Conservatives at the Forvm

Submitted by catchy on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 12:25am. Tags:

I’m concerned about conservative departure. We’ve got plenty of excellent conservative contributors, but there’s been an unfortunate trend of right-leaning departures. Let’s think about how to make the place more congenial for right-leaners in general, especially to keep the ones we’ve got, but also perhaps to attract new ones.

HankP claims he doesn’t care about the ideology of a given poster, just the quality of his/her contribution. I also care about contribution quality, but in addition value ideological diversity. It’s one of the main reasons I come here.

The focus of this site, viz. political and ideological issues, isn’t the type of thing where experiences + culture ought to play as little role as possible. This isn’t a mathematics site, even if we try hard to be rational. Our diversity of experiences + cultural background are a large part of what we bring to the table and what makes the palce interesting.

And we’ve been losing some diversity. Not to open wounds, but we’ve lost jm and seemingly Livia recently -- two of the most prolific + valuable right-leaning contributors. Jm I’m not sure was anyone’s fault, but the trend can’t be attributed to chance. Mac has also been expressing dissatisfaction, if not the explicit grounds for that dissatisfaction. Plus Timmy recently said the place had become obwings (not that Timmy would ever go anywhere, Godbless.) Where’s Bernard G? Etc.

So I’m posing the question of how we might attract more conservatives and certainly at least keep the ones we’ve got. A couple of thoughts just on voting:

(1) Make sure to vote quality right-leaning posts to the front page.

(2) More voting by conservative leaning-posters. tomsyl’s in there. But not enough other right-leaners are regularly.

(3) Avoid F-P posts w. only left-leaning votes in favor. How to avoid? If you’re left-leaning, check a vote queue before voting. If only left-leaners have voted up to that point, and the vote-count is near the threshold, consider holding back until at least one conservative also deems the post F-P worthy. We’ve had a few F-Pers w. only left-leaning votes. I think we might avoid that under present circumstance.

(3.5) Of course more diary output by our conservatives might also help, but that’s a bit to ask. (still, would be nice!)

In terms of recruitment/replacement, this is part of a general prob. about which I know next ta nothin’ Would comments by conservatives here on other conservative posts elsewhere + a trackback get some attention? How might we get conservatives at other quality sites to notice us? Feedback encouraged.

Again, we’ve still got many excellent conservative posters here whom I read with much interest. The preceding is a pre-emptive discussion because I’d hate to see anyone go anywhere (yeah I’m talking to you Mac!), and I like this place. It’s worth trying to keep it as interesting as possible.

Variety is the spice of life, people. Let’s hear some thoughts and then take some action.
--

--

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
"Where’s Bernard G?" (#36378)
by Bernard Guerrero on Fri, 03/23/2007 - 7:55pm

Catchy, I didn't know you cared! :^)

No fear as far as my leaving because I think the site isn't congenial. I'm just swamped between changes at work and trying to snatch up bargain-basement assets during the current, ahem, volatile markets. (An aside: Buy when there is mortgage originator blood in the streets.) In any case, your suggestion of what amounts to affirmative action is just going to piss the conservatives off. :^)

I'll return in a more regular fashion once I'm able.

--

-“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009

( )
Police your own (#35908)
by Joe on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 9:39am

It would be appreciated. There was a time, back in the dark histories of Tacitus that we would get the occasional incursion from some paleocon spouting Buchananite talking points. It wasn't the lefties that made them go away, it was myself, Mac, Sulla, Navy and the other righties* that told them they were not welcome, go away and mocked their stupidity until they did. Today, Pumkin Ash and assorted other crazies on the left run around with nary a harsh word from the left. Most often, the lefties feel the need to either excuse the behaviour or justify it. The reason many of the righties were here is because of the old ways of doing business which discouraged rude and crazy. If we are forced to deal with r&c, we'll seek out righty r&c sites.

And making up rules as we go along in an effort to ban righties who aggravate the mods doesn't help either.

*apologies for leaving folks off the list.

--

Will crush dissent for food

( )
Joe rolls out a list and who does he miss (#36091)
by Timmy on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 9:41pm

and yes, Ken is upset. :)

--

““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!””
–H

( | parent )
I LOVE Russian Revisionist History (#36022)
by Harley on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 3:36pm

But other than that, there's not much here. The idea that a noble band of conservative brothers kept the site safe from overheated righty opinion is a lovely image, I like it I really do, but it's simply not true. And I think Hunter, wherever he may be, would agree with me.

The fact is, it was never about extremity of opinion. Livia made some of the more absurd generalized comments re 'the left' that you will read on any board. No objections were made by the noble band of conservative brothers, if only because the comment was not judged sufficiently extreme.

In truth, what you describe has more to do with neo vs. paleo conservative in-fighting, and less to do with the general welfare of the site. Not that there's anything wrong with that!

--

“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco

( | parent )
Where is Livia (#36092)
by Timmy on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 9:42pm

and who sent her away?

--

““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!””
–H

( | parent )
I suspect her doctoral dissertation (#36093)
by Yertle on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 9:45pm

sent her away.

( | parent )
Either that (#36097)
by Elagabalus on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 9:49pm

or she got caught illegally downloading HBO's "Rome" on some Bittorrent site. :)

--

I had discovered a great secret. That everyone loves themselves more than they love anybody else. And if I wanted them to love me, I better be like THEM!... Ken Nordine

( | parent )
You do realize (#35943)
by HankP on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 12:13pm

that PA is currently suspended and his next strike will be permanent banning? And that no "righty" has been suspended as far as I can recall? You could also point out the rules we are making up as we go along.

--

I blame it all on the Internet

( | parent )
How long did it take? (#35956)
by Joe on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 1:00pm

How many opportunities did he give. How many apologies were made for his behaviour vs telling him to STFD/STFU by lefties? Also note the and others

Timmy, Ken and myself. That Ken's and mine were cut short because the place went into meltdown doesn't mean the attempt wasn't made. It certainly isn't going to make a person who is lurking and getting a sense of the place want to bother if that's how the long time conservative posters are treated. What hope does some guy just off the street have?

But you're right, I'm wrong. I couldn't possibly know what is keeping conservative posters from participating as much as before.

--

Will crush dissent for food

( | parent )
I'm not responsible (#35957)
by HankP on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 1:13pm

for mod decisions made before I was a mod. If you recall, I objected to the suspensions of Timmy and Ken. As far as your case, there was a misunderstanding, you were temporarily suspended for a few hours until the mods discussed the issue.

As far as PA is concerned, I tend to ignore comments that I think are stupid or extreme but don't violate the posting rules. Once he did violate them, he was put on notice and suspended when he didn't respond. None of us moderate full time, so if you're upset by a several hour gap in the response I can't help you.

You made a specific charge, that the mods "have it in" for conservatives. I'm defending against that charge for the current set of mods. In this case I do think you are wrong. As far as other reasons why conservatives might not be participating, I have no idea.

--

I blame it all on the Internet

( | parent )
Go back and read my original post (#35964)
by Joe on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 1:27pm

Police your own was the title. Not Mods need to do a better job.

--

Will crush dissent for food

( | parent )
You brought up (#35991)
by HankP on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 2:01pm

how suspensions were handled and how many chances people were given, that's a mod issue.

My main point is that I don't see any issues relating to the structure or operation of this site that are inherently biased against conservatives. Whether there are problems due to the mix of participants or outside events that cause it I can't say, since I'm not a conservative.

--

I blame it all on the Internet

( | parent )
Unfortunately... (#36019)
by Elagabalus on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 3:28pm

I feel there is some truth to what Joe says. As I mentioned before, the newer lefties seem to be a very serious lot with nary a funny bone in evidence. I mean, I know politics is serious business but this site should be a place where, at the end of the day, we can still buy each other a beer and laugh it off (even if it is metaphorical beer). Right?!

Oh, and they also seem to be prone to ankle biting.

--

I had discovered a great secret. That everyone loves themselves more than they love anybody else. And if I wanted them to love me, I better be like THEM!... Ken Nordine

( | parent )
I plead guilty to ankle biting, (#36030)
by Punditus Maximus on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 4:20pm

but I like beer and laughs.

--

It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.

( | parent )
Heh; (#35911)
by aireachail on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 10:14am

"*apologies for leaving folks off the list."

Now that brought a smile :-)

--

Excess on occasion is exhilarating. It prevents moderation from acquiring the deadening effect of a habit. - W. Somerset Maugham

( | parent )
A little bit of this, and a little bit of that... (#35883)
by Irving on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 11:40pm

...and the next thing you know...life happens while you were planning other things.

I think this issue (people with right opinions drifting away), came up almost a year ago as well. And I'll agree, the board is more left now than right. A bad thing? For some, but perhaps not for some others. It's late, and I'm just throwing stuff off the cuff here, but I feel you genuinely are looking for comments on the phenomena...

1. Time. I certainly don't have near the time I once had; however, as the time cycle operates for each person individually, you'd think that over the averages it effects everyone about the same. So I don't see why conservatives, as a general rule, would have less time than liberals. So while time is an individual factor, it isn't enough to cover the general trend.

2. Comfort. However, while perhaps everyone's time is short...there are a lot of blogs (more coming every day), and a lot of posts to read. Even here. I think one of the negatives when Tacitus changed to the multi-threaded format was the increased ability for multiple sub-threads to spin-off. Now that's a good thing too...but. When your time is short, you don't have time to read every post on every thread. Especially when an increasing majority drift off-topic, or are some continuation of some feud that occured in some other sub-thread in some other diary...that I never had time to read in the first place. I really miss the ability to seach on just my comments, and who was responding to them.

3. Tacitus is gone. While it's debatable...I think it's safe to say the the Right believes the Media leans Left. So let's just take that as an unverfified assumption... When tac was here, he set the agenda. Now, the national media sets the agenda. The vast majority of diaries (yes, not all), are long (or short) comments on whatever worthy, or trumped up outrage, the media is spinning. Therefore if a perceived left-leaning media is setting the agenda...then the agenda here is....

