Orwellian Joe

Why do I even bother blogging about Joe Lieberman? Honestly, there’s no good answer to that question.

Perhaps the sheer extremism of his foolishness and inanity attracts my attention.

And here’s the latest, via Think Progress:

Appearing on ABC’s This Week, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) used the foiled terror attempts in London to call for greater domestic spying here in the United States. Lieberman said, “I hope these terrorist attacks in London wake us up here in America to stop the petty partisan fighting going on about… electronic surveillance,” in apparent reference to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s subpoenas for documents related to Bush’s NSA warrantless wiretapping program.

He apparently wants the U.S. to be like London, where there are cameras everywhere (which is true, and deeply troubling, and why the U.K. could do with a formal bill of rights) — this is “common sense,” in his view, but what about civil liberties? What about the Constitution? No matter, it would seem. Lieberman has reached a point where he regularly plays the fear card, just like any good authoritarian: Give the government more power, or else the enemy will be upon us. Allow the government to use that power to protect the people, or else the enemy will vanquish the people. But who or what is this enemy? Is it an enemy that requires such a response, that requires that freedom be given up in the name of freedom? Not to dismiss the genuine threat of jihadist terrorism, but the war on terror, such as there is one (however defined), will not be won by turning America (or Britain, for that matter) into a neo-Orwellian state.

But that is too much for Lieberman, too complicated. He would rather play the fearmonger — and not so much for partisan gain (for what is his partisanship now, other than to kiss the collective GOP ass while trying to stick it to the Dems?) but because he actually believes that the Orwellian response to terrorism — or to the threat thereof — is the right one. Which aligns him with many of the world’s worst tyrannies past and present — including that one in Germany back in the ’30s and ’40s.

Aside from this, Lieberman was just plain wrong on a couple of key points. Steve Benen explains at TPM.

Libby Spencer has more over at Cernig’s place.

**********

And, as if to show just how far removed from reality he really is, he said this about Iraq: “The surge is working.” Again, why do I pay attention to such nonsense?

For more on Lieberman’s delusional views on Iraq, see here.

58 Comments

  1. About the cameras: if they are only installed in public places, how are they different than cameras at red lights or a police officer witnessing an act in a public place?

    Instinctively, I react against additional surveillance, but public places are public places. Different rules apply.

  2. And to think just a couple years ago Lieberman was the democratic Vice Presidential Candidate.

  3. Too many people in America take our civil liberties for granted. We’ve been so long as #1 and have been so secure physically from our enemies(even during WW2) that we just think freedom is a catchphrase, guranteed forever as long as we pay it lip service.

    America isn’t the land, or even the people that comprise it. Its a document of ideas that are more important than anything else in this country. There is nothing that terrorists can do to us that outstrips what we can do to ourselves. Nothing. You change this country to a place where the gov’t spies on its people with impunity, doesn’t gurantee trials, tortures prisoners, you have done what terrorists could never do. You have destroyed America.

  4. Good response, egrubs, that was exactly what I was thinking. Former PM Tony Blair just yesterday issued a broadside against those who take common sense government monitoring and exaggerate it into some grave threat to civil liberties.

    I’ve always liked fictional Press Secretary C.J. Cregg’s rant in the West Wing episode “Isaac and Ismael” — to fight the war against al-Qaeda, we’re going to have to do some things. We’re going to have to tap some phones and we’re going to have to install some cameras and we’re going to have to monitor financial transactions and do a whole bunch of other things that didn’t seem justified before 9/11.

    Protecting civil liberties remains very important, of course, but not every act of government monitoring is an infringement.

  5. cosmo,

    You are of course free to criticize or critique Lieberman as much as you want, but you are not free to use offensive vulgar references to do so. As such, your comment unfortunately had to be deleted. If you want to post a new comment expressing the same sentiment without the vulgar reference, you are invited to do so.

  6. “Protecting civil liberties remains very important, of course, but not every act of government monitoring is an infringement.”

    I’m not worried about every act. But unscrutinized warrantless wiretapping and the suspension of Habeus Corpus are indeed infringements on our rights. Also, sanctioned torture of prisoners has me concerened too.

    P.S. – I’m aware that FISA restrictions are now enforced again on the wiretapping. But Dear Leader is trying to get around them still.

  7. That we have allowed ourselves to even get to the point that a large percentage of the population sees no problem with constant video surveillance of Americans is a sad commentary on our willingness to give up what used to be basic, assumed rights, i.e., the right to be left alone and not watched by our government without just cause.

    I know people hate it when it is invoked, but it is straight out of 1984. The slippery slope leads to, ‘Why shouldn’t the government have the right to spy on you in your home, your bank accounts, and your conversations (online and phone) as well? After all, you shouldn’t have an objection if you are not doing anything wrong.’

    We have a Bill of Rights for a reason, and that reason is very, very simple. Governments are constructs of people, and people and governments cannot be trusted with unfettered powers. Hell, they can barely be trusted at all.

