So commenter Andy X threatened to flatten Rev Sensing’s nose. I gave him a shot at explaining, and he declined, so I went to ban his ip – which, it turns out, was also used by Andy L, Cheshire Cat, j vanderroy, J.G. Paul and Carol Rodriguez.

So either it’s a dynamic IP, or he’s got a lot of friends who comment from his computer. For now, I’m banning the IP. Joe and I will discuss and see what the best course of action may be.

Don’t threaten people on the Winds premises. Period. Full stop. And never comment under a name not readily identifiable by casual readers as you.

Update: There are posts from Andy X on different IP’s,so the charge of sock puppetry – although suggestive – can’t be proved and should be dropped. it’s worth noting, however that everyone posting from AndyX’s IP- Andy, Andy L, Andy X, Carol Rodriguez, Cheshire Dog, Greengrass Liberal, j vanderroy , J.G. Paul , Murrow , Over and out , Palumbo , The Mountaintop , Walter’s Ridge , Wizener – share a certain – point of view and tone.

It’s not terribly relevant, because Andy’s banned regardless for threatening to punch Rev. Sensing. Andy, I’ll unban your IP (since others appear to use it), but will kill any further posts you put up.

So bored and slightly cranky, I surf around and go to Joe Gandleman’s blog – ‘The Moderate Voice.’ Joe is a smart guy and a good writer, even if his definition of moderate is less iconoclastic than mine.

He’s got a post up on the Edwards Bloghorrea thingie, which centers on the notion that bloggers will now be – heaven forfend – closely scrutinized if they are associated with major political campaigns. What next? Urine tests for Tour de France riders? I’m more than a bit baffled at his concern.But then I realize something interesting…part of the issue is that he views the kind of rhetoric at Pandagon and Shakespeare’s Sister as the norm. This is baseline political rhetoric. And that’s just as nuts as a meth-addled preacher announcing that he’s done with gay sex and expecting the mantle of spiritual leadership to fall neatly back on his shoulders.

Haggert needs a job in fast food or tech support, and Gandleman needs to stop reading Oliver Willis and considering him normal. There are a shedload of bloggers – right and left – who would not disgrace a political campaign. Kevin Drum? Phil Carter? Steve Smith? What have they written to compare with “Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit…”?? Powerline, Volokh, Patterico? There’s nothing in their oeuvre that shows the level of contempt – for anyone – shown by the Edwards duo. Heck, go look in my blogroll – who (other than Defamer) does? And there are a lot of blogs in there.

So yeah, if you’re bilious, you’ll get attention and if you get attention you might get a job…but you’ll immediately be on thin ice because of what you’ve written in the past, and you won’t be free to be tough-minded and take real risks – you know, the Sam Brown “Don’t offend them with style when you can offend them with substance” kind.

And I’m genuinely puzzled that Gandleman doesn’t see that.

And as an addendum, Joe – if you read this – go police your comments section, will you? This does your site no credit:

ChuckPrez said:
February 8, 2007 at 10:20 am

In an unrelated note, I would so do Michelle Malkin.

Yup, that’s what modern political dialog is supposed to be all about, isn’t it…we’re in a war facing a bigger one and we get this crap.

From the Edwards 08 website…

John Edwards:

The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte’s and Melissa McEwan’s posts personally offended me. It’s not how I talk to people, and it’s not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it’s intended as satire, humor, or anything else. But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I’ve talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone’s faith, and I take them at their word. We’re beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can’t let it be hijacked. It will take discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in.

Amanda Marcotte:

My writings on my personal blog Pandagon on the issue of religion are generally satirical in nature and always intended strictly as a criticism of public policies and politics. My intention is never to offend anyone for his or her personal beliefs, and I am sorry if anyone was personally offended by writings meant only as criticisms of public politics. Freedom of religion and freedom of expression are central rights, and the sum of my personal writings is a testament to this fact.

Melissa McEwan:

Shakespeare’s Sister is my personal blog, and I certainly don’t expect Senator Edwards to agree with everything I’ve posted. We do, however, share many views – including an unwavering support of religious freedom and a deep respect for diverse beliefs. It has never been my intention to disparage people’s individual faith, and I’m sorry if my words were taken in that way.

Boy, those are just weak. I’ll let Iowahawk do the fun versions, but as a free service to a leading Democratic candidate, let me offer the versions that would have passed muster with me – and which I think would have been better for the Edwards campaign.

