simply straight-up, or couched in pseudo-intellectual jargon. But what about a response that explains why you’re a moron?
Take, for instance, my following extremely verbose series of final responses to your proposal for how to improve public education, and to my critiques of it:
http://coloradopols.com/showCo…
That’s not just a version of “Dave you’re a moron.” It’s a response to the substance of your proposal, critiquing it on the basis of how it is systemically flawed, a rebuttal of your responses attempting to dismiss my critiques, and an alternative proposal fully explicated and defended.
It may be the case that relatively few readers here want all of that. That would certainly be understandable, and, measured by the self-selected sampling that is most outspoken, would seem to be the case. But if just one person were to read it and to contemplate the issues involved as a result (whether agreeing with me in the end or not), then it would have served a purpose beyond just saying “Dave you’re a moron.”
That’s my project. That’s what I value most in public discourse. That’s what I’m promoting. Others can agree or disagree or be indifferent, on various dimensions (they can disagree with my underlying assumptions, or with what I value, for instance). That’s fine. But as Daniel Patrick Moynihan is reputed to have once said, “You’re entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.” You’ve responded to my proposal with a false dichotomy between verbose or parsimonious rejection of another’s position, when in reality there are also a variety of substantive responses possible to what another poster communicates.
Having said all of that, it is really beside the point I had raised, which I think I’ve made clear in my other responses here: I wasnВґt discussing here sharp responses to another’s ideas, but rather enervating attacks to their very existence (completely divorced from any idea they may ever have expressed). Those are two very different things.
I’ve been on the Internet since before it was the Internet. Communities online have been like this (usually much worse) since networking made it possible to hold a sustained conversation with a group across a distance.
I swim in this pond with flame-proof suit at the ready and asbestos underwear on just in case. Having a thin skin in an environment where someone can insult you without (immediate) fear of physical response – or even having to look at your reaction – is a bad way to surf the Internet, IMHO.
I always held to the opinion that it’s best to Be Excellent To Each Other, but, hey, if someone wants to portray themselves as a complete asshole, then at least it’s still honesty of a sort. Personally, I’m just happy that I’m on a board where mentioning Kibo probably won’t draw his dread attention, where David Rhodes’s car isn’t regaled for its impoundment on a near-daily basis, and where the amount of performance art is kept to a relative minimum.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo…
I imagine Laughing Boy’s brief alliance with Howard Dean is about to come to an end.
Because I’ve always thought it was awesome.
http://politicalhumor.about.co…
It’s good humor. I figured you chuckle at my rapist wit.
What bothered me was Dean’s fifty-state strategy when I first read about it. That’s not how you run a national organization, I thought. You put your money where it’s going to do the most good.
However, it turned out to be pure genius. The money did good almost everywhere. Dean proved to be a genius too.
Not because I had any belief in the 50 state strategy, but because he was going to do something very different. All the others promised more of the same which was a guaranteed road to failure.
Major kudos to Dean
He was the recipient of anti-Bush sentiment. He could do no wrong.
Dean’s a jackass. His retreat from imploring the D’s to kill the bill just proves it further.
Why thanks, that’s the nicest thing anybody’s said about us in at least a year.
It was brilliant and it was also something Republicans had been doing for decades and Democrats never did.
Dean was the first, along with Lakoff, to really explore building your bench and looking at a 20 year plan instead of what we are doing in 6 months. He was the first to push the idea of spending money on races that you may not win because in the long run, you build name recognition for the next time around and you offer an alternative.
The DLC hated Dean for suggesting that we run everywhere, from dog catcher to city councilman to school board member to State Senate to US Representative. They thought it was a waste of time and money and resources to run races in districts that had no chance of turning blue. Dean saw the larger picture–he recognized that you could activate your base at the most grassroots level and that down ticket races would benefit from running Democrats at the top in districts they don’t normally win in.