  8. Objections to warrantless wiretapping are legitimate and not what I am talking about.

    Objections to torture are also legitimate.

    But we should take care not to adopt a position of automatic opposition to everything the government might do, even if one’s personal feelings about the “Dear Leader” might be tempting.

  9. About the cameras: if they are only installed in public places, how are they different than cameras at red lights or a police officer witnessing an act in a public place?

    not every act of government monitoring is an infringement

    They are not a source of outrage to the sane. Note that you have all kinds of people who claim to be “privacy” advocates when they complain about red-light cameras or radar speed cameras, when the fact is they’re just upset they can’t break laws as often as they like without being caught and having to account for what they do.

  10. I’m lining up in the common sense column.

    People ‘spy’ on you all the time.
    The helicopter pilot flying over your backyard sees how you look in a bathing suit.
    A photographer shooting a street scene captures a moment of nose picking.

    Whether it’s government cameras or a nosy neighbor, what really matters is how the information obtained is used.

    To protect civil liberties, there should be strong safeguards against the misuse of information obtained without your authorization,

  11. I suggest a compromise measure. Put them only at likely targets for terrorists- stadiums, concert arenas, government buildings, near bridges, airports, national monuments, etc.

    Why needlessly overwhelm our law enforcement, who would probably miss the signs of an attack and get caught up in prosecuting petty crime if we put cameras on every street corner?

    It is like 1984, but what are the options?

  12. A photographer shooting a street scene captures a moment of nose picking.

    Actually, that was Heather Locklear in her stadium seat on Monday Night Football, if I recall correctly.

  13. Well, kritter, that would work as long as al-Qaeda remained fixated on “big” targets.

    My biggest fear is that they will someday adopt a smarter strategy. So far, we’ve been blessed with stupid enemies.

    Perhaps a better compromise would be to allow pervasive public monitoring in any area where it is practical but to put limits on what kinds of crimes the monitoring can be used to prosecute.

  14. “They are not a source of outrage to the sane.”

    Thats just stupid. If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear eh comrade? Some, most, people don’t like having strangers watching them much less recording them. Its a form of harassment pure and simple.

    Just because I’m not doing anything illegal is not an invitation for the powers that be to paw thru my life. You want to keep cameras at banks, airports and other hubs of commerce and travel I can see that. But every corner and public space? I don’t need to be baby sitted thank you very much and I won’t live anywhere the citizenry is so frightened they kowtow to that kind of outrage. Then again I’m probably up to no good and/or insane.

  15. This goes with the national ID and other Orwellian BS. And who is to monitor the use these cameras and who is to pay for said cameras? The stop light cameras monitor only a specific area and activate on a “crime”. Will cameras at Republican/Demoncrat facilities be used for partisan purposes? Lets go for monitoring of ALL phone conversations. The UK knew about the threats, the cameras didn’t prevent the attacks. Maybe even “implanted chips” like we use for missing pets. These cameras are worse than warrantless wiretaps. Lieberman is crazy..

  16. I’m proud to think Lieberman is a total tool. Why is this clown still on TV all of the time. He has been proven wrong consistently on Iraq, Democratic loathe him and Republicans use him, and on a petty personal note – he whines ALL OF THE TIME.

  17. Because there is potential for great abuse, we should be wary.

    Because it is no different than a police officer on every streetcorner, we should consider this a possible alternative.

  18. Jason:

    I think you need to get a grip on yourself. My comment was not vulgar, contained no profanity, nor any word that could be considered even remotely ‘foul’.

    However, your behavior in recent weeks, acting as a censor against those you merely disagree with, is offensive, and antithetical to TMV’s longstanding policy of free discourse.

    It’s time you grew up.

    As for Lieberman: he is a vulgar little parasite of a man with no life, no scruples, and as little regard for liberty and democracy as you.

    Happy?

  19. “They are not a source of outrage to the sane.”

    Thats just stupid. If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear eh comrade?

    Specific individuals aren’t being sought ahead of time, and where there is a problem with speeding or red-light running, there is nothing wrong with detectors that identify offenders.

    baby sitted

    It’s nothing of the kind. In the cases I presented, it’s detecting lawbreakers. (I’d be on much firmer logical ground than you and your accusations if I were to accuse you of being pro-crime and pro-criminal.) In the case of security cameras and yes, cameras that record, these are commonly accepted on private property, such as at convenience stores, and are very useful in helping to identify criminals as well as record the commission of the crimes themselves.

    I also don’t have a problem with police video cameras — it protects them against the occasional junk lawsuit as well as records any misconduct by them during traffic stops and more extreme events.

  20. Why is this clown still on TV all of the time.

    Well, he’s certainly got better foreign policy ideas than many others in his party. Is that why he’s hated? Oh, I forget, many in his party treat him in the same manner as we would expect from the late far-right Samuel Francis, something about people like him possibly being “agents of a foreign power.”