3a. Playing field. So to carry that forward, if the media is setting the agenda, AND the media is spinning and presenting the issues with a left-leaning perspective...then... The Right position begins with a disadvantage. The Right poster must first dispense with the spin and myths in attempt to get the context straight (which then is considered counter-spin by the Left). Original entries not tied to national news media "front page" story, begin with less of such disadvantage. Besides a huge number of other blogs are national-media driven blogs, and threads become link-wars of posting links or paraphrases of other people's positions from other blogs. We may be able to engage as individuals and maybe change some opinions...but dkos - redstate proxy wars aren't going to change anything or anyone.

3b. Which brings up a side tangent. There was a time...long...long...ago, when a poster on one side made a very good point...the posters on the other side (and more than one) acknowledged that with a "great post" atta-boy. Don't see that much anymore. And that I do see, are same-side posters givng the atta-boy. When Bush is Hitler and admin water-boys are making the stand of the 300...well, seems nobody can give an inch anymore.

4. Validation & Challenge. A place "where everybody knows your name" is a place where your validated as well as entertained. This somewhat relates to #2 above. I gotta think that thinking people hangout at a place where some stuff is agreeable, and some stuff is a challenge. If I have to counter every post, then I don't want to bother commenting on any post. I can get the national media agenda and spin on TV...don't have time to then read it again.

Oh there's a few more...but it's late for me...and when I first show'd up at Tacitus...I thought it was a left-leaning board!

( )
The shorter version was (#36094)
by Timmy on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 9:46pm

the "MA Metric", er the gospel according to the NYT, WaPo or WSJ, exclusice of the op-ed page.

--

““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!””
–H

( | parent )
The "MA Metric" (#36115)
by M Aurelius on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 10:18pm

Had nothing to do with the WSJ or the NYT, which were elements of circumstance.

The MA Metric is that deliberate obfuscation and misdirection are not civil forms of argument; that they disrupt meaningful dialogue and waste huge amounts of limited time for the sole purpose of derailing a coherent discussion.

For example, someone says that the oceans will rise 20 feet if Greenland melts, and somebody else replies that "when Greenland was green" everything was fine. So then people start parsing the meaning of Greenland being green and the actual discussion about Global Warming is buried.

A clever method, but also ultimately a mind-numbing bore.

--

My country, right or wrong is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying... It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.' -Chesterton

( | parent )
If I remember correctly, your position on the subject (#36119)
by Timmy on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 10:25pm

is that it was settled and there was no reason to have an actual discussion.

As for Greenland, just pointing out that in recent geological history, the earth has been warmer and Manhattan was dry.

As for deliberate obfuscation and misdirection, running with the game plan that an increase in CO2 is going to make Manhattan wet is a deliberate obfuscation and misdirection.

--

““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!””
–H

( | parent )
No (#36145)
by M Aurelius on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 10:54pm

As for Greenland, just pointing out that in recent geological history, the earth has been warmer and Manhattan was dry.

Unfortunately this is simply not so. The Medieval Warm Period which Conservatives have been trotting out lately did not melt the Greenland ice sheets (Greenland was not green), and even more of a problem is the fact that this was a regional phenomenon which is probably connected to the gulf current which keeps Europe relatively warm for its latitude, but is quite variable over fairly short periods.

There is no evidence that the Earth was warmer than it is now during that era. In fact some key parts of it, such as Antartica, were demonstrably colder.

And we are now past event the warmth of the MWP.

The notion that increase in CO2 will make Manhattan wet is simple math coupled to known and also simple radiative physics. The only real arguments are over how long it will take and what the threshold is, exactly.

--

My country, right or wrong is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying... It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.' -Chesterton

( | parent )
The Medieval Warm Period which Conservatives have been trotting (#36391)
by Timmy on Fri, 03/23/2007 - 10:31pm

out lately did not melt the Greenland ice.

First exactly and no conservative that I know has rolled out the story you purport.

Rather, it was during the Medieval Warm Period when the island was named, yes you quessed it, Greenland. When the island had arable land (er when Greenland was Green) and temperatures were warmer than they are today.

During this period, the island of Manhattan wasn't underwater.

Now what would change the gulf current, other than a warmer Atlantic Ocean (both north and south). Something you should ponder as you make global statements.

The notion that CO2 is the predominate (or the key) greenhouse has not been proven which is why the sky remains blue.

--

““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!””
–H

( | parent )
Ponder this: (#36410)
by M Aurelius on Fri, 03/23/2007 - 11:22pm

Greenland is very large, larger than most countries and with over three times the land area of Texas. But you refer to this as "the island", which is technically correct (it simply happens to be the world's largest), but misleading. Few people think of Texas, let alone three of them, when the word "island" is mentioned.

So some navigator saw a tiny area of green and called it Greenland. So what? A quick look at Google Earth will show a green southern tip of Greenland even today.

The Gulf current varies, like any current, not with temperature but with density differentials which involve temperature differences and salinity. Warmth or coolness by themselves do nothing. In fact data shows that the Gulf current is now some 30% weaker than it was during the past half century, even though the Earth is warmer. Ponder that.

The notion that CO2 is the predominate (or the key) greenhouse has not been proven which is why the sky remains blue.

The color of the sky has no bearing on CO2, or vice versa. The principal greenhouse gas is water vapor, while CO2 is the second most important greenhouse gas on Earth. This is basic science and has been so for about a century now.

--

My country, right or wrong is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying... It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.' -Chesterton

( | parent )
But Texas isn't whereas Greenland is (#36414)
by Timmy on Fri, 03/23/2007 - 11:37pm

actually temperature plays a very important role, it is actually the primer, er the sinking of water from the two poles.

Actually the color of the sky denotes the predominate "greenhouse" gas. "CO2 is the second most important", please keep up the good work. That is, knocking CO2 down a notch is a good start.

--

““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!””
–H

( | parent )
Completely wrong about the sky being blue (#36422)
by HankP on Sat, 03/24/2007 - 12:03am

it has nothing to do with greenhouse gases, read about Rayleigh scattering. The fact that N2 and O2 are smaller than the wavelength of incident light is the key driver. Whether there was 0% or 20% CO2 (or H20), the sky would still be blue.

--

I blame it all on the Internet

( | parent )
actually the key driver is the human (#36666)
by Timmy on Mon, 03/26/2007 - 10:30pm

eye

--

““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!””
–H

( | parent )
Blah (#36670)
by HankP on Mon, 03/26/2007 - 11:12pm

not following you down that rabbit hole. I guess film doesn't record blue, hmm?

--

I blame it all on the Internet

( | parent )
Knocking nothing... (#36419)
by M Aurelius on Fri, 03/23/2007 - 11:53pm

CO2 is the most important gas we are net emitters of, while the amount of water vapor is a function of temperature (the higher, the more water vapor.

We can't do anything directly about the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, which is why CO2 is the main target.

--

My country, right or wrong is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying... It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.' -Chesterton

( | parent )
please keep on narrowing your premise (#36421)
by Timmy on Fri, 03/23/2007 - 11:54pm

you have made great strides.

--

““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!””
–H

( | parent )
I've narrowed nothing. (#36426)
by M Aurelius on Sat, 03/24/2007 - 12:06am

I've been after CO2. Still am. What's narrowed?

--

My country, right or wrong is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying... It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.' -Chesterton

( | parent )
Heh! (#36394)
by Bill White on Fri, 03/23/2007 - 10:44pm

But the Greenland ice sheet remained intact and many kilometers thick, even when a tiny tiny strip of Greenland coastland was arable.

Collapse the Greenland ice sheet and Manhattan would be very much under water.

Haven't we had this conversation?

--

The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.

( | parent )
but it didn't collapse during the period in question (#36404)
by Timmy on Fri, 03/23/2007 - 11:03pm

BTW it was that coastal plain which give the island its name.

--

““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!””
–H

( | parent )
Yup (#36408)
by Bill White on Fri, 03/23/2007 - 11:17pm

but the evidence grows that it might collapse now.

--

The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.

( | parent )
do you have a link or something (#36416)
by Timmy on Fri, 03/23/2007 - 11:41pm

nt

--

““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!””
–H

( | parent )
See below (#36428)
by Bill White on Sat, 03/24/2007 - 12:24am

Cheers!

--

The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.

( | parent )
Sure... (#36423)
by M Aurelius on Sat, 03/24/2007 - 12:03am

We seem to be losing now some 220 cubic kilometers of ice per year, more than twice the rate just 10 years ago.

Meanwhile, our CO2 emissions are accelerating and the CO2 in the atmosphere is growing. So whatever is happening now will happen more intensely as time passes.

220 cubic km a year is a staggering amount, but Greenland is so big that even rates of this magnitude do not imply a "collapse". The problem is that the rate is both accelerating and not previously predicted. In other words Greenland is behaving worse than the models predicted, so we may have hundreds, not thousands of years before a full collapse occurs. Even well before such an event is complete it would already be catastrophic. If only half of the ice sheet is gone, that's still a 10 foot sea level rise.

--

My country, right or wrong is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying... It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.' -Chesterton

( | parent )
The "collapse" theory (#36429)
by Bill White on Sat, 03/24/2007 - 12:26am

arises from the potential for melt water to create cracks and crevices that extend deep into the ice sheet. Simple melting alone will not threaten total collapse for a long time, but if cracks and crevices cause calving then the process could be very rapidly accelerated.

Large icebergs sliding into the Atlantic would have the same effect on sea levels as actual melting.

--

The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.

( | parent )
Sorry Timmy (#36393)
by HankP on Fri, 03/23/2007 - 10:37pm

the Gulf current is driven by many factors including salinity. It doesn't necessarily imply a warmer Atlantic. You should read up on it.

--

I blame it all on the Internet

( | parent )
warmth and density (#36402)
by Timmy on Fri, 03/23/2007 - 11:01pm

are the key drivers. I will leave you to your own devices with respect to the degree of correlation between the two.

--

““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!””
–H

( | parent )
Yup, you still haven't read up on it. nt (#36403)
by HankP on Fri, 03/23/2007 - 11:02pm

--

I blame it all on the Internet

( | parent )
far more than you (#36406)
by Timmy on Fri, 03/23/2007 - 11:05pm

it certainly appears.

--

““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!””
–H

( | parent )
No, it does not appear. (#36412)
by M Aurelius on Fri, 03/23/2007 - 11:31pm

Read. Not the abridged Free Republic version. First learn basic physics (look up "infrared radiation"), then read the science on this. Many of us will be happy to help.