And yet, look at 2006–that is a Dean triumph as well as anti-Bush sentiment. It’s a Dean triumph because he had the goddamn sense to understand that in a year like 2006, if you ran Dems in otherwise safe Republican districts, you might just pick off a few seats that no one would ever dare dream of. I give him full credit for pulling the Democratic Party into the 21st century. He energized the base in a way that Mark Warner can’t even begin to.
Most other Democratic party chairs would have done that. Instead, he channeled it to all 50. That’s why he was a genius.
Rapist wit sounds a little…criminal.
but what the hell do I know?
From Dumb and Dumber.
I was just being a smartass. I figured you must have really missed that while you were away. 🙂
a combination analyst and therapist — or analrapist.
(That’s a joke from Arrested Development.)
the floor of the United States Senate has turned into a joke.
The back and forth and the gamesmenship, on both sides, is terrible. It is terrible for the country, for the issue and for the members of the Senate.
You all look like jerks, both sides, for playing the games you are playing.
I say either vote today and go home or dont vote today and go home–I really dont care.
I think it is crazy having votes, of this proporation, on Christmas Eve, no matter the time of day.
Start acting like leaders on not the childern you should all be home seeing.
if you think this is new, and hasn’t been going on since the very beginning of the Senate, then I suggest you go take one of the Library of Congress courses on the history of the institution. You should anyway, they’re fascinating. And whenever I do something like that, or read Twain or any other political observer from the past couple of centuries, I am always struck by how similar things are then to now.
…so many here celebrating Festivus, what with the airing of grievances and all. On to the feats of strength!
So, the Balloon Boy sentence/restitution–too harsh, not harsh enough?
I’m having a hard time seeing how incarceration (at taxpayer expense) is in anyone’s best interest.
while the parents are in jail. I’m assuming they will break up the sentences so they aren’t both there at the same time. I’d much rather have seen them be forced to pay for all of the expense of the emergency rescue folks than spend time in jail but I have a very hard time feeling sorry for the dad who seems to be a chronic egomaniac.
He’s an overachiever in that regard.
Yeah, that certainly does sound much nicer than what I was calling him.
Not only are they doing it separately, they also offered to let mom serve only on weekends. Couldn’t help but read it all. Not proud of that. 😛
I also think they’ve gotten the bills for the rescue. I don’t know though if that can just be charged by the organization, or if it’s in the restitution that the judge didn’t say in court.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/…
About the costs:
http://cbs4denver.com/local/ba…
Somebody had to do the dirty work and read up on this. So, in a sense, you’re a hero for doing what none of us were willing to do. 🙂
Merry Christmas!
Seriously, I hope you have a great holiday.
He is an definitely an self-absorbed, self-serving egomaniac (not unlike a good deal of politicians these days). I’d rather he be prohibited from profiting from his actions and/or some serious community service time-in addition to restitution-than go to jail.
As I read it, the Mom is basically on work-release, so at least she gets to be home at night.
And I heard on Channel 4 News that they both are prohibited for 4 years from profiting from this in anyone. I’m glad about that because I could just see him showing up on WifeSwap again.
People go to jail for much less. I think jail doesn’t typically serve a useful purpose (though there are exceptions), but I don’t really want to see an exception made for this guy just because he’s white and relatively famous, or because his notoriety is kind of funny. Calling in a false bomb threat will send you to jail. This isn’t much different.
…to make an example of him. 1000 hours working in a homeless shelter or a nursing home or cleaning the toilets in the local fire station, sanctions against making a profit from his actions, etc..
As a society, we’ve become far too reliant on locking people up instead of having them repay the community for their actions.
but I don’t want to see Heene get treated any differently from any other prankster whose actions cause a lot of damage and cost a lot of money.
maybe not enough, but they did.
They also aren’t allowed to profit (at least for four years). You and the judge almost see eye to eye.
…a great premise for a new reality TV show!
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmw…
I won’t tell you how old I was when I finally stopped staying up to watch reruns on Toon Disney.
but it’s fun to read TV Tropes nonetheless.
.
towards the bottom, it strayed into rationalizations about relentless recrimination.
Thanks to whoever for pointing out how well it all fits into Festivus for the rest of yuhs.
.
even the Christians.