My Photo

« Ignatius Hearts McCain | Main | Quick Note »

July 31, 2008

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515c2369e200e553c64b248833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Next Act, Waiting in the Wings:

Comments

Speaking of shining a light on McCain, Newsweek's Anna Quindlen gives the best -- and, really, only -- account I've seen on why it really is telling that McShame can't negotiate the internet.

Her column doesn't raise passions as debating the Surge has or it isn't as colorful as debasing an ad that highlights Britney or Paris. But it does shed light on the very notion of having an out-of-touch president in the Oval Office.

Its subtitle: "The terroists have laptops in their hideouts. Can America afford to have a leader who is just learning to use one?"

http://www.newsweek.com/id/148980

Take a look -- if only because -- hip, hip, hooray! -- I finally found out how to provide a link.

Hope it (1) worked and (2) was worth it.

If the people supporting the Society for the Promotion of Ignorance, Torture, and the Concentration of Wealth manage to convince enough of their fellow morons citizens that McCain manages to get elected (or manages to get Diebold to elect him) they fncking deserve what they get.

they fncking deserve what they get.

No, we get what they deserve! Just like for the last 8 years.

Well, maybe I haven't found out exactly how to provide a damn link.

By the way, and I hope no one takes offense, and I may be weird on this, but I would rather read the work "fucking" than "fncking."

Just me.

What Jeff said.

No, we get what they deserve! Just like for the last 8 years.

I'll get to keep my precious tax cuts at least.

By the way, and I hope no one takes offense, and I may be weird on this, but I would rather read the work "f[]cking" than "fncking."

Posting rules prohibit correctly spelling out curse words so that people who have work filters for profanity can still read the site. Otherwise, I would properly curse away.

Speaking of shining a light on McCain, Newsweek's Anna Quindlen gives the best -- and, really, only -- account I've seen on why it really is telling that McShame can't negotiate the internet.

Her column doesn't raise passions as debating the Surge has or it isn't as colorful as debasing an ad that highlights Britney or Paris. But it does shed light on the very notion of having an out-of-touch president in the Oval Office.

Its subtitle: "The terroists have laptops in their hideouts. Can America afford to have a leader who is just learning to use one?"

Anna Quindlen

Take a look -- if only because -- hip, hip, hooray! -- I finally found out how to provide a link.

Hope it (1) worked and (2) was worth it.

awesome - thanks for the link. god i miss that blog

That's a bracing shot of whiskey; thanks, Eric, for the pointer.

Ugh,

Thanks for the explanation. Work filters -- another new one on me. At least I'm making an honest attempt to learn this stuff -- unlike a certain presidential candidate.

publius: "god i miss that blog"

What blog?

Anyway:

Thoughts on the Quindlen column?

"Posting rules prohibit correctly spelling out curse words so that people who have work filters for profanity can still read the site."

Which makes no sense, because the rules aren't posted where anyone new can see them, so such words are, in fact, posted every day, every few hours, sometimes every few minutes, meaning if such workplace filters actually work, no one can read the site that way, anyway.

But since the last time anyone actually complained that their no-profanity filter kept them from reading the site was something like four years ago, it's evidently not actually a problem for anyone.

If it were actually a problem, then an actual solution that might be vaguely effective would be called for, like having the no-profanity warning visible before one hits "post," or at least at the end of every actual post, or at least in large letters on the front page. Not that that might work, but at least it hasn't been tried, unlike the current policy, which plainly doesn't work, even if the problem is real, which there's no sign of.

This is a case of simple inertia, so far as I can tell. Moe invented the rule, it never worked, but the rule is continued: why? Anyone know any other reason than mindless inertia, and because someone complained back in the first year, and Moe instituted the rule, and subsequently left, and here we are?

What blog?

bilmon's blog, back in the day, was called "Whiskey Bar".

Anyone know any other reason

To drive you nuts. Works!

(It's currently hilzoy's and publius' blog. If they want to claim that every other leter is capitolaized, and don't post that rule anywhere, that's their right. On your blog, you can have your own rule. Excuse me, On YoUr BlOg, YoU cAn HaVe YoUr OwN rUlEs.)