--

My country, right or wrong is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying... It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.' -Chesterton

( | parent )
I suggest you start (#36415)
by Timmy on Fri, 03/23/2007 - 11:40pm

with how cold water slides down. You need to rid of that Al Gore manual.

--

““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!””
–H

( | parent )
with all due respect (#36435)
by catchy on Sat, 03/24/2007 - 1:00am

I've stated my disagreement w. equating human-induced global warming skeptics w. flat earthers.

But telling MA and HankP they need to 'get rid of the Al gore manual'?

These are people who have 4x the understanding of the science you do.

Doesn't mean they're necessarily right.

But show some humility.

( | parent )
What... (#36424)
by M Aurelius on Sat, 03/24/2007 - 12:05am

...does warm water "slide" up?

You are not even using the right terms. Look up "convection".

--

My country, right or wrong is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying... It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.' -Chesterton

( | parent )
Not to mention "thermocline" and "inversion" nt (#36425)
by HankP on Sat, 03/24/2007 - 12:06am

--

I blame it all on the Internet

( | parent )
Are we past the warmth... (#36374)
by Irving on Fri, 03/23/2007 - 7:39pm

...of the Holocene Maximum?

( | parent )
Excellent... (#35895)
by aireachail on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 1:05am

best comment yet on this topic.

(and I ain't just blowin' a 3b at ya)

--

Excess on occasion is exhilarating. It prevents moderation from acquiring the deadening effect of a habit. - W. Somerset Maugham

( | parent )
You're right. That is an excellent comment. (#35898)
by catchy on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 1:26am

And thanks to Irving for posting it. Food for thought, especially about not just channeling the MSM in diaries.

Even if you don't accept the liberal bias meme (and I don't) there's no reason not to dig a little deeper anyway.

( | parent )
You may be right.... (#36055)
by Irving on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 6:25pm

...I may be crazy.

The MSM may not have a liberal bias. As I said, it's a debateable proposition.

But hey. We have a little experiment going on here then. :)

I propose a theory that a board that wishes to attract a mixture of left and right commentary will ultimately need to present a somewhat left and right agenda.

I postulate that via the departure of tac, the board has somewhat delegated the Agenda to the MSM.

Early experimental results suggest that commentary from the right is departing the board.

Strong inferrence: The right feels the MSM has a left-leaning bias.

Moderate inferrence: The MSM does have a left-leaning bias.

Can I get extra-credit for this?

:)

( | parent )
Bzzzzzzt! (#36056)
by HankP on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 6:37pm

I think the change in fortunes of the Republican party may explain quite a bit of any partisan or philosophical effects and I'm not sure how we would separate out that influence, seeing as how we don't have an alternate reality as a control.

FTR, I think the MSM has a stupidity and "conventional wisdom" bias, it's much easier than actually thinking about things.

--

I blame it all on the Internet

( | parent )
Rushing to judgement. (#36059)
by Irving on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 6:48pm

Well, I'd suggest that the current political fortunes of a particular party as an influence on the experiment is so small as to be insignificant. One could show that Rush Limbaugh's show thrived during the Clinton years. The willingness of people who like to talk politics...to talking politics outweighs the fortunes of a particular team. A passionate football fan talks football all the time, regardless of their team's success in a specific season.

So I'd suggest that if there was a corresponding collapse in commentary on right-leaning boards, then such a general influence may be in play. So the left-only & right-only boards act as a sort of control group.

( | parent )
Difficult to say (#36064)
by HankP on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 7:08pm

my comment was partially tongue in cheek, but there are so many factors involved that I really don't see how to separate them all. You're probably right about peoples interest in talking about politics superseding the temporary political fortunes of a party or a man, but I do think it can have at least a temporary effect.

The kinds of things I was thinking about was issues like how familiarity with the other posters becomes boredom from going over the same turf repeatedly, irreconcilable worldviews, petty annoyances that add up to partial or total withdrawal from participation, etc. In other words, we're talking about the personal tastes of a relatively small number of people so I'm not sure how much of a statistical extrapolation one could make. I'm also not sure that what we're trying to do here has much in common with self declared left or right leaning sites.

--

I blame it all on the Internet

( | parent )
Chaos (#36073)
by Irving on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 7:42pm

My experimental take was tongue in cheek as well...

Certainly the variables are many and the analysis is light. Someone wanted proposals though...

The proposition, is that a mixed commentary requires over long time periods a mixed agenda. With the mixture ratio of commentary equitable with the mixture ratio of agenda.

I'll borrow a moth & flame analogy. Getting a bunch of moths together won't cause a flame to spring up.

So yes, all the points you bring up are relevant and maybe in ascendency. But then a board of sufficient longevity will cycle through such things repeatedly. I'd suggest that this community has cycled through those issues repeatedly.

So while this experiment is not definitive, it does provide indications.

( | parent )
You may not accept it but the MSM themselves acknowledge (#35914)
by Ken White on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 10:29am

it even if on an unconscious level. Nothing at all wrong with that, IMO, I would expect everyone to react to stimuli in accordance with their innate beliefs.

OTOH, to deny the existence of bias by me, you, them -- anyone -- when we all have some is sort of evidence that one is accepting input that is potentially flawed, however minimally, for decision making purposes and that would seem to me to be antithetical to scholastic rigor...

Philosophically speaking, of course. :)

--

The K Codes explained HERE.

( | parent )
I just don't agree with any of this (#35797)
by M Aurelius on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 9:35pm

I'm a liberal and while I haven't exited, I've been drifting away for some time now. Why? Well, in many ways the conversation has become somewhat stale. I no longer feel there is much to argue about, in the good sense of the term; to argue, to present an argument.

When we go through some couple of dozen comments parsing the meaning of "when Greenland was green", somebody is wasting somebody's time.

I can't speak for the conservatives who have left. Why did spc/Jackson Mead go? I have no idea.

However, being in the minority now is a feature of reality, not of the Forvm. The administration's mistakes and lies are now clear and undeniable. It took days, not years, for the AG's testimony to be shown to be false. A few years ago it would have been liberals suspecting, but unable to prove, the deceitful behavior of bush and his appointees. Now all we need to do is wait for a few news cycles.

Under such conditions many conservatives don't know how to handle it. Perhaps they need some time to absorb the new situation and how we got here.

So be it.

A deliberate attempt to attract conservatives? In 2007? You must be joking.

--

My country, right or wrong is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying... It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.' -Chesterton

( )
My main question (#35897)
by catchy on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 1:22am

is whether you think, just maybe, conservatives might be getting bored of the site for some of the same reasons you are.

My second thought is: When we go through some couple of dozen comments parsing the meaning of "when Greenland was green", somebody is wasting somebody's time. ... you haven't learned to quit chasing Timmy around by now???!!!!

He's the Gingerbread Man, MA.

Much respect, as always.

( | parent )
My method of not chasing Timmy... (#36116)
by M Aurelius on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 10:20pm

...is basically to stop showing up.

I've been doing just that.

--

My country, right or wrong is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying... It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.' -Chesterton

( | parent )
I'm feelin ya, bro ** (#36125)
by Trickster on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 10:32pm

n/t

( | parent )
and yet you keep on popping up from time to time (#36123)
by Timmy on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 10:28pm

imagine that.

--

““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!””
–H

( | parent )
Well, (#36146)
by M Aurelius on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 10:56pm

hope does spring eternal.

--

My country, right or wrong is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying... It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.' -Chesterton

( | parent )
They both love you and don't want to admit it... :) (#36130)
by Ken White on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 10:35pm

--

The K Codes explained HERE.

( | parent )
I may be projecting here... (#36218)
by Punditus Maximus on Fri, 03/23/2007 - 1:58am

...but I'm pretty sure the correct response is "not so much."

--

It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.

( | parent )
prove what? (#35799)
by Timmy on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 9:39pm

of note, one of the issues is the firing of appointees which if memory serves hasn't been an issue before.

--

““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!””
–H

( | parent )
And... (#35812)
by M Aurelius on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 9:49pm

...why hasn't it been an issue before?

--

My country, right or wrong is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying... It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.' -Chesterton

( | parent )
firing political appointees (#35816)
by Timmy on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 9:54pm

nt

--

““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!””
–H

( | parent )
Not what... (#35824)
by M Aurelius on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 10:06pm

...I asked why was it not a problem before?

--

My country, right or wrong is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying... It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.' -Chesterton

( | parent )
because of the word before the appointee (#35827)
by Timmy on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 10:10pm

that is, political appointees are what they are

--

““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!””
–H

( | parent )
So? (#35833)
by M Aurelius on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 10:17pm

That explains what?

--

My country, right or wrong is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying... It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.' -Chesterton

( | parent )
It simply explains (#35836)
by Timmy on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 10:20pm

whose pleasure they serve at.

--

““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!””
–H

( | parent )
There is a problem with your description... (#36108)
by M Aurelius on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 10:08pm

...do you know what it is?

--

My country, right or wrong is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying... It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.' -Chesterton

( | parent )
well it certainly doesn't pertain (#36113)
by Timmy on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 10:17pm

to the US Constitution, USA(s) aren't free agents and they have been fired enmass previously. But I'm sure you have an opinion on the subject.

--

““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!””
–H

( | parent )
When and why.... (#36118)
by M Aurelius on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 10:22pm

...were they previously fired en masse?

--

My country, right or wrong is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying... It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.' -Chesterton

( | parent )
they were (#36120)
by Timmy on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 10:26pm

which is the only fact relevant in this give and take.

--

““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!””
–H

( | parent )
If so... (#36131)
by M Aurelius on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 10:39pm

...then why would Gonzales need to lie about it?

Hint: It's not about the firings, it's about something different about the appointment of the replacements.

--

My country, right or wrong is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying... It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.' -Chesterton

( | parent )
you would have to ask him (#36135)
by Timmy on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 10:42pm

because the firing of USA is not an uncommon occurence. That is why they are called "political" appointees.

--

““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!””
–H

( | parent )
Exactly--and under oath, too (#36137)
by Trickster on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 10:44pm

No point at all otherwise.

