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.

I may be offbase in characterizing Arkin’s relationship to the Post. Because I read the Post online, I ass-u-me that what’s online is also what’s in print.

Here’s a comment from Arkin’s post “The Arrogant and Intolerant Speak Out“:

Seems that the WaPo ombudsman (Deborah Howell) was kind enough to respond to me today:

“Arkin is a columnist only for washingtonpost.com. He does not write for the newspaper. I am the ombudsman only for the newspaper. I suggest you write to jim.brady@wpni.com”

So…The paper disavows it’s relationship with their own online edition and it’s writers?

Posted by: LAH | February 1, 2007 04:58 PM

I’m not sure how this changes my reaction, or whether it does.

Just as an interesting note, I did one fast pass on Technorati (which sucks, BTW) looking for feedback from the leftish blogs for Mr. Arkin – BTW, he’s done another non-apology, about which I’ll try and comment tomorrow – and found only one, from a smallish blog called Dymaxion World:

It’s funny that such a mild rebuke (to my ears) should be getting Arkin raked over the coals. It seems that some people are so in love with the rhetoric of war that it causes them to lose their senses, and make profoundly undemocratic — anti-republican, if you will — arguments. To say that we can’t criticize a war because it would risk hurting the soldiers’ feelings is insane. Soldiers serve the public. We owe much to them — most importantly, not to waste their lives on shitty unwinnable wars — but at the end of the day, we call the shots.

Why the politically inopportune silence? Well, there’s a lot more to it than that…but I want to make a better argument, so it’ll wait a bit.

I’ll leave you with a final quote, from Charles Brown, a former anti-sanction protester:

To be perfectly frank, we were less concerned with the suffering of the Iraqi people than we were in maintaining our moral challenge to U.S. foreign policy. We did not agitate for an end to sanctions for purely humanitarian reasons; it was more important to us to maintain our moral challenge to “violent” U.S. foreign policy, regardless of what happened in Iraq. For example, had we been truly interested in alleviating the suffering in Iraq, we might have considered pushing for an expanded Oil-for-Food program. Nothing could have interested us less. Indeed, we even regarded the paltry amounts of aid that we did bring to Iraq as a logistical hassle. When it suited us, we portrayed ourselves as a humanitarian nongovernmental organization and at other times as a political group lobbying for a policy change. In our attempt to have it both ways, we failed in both of these missions.

The problem I have with much of the progressive antiwar left – the soil from which Mr. Arkin sprung – is that the fundamental challenge to them remains maintaining a ‘moral challenge’ via-a-vis the U.S. and the West. It’s liberation theology, writ small.

Everyone gets to step in it once in a while. William Arkin did yesterday, and complicated things today by steeping in deeper. Is this a characteristic of journalists, or what?

I have one small thing to add to Joe’s post below.

Vehement disagreement =! silencing.

Here’s Arkin from today’s post:

The Arrogant and Intolerant Speak Out

Well, one thing’s abundantly clear about who will actually defend our rights to say what we believe: It isn’t the hundreds who have written me saying they are soldiers or veterans or war supporters or real Americans — who also advise me to move to another country, to get f@##d, or to die a painful, violent death.

The problem of course is that if you wade through the comments (and read the blog posts) the sentiments cited above are a fraction of the abuse heaped on Arkin’s deserving pate. Most of the comments essentially call him an idiot.

As I commented on Mr. Arkin’s blog post:

Mr. Arkin, you have every right to say what you believe, and with rare exceptions, I haven’t seen anyone suggest that you don’t.

You also have the right to have those who read your opinions and think they are arrogant, contemptuous, and foolish respond. And they are…

It’s the height of self-delusion to suggest that public disagreement with you is the same as demanding that you’re silenced. I think it’s great to see you speak up, and great to see people respond. That’s freedom.

William Arkin makes the anti-chickenhawk argument, suggesting that troops unhappy with the antiwar political tone of the country…

…should be grateful that the American public, which by all polls overwhelmingly disapproves of the Iraq war and the President’s handling of it, do still offer their support to them, and their respect.

Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform, accepting that the incidents were the product of bad apples or even of some administration or command order.

Over at Blackfive, Matt and Uncle Jimbo kind of have their way with Mr. Arkin, and I’ll leave the response to them.

But I’ll point out, first that Mr. Arkin isn’t an opinion columnist at the Post – he’s the domain expert for the military there.

And that he has quite an interesting history.