Jeff,

lol

"Thoughts on the Quindlen column?"

Kinda obvious, I thought.

"It's currently hilzoy's and publius' blog."

Funny, I thought it was also Von's and Charles' and Sebastian's, even though they post infrequently at present; Slart also does sporadic maintenance work, as well.

I'm not trying to have any rules of my own: I'm pointing out that the current rule seems to make no sense whatever. That's all. I assume that if you could point out some sense that it made, you would.

Insanity includes repeatedly doing something that doesn't work, for no reason. Telling people after the fact not to use profanity plainly hasn't worked. So there doesn't actually seem to be any reason to keep telling people that, since it's not accomplishing what it's ostensibly supposed to accomplish. That's all. I regret it if you are offended by my pointing this out.

Me, I pointed it out to people a whole lot of times before realizing that it was pointless unless something else was done to make the policy effective.

Katherine also still posts on occasion, as well. And, of course, there's also Eric Martin.

"Me, I pointed it out to people a whole lot of times"

That is, I pointed out the no-profanity rule.

"awesome - thanks for the link. god i miss that blog"

Y'know, it was already pointed out to you in comments on your own post four hours ago.

I singled out hilzoy and publius since they're the ones I've noticed deleting comments.

I regret it if you are offended by my pointing this out.

I'm not offended.

Insanity includes repeatedly doing something that doesn't work, for no reason.

So why do you keep complaining about the policy, when your complaints clearly have no effect? [grin]

Our man of principle, from "Why We Fight".

McCain's segment begins at 0:14, right after some comments from the ever-odious Richard Perle.

Thanks -

Insanity includes repeatedly doing something that doesn't work, for no reason.

Boy, am I in trouble.

Thanks -

"So why do you keep complaining about the policy,"

I believe this is the first time I've ever written what wrote earlier. I've made a couple of suggestions to considerably lesser effect maybe twice.

The resaon I wrote what I wrote was that it ws in response to Ugh's comment, which struck me as not making much sense. "...so that people who have work filters for profanity can still read the site" clearly can't work. So it occurred to me to respond to that.

If I'm being persnickity, apologies; I've had a really lousy day, evening, and last night, among other time frames. No sleep, lots of unhappiness, feeling very bad. If that's leaked out anywhere, my apologies.

I don't know exactly how various workplace filters decide on their blacklist, but I would think any reasonable profanity filter would have some kind of threshold attached. So a single instance of profanity in a comment wouldn't trigger a blacklisting, but frequent usage might. This might also be a side effect of some heuristic to recognize porn sites.

For what it's worth, the filter at a previous employer blocked Hugo Schwyzer's old site as having "adult content." I'm not sure how that decision got made - it certainly wasn't on the basis of profanity. So the potential threat of blacklisting isn't completely idle, even if we don't fully understand it.

Also, isn't saying that the lack of people complaining that they can't read the site is a reason to believe that it isn't a problem sort of like asking everyone who is currently absent to raise their hands?

"So a single instance of profanity in a comment wouldn't trigger a blacklisting, but frequent usage might."

Sure, and it happens something like 20-30 times a day or so.

Thanks for the heads up Eric. Nice to hear from Billmon again - the Blogfather (for many of us)!

Just wish that Billmon had picked some place besides Kos to stage his comeback..

It's not as if the profanity rule is that draconian. Jeez. I've always felt that it really helped to raise the level of discourse here, and it's yet another thing that sets ObWi apart at any rate.

I comment in other places and see other commenters from ObWi elsewhere, and generally we all curse like sailors... but none of our comments seem as insightful as they are here. ;) Maybe it's just because the discussion here is independently good, but it certainly doesn't hurt.

"I've always felt that it really helped to raise the level of discourse here, and it's yet another thing that sets ObWi apart at any rate."