  21. cosmo, you are always free to disagree with me, as you and many others frequently prove by making comments that do so. :)

    Bottom line: You’re not being censored. Your revised comment about Lieberman is, as I said before, welcome.

    You are not free to make vulgar references nor to make personal attacks, that’s all. Such material does not promote a “traditional of free discourse” but rather shuts it down. Please refrain from it in the future. Please do not cause further disruption by arguing about this or by attacking me further.

  22. Joe:

    http://themoderatevoice.com/wa.....ment-88923

    As much as I disagree with some of the hard line Right or Left wing commenters at times, on your blog, I do not begrudge them the right to, in my view, hang themselves with their own rope. I even chuckle at giving them some yardage.

    There are times when comments go off topic and perhaps a bit over the edge, but there is NOTHING worse than censorship. A f— or any other four letter word is often apt. To delete posts because someone disagrees with a post, or the genuine revulsion felt over such a despicable character as in this post, is not appropriate.

    Nothing I posted re: the Senator was worthy of deletion, and I do not like the implication that I cussed, swore, or did anything inappropriate. I have noticed Jason, in recent weeks, has taken to deleting quite a few posts by others. I do not know if these were profanity laced, or simply seared Jason’s young buns.

    I, however, as a reader- and barring libel or slander, would like to read what these people say, and judge for myself. Jason’s myopia and biases should not be imposed on me nor any other poster nor reader. We are all adults, and need no nannying.

    Joe, I would appreciate it if you could rein in Jason’s zeal for Stalinism, so that we readers can judge for ourselves what is and is not appropriate.

    I would much rather read one of the Left or Right Wingers’ rants against each other, and see their true selves- good or bad, than to see a cyber-mullah getting his jollies by exercising whatever small power he has in his shared fiefdom.

    BTW- I am cross-posting this at the above thread.

    Michael: In regards to Jason sending book reviews to Monsters and Critics, he is welcome to, for perhaps he can learn what editorial responsibility really is.

  23. ‘You are not free to make vulgar references nor to make personal attacks, that’s all. Such material does not promote a “traditional of free discourse” but rather shuts it down. Please refrain from it in the future. Please do not cause further disruption by arguing about this or by attacking me further.’

    There was no personal attack, and by even resorting to such dishonest characterizations you are showing exactly why people who cannot handle a little bit of responsibilty should not be granted such.

    Distorting posts, and even what is contained in those removed, shuts down discourse. To be criticized, when one does something wrong- as you have done, is not an attack. It is an attempt to correct.

  24. cosmo, this is not for public debate. I made my call and I stand by it. You are free to take this to backchannels, as you have already done, if you feel it necessary. But please don’t continue to carp about it here.

  25. cosmoetica (Comment 25) is absolutely correct in his assessment of Jason’s capricious heavy-handedness in his editing other peoples comments now he’s doing it IN OTHER PEOPLES POSTS! I stand with cosmoetica in his complaint.

    This is the second time in two days that Jason has deleted c/ censored discussions AND both time in someone else’s story.

    I took it off-line with Jason yesterday but this is just getting to be too much… Joe, could you do something about this… please?

  26. Steve, if you have continuing concerns about this, I invite you to respond to my email to you. Please don’t make this spat a public issue.

  27. ‘Well, kritter, that would work as long as al-Qaeda remained fixated on “big” targets.

    My biggest fear is that they will someday adopt a smarter strategy. So far, we’ve been blessed with stupid enemies.

    Perhaps a better compromise would be to allow pervasive public monitoring in any area where it is practical but to put limits on what kinds of crimes the monitoring can be used to prosecute.’

    Well, until they start doing that I doubt anyone will be willing to voluntarily submit to Big Brother. There’s too much room for abuse, and the government has already proven with warrantless wiretapping and the National Security Letters that it abuses extra power if it is given it.

    And you still have the problem of monitoring all of that videotape. Homeland Security doesn’t ladle out money unless they’ve id’d a likely target, so any surveillance should follow the same guidelines.

    Otherwise we are sacrificing too much liberty for a little security, and only a fool would do that.

    BTW, I put Lieberman in that category. Is he still sworn to protect our constitution or is he more interested in defending Israel? Maybe Connecticut voters can still mount a recall, lol and get the spineless gutless wonder out of office. If that’s what an Independent acts like, I’ll take the two-party system.

  28. If you remember Joe issued a post a short while back in which he advocated for decency in posting. Since that time I have noticed a post from time to time that got edited or removed.

    I think Jason is just doing what Joe and company have already discussed and agreed was appropriate. Tempers flare here from time to time but that does not mean as “Adults” we should start flinging pure ugliness around.

    This is a blog….Not a democracy. Its there Nickel. They can spend it how they see fit.

    I stand with Jason.

