Comments on: Edwards & His “Blogger Problem”

By: Watercloset

Watercloset — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 08:05:02 +0000

You are dead on about Bill O’Reilly being very egotistic. I have actually had to deal with the man in person once and he definitely likes to let you know that he is Bill O’Reilly. It set him off, though, when I asked who was Bill O’Reilly. But his rantings are pretty idiotic and it is probably a stretch to think of his being 99% correct on everything considering his slant.

By: Adam Selene

Adam Selene — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 03:53:22 +0000

Actually, most political conversation today is much more restrained than it was in the 18th century, or even the 19th century. One of the reason many are not happy with blogs is because an older style of political speech is reviving, in two different ways. The first is that the speech itself is much less “civil” than newspapers and television have practiced for the past years. The second is that it’s a lot messier than it used to be.

The thing, though, is that much more truth comes out in this environment, IF you are willing to wade through the crap.

Ron, good to know I wasn’t crazy. Those comments seemed so alike in terms of language, style and thought. Netdrawal, you sound very similar. I also think you are way off target.

By: earlyfrost

earlyfrost — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 02:22:02 +0000

Sometimes we all hear things that we think are unusual. For example: someone on these posts stated that Bill O’Reilly has “idiotic tirades”. Strange that he is probably most known for his “No Spin Zone” which is probably the straightest program on the circuit. He has always been 99.9% correst on everything even though he is VERY egotistic.

By: Watercloset

Watercloset — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 09:01:13 +0000

Fortunately, I never read the comments that these two bloggers resigned over. It might be interesting to read them someday, though it’s probably all been said before. But I have also had the ill-fortune to read or listen to Bill O’Reilly’s rather idiotic tirades. But overall, what happened with those two bloggers shows the power of the borderless and stateless community in cyberspace that will have a far greater impact on politics, not to mention life in general, for the next millennium.

By: netdrawal

netdrawal — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 21:34:56 +0000

Brad question:
“If these blogs are nothing but idle talk, why are so many politicians looking to court the blogosphere when it comes to their campaigns?”

My answer is already in my 1st blog post:
“a flawed understanding of idle conversation” I’ll add – ‘and it’s uses’.
Blogs are nothing but idle chatter and the way people choose to burn idle time – there’s no great movement or noble causes on blogs that are of any merit beyond the power-cord.
No politician will get elected because of bloggers – the nature of such communications are inherently fickle and whimsicial – not the stuff of which solid ground support is made.
It’s a testament to the power of self-delusion that anyone can believe that their blogging is any more meaningful a waste of time than soaking suds in a sports bar while eating pickled eggs.
Which isn’t to say I don’t enjoy reading them in idle moments – they are simple amusements, fancies, a quick game of solitaire or pac-man.

By: uffdaron

uffdaron — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 19:59:18 +0000

Adam Selene is quite correct. Uffda is my Samoyed who enjoys blogs but she can’t type. I realized that I was not comfortable using a pen name in a blog about free speech and manners.

Netdrawal is not known to me but his/her ideas are.

good thoughts . ron stratton

By: Brad Warbiany

Brad Warbiany — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:16:42 +0000

VRB,

This is true, blog readers are usually younger, and that’s a matter of the fact that younger people are generally more comfortable on a computer than their elders. Blogs may become more important in the future.

But I am surprised that you ascribe an air of civility to some of those 17th and 18th century writers. Quite often, they were vicious to each other, with attacks on each others’ “low birth” and countless other insults. I wouldn’t call them civil. I’m sure Alexander Hamilton wouldn’t consider his experiences with Aaron Burr to be “civil”…

Read a little of Stephen Littau’s post about Thomas Paine, and you’ll see that some of the feuds between him and John Adams, George Washington, etc, nearly cost Paine his head in France.

By: VRB

VRB — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:29:12 +0000

Brad,
It’s the “in” thing for politicians to do. If
you would do the man on the street type poll; I would bet there are not as many people you would think that read blogs and if they do, they would be about other subjects than politics. I was surprised myself when I mentioned at work I was reading some blogs and got ask “what’s that.” A lot of older people, the ones who are said to vote the most, don’t even own a computer. I do think bloggers over estimate their importance. I get the impression that quite often, bloggers experiences are no outside the realm of their beliefs and many are so geeky that they disdain whatever else is happening in the culture.