( | parent )
have you now narrowed your expansive (#36139)
by Timmy on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 10:48pm

story, to this one issue?

--

““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!””
–H

( | parent )
This "one issue"... (#36149)
by M Aurelius on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 10:58pm

...lying while giving testimony, was grounds for impeachment back in the day.

--

My country, right or wrong is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying... It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.' -Chesterton

( | parent )
historically speaking (#36151)
by Timmy on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 11:02pm

how many impeachments have there been?

--

““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!””
–H

( | parent )
To paraphrase a well-known, (#36155)
by M Aurelius on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 11:04pm

local luminary, Gonzales lied, which is the only fact relevant in this give and take.

--

My country, right or wrong is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying... It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.' -Chesterton

( | parent )
you rolled out back in the day (#36325)
by Timmy on Fri, 03/23/2007 - 4:16pm

I just asked what happened.

--

““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!””
–H

( | parent )
I don't have a "story" (#36143)
by Trickster on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 10:53pm

But whatever I have, it's not about any one issue, that's for dern tootin'.

( | parent )
how quickly we forget our diaries (#36150)
by Timmy on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 11:00pm

nt

--

““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!””
–H

( | parent )
"Self-policing," anyone? (#36154)
by Trickster on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 11:04pm

(taps his foot)

( | parent )
the following (#36160)
by Timmy on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 11:08pm

should help

--

““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!””
–H

( | parent )
Still waiting. . . . (#36164)
by Trickster on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 11:12pm

(but without any real hope)

( | parent )
I agree, quit tapping your foot... :) (#36159)
by Ken White on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 11:07pm

--

The K Codes explained HERE.

( | parent )
you could have rolled out (#36171)
by Timmy on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 11:18pm

"a classic dish-it-out-but-can't-take-it" line.

--

““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!””
–H

( | parent )
But. But... i'm a gentle soul... (#36175)
by Ken White on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 11:21pm

--

The K Codes explained HERE.

( | parent )
that you are :) (#36177)
by Timmy on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 11:23pm

nt

--

““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!””
–H

( | parent )
Does the DOJ (#35881)
by Spartacvs on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 11:35pm

have specific policy guidelines in respect to the prosecution of political corruption cases and were those guidelines breached by any of the USA's in question? Are the guidelines different for Republicans and Democrats?

Inquiring minds would like to know.

--

"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias

( | parent )
it's like timmy said... (#36062)
by nilsey on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 7:03pm

the US attorneys' job is to pleasure the president. or something like that.

( | parent )
well certainly management's agenda (#36096)
by Timmy on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 9:48pm

that is generally how the executive works.

--

““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!””
–H

( | parent )
I'll try again (#36129)
by Spartacvs on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 10:34pm

Does the Executive's agenda include specific policy guidelines in respect to the prosecution of political corruption cases and were those guidelines breached by any of the USA's in question? Are the guidelines different for Republicans and Democrats?

Inquiring minds would like to know.

--

"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias

( | parent )
Timmy's point... (#36134)
by M Aurelius on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 10:42pm

...is that the executive needs no reason to fire the US attorneys. And this is true.

But.

There was something else going on here, and it has to do with how attorneys could be appointed with no congressional confirmation thanks to the "Patriot" Act.

--

My country, right or wrong is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying... It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.' -Chesterton

( | parent )
the "Patriot Act" (#36138)
by Timmy on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 10:46pm

is the law of the land?

So if your point, is that the DoJ should have gone through the normal appointment process, we concur. Imagine that!

--

““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!””
–H

( | parent )
well just from my home state, prosecution of political (#36132)
by Timmy on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 10:39pm

corruption cases applies to both Republicans and Democrats.

--

““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!””
–H

( | parent )
Uh, okay. But isn't there a law about that... (#36066)
by Ken White on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 7:12pm

Welcome back...

Spring in the big city, stuff outa containers... :)

--

The K Codes explained HERE.

( | parent )
Archie Cox (#35822)
by Zelig on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 10:05pm

.

--


Me: We! -- Ali

( | parent )
Of note, (#35830)
by Timmy on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 10:15pm

Archie was just an appointee. Elliot Richardson was, but he resigned. Both Cox and Richardson asked the Solicitor General to stay on and we know how that played out.

--

““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!””
–H

( | parent )
Watch your back, M.A. the VRWC is cagey... :) (#35798)
by Ken White on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 9:38pm

--

The K Codes explained HERE.

( | parent )
Ken (#35811)
by M Aurelius on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 9:48pm

You know me well enough to know that I have deep respect for the VRWC. I have no illusions we will walk away with the presidency in 2008, as many of my fellow Democrats do.

But it is nevertheless true that this is the worst time to be a conservative so far this decade. Will it last? Probably not. But for now, this is the way it is.

--

My country, right or wrong is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying... It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.' -Chesterton

( | parent )
Sure, I can agree with that - but it doesn't mean much. (#35820)
by Ken White on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 10:03pm

--

The K Codes explained HERE.

( | parent )
No it doesn't. (#35826)
by M Aurelius on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 10:08pm

And that is precisely why I think proposing an affirmative action program for conservatives at the Forvm right now is just ridiculous, as well as unnecessary.

--

My country, right or wrong is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying... It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.' -Chesterton

( | parent )
See below, Timmy got left out. Joe will be jealous. As for me (#35858)
by Ken White on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 10:38pm

I've already agreed with your position -- last night.

Ah -- you didn't read the thread before jumping in again, Right? :)

--

The K Codes explained HERE.

( | parent )
affirmative action program for conservatives? (#35839)
by Timmy on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 10:24pm

Did I miss the memo or what?

--

““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!””
–H

( | parent )
Some numbers (#35761)
by HankP on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 7:19pm

I looked at the last 40 diaries, and I came up with 6 conservative, 11 liberal and 23 moderate/non-political. When I looked at the previous 40 I came up with 9 conservative, 9 liberal and 22 moderate/non-political. I went back and looked at 40 diaries from the middle of October 2006 and came up with 5 conservative, 9 liberal and 26 moderate/non-political.

I don't think this site is the liberal hegemony some might think.

--

I blame it all on the Internet

( )
What made it to the front page? (#35794)
by Timmy on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 9:36pm

a fair amount of "sugar honey ice tea" with the glass leaning to the left.

That is, diaries are one thing, the front page is something else.

--

““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!””
–H

( | parent )
People vote the way they vote (#35864)
by HankP on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 10:48pm

the only stuff I've promoted to the front page as a moderator was a diary catchy did about atheism and site-related stuff. I'm pretty sure Scott and Bill haven't been promoting much stuff either.

Besides, the diaries are just an indicator of who's contributing to the site. The real issue of partisanship is in the comments, and who's motivated enough to engage in conversations. If conservatives don't feel motivated, there's not much anyone can do about it.

--

I blame it all on the Internet

( | parent )
Of note, I wasn't complaining about you (#36098)
by Timmy on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 9:50pm

or the other two, I was just making an observation about the front page.

--

““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!””
–H

( | parent )
Noted (#36107)
by HankP on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 10:08pm

as I said, people vote the way they vote. This site is open for all to register, so if someone has a problem with the current mix of participants I'm not sure what could be done. I suppose you could recruit like minded members if it was important to you.

--

I blame it all on the Internet

( | parent )
why not write an interesting diary then (#35801)
by Yertle on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 9:39pm

?

( | parent )
or not vote for the (#35805)
by Timmy on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 9:42pm

sugar honey ice tea that made it.

BTW all my diaries are interesting to the one person who counts.

--

““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!””
–H

( | parent )
If thats the case (#35808)
by Yertle on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 9:45pm

then that one person shouldn't mind if it gets FPed or not. Too cool for school?

( | parent )
Advertise (#35759)
by Larry on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 6:30pm

From a lurker's perspective... I think the lack of conservative political diaries is part of the problem. When most of the diaries are partisan on the left, even the discussions sorta become old. Nobody likes to play defense all the time. For instance, the last week has seen plenty of diaries about Plame, and AGgate, made by leftward leaners, but I have seen no partisan diary by a conservative about, say, the democratic controlled congress proposed bill to grant D.C. a vote in the House in gross violation of the Constitution, or the proposed legislation to cut funding to the Iraq war effort that is packed with Pork proposals that actually total more than the funding requested for the war effort. But, through natural attrition let us say, the site has had a drop off of right leaning voices who like to post diaries.

How to get more? I found Tacitus originally by means of a link to his site on another blog (can't remember which one). He was and maybe still is a bit of a minor celebrity in the right leaning blogosphere, and his site got links, and through those links new readers and new participants. I haven't seen a bunch of links (if any) to the forvm. So, I think the site needs more links and exposure. How? I dunno, maybe have a blogroll recommending other politically oriented sites on the right and left, and see if we can get some quid pro quo? Maybe have the mods invite some high profile conservatives (and liberals) to jump on here and write an essay and get into a discussion once in awhile? Maybe the next time a right winger posts a diary, everyone should email Glen Reynolds and see if he'll link to it? Maybe some left leaners should cross post here and on LGF? I don't have a blog, but from what I read getting exposure is tough and there is much competition, but not many sites fall into the forvm's niche, so I don't think exposure is impossible. Effort has to be made though.

-Larry

( )
Yep. (#35776)
by Wagster on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 8:32pm

Nobody likes to play defense all the time.

Sure, but that's an (in my view fortunate) side effect of our political moment. We have a new Congress that's making up for years of no oversight. I don't think that's under our control.

( | parent )
Hey, If Nothing Else? (#35747)
by Harley on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 5:12pm

Folks should stick around until Super Duper Tuesday. That's gonna be fun.

--

“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco

( )
Maybe conservatives are staying away in droves... (#35903)
by Wagster on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 7:27am

... because they're offended by your use of question marks to connote intonation rather than a question.

( | parent )
Heh? nt. (#35905)
by Harley on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 9:00am

--

“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco

( | parent )
Let's just have two elections (#35751)
by HankP on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 5:21pm

a midterm in March and a final in November.

--

I blame it all on the Internet

( | parent )
FWIW, (not much), I Think The Forvm Is Doing Just Fine.... (#35720)
by Traveller on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 4:16pm

...I confess that I haven't entirely held up my end of the bagain, posting new, topical and at least moderately interesting stuff (I get busy from time to time)...but, The Forvm remains...damned good.