  29. Well, kritter, the British have had a great deal of monitoring of public spaces ever since the IRA bombings of the 1980s, and they seem not to have devolved into repression yet. I don’t think that monitoring public spaces is financially impractical or particularly threatening to civil liberties.

    And I stand with Lieberman on defending Israel too. :+)

  30. I for one do favor monitoring Kritters house though.

    I think she has something to hide.

  31. Somebody- Come on over and see, lol. You’d be pretty bored, I’m betting, as I put my portrait of Stalin in storage during spring cleaning, and left my copy of Marx at the beach. 8)

    I don’t mind advocacy for Israel, but our national interest should always come first- I’m not seeing that with Joe. I’m glad he left the Democratic Party.

    BTW, I don’t know what the dispute was about, so I’m staying out of it. I have strong opinions but don’t feel the need to insult anyone that doesn’t agree with my way of thinking. As far as I know, if it doesn’t violate the comment policy- anything goes. Joe doesn’t want us on here agreeing with each other, or he’d stop having provocative posts on here.

  32. Jason- Britain is a lot smaller than the US, so its a lot less expensive and a lot more practical over there than it would be here. I also think their proximity to the ME and a restless extremist population in Europe, puts them at a higher risk.

  33. ‘But every corner and public space? I don’t need to be baby sitted thank you very much and I won’t live anywhere the citizenry is so frightened they kowtow to that kind of outrage.’

    You are right- alot of people were objecting to Nader and Bloomberg because they would install a nanny govt. But wouldn’t that create the ultimate nanny state? its too authoritarian for me, and right now I don’t trust Washington with too much power because of the issues of abuse and lack of accountability that we are already experiencing. How do you make sure that the cameras are only used for suspected terrorist activity and not turned on the opposition party to harrass them? Our USA’s have been turned on the Democrats to harass them- so its not far-fetched at all.

    I find it a little scary that you guys are that paranoid about another attack that you would give that much power to this government. Right wingers need to worry that Hillary might abuse power as W has.

  34. “Why is this clown still on TV all of the time.

    Well, he’s certainly got better foreign policy ideas than many others in his party. Is that why he’s hated? Oh, I forget, many in his party treat him in the same manner as we would expect from the late far-right Samuel Francis, something about people like him possibly being “agents of a foreign power.””

    Yes, Lieberman does have better foreign policy ideas than others in the Republican Party – we all wish him well there.

  35. The Democrats danced in the streets when a republican converted to Democratism. When a Democrat converts to Republicanism then those same Democrats pull out the tar and feathers.

    I repeat and to think that Joe Lieberman was the Democratic VP candidate just a few years ago. This can only tell you how powefuly the base/antiwar/hatemongers have taken over the Democratic party.

    They profess to be Progressives but they are pulling their party continually farther and farther to the left that by the time the election in 08 arrives this country is going to be horrified at the ugliness that is being danced in the street by the left.

    Never mind the right. They are in defeat….they are the vanquished, they should be bitter. But the victors are still in hate mode. They are dancing on the graves of their foes. They are the carpetbaggers of the post civil war who wanted to raze the south. This cant be good for the Democratic party.

  36. there is NOTHING worse than censorship.

    That’s not your decision to make on this blog. On this blog we have decided that there are things worse than censorship (at least for this blog), namely… read the comment policy. We’re very clear about it all.

    Furthermore, you first write:

    It’s time you grew up.

    As for Lieberman: he is a vulgar little parasite of a man with no life, no scruples, and as little regard for liberty and democracy as you.

    Then you have the audacity to write:

    There was no personal attack, and by even resorting to such dishonest characterizations you are showing exactly why people who cannot handle a little bit of responsibilty should not be granted such.

    Umh, what?

    Steve wrote:

    cosmoetica (Comment 25) is absolutely correct in his assessment of Jason’s capricious heavy-handedness in his editing other peoples comments now he’s doing it IN OTHER PEOPLES POSTS! I stand with cosmoetica in his complaint.

    This is the second time in two days that Jason has deleted c/ censored discussions AND both time in someone else’s story.

    I took it off-line with Jason yesterday but this is just getting to be too much… Joe, could you do something about this… please?

    Jason has the power to delete comments – whether in his own threads or not.

    And we talked about it, and believe that Jason was right in editing / deleting comments in this instance. It’s time that you all respect the comment policy. Either that, or don’t bother to comment at all.

    (5) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog’s host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site — which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.

    (6) All points of view are welcome on The Moderate Voice, with the following exceptions:

    (a) Comments posted several times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread by turning a discussion into the equivalent of a bitter shouting match.

    (b) Comments posted several times a day that insult or call other commenters or blog writers names or repeatedly make the same point with the effect of or clear intent to annoy other commenters or blog writers.

    (7) Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by The Moderate Voice will NOT be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter’s ISP address, without notice. In some cases a comment may be deleted and the writer will be given another chance. Commenters who virtually ASK The Moderate Voice to ban them by ignoring any warnings or daring TMV to ban them will quickly get their wish.

