I expected the comment to be edited (as it should have been, and as it was). It was all done quite on purpose.

I do not expect to be banned, as I have never been warned on any comment of mine in the past, and that is the first time I have ever had a comment edited (and I set his one up to be edited on purpose) but, hey, who can tell.

Well, imhho Shaun is a real asset for TMV.By playing advocatus diabolus he has triggered countless fruitful threads. Even I agree that his starting point sometimes is to far out, but who wants to say he left the following discussion unimpressed? :-/

My excuses aside, I would ask that commenters focus on the issues and arguments rather than on insulting each other or trying to put the comments policy to some kind of “test”. As always, everyone is free to comment about the issue of the post as well as to criticize the tone or method of the post. No one is free to use vulgarity, to personally attack the poster or to personally attack another commenter. These are not very restrictive standards, as the very large number of very critical comments that this site shows clearly demonstrates.

As for the substance of this thread, I think it is inevitable that questions of political responsibility will be raised. I’ll probably write a post of my own as soon (or if) as I reach a point where I want to talk publicly about my feelings as they relate to a disaster on a bridge that I have taken myself many hundreds of times in the cities that I have called home for almost my entire life. But the mere fact that it is personally emotional doesn’t change that it is an issue with political consequences and an inevitable political accountability.

It is impossible for any of the recent actions — e.g. gas tax veto by Gov. Pawlenty, USDOT budget cut by Pres. Bush — to have averted this tragedy. But such actions can be seen in a broader context of a government that has for decades been uninterested in the basic functions of government — building, maintaining and securing critical infrastructure. The facts that the levies fell apart at one end of the Mississippi and a bridge collapsed near the other end are indicative of a bipartisan failure of government. And as someone who feels in some way personally affected by this disaster, I’ll defend Shaun’s legitimate right to comment on those political elements even while I disagree with him by pointing out that the failure of governance is bipartisan rather than just Republicans.

What I find exasperating though is that Shaun’s posts often trigger these kinds of reactions yet he seems to take no responsibility for the fact that the way he expresses his views and opinions is gratuituously inflammatory. Often his initial comments to those who disagree with him are quite inflammatory as well, but in a veiled way. Joe often steps in then to admonish the commenters who are so angered by Shaun’s ‘innocent’ remarks that their tempers flare.

I imagine that SteveK is referring to times when the comment section of Jason’s and Marc’s posts descend into similar flamethrowing. I don’t recall any of their posts being of the same nature as Shaun’s though, but I admit that it is often harder to see such things in posts where one agrees with the general viewpoints expressed. If someone cares to dig up one of those “offensive” posts of Jason or Marc, I’d be interested in a comparison to the tone and type of discussion that Shaun initiated here.

Personally I think that part of the comment policy should ensure that there isn’t a double standard for bloggers vs. commenters. I realize it’s difficult for a blogger to receive comments that either explicitly or implicitly call them partisan hacks; but it seems there should be a standard reponse that isn’t along the lines of “I’m the rubber, you’re the glue, everything you say bounces off me and sticks to you”. In other words, if the blogger would take responsibility for responding to what they feel are ad hom attacks by just calling it out and telling the commenter that substantive debate is welcome but making it personal isn’t, then I think the flames could be extinguished. Instead it seems that once a commenter is ticked off and writes something insulting to the blogger, then all bets are off and the blogger seems to feel that only the commenter needs to abide by the comment rules.

As I’ve said before, it’s Joe’s blog and he can take these thoughts for what they are worth, but I will say that when I visit a lot of other blogs now I run into a lot of “expat” TMV commenters who feel that TMV isn’t moderate enough for their tastes anymore. Lots of people will say that the center has just shifted left, but there’s a difference between expressing different philosophical viewpoints and changing an overall tone to one where insults are more tolerated.

Whuahahahhahha!
++ Shaun!

Well, C, I’m to lazy now to go looking for my exact comment, but I’m 100% positive these are your words, not mine. However, I really was under the impression that Shaun somewhat exploited the tragedy to make a point about the war, which seemed a bit farfetched and inappropriate to me. Sry, Shaun, but by disagreeing from time to time, us liberals can show that we’re independent thinkers, too, after all.

Well, C, to me it seems like you ignored that those decisons were triggered by the lack of funds. If there had been more adequate funds, it is quite reasonable to assume the officials would have chosen plan C or even B.

I have to agree that if ‘partisan hack’ is beyond the pale, then there is no reason to allow any comments.

So, if I am going to have a comment edited or deleted, it might as well be for a good reason.

Besides, your post shouldn’t be deleted. It’s an “homage” right?

So sure, please send them. I’m interested to see if they reach the lofty heights of invective like “partisan hack” “screw you” or “ass” obviously have.

Iconic Midwest said,

… IMO you owe AustinRoth an apology for your over-reaction.

With all due respect Iconic Midwest…

Iconic Midwest said,

Plus, I am interested. Pleae point me to the threads where left leaning commentators were taken to the woodshed. I’d like to read those myself.

Iconic Midwest, I’d gladly provide links but the TMV housekeeping system makes the examples you’re asking for disappear. I will gladly send you screen shots, off-line of course, if you’re really interested. Assuming, that is, this message doesn’t get deleted before you get a chance to read it.

regards, Steve

Back in December,1915 the north span of the Division Street bridge in Spokane, Washington collapsed, carrying a pair of street cars operated by the local utility company into the river. Five men were killed, crushed or drowned in the wreckage of one trolley. The city promptly claimed the utility company was to blame because the trolleys were too heavy and threatened suit; the utility company promised counter suit. The investigative report was interesting. At the time it collapsed, the bridge was carrying one seventh (1/7) of the load it was designed to carry. But, there had been crystalization of the metal in bottom of the upstream girders, apparently caused when they were damaged by floating debris in a flood several years earlier. The city, rather than replacing the damaged members, had straightened them. The fatigued steel cracked on a cold December morning, with tragic results.

Recently we had the collapse of tunnel lining from the “Big Dig” in Boston, a project much newer than the Minnesota bridge. The reports suggest that there were other roof panels with the potential to fall.

It probably isn’t what the media folks want to hear, but I think we could use a lot less sensationalism, and more willingness to be patient and report on actual information when it becomes available. The information coming out about the Minnesota bridge suggests that there may have been a lot of issues and decisions that contributed to this – as was the case in other structure failures.

But really SteveK “partisan hack”? If that is over the line we might as well just do away with the comment section all together. IMO you owe AustinRoth an apology for your over-reaction.

Plus, I am interested. Pleae point me to the threads where left leaning commentators were taken to the woodshed. I’d like to read those myself.

Neither cat had ever been outside and are understandably very freaked out. The DF&C and I have left them food and water and hopefully can coax them into a carrier so they can be brought inside while we figure out what to do with them.

(Throat clearing.)

I do not write to offend. Ever. But that does not mean that people of certain sensibilities won’t be offended. I apologize if I have trampled on those certain sensibilities — in the past, today and in the future.

When Shaun apologizes for using a tragedy like this to score cheap political points while bodies are still being recovered, I’ll apologize. Until then, you’re right, it’ll be a cold day. But that’s ok. As bellisaurius noted, this formerly moderate bog has been going down hill of late, drastically lowering its standards for its posters, so I don’t come here all that much anymore. I’ll lose no sleep if it turns into another echo chamber.