Channeling John Edwards:

The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte’s and Melissa McEwan’s posts personally offended me. It’s not how I talk to people, and it’s not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it’s intended as satire, humor, or anything else, and there will be no second chances for people speaking on my behalf. But I also believe in giving everyone a chance to learn and grow, and I’ve talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that they understand why sensible people could have been offended at what they wrote, and that they can and will commit to accepting the responsibilities of their new roles. I take them at their word. We’re beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we have to reach out across the barriers that we have let grow to divide us, and include people whose words or beliefs may be challenging. It will take tolerance, discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in, and those values will have to start with me and my campaign team. I personally commit to you all that they will.

Channeling Amanda Marcotte:

My writings on my personal blog Pandagon on the issue of religion are generally satirical in nature and always intended strictly as a criticism of public policies and politics. My intention was to stir up debate and cheerlead for the policies and political groups whose values I share. In moving to blog for the campaign, I understand that I have moved from a personal stage to a public one, and that I no longer can speak in the voice that I have used up until now. My commitment is never to offend anyone for his or her personal beliefs, and I am sorry if anyone was personally offended by my writings and I understand how it is that many people who may otherwise share my goals could have been offended. Freedom of religion and freedom of expression are central rights, and as someone who is moving from a factional cheerleader closer to the centers of power, defending those freedoms is becoming one of my highest priorities.

Channeling Melissa McEwan:

Shakespeare’s Sister is my personal blog, and I certainly don’t expect Senator Edwards to agree with everything I’ve posted. We do, however, share many views – including an unwavering support of religious freedom and a deep respect for diverse beliefs. I’m sorry that I wrote things that certainly read as challenging that support. I’m aware of the responsibility I have in speaking for the Senator and for the values he embodies, and I’ll ask everyone to watch my words and actions in the next months and let me prove my commitment with deeds.

Notice a core difference? I hate I’m-sorry-if-you-were-offended apologies. Don’t apologize for people’s reactions to what you did, apologize for what you did, and accept and acknowledge that people’s reactions may well have been legitimate.

Two years ago, Jonah Goldberg offered to bet Juan Cole $1,000 that the Iraqi and American people would – in two years’ time – feel strongly that the war was worth it (and that there would be no civil war, and some other related points).

Now I’ll yield to very few people in my low opinion of Professor Cole and his views.

But a bet’s a bet. And Goldberg is now skirting dangerously close to the man-law violation of welching.

Here’s my take. Jonah, write a check for $1K to Soldier’s Angels. They can use it, and it will improve your karma. Cole may not have accepted the bet, but that doesn’t mean you didn’t make it.

And monkyboy, wherever you are – that goes for you, too. Pay up, dude. Your soul will be lighter for it.

There’s quite an uproar over the Edwards’ campaign hiring bloggers from Pandagon and Shakespeare’s Sister with the right blogs thumping their chests (and laughing) in outrage(and the outrage bleeding over to the MSM), and the left blogs circling the wagons and demanding that the Edwards campaign not abandon the netroots – or else..

Boy, there’s a lot to unpack here. Let me take a shot.
First, the basic notion that actions – including actions in publishing opinions – have consequences. Look, when you appear in two or three bestiality porn videos, suddenly that run for Congress begins to look kinda distant. Both Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan wrote a bunch of stuff that wouldn’t be out of place on DU, or in an undergraduate womyn’s newspaper column – or in the heated fringes of the blogs – and suddenly, shockingly, they’re being called to account for it. That doesn’t shock me too much, to be honest. You make choices when you do stuff. Those choices prune the tree of possible futures for each of us. Welcome to adulthood.

But…

One thing I detested about Phil Angelides is that he was someone who clearly had decided that he was going to run for office in fifth grade, and had shaped his entire life toward that end. You look at the current crop of national-level candidates and you’re sure that they have polished off as many human edges and as much history – except resume-building history – as possible while remaining arguably members of our species.

I like a personal voice, and like it a lot when I find candidates who have managed to keep one. And hiring bloggers who don’t speak in bland platitudes is a step in that direction.

But…

For as long as I’ve been blogging, I’ve hammered people who think that blogs exist so that they can vent things better said to a mirror or a therapist. I know both blogs, and I’ll comfortably say that they fit into that category. And, to boot, both are going back and cleaning up tracks while making excuses – something I think is kinda cheap.