Interesting people saying interesting things.

A good read.

Nice smart people.

This should be enough.

Even if there's only ten of us....lol

Best Wishes,

Traveller

( )
I object (#35787)
by Yertle on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 9:09pm

I am not nice.

( | parent )
You could strike a tougher pose with a different handle. (#35789)
by catchy on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 9:25pm

Just sayin', yertle.

( | parent )
A megalomaniac turtle king isn't good enough for yall? (#35910)
by Yertle on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 10:16am

sheesh.

( | parent )
Well, (#35912)
by aireachail on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 10:18am

you'll have to admit that these two aren't helping boost that regal image.

--

Excess on occasion is exhilarating. It prevents moderation from acquiring the deadening effect of a habit. - W. Somerset Maugham

( | parent )
These two? (#35919)
by catchy on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 10:35am

Maybe not regal, but yes on the toughness.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=VLaev3wfeTI

(warning: rough turtle sex ahead if follow link).

( | parent )
These two? (#35918)
by catchy on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 10:34am

Maybe not regal, but yes on the toughness.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=VLaev3wfeTI

(warning: rough turtle sex ahead if follow link).

( | parent )
These two? (#35913)
by catchy on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 10:29am

Maybe not regal, but yes on the toughness.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=VLaev3wfeTI

(warning: rough turtle sex ahead if follow link).

( | parent )
Got a little (#35929)
by aireachail on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 11:10am

carried away there, eh?

I mean, "herp" porn is fun to watch, but generally not spectacular enough to trigger spasms in the viewer's posting hand ;-)

--

Excess on occasion is exhilarating. It prevents moderation from acquiring the deadening effect of a habit. - W. Somerset Maugham

( | parent )
Depending on what that hand is doing, I suspect... (#35959)
by Ken White on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 1:19pm

--

The K Codes explained HERE.

( | parent )
oh wow. (#36034)
by catchy on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 4:38pm

Did I really just triple-post turtle porn to an F-P post?

I deserve all I'm gettin' + more.

Harley!! This ws your chance for revenge and a 'puerile' comment to boot!! You missed it!

( | parent )
Way to go, catchy. (#36037)
by Jordan on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 4:44pm

I'm sure all the tortoiseporn links will have conservatives beating a path to our door. :)

--

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
–Voltaire

( | parent )
Joe liked it. (#36038)
by catchy on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 4:45pm

( | parent )
Joe's into turtles... (#36051)
by Ken White on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 6:04pm

--

The K Codes explained HERE.

( | parent )
Deep-fried, they ain't bad-NT (#36080)
by Joe on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 8:22pm

-0-

--

Will crush dissent for food

( | parent )
Wow! (#35915)
by Jordan on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 10:31am

Look at that turtle go, bro!

--

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
–Voltaire

( | parent )
Turtle porn (#35917)
by Yertle on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 10:34am

... I can't top that, I'm done.

( | parent )
Well, (#35922)
by Jordan on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 10:45am

this is the school of hard knocks, after all.

[And yes I'm glad I didn't go with my first reply here.]

--

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
–Voltaire

( | parent )
What's missing? Tacitus is missing, that's what. (#35702)
by Jordan on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 3:39pm

The guy that intrigued us all into even considering having a conversation together is gone. Trevino's pretty much one of a kind: firebrand enough to appeal to hardcore conservatives, articulate enough to encourage real dialogue, prolific enough to keep the front page alive with topical material, authoritarian enough to demand commenters follow his rules, conflicted enough to doubt even his own convictions from time to time. It was probably this last that makes him most interesting as a writer: in the political arena there are far too many who have their minds already made up, and far too few impassioned seekers of truth whose greatest struggle is against their own preconceptions. Unfortunately it may have been those same inner conflicts that drove him out of the conversation.

Well, many regulars here have a number of these Trevino qualities, but not all of them in one package. Probably for the best: it seems like a rather volatile mix.

But if this site is going to attract conservatives, it's going to need some kind of strong central personality, conservative of course, who's able to produce quality original conservative thought and a lot of it, and we're currently lacking that. For various reasons of time and temperament, none of the conservatives here are able to commit that kind of energy to producing front page material.

Shorter me: we need a new firebreathing conservative ideologue!

--

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
–Voltaire

( )
That can't be it. (#35705)
by catchy on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 3:45pm

A community blog w. diversity across the ideological spectrum is possible w/out a tacitus.

We jsut need to figure out how.

Most of us have jobs and if we were as prolific as tac, we'd feel pretty guilty about ourselves. Those w/out (cough, cough, Ken) jobs aren't up to posting diatribes.

Anyway, I think conservatives ought to be able to get along just fine in this format. It just needs some tweakin' and a little more effort.

I'll branch out a bit if you will.

( | parent )
Disregard, please. (#35750)
by hobbesist on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 5:25pm

Meta-threads = teh suxx0r.

--

Bene vixit, bene qui latuit

( | parent )
A pox on all your tribes !!! (#35710)
by Ken White on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 3:57pm

dia- and otherwise. :)

My few attempts at Diaries have bored me to tears; ain't gonna inflict that on others. Plus the fact that my non-existent schedule is erratic for several reasons and in several dimensions, I could not post a Diary then not be here to tackle the nay-sayers who might appear, no way...

--

The K Codes explained HERE.

( | parent )
No need to get defensive (#35714)
by catchy on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 4:07pm

We all note it took you 4+ months to get your codes back up n' runnin'.

Expectations for you are somewheres down below the shale underneath the rock bottomin' rock bottoms.

( | parent )
That wasn't defensive, it was offesnsive. :) (#35722)
by Ken White on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 4:17pm

Hey, the Codes are election season stuff; I wasn't figuring on breaking them out again until spring of '08 -- everybody started early (way tooooo early...).

That locale is where us Dinosaurs are supposed to be, no accounting for how some got far lower while younger...

--

The K Codes explained HERE.

( | parent )
I disagree (#35704)
by HankP on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 3:45pm

to be honest, I started posting at the old site despite Tacitus, not because of him. In fact, as I recall, I started when he was on sabbatical. I preferred the conversations I had with almost any poster there to the ones I had with Tacitus.

I think the conservatives here hold up their end of conversations just fine. I have no problem with recruiting a "fire breathing conservative ideologue", do you have anyone in mind? Maybe as a guest poster?

--

I blame it all on the Internet

( | parent )
Heh, well why *you* started posting (#35712)
by Jordan on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 4:03pm

isn't exactly the same thing as why conservatives started posting, which was kind of my point. My hunch is that conservatives are generally drawn to strong personalities more than to conversation for its own sake, although all of us regulars, regardless of our partisan druthers, have been drawn in to the crossfire of viewpoints here.

--

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
–Voltaire

( | parent )
I disagree (#35730)
by HankP on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 4:23pm

I don't think it depends on political background, I think it depends more on the environment one lives in. If you want to discuss politics but don't have friends or family who are particularly interested in it, you come to a blog like this. I don't think my motivations are that different from conservatives who post here, although people are free to point out if I'm wrong on this.

--

I blame it all on the Internet

( | parent )
Agreed. Though perhaps more on the aspect of conversation (#35717)
by Ken White on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 4:11pm

for its own sake than anything to do with personalities -- in my observation, most conservative types (as we generally use the word here) aren't very concerned with or deferential to personalities in any sense and tend to be dismissive of 'strong' personalities. Most right leaners just don't see much value in excessive conversation that solves little or nothing.

Only in retirement did I find the inclination to wax eloquently and at any length. Well, wax, anyway. Sometimes at length, occasionally excessively so (Bourbon level dependent, my Wife says...).

--

The K Codes explained HERE.

( | parent )
Thanks for the definition of a blog (#35732)
by HankP on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 4:25pm

"excessive conversation that solves little or nothing".

--

I blame it all on the Internet

( | parent )
Why do you think we're here... :) (#35783)
by Ken White on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 9:02pm

--

The K Codes explained HERE.

( | parent )
Well fair enough. I had in mind your (#35728)
by Jordan on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 4:27pm

ideological conservatives, who certainly know how to flap their gums. So called neocons, or Pat Robertson types, etc. If you're talking about your run of the mill silent conservative types, like most of my relatives, why they're nowhere near the internet and don't have much use even for the newspapers, and when you mention politics they mention why don't you pass the green beans.

Still, there's a reason 20 million people listen to Rush Windbaugh every morning, and it ain't the dialogue he opens up with his callers....

--

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
–Voltaire

( | parent )
P.S. this goes to BlaiseP's question below. -nt- (#35744)
by Jordan on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 5:02pm

.

--

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
–Voltaire

( | parent )
The George Lakoff hypothesis (#35716)
by catchy on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 4:10pm

only applies to the a$$es who are the masses, not necessarily the posters here.

( | parent )
Hey, I *am* the masses. (#35735)
by Jordan on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 4:26pm

Whoa, did I just channel Trotsky there or what?

--

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
–Voltaire

( | parent )
Did you misspell that? (#35718)
by Ken White on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 4:12pm

--

The K Codes explained HERE.

( | parent )
Seconded (#35709)
by Trickster on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 3:56pm

Trevino has an elegant writing style, but was a classic dish-it-out-but-can't-take-it pottymouth in discussion threads. And I'll admit I lack convincing evidence, but his occasional strayings from the party line took place suspiciously far away from elections and might well have been calculated to establish his cred so that he could stump for the GOP with impunity at nut-crackin' time.

I don't really mean to blast the guy and I, too, am glad he established this site, but I do want to stake out a position some ways away from the garland-tossing crowd.

( | parent )
"dish-it-out-but-can't-take-it" (#36101)
by Timmy on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 9:54pm

certainly an issue, you probably should have avoided.

--

““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!””
–H

( | parent )
Tacitus isn't Tacitus (#35708)
by Punditus Maximus on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 3:52pm

He changed when Reagan died; I honestly feel that he lost the belief that dialogue with persons who disagree with him was meaningful and instead moved to an Overton Window approach.

--

It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.