    And:

    (11) The Moderate Voice is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is NOT aligned with any political party. It is NOT promoting any specific candidate for office. It is not a public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors’ varying points of views. Writers on this weblog WILL take positions. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author’s ISP.

    Banning will happen very, very rarely, but we will be more active in editing and, yes, deleting comments.

    We are not the government, you do not have the right to say whatever you want at this blog.

  37. Somebody-

    Its not just the base of the democratic party that thinks the war is a failed effort. Its over 70% of the country. Those on the right persist in saying that the antiwar factions in the Democratic party have moved it left, but the fact is that opinion is the mainstream one. Like it or not, it is Lieberman who is out of step with his constituency.

    The Democrats did well to stop supporting a warmonger who is not keeping our national interest as a first priority.

  38. K. Ritter:

    put my portrait of Stalin in storage during spring cleaning, and left my copy of Marx at the beach

    What about the Che Guevara T-shirts?

  39. DLS- Still got a couple of those, lol.

  40. Here is what Jason admitted in an email. Basically, he read into a comment that, by Joe’s definition, was not up for censoring:

    Interpolated:

    On 7/2/07, Jason Steck wrote:

    Dan’s charge that I have deleted or edited comments merely because they disagreed with me is completely false. I have deleted three comments total, two for vulgarity and one as spam. I have edited two others to remove vulgarity. In all cases, I have cone out of my way to invite the posters to resubmit their comment without the vulgar reference. Whenever time zones allow, as Michael will attest, I have checked my actions with him to get a “second opinion”.

    In Dan’s case, his original comment was about how Senator Joe Lieberman supposedly put his tongue into “disgusting holes”, a reference to a sexual practice called “rimming” that involves the licking of the anus. I thought the comment grossly offensive, gratuitously vulgar, and unnecessary. I deleted it and invited Dan to resubmit the comment in a non-vulgar form. When he did so, I left it intact, even though it was quite scathing towards me personally.

    ***You have provided an ample example of imbuement. You have assumed the disgusting holes to be sexual or scatological. Indeed, that may be an interpretation. But, had I wanted to solely state a sexual act I would have. The term is called entendre. It’s something polite adults do when in the presence of children. Look in a mirror.
    This is what I mean by taste, intellect, and other personal biases coming in to play when one is censored. I can just imagine how Oscar Wilde would have fared with you, Jason.

    I am, in fact, no where near the immature young “Stalinist” that Dan has mentally constructed. While I have been known to get passionate, angry, and even unnecessarily touchy on comment threads (something I keep trying to learn not to let bother me), I absolutely separate moderator functions from advocacy functions. I’ve been able to learn to separate moderating from arguing while doing moderator functions in online forums for the last 20 years, going back to the pre-internet dialup network Fidonet and, before that, running dialup BBSes in Japan. (Obviously, I am quite a bit older than Dan thought. :+) )

    ***I was speaking of mental/emotional age, not chronological.

    Dan, as I said on the forum, you and every other commenter are free to disagree with me or anyone else without any fear of having comments deleted for it. This is proven by the continued presence of dozens of comments that disagree, often violently, with pretty much everything I say. These disagreeable comments come in daily from both left (whenever I post about Iraq) and right (whenever I post about immigration). Your accusation that I am a censor is demonstrably and completely false.

    ***You have just proven that not so. You deleted an entendre, something that can be construed many ways, but which you, with a puerile mindset, took the wrong way. THAT is the point, insofar as the comment.
    No one denies your right, granted by the site’s owner, to censor. But THAT is what you are doing.
    And, since you delete things, there is no way to know that you have not similarly deleted comments that were offensive only to you, as well.
    Regardless, it’s a de facto cession of the point, and often the argument, because it’s taking the bricks and not letting others play.
    There have been blatantly anti-Semitic and other comments left to stand on TMV, and well so. Let their commenters’ have to deal with it.
    I’m perfectly willing to let others think what they will of my entendre. You’ve only demonstrated Minnesota Nice kills its own, yet again!

    I do wish you had taken the opportunity to discuss this with me before trying to drag Joe or Michael into this. I’m willing to discuss your concerns if you have them and hope for a more productive and cordial relationship in the future. If you have an actual incident where you feel I have failed to keep moderator and commenter functions separate, I’m willing to listen to those concerns and try to come to a reasonable accommodation. But I ultimately have to make a decision and I genuinely think that your reference to “rimming” was well over the line.

    ***I do wish you had taken the opportunity to ask exactly what I meant, without assuming the worst, before deleting my comment.
    This is the point, and even though I intellectually understand people like you, I find it amazing how you delimit your world. It’s like the argument I have had with others who vote D or R and then whine that nothing changes. You ASSUME the worst, impugn your misassumptions on others, take drastic action, then shrug your shoulders with a ‘What did I do?’ smirk, and cry that you are being attacked, when the worst I’ve called you is a censor, for censoring.
    At least stand up and be proud.
    If you really believe what you fell, say, on TMV, ‘I am sick and tired of getting bested by some commenters, and when they say things that make me nervous I’m gonna be the reactionary.’