And…

I wonder about the thought process that went into hiring them. I mean didn’t anyone at Edwards Central ask whether they really wanted to be represented by someone who writes like this? I kinda like Edwards. If I can get past the whole ‘lack of a meaningful foreign policy in my worldview’ issue. But as we learned in 2004, running a strong campaign isn’t a bad proxy for competence (yeah, I know, I know…but Kerry’s ineptitude was so egregious that you can’t believe he could have run a country – could you?). So when I read that Marcotte and McEwan had been hired, I did have a WTF? moment – more of a “What the hell were you thinking?” moment. Actually, I’d love to know…

I’m taking a quick break from work to point you to William Arkin’s latest. As a non-veteran, I’ve been closer to amusement than anger over his (predictable) slip of the mask. But the latest actually kind of pisses me off. Here’s what he says:

The many e-mails I’ve gotten privately from people serving in the military are, not surprisingly, the most respectful and reflective. Some correspondents are downright indignant, some are sarcastic, and most are hurt by the “mercenary” epithet and my commentary. But they are philosophical about their service and where we are in the war and the country today.

The torrents of other mail — biting, fanatical, threatening — represent the worst of polarized and hate-filled America. I’m not complaining about being criticized or being made the latest punching bag for those who subsist off of high-volume conquest. Nor am I apologizing for addressing, however imperfectly, the questions I did last week, nor for being critical of the military.

Instead, I’m trying to make sense of the worldview of those who have responded. For the critics, I have become the enemy and have been demonized. In that process, I have ceased being a person, an individual, or a human being, all essential to justify the campaign to annihilate me. I’m not trying to offer myself up as victim here, nor do I expect the critics to change their view. I’m merely pointing out the process and the implications of the dehumanization.

OK, here’s what torques me off about this.

It’s not the dishonest ‘the private mail I get is overwhelming in support of me, as opposed to all the public comments which are hostile.’ It’s not the fact that he sets up not one, but four straw men as the arguments those opposed to his positions have made.

It’s simply this. Nowhere in the column – which he explains will, at the request of his editors, not talk about this any more – does he suggest that he may have anything to hear or learn from the people who wrote him.

It’s my old nemesis, The Journalist In The Hat, writ large:

A lot of this is about the mechanics and minutiae of journalism, I thought.

Then I went to Brian’s party, and met a journalist (sadly didn’t get his name or affiliation).

I’ll skip over his arrogance and rudeness; he was in a hostile environment, and maybe he was nervous. But watching the discussion, I realized something that brought the Times issue into clearer perspective for me.

In the discussion, I had substantive issues with his points, which were essentially that journalism is superior to blogging because it has an editorial process which drives it toward ‘fairness’ (he felt that objectivity was impossible and not necessarily even desirable), but a fairness informed by the moral sensibilities of the institution (I’m pulling a short argument out of a long and somewhat rambling discussion). Bloggers obviously don’t.

I tried to make the suggestion to him that individual blogs weren’t necessarily good at driving toward fairness, but that the complex of blogs – the dialog and interaction between blogs – was, and might in fact be better than mainstream media, isolated as they are from feedback. (Note that Perry from Samizdata got this point before I finished the sentence).

And what was interesting to me was this – that while I have (violently at times) disagreed with other bloggers in face to face discussions, I always had the feeling that there was a discussion going on, a dialog in which two people were engaged and trying to understand each other’s points, if for no other reason than to better argue against them. But in dealing with The Journalist In The Hat, no such dialog took place. He had his point to make, and very little that I said (or, to be honest, that others who participated, including Howard Owens, who pointed out that he had worked as a journalist) was heard or responded to. He had his points, and he was going to make them over, and over, until we listened.

Or until we said ‘bullshit’ too many times and he walked away in a snit.

Jeff Jarvis points to a Guardian column by Charlie Brooker about Macs and PC’s. It’s an age-old topic, and I’m agnostic about it, but the British are just freaking amazing at trash-talking – a skill that few Americans seem to really have down, in spite of the fact that many people try. Maybe P.J. O’Rourke?

PCs are the ramshackle computers of the people. You can build your own from scratch, then customise it into oblivion. Sometimes you have to slap it to make it work properly, just like the Tardis (Doctor Who, incidentally, would definitely use a PC). PCs have charm; Macs ooze pretension. When I sit down to use a Mac, the first thing I think is, “I hate Macs”, and then I think, “Why has this rubbish aspirational ornament only got one mouse button?” Losing that second mouse button feels like losing a limb. If the ads were really honest, Webb would be standing there with one arm, struggling to open a packet of peanuts while Mitchell effortlessly tore his apart with both hands. But then, if the ads were really honest, Webb would be dressed in unbelievably po-faced avant-garde clothing with a gigantic glowing apple on his back. And instead of conducting a proper conversation, he would be repeatedly congratulating himself for looking so cool, and banging on about how he was going to use his new laptop to write a novel, without ever getting round to doing it, like a mediocre idiot.