( | parent )
I don't think so... (#35779)
by Wagster on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 8:37pm

Anyone with ambitions towards a publically visible position should be hesitant about leaving a trail of opinions that is bound in this format to sometimes be intemperate.

( | parent )
Tac never bartended like you did. (#35706)
by catchy on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 3:50pm

It's that simple.

( | parent )
How did you know (#35723)
by HankP on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 4:18pm

that I used to be a bartender? Spooky!

--

I blame it all on the Internet

( | parent )
You keep trying to serve my girl tequila (#35742)
by catchy on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 4:55pm

Old habit I guess.

(Re: spooky, I occasionally remember a detail from way back. A spooked out reaction is fine, amused is okay too.)

( | parent )
I thought we were all ex-bartenders and as a result are all (#35727)
by Ken White on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 4:22pm

massive over tippers today... :)

--

The K Codes explained HERE.

( | parent )
The Golden Rule (#35736)
by Blue Neponset on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 4:27pm

Take care of your bartender and he will take care of you.

So shall the good man teach his son......

--

I went to YOUR institutional learning facilities?! So how can you say I'M crazy? - S. Tendencies

( | parent )
new blood (#35666)
by heet on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 2:27pm

Several years ago Tacitus wrote several posts encouraging tacitus.org members to recruit new people, crosspost, and basically get the word out. Obviously, he's moved on to different things since then but at the time his heart, though cold and black as night, was in the right place. Nobody, including myself, really made much of an effort to take him up on these suggestions. I think I know why - people were happy debating amongst each other and didn't really want some new and different jacka$$es mucking up the vibe. Well, plenty of old jacka$$es, also including myself, have basically moved on for various reasons and fewer new jacka$$es have taken their place.

The balance of right and left posters has changed. How to fix this? The quivering voice of Tacitus calls out from the legendary conservative boneyard, the think-tank. "Recruit! Recruit! Find some new righty jacka$$es!" he groans. Alas, I cannot heed his siren's song. Who amongst us will do the bidding of the Dark One?

As an aside, the gratuitous points-scoring in this thread is tiresome and rude. Sure I think Bush sucks, but why poke someone in the eye over it? That isn't the subject of this thread, is it? I mean, tangentially it is related to why there is a shift in forvm.org demographics but what is the point of all the fussing?

--

Over here on E Street, we're proud to support Obama for President. - Bruce Springsteen

( )
Nice post. Evocative. (#35696)
by catchy on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 3:15pm

You're right re: point-scoring being rude + not in line w. the thrust of the post.

Well, perhaps even liberals could start reading and taking issue at conservative sites. The only one I read w. decent commenters is volokh.

Any specific sites come to mind?

( | parent )
not really (#35729)
by heet on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 4:23pm

I confess I come to tacitus to hear what reasonable conservatives/republicans think. Occasionally I go to the righty reactionary and fringe sites to see what the wackos think. I don't really want those guys here.

--

Over here on E Street, we're proud to support Obama for President. - Bruce Springsteen

( | parent )
Well (#35660)
by HankP on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 2:16pm

I don't just claim that I care more about the quality of the poster, I actually mean it. But here's the thing - several people, myself included, have posted diaries that are not the usual Bush sucks/Pelosi sucks type of standard fare, yet what gets the most response? Partisan attacks, that's what. Usually, the quality of the comments is inversely proportional to the quantity - that's typical of other sites too.

Maybe it's impossible to have decent, reasoned debate, maybe not. I think you may be reading more into this than is actually there, as I recall involvement of all "types" of participants falls off at unpredictable times. Real life intrudes. As I recall, Bernard Guerrero stated a few weeks ago that he was totally swamped with work, I have been also and have not commented as much as in the past. Many members take leaves (sometime extended), sometimes they return and sometimes they don't, but that's just the way things are.

We do continue to add registered users, anywhere from 2 to 8 a week. Maybe I should do a front page post asking lurkers to step up and introduce themselves. Maybe members can post theforvm as their website when commenting at other blogs. There are plenty of things that members can do, they just need to do them. Invite friends, family, etc. to check the site out (unless you may be embarrassed by your participation here :) ). Looking at the site stats, I don't see any kind of huge drop off outside of the normal variation of the site.

I'm hesitant to claim any kind of major shift is occurring, maybe it is and I'm just not seeing it. The solution is to post thoughtful diaries, promote the site and encourage the participation of others if this is a real concern to you.

--

I blame it all on the Internet

( )
btw Hank (#36346)
by catchy on Fri, 03/23/2007 - 5:27pm

Didn't mean to suggest with the 'HankP *claims*' bit that you weren't sincere or anything.

That phrase is just an artifact of writing papers with a billion sentences of the form 'X claims'...

( | parent )
Not a problem (#36349)
by HankP on Fri, 03/23/2007 - 5:42pm

I was just clarifying. Your memory is better than mine so I wasn't sure if I had been less than clear in the past.

Thank god I don't write diaries like the consulting reports I used to write ...

--

I blame it all on the Internet

( | parent )
I'm inclined to agree (#35670)
by TXG1112 on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 2:36pm

My suspicion is that many conservatives would rather lurk than be charged with defending the indefensible.

In addition, it's not particularly fair to expect our cohort of right leaning commenters to be rhetorical punching bags as we make them do penance for the perceived sins of the Bush Administration. While it might make some people feel better to do this, it isn't actually conducive to fruitful discussion.

While I don't expect discussion of the "gotcha of the day" to stop, I think reminders that our local conservatives are not actually members of the Bush Administration might help. Defense of a particular action (even one you may find indefensible) does not mean that they are complicit in those actions.

--

---
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered. My life is my own.

( | parent )
"perceived sins" (#36102)
by Timmy on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 9:55pm

well you certainly got that right

--

““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!””
–H

( | parent )
Lurker Party!! (#35668)
by Harley on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 2:31pm

It's actually not a bad idea. To welcome some folks into the fold.

--

“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco

( | parent )
Why bother? (#35628)
by Macallan on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 12:53pm

Three different times this morning I started to write up a comment for this diary, but I'd first read the other comments posted and just end up saying to myself, "why bother?"

I'm at the point that, not only do I feel a mere handful of folks might even get it if I did attempt to explain my view about the site, but I feel that a majority of folks don't really want to get it… so why bother?

Is it worth my time? Based on comments so far… it doesn't appear to be. So why bother?

--

“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”

( )
If there are just 10 good people left on the site (#35681)
by catchy on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 2:53pm

would it be worth saving?

... I bothered. you're worth it as are others here. A few constructive suggestions would be nice. No magnum opus on the ideal nature of political discourse necessary.

And don't mind stuzzy, he's just tryin' some reverse psychology. Worked on ken.

( | parent )
Don't bother (#35655)
by Blue Neponset on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 2:05pm

If your time isn't worth responding to a thoughtful diary like this one then maybe it is time to take a break from the Forvm.

--

I went to YOUR institutional learning facilities?! So how can you say I'M crazy? - S. Tendencies

( | parent )
What are your points? (#35652)
by HankP on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 1:57pm

just state them, instead of a meta-analysis of the thread. If seeing a few comments you don't like is enough to sidetrack you, what blog would you ever be happy at?

Only you can determine whether it's worth your time to participate here, but IMO a few comments you don't like is more of an excuse than a reason.

--

I blame it all on the Internet

( | parent )
Oh, Go Ahead and Bother (#35642)
by Harley on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 1:35pm

It's worth making your points, particularly regarding this site issue. Basing your response, or lack of it, on cherry-picked comments you find objectionable feels more like a self-fulfilling prophesy then a genuine attempt to communite your opinion. And if that's the way you want to go, okay.

But your comment is both insulting ('mere handful', etc.) and beside the point at hand. There are clearly folks here who are genuinely concerned. There are others who think some folks aren't willing or able to deal with changing political winds.

Whatever the case, the 'why bother' posture is just that, and not all that helpful.

--

“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco

( | parent )
Why bother? (#35636)
by brendanm98 on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 1:25pm

I dunno, maybe because several liberal posters have already invested a significant amount of time towards addressing the apparent dissatisfaction of conservatives here. Maybe it's just me but an "it's not worth my time" response from one of the most prominent conservatives here hardly seems... helpful.

Why not give us a chance?

--

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

( | parent )
And I gave you credit for that... (#35641)
by Macallan on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 1:32pm

Being among the "mere handful" who I feel both recognize a problem and want to understand how to address it.

--

“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”

( | parent )
playing (#35630)
by stuzzy on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 1:04pm

the victim, right on cue.

For what it's worth Mac I always read your comments and think about them. I wish you would have wrote your comment and let it play out.

( | parent )
priceless (#35633)
by Macallan on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 1:16pm

...and just perfect.

Sheesh. I swear sometimes it's like I pay people to do this kind of dumb self-parody response, but that I get for free is certainly a treat.

--

“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”

( | parent )
I could say the same (#35680)
by stuzzy on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 2:52pm

of your response.

( | parent )
It's Up To You, Mac...Have Fun, Stick Up for Conservative Values (#35640)
by Traveller on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 1:31pm

...small government, lower taxes, a limited role of the Sate in people's lives...or, be a water carrier for this Administration.

If you choose the latter, I cannot help but think that this is going to be rough going. But your choice.

I just happened to see Andrew Sullivan on Television last night...and this was seeing him for the first time...he was pretty articulate, set out the Conservative agenda pretty well and had a lot to say that made some sense.

There is nothing wrong with the Conservative position...you just have to shift gears, that's all.

However, if you can't find it in youself to do this...we'll understand.

But more of the past six years? No, that probably won't fly.

Best Wishes,

Traveller

( | parent )
But if the primary option presented to conservatives (#35644)
by brendanm98 on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 1:37pm

is, "Hey guys try to defend this latest Bush-administration outrage or admit liberals win!" then it's hard for them to "stick up for conservative values, small government, lower taxes, a limited role of the Sate in people's lives." Not saying that's what's happening but maybe it feels that way?

Agreed that conservatives could be more pro-active in terms of posting diaries and what-not, although again there are fewer of them...

--

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

( | parent )
It's Hardly A Happy Dilemma (#35653)
by Harley on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 2:01pm

But no one is forced to defend anyone or anything. As for admitting someone 'won' -- I was reminded often, not so long ago, that the only kind of winning that matters takes place at the ballot box.