    Is honesty too much to ask for? DAN

  41. Here is what I said to Joe:

    On 7/2/07, Joe Gandelman wrote:

    DAN: I’ve made it very clear that I don’t want cuss words on the site. I think the only thing I would allow is a damn or a bitch. I know a blogger who writes kids books who stopped writing his blog because kids found it. My website is http://www.familyentertainer.com
    If you or anyone talks to me I do use all kinds of language.
    I know VARIOUS tmv coeditors have pulled or deleted parts of posts with swear words. If I saw a post that had one of them on tmv I’ve contacted the writer and asked them to remove the word.

    ***Exactly, which by Jason’s own admission, I did not violate. As an entertainer steeped in Vaudeville, you know the power of entendre, and that a woman in a see through blouse is sexier than a butt naked one. That’s why I phrased my comment on Lieberman as I did. Again, Jason even admits it in his text. I did not say ass, cunt, dick, twat, or any George Carlin words. Once or twice before you had edited a word or two of mine. I disagree with that, but I accept that as part of the terms of posting.
    But again, by Jason’s own admission, he read into something the worst thing, and deprived others of being adult enough to make up their own minds.

    Is that moderate?

    I submit that Jason read into my comments the worst thing PRECISELY because I’ve disagreed with him in the past. And the other times I’ve seen deletions, they’ve been from others (of different POVs than my centrist one) that have burned his buns.
    I think it’s reasonable to assume that had my comment been posted by a newby, Jason would not have even read it, literally.
    Again, you are free to have your rules, and enforce them as you choose.
    I did not even write to you the one or two times you removed a swear word, because you state that. Again, I did not swear, and Jason imbued, BY HIS OWN ADMISSION.
    It’s that slippery slope, and a quick trigger finger that I object to, and why I ‘dragged you, as site owner in,
    I CC’d Michael because in the 2 or 3 x I emailed jason re: M&C, after Michael said he wanted to write a review, I’ve gotten no reply, so figured my emails were wrong, and he cd fwd them.

    If I’ve missed one, its because of that…missing it.
    If i’ve seen swear words or over the line comments — due to my travel and shnow schedule I have no time to read comments and barely ehough to keep up with my blog and my backlog (as you know on books) of posts — I’ve taken a different approach than others.

    I’ve gone in and removed the words.
    Now, I know this isn’t for everyone, but I want tmv to be famliy friendly in terms of the languag.e

    On comments in general: I think when things get ugly all sides need to pull back.
    There is NO post where anyone is justified in going ont he personal attack. People can and do discuss issues without it shifting frmo the issue to the person who raised the issue or the person responding to it.

    I have not even see the comments today. I just got in and am leaving in 1 minute to drive 40 minutes to my next show. So this isn’t aimed at anyone.

    My advice would be for everyone to a)forget personalities and focus ont the issues at hand. God knows there is enough going on now that we can and should be writing abouit — -and clamoring about — rather then get sucked into the mistake that blogs, bloggers and commenters do allt he time of turning the process of blogging and comments and people who write them into the actualy subject.

    So I have a different take on this. I know everyone is smart enough to offer their best thoughts on issues without it violating our posting guidelines.

    But I don’t want any four letter words…nothing on tmv that I coulid not say in a family show at a fair. You might occasionally see something pg or slightly r, but I’ll leave that to other sites and if tmv losese readers because we’re just not allowing it, I guess it’ll have to lose readers.

    my show website is http://www.familyentertainer.com

    My feeling is tmv should not be a site that I am ashamed of it a kid or parent or corporate client looks at it. They may hate what I write, but they won’t feel it’s an x rated site or the kind of site that you see often on the left or right. And, yes, those sites have more hits then me…and I wish them well.

    The issue should not be the blogging, the comments the policy. Today the issue should be the scooter libby decision. And evne though I have a show and am very sick tonight I will come back and write about it — and won’t look at comments because I have to pick and choose and I think the choice for our energies should be the issue discussion and not each other. If I didn’t feel that way, I couldn’t have cobloggerse on tmv because most are to the right or left of me on issues

    Thanks for the reply. Last time- by Jason’s own admission I used no swear words. He imbued it all, and that is HIS fault, not mine, although my comments suffered for his intellectual, ethical, and personal limitations.

    BTW- that is my view, and not an attack. DAN

  42. And here my reply to Michael:

    I did not insult Jason. I called him on his deleterious actions, and, if you read the earlier email, admitted misreading.
    It’s in black and white, from Jason: ‘In Dan’s case, his original comment was about how Senator Joe Lieberman supposedly put his tongue into “disgusting holes”, a reference to a sexual practice called “rimming” that involves the licking of the anus. I thought the comment grossly offensive, gratuitously vulgar, and unnecessary.’