Sure, and that's why I put effort into helping it be enforced, until I became convinced it was futile with the rules hidden on another page, with the only clue being a tiny little "posting rules" note in the corner of the sidebar, so that no one new ever saw them until after the fact. I think it's a good thing for everyone to contribute to community by taking some responsibility for communicating the norms of the community.

But as an attempt to actually keep a bunch of Bad Words off the blog every day, it doesn't work, and as presently set up, obviously can't work, as history of several years has plainly shown. That was my only point.

That it limits the profanity to some degree, after the fact, sure, it does that. And that's fine.

Tom Lehrer used to introduce one of his songs with "I do have a cause though. It is ... obscenity. (Pause) I'm for it."

Nonetheless, certain Anglo-Saxon words can lose their flavor, like over-chewed gum, if used routinely. Better to stick to the technique of Mark Twain, rendering the insults hurled by one Mississippi raftsman toward another as "you dash-dashed, aig-suckin', sheep-stealin' one-eyed son of a stuffed monkey!"

If Twain could get around the Comstockery of his day with a bit of creativity, so can we.

-- TP

"If Twain could get around the Comstockery of his day with a bit of creativity, so can we."

I'm a bit confused: who here has been arguing for or against "bad" words?

Hennyweigh, a little imagination is not dangerous (on its own) and using forms of speech that engage it is sorta one mark of civilization in contrast to the ideally deleted expletives that are not functionally or emotionally distinct from the grunts of the hominids in 2001.
They, the expletives, not only do not require thought or reflection or substance, they oppose them.

Also they lack grace

Also they are scarce to non-existent in all the blogs I frequent; in fact the absence of cursing is a pretty good litmus test for interesting content.

I think people use expletives in blogs as a way of venting. It's indulgent, and it's at the expense of everybody else's patience and sensibilities, but it's pretty common.

Maybe too common; sometimes even the best music loses its beauty when it's played TOO DAMNED LOUDLY.

So, note to self:

They, the expletives, not only do not require thought or reflection or substance, they oppose them.

Also they lack grace

As a total aside, it's interesting to me which communities eschew, and which embrace, profanity.

Among (for example) jazz musicians, profanity doesn't really carry the sense of frustration, or anger, or hostility. Instead, it usually signifies delight, or appreciation for exceptional performance.

If you're playing with good guys, and one of them turns to you and says, "F*#% you, m*#&f*@r!", you probably just played something exceptionally good.

It's not universal, but it's widespread.

Go figure.

Thanks -

I'm not sure I can accept "if a rule keeps getting broken, it shouldn't be a rule" as a general principle.

Just wish that Billmon had picked some place besides Kos to stage his comeback..

???
It's where he started.
It's an election topic.
There are gazillions of readers.

I personally think the rule against ad homenim attacks is much more useful, and keeps the level of discourse high, than any rule against bad language.

McCain is a roguish full-gorged scullion, Bush is a vain knotty-pated blind-worm, Rove is a spleeny elf-skinned boar-pig, and Jeff, you have neither nor youth, nor age, but as it were an after-dinner's sleep dreaming on both.

As for me, tonight I have more hair than wit, and more faults than hairs, and more wealth than faults. But I am still at work, and longing for home, wine, and a curry.

Jes- This is OT, but since you're around, I think you'd be particularly interested to know that in the US, birth control pills http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/08/01/todd.defining.abortion.cnn>are abortifacients and health care workers can't get in trouble if they refuse to provide them to women. Insurers who recieve federal money are also allowed to take the pill and IUDs off their coverage.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/07/15/hhs-moves-define-contraception-abortion>This site discusses it and has a PDF of the rule changes.

Jes and Drew,

OT as well but since the subject of birth control pills came up:

I can't wait for someone to ask John McCain about Viagra again.

That look he gave the reporter was priceless.

"I think you'd be particularly interested to know that in the US, birth control pills are abortifacients"

I take it you're being sarcastic, but this could be clearer.

I don't know how many people read this from yesterday: Proposal Would Deny Federal Money if Employees Must Provide Care to Which They Object.