There's much to discuss re the issues of the day, not to mention the '08 election and the candidate scrum in either party. Not to mention Scott's sports diaries and things that amuse and book club stuff and movie arguments. That the site can get testy from time to time is hardly news, nor is it a significant change from the way the place has always been, including the now-ancient Tacitus site.

--

“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco

( | parent )
Yup (#35662)
by brendanm98 on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 2:18pm

and the "extra" sports and entertainment stuff is part of what got me lurking here in the first place. The mix of political debate and fun discussion is unique.

Still, this isn't just about how things are, necessarily, it's also about how they are perceived to be, or maybe how they ought to be. Seems worth discussing, anyway, and it appears a fair number of liberals are concerned to some degree.

--

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

( | parent )
I've Never Liked the Liberal/Conservative Distinction.... (#35646)
by Traveller on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 1:45pm

...this is something that has been forced on us by the Right and here at The Forvm also.

Shouldn't the question be, and shouldn't it always have been, "What's good for the country, what's good for the world?"

What's good for Bush or the Repubican's or the Dems even is a place I've never wanted to go.

However, I've played along because this is a political site, full of political discussion...I'll play for the fun of it....but the real issues are considerably different.

Best Wishes,

Traveller

( | parent )
Totally agree with that! (#35690)
by Ken White on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 3:03pm

--

The K Codes explained HERE.

( | parent )
Awash In a Sea of Ka-Ka & Incompetence.... (#35619)
by Traveller on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 11:28am

...I am really with Stuzzy on this.

Things change, events occur, perspectives shift. These neo-con lads have been at the helm of our great Ship of State for more than six perilous years now....and there doesn't seem to be a shoal that these boys have been able to avoid crashing disastrously on.

It isn't tough being a conservative, their conversation still contains a vitality capable of catching the mind...making people think.

The problem is that it is tough being a Bush & Company loyalist or...toddy at the moment. Of course people are receding into the background...there are two issues, Who wants to admit that they were wrong in supporting rank stupidity, and, secondly, what arguments can they advance?

The Valerie and Joe show was fun, smoke and mirrors and shouts of alarm...but seriously, everybody knows that this outing was done for political reasons...and worse, underhanded ones. Bush had the option of being a Statesman and cleaning house over this, as he said he was going to do at the time all of this broke. But he didn't, it was just another political hammer for him...as seemingly was the war, the most important question of our days. Just politics, worse, just domestic politics...that's all the war seemingly was to these clowns.

Who wants to defend this? Who wants to defend moving Jay Gardner out and Paul Bremmer in? Who wants to defend or better, take responsibility for the current mess in Iraq? I would note however that I have some moderate hope for Iraq, not that what's been done can be undone, but rather that General, "Super Dave," Petraeus can bring an honest and rational view to the conflict. It may be too late for the Professionals, finally, but I said I'd give them a chance, and I will.

As for Bush & Co, it just keeps getting worse and worse. The Alberto Gonzalez thing isn't going to go away. It looks today like Subpoenas will issue shortly and we can be sure that the Administration will handle this badly also. Politics, all politics, live by it, die by it and I say good riddance.

Lastly, I would note that the tone of the Right has always been anger and fear...that's what they're selling. But who can be afraid and angry all the time? It wears on a person. If voices from the right are receding, they simply may be tired of all the shrill bombast and call to arms.

I might also note that hope and charity have always been a staple of the Progressives as much as fear and anger have been the provence of the Right. We can afford to be patient and take the hits...if only because always, over time, hope wins out over fear.

So The Forvm will change, the tone and language will be different. I don't see this as a problem. Evolution and maturation is usually good. I miss Livia and JM, they made me think but, there at the end, it was almost painful to see Livia twisting and shouting...invective...to no one in particular. It was sad.

All I want to see at the Forvm is smart writing, a natural give and take....hey, maybe I'll become the Conservative voice here.

I'm good with that too.

Best Wishes,

Traveller

( )
Crashing disastrously ? (#35647)
by luisalegria on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 1:46pm

Mr. Traveller,

This sort of opinion is what happens when people lose all sense of perspective, probably from getting caught up in political controversies.

What disaster ? What crash ? What mistakes ?

As far as I can tell, the State of the Union is just fine, or at any rate not very different from the status quo in Y2K. In many ways a lot of things are considerably better.

Who cares if there is an argument over firing political appointees ? Who cares if some people hate an attorney-general ? Who cares if there is bureacratic infighting in Washington ? Making what you do of these things is like saying the world is ending because people are getting hayfever in the springtime.

Even the arguments over Iraq are a tempest in a teapot.

( | parent )
Disagree over arguments re: Iraq (#35739)
by catchy on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 4:46pm

But the current AG controversy is boring and I also don't care.

( | parent )
Would you believe shower in a teapot? What AG thingy? (#35785)
by Ken White on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 9:04pm

--

The K Codes explained HERE.

( | parent )
Two Bit Burglary has a Nice Ring nt (#35890)
by Harley on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 12:23am

--

“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco

( | parent )
A two bit Teapot? Sounds cheeep. (#35894)
by Ken White on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 12:59am

--

The K Codes explained HERE.

( | parent )
Well, yes, Luis, but Yes and No... (#35649)
by Traveller on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 1:49pm

...the declining value of the dollar, maybe naturally enough, makes me crazy. The deficit spending is...crazy.

Iraq is a big deal, on this we will disagree.

More later, but I have to go back to work.

Still, nice to hear your voice on this even if we disagree.

Best Wishes,

Traveller

( | parent )
Overvalued dollar (#35654)
by luisalegria on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 2:02pm

Mr. Traveller,

A falling dollar is a natural consequence of the world getting better. Thats a good thing. The dollar would be very high in a world of uncertainty and great risk, and the US was the only safe haven for wealth.

Deficit spending at this rate is not as big a deal. Your problems with it are psychological.

What about the rest ?

US productivity continues healthy growth.

US revenues approach Y2K rates (% of GDP) with lower tax rates - i.e., the US is at a more efficient position in tax and economic policy, which implies more efficiency in the economy and fewer distortions.

Global growth is better than ever.

Iraq will be sorted out; the problems there are their problems, self-created and self-perpetuating, exacerbated currently by our enemies. Nobody is leaving. They need a midwife to help something better be born, and its about time somebody took on that job. This midwifery will have to be repeated, by someone, in several dozen countries.

( | parent )
How much of this (#35617)
by Gabriel on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 11:22am

is due to conservatives enjoying debating the other side a lot less given what has happened to many of their ideas and causes? It works both ways but lately it hasn't been great for the Right.

--

This place is my vacation.

( )
It's tough (#35610)
by brendanm98 on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 10:59am

For whatever reason there are fewer conservatives online, period. There's also a lack of user-driven conservative blogs; most of the well-known right-wing blogs don't have diaries, and some don't even have comments. Consequently, the pool from which to draw conservatives interested in bipartisan debate is smaller.

None of that has anything to do with the particular situation at the Forvm, but it does make it more difficult to attract new blood to replace those conservatives who decide to leave. We're struggling with the same problem at Swords Crossed (conservatives, feel free to come visit! -- and heck, we'll take liberals too). Consequently, as you say it's important to retain those conservatives already here.

The catch, and this is only my opinion, is that those conservatives still interested in defending the specific actions of this administration after six years of bumbling ineptitude and gutter politics tend to be quite passionate. To the point, again in my humble opinion, where it can sometimes be difficult for more moderate liberals to constructively engage. To be fair, those liberals inclined to engage on such issues also tend to be quite passionate, since we're drawing from a larger pool of liberals to start with and this is the sort of thing that attracts extremes. So you get unproductive flame-wars about the outrage of the day and because there are more liberals than conservatives (and I would say because the outrage of the day usually is outrageous) the conservatives feel like they are fighting an uphill battle.

The solution (again IMHO) is to move away from the daily fights and debate core philosophy and big-picture issues. Here conservatives are on an equal footing and here thoughtful rationality triumphs over knee-jerk partisanship. It's not really the forte of blogging, which works better with the instant quip, the immediate outrage, the rhetorical games. But I think it can be done. To take a personal example, I wrote a diary on Ann Coulter's remarks about Edwards in which I tried to focus on the big-picture implications, rather than just saying "OMG look at those awful Republicans" -- not sure how successful that was, but such was my intent anyway. OTOH, this was probably my most confrontational diary and it got by far the most interest -- more dispassionate analysis is generally ignored, here and elsewhere. So if the day-to-day battles can be refocused to address larger issues and if there's increased interest in discussing larger issues then I think conservatives are more likely to stick around for the debate. Not sure how realistic that is in a blogging format, however -- I'd bore myself stiff discussing philosophy all day. Maybe there's an ideal balance out there.

Anyway, just my $0.02.

--

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

( )
How to attract conservatives? (#35597)
by Wagster on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 7:55am

Ahhh... free guns?

( )
How little you know (#35786)
by Darth Cuddly on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 9:09pm

We gun totin' conservatives like expensive, often very expensive guns.

--

Chuck Norris recently returned from the Virgin Islands. Now they are just called 'The Islands'.

( | parent )
We can start with... (#35609)
by Spin Doctor on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 10:58am

slot machines, homosexuals, falafel and oxycontin.

--

Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it. -Mark Twain

( | parent )
The first should be a criminal offense (#35611)
by catchy on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 11:04am

but the last three are at all the good parties.

( | parent )
tanstaafg (#35599)
by Chuchundra on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 8:23am

.

--

Guard, protect and cherish your land, for there is no afterlife for a place that started out as Heaven.

( | parent )
What is a Conservative qua Conservative? (#35596)
by BlaiseP on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 7:34am

Is it a proud and honest Tory like Luis, an old seen-it-all done-it-all like Ken? Conservative is as conservative does. Are we talking about fiscal conservatives, or strict constructionists in a legal sense?

There's this twitchy weirdo, BlaiseP, who calls himself a Democrat, but considers himself an old Goldwater Republican who got driven off from the Republican Party. When the Repubs were heavy on the ideological purity thing, people like him didn't fit in anymore. He doesn't really fit in at dKos, and sorta likes it round here, and there are more like him.