    In law, that’s an open and shut case. Jason could not comprehend entendre, and acted in the wrong. Not a four letter word in the bunch.

    If you get it on cable in Europe, watch Judge Judy or The People’s Court. It’s a slam dunk.

    DAN
    - Hide quoted text -

    On 7/3/07, Michael van der Galien wrote:

    What a bunch of nonsense. We have a comment policy, if people cross the line, their comments can be deleted. Jason has every right to delete the comments he has deleted (only very few). We do not want vulgarity, nor cuss words at TMV. It’s not about disagreeing – you’re free to disagree – but you’re not free to insult the poster, etc.

    I’m with Jason on this one

  43. Since by Joe Gandelman’s own stated policy I did not use swear nor cuss words, I hope Jason does not delete these emails which prove he was in the wrong.

    Nor anyone else delete them.

    SteveK is right to be concerned. TMV has become alot more authoritarian, and capricious, in the last month.

    I’m willing to stand behind my words.

    So should the posters.

  44. Michael, as for censorship being the worst, it was not my decision, but my opinion.

    And I have disclosed no personal things in these emails.

    But, Jason- even with SteveK, wants to do ethically questionable things, then not have to stand in public for them.

    He was wrong! Period. By his own words he damned himself.

    The word ‘holes’ is not objectionable, unless you are a reactionary.

    Again, is honesty too much to ask for?

  45. And, I think Joe should be made aware of my or SteveK’s or any other censored person’s complaint, lest this post’s title become something that defines him due to others; actions!

  46. BTW: I crossposted these on the thread, and see that another poster has similar complaints about Jason.

    My q- I’m humanly inclined to believe the poster right and Jason wrong because of his being wrong- by his own words- in this case.

    But, I cannot know since that post no longer exists.

    See how quickly slopes get slippery.

  47. BTW- if you must censor the few 4 letter words in the email to Joe G, go ahead, but leave the rest of our exchanges intact.

  48. We are not willing to debate this. Jason called this one – he was according to both Joe and me right. This is not up for debate. You can write as many (long) comments as you want about this issue, but don’t expect us to answer them / the points you raise.

    Consider a blog to be a house. If you visit someone’s house, there are certain rules you adhere to. You do say certain things, you do not say certain other things.

  49. That’s fine. But realize I PLAYED by the rules. Jason willfully and arbitrarily changed them. And, as stated, there are others he has likely changed them on, for I am not alone in being zapped.
    The thing about entendres is that they reveal FAR more about the perceiver than the stater. Were that not true, Jack Benny and Milton Berle would have been arrested on indecency charges throughout their careers. Given that Lieberman’s a hack politician, the word holes could refer to sewer, toilet, as well as money pits, and a host of other political meanings.
    That Jason chose to take the most vulgar interpretation says ALOT of where his mind is.
    Censorship, if done, should be consistently applied, and not done by ‘rogues’ like Jason whenever they dislike my or SteveK’s posts, or whomever else posts.
    Again, Jason’s censorship was not according to your own rules, by his unwitting admission.
    If you want to allow that, so be it.
    But his act is what it was, and that’s a shame.
    DAN
    - Hide quoted text -

    On 7/3/07, Joe Gandelman wrote:

    I stand by what I said. I’m not going to get into an email byh email debate over this, really. We all know what discussion is that focuse on the issues. I do shows an have an OPTIONAL routine that is r rated with double entendres. They MUST say they want it or it doedsn’t go in. I’m no huge Lieberman fan (I was a huge fan and supporter of Lowell Weicker, who he defeated plus my mother met Lieberman years ago and has always said he was a real sour puss…I have other problems with him and the war surprisingly does NOT enter it with me). But debate over policies, his ideas, etc is one thing.

    I think the commenting policy is crystal clear under the comments. We also do have the TMV mission statement which we all try to adhere to and again we may stray from time to time (I have) but we try to adhere to it.

    There are a zillion and one ways to strongly differ with someone’s ideas in a post, or a policy or a newsmaker. I appreciate your dedication to your positiions and willingness to take the time to comment but I’m really not going to get into going over each comment. We posted the comment policy and we all sometimes slip in not catching it all the time and veering discussion back onto it. But that is our goal.

    I think as I said that once all of us who read and write on blogs get into writing about the process of commenting we are far off track. Most assuredly with this administration doing what it clearly is now, unabashedly doing, there is a lot to write about without putting our energies into a debate over our debate

    Another thing is: I really and digging myself out of some things (I JUST got my laptop back) and simply don’t have time to debate on the site or in emails about comments. Our comments policy is really what should be reflected in comments and if we all slip up once in a while, the nice thing about beling alive is we can (presumably) wake up the next day and do it right next time!