Cue 10 years of nasal bleating from Mac-likers who profess to like Macs not because they are fashionable, but because “they are just better”. Mac owners often sneer that kind of defence back at you when you mock their silly, posturing contraptions, because in doing so, you have inadvertently put your finger on the dark fear haunting their feeble, quivering soul – that in some sense, they are a superficial semi-person assembled from packaging; an infinitely sad, second-rate replicant who doesn’t really know what they are doing here, but feels vaguely significant and creative each time they gaze at their sleek designer machine. And the more deftly constructed and wittily argued their defence, the more terrified and wounded they secretly are.

One can only aspire…

In my professional life, I’m getting more and more into explaining Web 2.0 to large companies, and trying to lead them toward embracing dialog with their employees and customers. That’s not something I planned, it just happened as I started to push clients toward agility both internally and externally as a way of dealing with impending collapse of projects and programs.

It’s challenging to explain, concisely, exactly what I’m talking about – which has pros and cons (as long as it’s difficult, I guess I’ll get more business…).

Here’s someone who’s done – I think – a really good job. From the blog ‘Tony’s Drivel on Computer Programming in Education‘ comes Michael Wesch’s video on Web 2.0…

Check it out and comment.

My neighbor and friend N. has a son, A., who is Littlest Guy’s age. Both Littlest Guy and A. were asked to test for the “GATE” (Gifted And Talented Education) track – basically the ‘honors’ track. They test for this from third to fifth grade in our district, and both boys are in fifth grade.

N.’s dad and mom also live in the neighborhood (N. grew up down the street from where I live), and once a week they go out for a family meal.

He & I had coffee yesterday, and he told me what happened at this week’s meal. Note: this will work much better if you read it out loud…

N. to A.: “Tell Grandpa your news.”

A.: “I will have GATE testing next week.”

Grandpa: “What!! What are you saying!!”

N.: “A’s getting tested for GATE! Isn’t that wonderful?”

Grandpa: “How can you say that! Are you crazy?”

N. (concerned): “Dad, it’s a real honor, why are you upset?”

Grandpa: “They test for this in fifth grade, now? What are we coming to?”

N.: “Wait, dad, what in the world is the problem?”

Grandpa: “They are going to gay-test A.!!”

N.: “Yes, exactly! He will test for GATE.”

Grandpa: “How can you accept that? Gay-testing a boy his age!”

N: “Yes, GATE testing.”

Grandpa: “Oh, God what is the world coming to, gay-testing a boy like A.”

N’s wife, S.: “Grandpa, what do you think we’re talking about?”

Grandpa: “Testing to see if A. is gay, of course! What an outrage! How can you sit still for this?”

N. covers his face, S. laughs…

Sometimes pronunciation is the key to successful communication…

On a lighter note, let me recommend the specialist blog ‘Kropotkin Thinks‘ – no, it’s not about anarchism, or anarcho-syndacalist communes, or the violence inherent in the system

It’s one of the best sources of information on the upcoming MotoGP World Chapionship series out there. No, seriously.

Take this, for example:

Yamaha has announced that Valentino Rossi will be staying with them for the 2008 season as well as 2007. The contract was announced to put a premature end to speculation that Rossi could once again leave MotoGP to race four wheels, either in Formula 1, or, much more likely, in WRC Rallying.

~~~ UPDATED ~~~

Both Rossi and Lin Jarvis make explicit mention of “concentrating on racing” in the press release. This seems to me, and to most observers, to be an implicit admission that Rossi’s flirt with Formula One last year was a contributory factor to the problems Yamaha suffered at the beginning of the season. After Rossi’s appearance in the WRC Rally of New Zealand, speculation began once again that Rossi would leave MotoGP at the end of the year to go Rallying. This speculation has finally been put to rest.

Valentino Rossi being Valentino Rossi, that is, one of the biggest names in professional sports, speculation will, of course, continue. People as diverse as the head of Ferrari, the head of Formula One, and the head of WRC have all stated that Rossi would be more than welcome in their sport, in some cases even hinting that a deal was close to being made. Mostly, these statements have been made in the hope that some of Rossi’s public charisma will rub off on their sports.

It is almost certain that Rossi will switch to WRC at the end of his MotoGP career. His annoucement that he will be entering the Rally Of Great Britain at the end of 2007, seems merely to confirm this move. Rallying is his second love, after motorcycle racing, and offers a viable new career path after he retires. But, fortunately for motorcycle racing fans, we still have at least two more years to enjoy his astonishing skills.