If we want more conservatives around here, I'll go out missionarying for them. But really, it's up to the conservatives to bring in the sheaves. I came here on an invite off dKos. But what sort of conservative do we want? Do we really want a virulent pro-lifer around here to stir the pot? Hey, I'm pro-life, but some fights just get too ugly too fast to indulge in that sort of thing. I'm also something of a gun nut. If we want self-described Conservatives, I'm down for doing some recruiting, but I won't go off to RedState in search of them. In their recent setbacks, seems to me many Conservatives prefer the onanistic comforts of the echo chamber, where they can lick their wounds and other parts of their anatomy. Same goes for Liberals, over there at dKos. Takes a unique sort of person to engage the other side on a constructive basis.

( )
I'm Starting to Like (#35741)
by Inigo on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 4:55pm

your take on stuff. One of my great current annoyances (not so much with this place, but with the world in general) is the general obsession with political pigeonholing and ideological labeling. It's laziness that bears little relation to the complexity of actual human thought. I say this, of course, as one who has offered, in weaker moments, more than a few indefensible generalizations about "The Left."

As for this place, I still think it's superb, and I don't care much about the leftward tilt. There really is no other like it, at least in my experience. I generally follow it daily, though I don't post as much as I once did (though topics pop into my head each day) -- a product, I suppose, of work, family and the generalized self-loathing that comes from spending too damn much time staring at a screen. But there really is no other place, to my knowledge, where a random dummy like me can put some effort into the production of something readable, and have others respond to it in what generally seems like good faith.

--

That's how it is on this bitch of an earth.

( | parent )
The more important question is... (#35593)
by Chuchundra on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 6:17am

...how can we attract more chicks!

--

Guard, protect and cherish your land, for there is no afterlife for a place that started out as Heaven.

( )
Less singularity jokes from Yertle (#35595)
by Vuelta on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 7:19am

would be a start... :)

( | parent )
ouch! (#35598)
by Yertle on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 7:56am

nt

( | parent )
I would say such jokes are pointless, but that's all they are. (#35600)
by BlaiseP on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 8:23am

heh

( | parent )
Please (#35583)
by stuzzy on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 1:19am

Let them leave. The besieged republican as victim schtick gets old and that's all I see happening. Get over it righties. We lefty types stuck it out when it was tacitus and it was way way more right leaning and now it drifts to the left and it's time to take the ball and go home? Screw ya then you never cared much for the site anyway ya pansies. I've been here since it was movable type. Wrap a flag around yourself and go cry in yer pillows.

I think what's really happening is republicans are on the outs, the president is a doofus and by now everyone knows it, and the defenders here are running out of material and it makes for grumpy posters.

As for handicappng it for the righties? Please. Forget that. Why don't they vote stuff to the front page? As it is I never post diaries anymore because I don't want to stir up a hornets nest. I was going to start posting youtube vidoes for comic relief to try and lighten things up a bit.

Let the site evolve as it will. We don't need affirmative action for republicans here. They would scoff at the idea anyway. I hope everyone stays, I'm not trying to run anyone off, but this notion that we should somehow appease them or beg them to stay is ridiculous. Let the cards fall where they may and evolution take it's course.

( )
Well it's really for me (#35588)
by catchy on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 1:28am

and my enjoyment, so i don't think of it as AA for conservatives. I'm wondering how to keep everyone from getting bored especially including righties.

fair point that the site is not really significantly more left-leaning now than it was right-leaning a few yrs. back. conservatives can feel free to respond.

but righty departure as a function of the '06 Democratic victories is superficial. lefties are more plentiful on the net and sites have tended to drift into liberal echo chambers prior to Bush's poll #s tanking.

just lookin' for some constructive ideas not to let it happen here.

( | parent )
I don't think (#35631)
by stuzzy on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 1:03pm

conservatives want debate so much as just have it their way. Hard to work with that.

( | parent )
Kettle on Line 2... (#35639)
by Ken White on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 1:28pm

--

The K Codes explained HERE.

( | parent )
point taken Ken (#35692)
by stuzzy on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 3:05pm

( | parent )
I can't be your pain in the iliac if I leave so forget that.. (#35586)
by Ken White on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 1:25am

Interesting first paragraph.

The only recurring grumps -- everybody has a bad day now and then -- here are Harley and Macallan. Do we really know they're two separate people???

All Presidents I've known were doofuses; this one isn't much more doofy than the last one -- and probably won't be any doofier than the next one...

Other than that, I agree with you. :)

--

The K Codes explained HERE.

( | parent )
Well (#35629)
by stuzzy on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 12:54pm

the first paragraph is for anyone who is whining or complaining about the site drifitng to the left or becoming like OBWI. Doesn't apply to you.

( | parent )
tolerating diversity (#35580)
by Micky Love on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 1:04am

I've never really bothered with voting. I don't care if a diary is on the front page or on the side. I doubt that issues of diary placement has caused anyone, left, right or in between to leave the site.

Tolerance and diversity are sacred cows for leftists. They won't attract conservatives to this site. It would be interesting to hear what conservatives consider to be their sacred cows, and whether they find them honoured at the forvm. If they demand reverence for tradition and authority, little wonder look elsewhere.

--

Nothing resembles virtue more than a great crime. Saint-Just

( )
Nicely done!! (#35899)
by Elagabalus on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 1:39am

a comment that absolutely effervesces with tolerance and diversity in every word!

--

I had discovered a great secret. That everyone loves themselves more than they love anybody else. And if I wanted them to love me, I better be like THEM!... Ken Nordine

( | parent )
He Loveth but he tolerateth not... (#35916)
by Ken White on Thu, 03/22/2007 - 10:32am

--

The K Codes explained HERE.

( | parent )
I was thinking of F-P voting (#35582)
by catchy on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 1:10am

mostly in terms of attracting newbies, as in folk dropping in are likely to see it first.

You're right that we should ehar from righties on what they'd like to see changed... and as you say presumably on more substantive stuff than F-P voting trends.

You're wrong to intimate that some of the quality we've lost is because there's not enough 'reverance for tradition and authority'.

The site's current status isn't a triumph of leftist ideas in any sense.

( | parent )
Maybe I am alone in thinking (#35602)
by Micky Love on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 9:01am

Maybe I am alone in thinking that the Democrats are beatable in the next election. Maybe it's still too early; there are a lot of gaps in my knowledge, and I'm only a casual follower but I don't see a lot of ideas coming out of the Democratic camp. I see a possiblility for a "new face" Republican with half a billion $US to outflank the Democrats with some populism. I thought it might have been interesting to watch Republicans thrash out ideas for a differerent approach here but it looks as though I'll be disappointed. Either the Republicans don't like to be seen doing their laundry in public - leaving it to be done in privacy by the leadership, or they are even more bereft of ideas than the Democrats, thanks to unravelled thinking caps and weakened spines from years of grovelling before corporate funders and other fundamentalists.

--

Nothing resembles virtue more than a great crime. Saint-Just

( | parent )
Both Parties continually prove they are ever capable of (#35615)
by Ken White on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 11:12am

snatching defeat from the jaws of victory...

Year and a half provides a lot of margin for either to trip themselves up badly and I have faith both will do so enabling the voters to once again select the best of a bad lot.

--

The K Codes explained HERE.

( | parent )
the site (#35584)
by stuzzy on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 1:14am

has traditionally been right leaning. Now things drift and it's time to leave? Let them leave.

( | parent )
Dream on... (#35587)
by Ken White on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 1:26am

--

The K Codes explained HERE.

( | parent )
Support The Forvm

Powell's Books

Amazon.com

Help support the Forvm by buying items through our links. All proceeds go to defraying our hosting costs.

Recent Diaries
more
Links

Conservative
Liberal
Moderate/Mixed/Non-Partisan
Non-Political/Reference

Related Sites

Polisci Applied (Aaron)
Intrepid Liberal Journal (Intrepid Liberal)
Obsidian Wings (Bird Dog)
Open Hand/Open Eye (locutas)
Red State (Bird Dog)
Swords Crossed (brendanm98)
Wagster Speaks (Wagster)
WatchingAmerica (BlaiseP)
The Social Pathologist (TSP)

Foreign Affairs

Abu Aardvark
'Aqoul
American Footprints
Council on Foreign Relations
CSIS
Democracy Arsenal
Intel Dump
The Fourth Rail
War and Piece

Politics

Ace of Spades HQ
Andrew Sullivan
Balloon Juice
Belgravia Dispatch
Captain's Quarters
Crooked Timber
Curmudgeonly & Skeptical
Daily Kos
Democracy Arsenal
Eschaton
Firedoglake
Glenn Greenwald
Global Guerrillas
Hugh Hewitt
Instapundit
Jawa Report
Lawyers, Guns and Money
Liberals Against Terror
Matt Yglesias
Michael J. Totten
Michelle Malkin
Moon of Alabama
New America
OxBlog
Patterico
Political Animal
Political Wire
Publius Pundit
QandO
Reality Based Community
Talking Points Memo
The Agitator
The Belmont Club
The Corner
This Modern WorldTruman Project
Winds of Change.net

War

Counterterrorism Blog
Iraq the Model
Jihad Watch
Small Wars Journal Blog

Economics and Business

Angry Bear
Brad DeLong
Daniel Drezner
Mahalanobis
Marginal Revolution
Roubini Global Economics
The Big Picture

Science and Tech

Bad Astronomy
New Scientist
Real Climate
Science Blogs
Scientific American
The Panda's Thumb

Legal

Balkinization
Conglomerate
Ideoblog
Jurisdynamics
Law and Letters
Overlawyered
ProfessorBainbridge
ScotusBlog
Talk Left
The Becker-Posner Blog
Volokh Conspiracy

Sports

Baseball Crank
Baseball Musings
Baseball Reference.com
ESPN.com
NFL.com
Only Baseball Matters
The Sports Economist

Film and Music

They Shoot Pictures, Don't They?
Internet Movie Database
All Music Guide

News and Aggregators

Asia Times
Boingboing
CNN
Digg
English Russia
Fark
Memeorandum
MSNBC
Politico
Poynteronline
Slashdot

Dead Tree Media
The New York Times
The Washington Post
Los Angeles Times

References

Wikipedia
Your Dictionary