  50. See the reply to Joe.
    - Hide quoted text -

    DAN

    On 7/3/07, Michael van der Galien wrote:

    I really consider this to be a non-debate. Jason made a call – we, Joe and I, support Jason. Comments are not easily deleted, but there is a limit to what we can accept in a give thread. People have compared me to nazis for instance.

  51. MIchael:

    when one is invited anywhere, it is incumbent upon the host to be fair and gracious.

    Jason was not, and if he was not in my case, SteveK and others are likely going to have similar complaints about similar ungraciousness.

    Let this exchange, however, stand as a reference point, so that in the future, when Jason again deletes a comment, people can know that SteveK and I , and a few others, were treated in this fashion before them.

  52. cosmoetica,

    Still Michael and Jason chose to dance around what you and I are talking about. This is not about abuse of TMV policy… it’s about Jason censoring opposing opinions and covering his own butt.

    Jason’s claim that:

    I have deleted or edited comments merely because they disagreed with me is completely false. I have deleted three comments total, two for vulgarity and one as spam.

    is patently false.

    It was his choosing to “delete” of his own comments rather than reply and apologize for trying to strong arm David Schraub in David’s stoty, We Can’t Do It Alone, that broke this proverbial camels back.

    Just read David’s comments 1 and 2 (ORIGINALLY comments 3 and 4); domajot’s comment 7; and, SteveK’s comment 5 to get a drift of how Jason was coming across and why he removed his own comments.

    Had Jason acknowledged and addressed the concerns expressed by David Schraub (TMV front pager), domajot, and myself, in the posting I linked to above, OR his overzealous actions against cosmoetica comment this issue would not be what it has become.

    I’m sorry that Joe, David, and others involved by this brouhaha haven’t chosen to comment.

  53. The thing is that I can only guess at what might have been said, and if there was something objectionable.

    In my case, it was one word- holes.

    That hardly is in league with the F or N word (and in dealing with adults I feel a bit ‘silly’ to even have to use those euphemisms.

    The very reason euphemisms and entendre exist is because of thin-skinned folk like Jason. That he is now ‘moderator’ is ridiculous, since, he’s the least moderate TMVer around.

    Before bloga even started I used to have comments from emails that I would post on my site. Within a fe months I had to scrap that because people who knew each other (in real life) were posting obscenities and death threats, and I had several threats of lawsuits for libel on things I wrote (which were true, but unprovable- but in no way profane- they merely highlighted some bad personal actions by others), or which others wrote, and which I might have liability for. I consulted a lawyer, who was shocked- again, this is pre-blog (2001). He said take it all down and start from scratch. I did, to avoid lawsuits.

    There simply are people who cannot disconnect themselves from their emotions, and actually get emotionally involved in these sorts of things. Jason, is an obvious example. I was reading a similar brouhaha at Dean’s World between him and Ali Eteraz. Dean is another emotional child.

    Then, if you state that their actions are childish or wrong, you are attacking them. It’s silly. The truth is I know no one at TMV in person, only their online personae. I take NOTHING personally. I’m a rare thing- an ‘adult.’

    But there are too many children. On the plus side, I just reviewed an advanced copy of Steven Pinker’s latest book, and the review will be online tomorrow. I’m interviewing him in September, and he spends a large portion of the book talking about euphemism and taboo language- a whole chapter on Carlin’s 7 words.

    Here is a quote from Pinker:

    ‘While taboo language is an affront to common sensibilities, the phenomenon of taboo language is an affront to common sense. Excretion is an activity that every incarnate being must engage in daily, yet all the English words for it are indecent, juvenile, or clinical. The elegant lexicon of Anglo-Saxon monosyllables that give the English language its rhythmic vigor turns up empty-handed just when it comes to an activity that no one can avoid. Also conspicuous by its absence is a polite transitive verb for sex- a word that would fit into the frame Adam verbed Eve or Eve verbed Adam. The simple transitive verbs for sexual relations are either obscene or disrespectful, and the most common ones are among the seven words you can’t say on television.’

    I’m actually gonna use this post as an example of what he writes about.

    Go to http://books.monstersandcritics.com/ tomorrow, and I would say you should get Pinker’s book. He pisses everyone off because he’s a straight shooter who is not an extremist.

    That Jason did what he did is like a child giving the finger and, again, saying, ‘What did I do?’

    It’s up to adults to discipline people like that, and perhaps a few more dressing downs will shame Jason a bit.

    Gee, shaming, isn’t that a forgotten virtue?

  54. Jason Steck- on Steve K’s linked post:

    ‘I edited nothing. I only deleted my own comments on this thread.’

    Big Brother LIVES, and he’s in Minnesota!

  55. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry that the two of you are still talking about this. Anyway, keep the complaints limited to this thread – if it spoils over into other threads, they will be edited / deleted.

  56. … if it spoils over into other threads, they will be edited / deleted.

    You’ve got a deal Michael… your input and response to the concerns expressed here has been unvaluable.

  57. SteveK

    You can email me at my website. Go to the contact page.

Submit a Comment