Oh, and:

Has there ever been an ad campaign as lame as "Viva Viagra?"

Makes you want to change the channel every time -- at least the "Free Credit Report" guy's tunes are a little catchy and creative.

Rusell,

I'm guessing that your not a big Ludricrous fan.

P.S. I'm turning off the computer Sunday and going outside, taking the family to Hershey Park for a day trip:)

Gary- The CNN video gave me the impression that the HHS people who were pushing this were framing it as an abortion issue, and this from the WaPo backs it up (anonymous NIH official):

"It's a redefinition of abortion that does not match any of the current medical definitions."
If I seemed a little over the top or unclear, though, sorry about that.

BTFB- I hate those Viagra commercials. I'm grinding my teeth just thinking about them.

at least the "Free Credit Report" guy's tunes are a little catchy and creative.

Teaser in the Onion video linked in the "OMG Obama is, like, Suh Skinny!" thread: "Freecreditreport.com CEO Announces He Can't Remember How Company Was Supposed to Make Money."

I'm guessing that your not a big Ludricrous fan.

No man, I'm old school. I remember Kurtis Blow.

From my point of view, it's all downhill after Eric B and Rakim and the Jungle Brothers.

I'm old, dude.

Thanks -

Yeah, Russell, I think I am worse than old school.

I live in Newark, Delaware, so we get the Philly stations and they have a great oldies station: "Oldies 98" -- used to be just the '60s and 70s.

But you know you're getting old -- and I'm "just 45" -- when the '80s are considered part of an oldies station playlist.

My true love is Frank Sinatra. I drive a 1992 Ford F-150 -- no CD player -- so I turn to Ebay for Sinatra tapes. My favorite is his first "Duets" recording. The best.

My true love is Frank Sinatra.

When I was younger, I dug Tony Bennett more than Sinatra. But the older I get the more I dig him. There's an undertone of something -- sadness, resignation, an understanding of the tragic -- in Sinatra that none of his peers really have.

Plus his sense of time, and his rhythmic articulation -- the way he plays with the consonants in the line -- is peerless. He really was a genius. MVHO.

I've tried to hip my wife to Sinatra a number of times, but she can't get past the "Rat Pack" thing, and the fact that he sings just a little flat. I've pointed out to her that the slightly flat, minimal vibrato intonation thing is actually kind of a cool, but she's a classical singer, so it doesn't fly with her.

She digs Astrud Gilberto with Getz, though, so go figure.

Wee Small Hours for me, but basically if Frank's on it, it's probably good.

Thanks -

"There's an undertone of something -- sadness, resignation, an understanding of the tragic -- in Sinatra that none of peers really have."

Spot-on.

But beside that, Russell, as a former writer and fan of good prose, I just love how that whole sentence reads and sounds -- I am not one for a lot of fancy language.

You must have done some writing in your past two, heh?

Also: I think the reason I like Sinatra's older recordings like "Duets" is the very fact that his voice is older, more seasoned, more world-wary -- of course the whiskey and alcohol deepened his sound as well.

"A Quarter to Three . . . And it's just me and you . . . So set 'em up, Joe, I got a little story . . ."

That song grabs my gut every time.

But you know you're getting old -- and I'm "just 45" -- when the '80s are considered part of an oldies station playlist.

Feh. I nearly drove off the highway once when a Golden Oldies station led off their Hour Of Power with "Smells Like Teen Spirit"...

MeDrew: Jes- This is OT, but since you're around, I think you'd be particularly interested to know that in the US, birth control pills are abortifacients and health care workers can't get in trouble if they refuse to provide them to women. Insurers who recieve federal money are also allowed to take the pill and IUDs off their coverage.

Yeah, the claim that birth control pills, IUDs, and emergency contraception can be considered "abortifacients" is nothing new, is utterly unscientific, and I had read several blogs about this new attempt to prevent women from receiving health care and promote abortion. But you're right: it is a topic that interests me.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Whatnot


  • visitors since 3/2/2004

September 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30        
Blog powered by Typepad

QuantCast