Adam,
I don’t see how free speech is affected by manners and civility. The 17th and 18th century writers seems so much more literate and civil, even when they were muckraking than those in the 21th century.

By: Brad Warbiany

Brad Warbiany — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 13:41:46 +0000

netdrawal,

If these blogs are nothing but idle talk, why are so many politicians looking to court the blogosphere when it comes to their campaigns? Why is it that so many of their staffers regularly read blogs to keep an eye on the “pulse” of the blogosphere?

Blogs aren’t the same thing as newspapers or magazines, and aren’t intended to be. But blogs are far beyond public chat rooms in both their depth of opinion and their relevance. Bloggers aren’t perfect, and there are a heck of a lot of bad ones out there. But that doesn’t mean that blogs are full of “idle chat”.

By: thevirtualcongress.com

thevirtualcongress.com — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 13:08:13 +0000

Hillary Speak. In response to President Bush’s press conference and comments on intervention in Iran, Senator Clinton stated that we cannot afford to enter a conflict based on information we may find later to be inaccurate. Not many of us have all the information we need to make decisions but we base them on the best information available, the level of confidence in those providing the information, and the significance of the threat. In dealing with Iran we do not have a large number of ears on the ground in Iran, although we do in Iraq and can make some good observations from what we see there. I’m not sure if we should be more or less confident in our intelligence agencies based on their past performance and their inability to keep their classified information out of the Washington Post and the New York Times. As for the threat posed by Iran, unless you have your head in the sand or are a dictatorial apologist, who can argue against the fact they speak and act like a belligerent and threatening nation. The time is approaching when we will need to protect the free world by intervening in Iran either with the member nations of the UN or we will need to go it alone. Preserving the world from a nuclear Iran is imperative.

By: Chuck Lanza

Chuck Lanza — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:48:04 +0000

Amanda had her say and has stepped down because other Americans used their Free Speech rights to tell her and her boss how they felt about her comments. What a great country we have where people can express their views and have the opportunity to listen to everyone’s responses even if they’d rather not or insist everyone is out to get them. Goodbye Amanda.

By: netdrawal

netdrawal — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 11:42:55 +0000

Adam – I’ve never met those people and am not those people. This is my 1st time posting here – and probably last.
It seems you’ve got either one, or two problems:
1) Either you don’t understand what you read – or
2) You don’t comprehend what you read
“the order and calm the three (one?) of you appear to want.”
I’ve never said anything against free and open speech – and I don’t know how you’ve construed this from my writing.
While I’m sure that these blogs are nothing but idle talk – I’ve never said a thing against them.

By: Adam Selene

Adam Selene — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 05:06:54 +0000

Wow, Ron Stratton, Uffdaron and Netdrawal sound so much alike I almost thought it was the same person until I read their nicknames.

You know what, I much prefer the anarchy and mess of free speech to the order and calm the three (one?) of you appear to want.

By: ron stratton

ron stratton — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 21:58:14 +0000

Yes, Adam Selene, free speech is a messy process. Life is a messy process. Both deserve respect and protection. However, as both mature, we can try for some grace and decency. Bottom feeding is always an option at the discression of the player.

Any politician getting involved with that form of advertising is well advised to do as one who has dinner plans with the devil….take a very long spoon with you.

By: Brad Warbiany

Brad Warbiany — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 13:35:05 +0000

the force behind them is the same – people spewing often ill-informed and biased opinions into space

The difference is that blogs have a heck of a lot more force behind them than IRC. While I’ll agree that people are often spewing ill-informed and biased opinions, we recognize our bias and we have comments for people to show us how ill-informed we are.

The mainstream media is full of people spewing ill-informed and biased opinions, but hiding behind the lie that they’re objective and have their “three layers of fact-checking” that still often results in erroneous information getting printed.