An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
« Keeping the wider world in mind
Original Blog Reporting: The Talking Dog Interviews Michael Ratner »
A Great Writer And Blogger Quits Blogging
…but not for the reasons you’d normally think….
opinions powered by SendLove.to
19 Responses to “A Great Writer And Blogger Quits Blogging”
Not sure I understand his reasoning. If he loves blogging so much, couldn’t he forgo the f-words and other things that cause him to worry what young eyes are seeing?
I can’t help but wonder if in some corner of his mind, this blogger is tired of blogging but doesn’t want to admit it, maybe even to himself.
This does look a lit awkward. Maybe he was forced to do this by his publishers as a commenter there points out.
I think I’m siding with Michael on this one. Outside pressure is most likely the culprit in this case.
Or maybe it’s pretty much the way I said it was. Just floating that as a possibility . . .
This guys posting “Total War” was so disgusting, I’m glad that he decided to stop blogging. Although his fews probably represents the thinking of a number of right wing “Americansâ€? regarding the war in Iraq and the slaughter in Beruit. It appears that the writer like the Bush administration would have America continue to violate international laws on bombing civilians. this blogger makes a pathetic argument which is in essence: America handled Japan by bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Why are we not doing the same thing in Iraq? While is ponders his next steps in life I suggest he go to the website gensuikin.org to learn the reasons why America should never go the root of Nuclear of other WMD when at war. Yes, he has a right to his opinion, I’m glad his opinion will be lifted from the internet. I hope he keeps his sick opinions of war out of kids books.
AAPP – His point was not to nuke or not to nuke, but the larger issue of if proportional response in warfare is a feasable and workable endevour.
What he clearly stated was that if you are going to go to war, then wage it fully, destroy your enemy, and impose your will upon them. That has always been the real goal of any warfare between states. If you are not willing to do that, then you probably shouldn’t go to war at all, as nothing will change except that many people will be dead, and the situation overall remains the same as before.
It is a seperate question from is a specific war justified, or should we go to war over any given cause ‘X’.
Succinctly and accurately stated, Austin. Thanks. Kind of makes me wish I’d written the post with equal efficiency and brevity.
And you do have a point. One could argue that Israel is facing the difficulty she is facing because she wasn’t willing to start a large scale ground offense for quite a few weeks.
Looking back, one could argue that it would be wiser to have started the ground offensive after a few days of airstrikes already instead of just now.
lol, well you know best I suppose.
In that case I really do believe you’re drawing a conclusion as if it were the only (good) option, which I don’t believe it is.
Why don’t you start blogging under a pseudonym? (sp?)
You’re more than welcome to co-blog at my blog
Michael:
I am looking at the pseudonym possibilities.
And I don’t want to leave the impression I’m blaming fans of the books I wrote with my wife. On the contrary, I owe them the roof over my head. I owe them my career. Without them I’d have to get a real job. I cannot express how much I love thosse fans.
If I wrote a more moderate moderate site I might not have worried, but I am, as I’ve always admitted, the crazy bomb-thrower of the moderates. Regular readers usually get that half the time I’m being deliberately provactive, and other times just playing. But given the fact that a presumably adult commentor above didn’t grasp the difference between abstract discussion and a call for action, how can I expect kids — or more to the point, the parents of kids — to get the difference?
And then, there’s the language . . .
For the record my last few posts — including the one AAPP was upset by — were an effort to spark discussion on the meaning of war, the lazy use of that word, the gap between heated rhetoric and mild actions, between clarion calls and indifferent committment. As usual I managed to offend people who don’t get my peculiar style.
I’ve gotten used to the fact that I can be simultaneously described as a bloodthirsty war-monger and a Bush-hating friend-of-Osama. I imagine, Michael, you’ll get a bit of that yourself as you continue to blog. God knows Joe does.
You might find my Sunday post, Israelis would’ve done better with all-out invasion of interest. It’s along this same line, with some specifics about strategy.
Michael Reynolds:
O no, it didn’t sound as if you were blaming anyone. I didn’t interprete it like that either.
Good.
Michael, I went back and read your post, over and over, and over again (smile). I realize now that your effort was to spark discussion on the meaning of war. Your readers and the above comments helped me understand your approach. I guess I have been reading Michael van der Galien’s goofy posts so much that when I read yours I said “oh my god”.
Look folks, two peoples are massacring each other mercilessly, the free and civilized world is not only standing aside, but the only power that has the key to do anything is supporting one side unconditionally, prolonging misery.
The fact of the matter is Israel is ruling 3.5 million people without any democratic rights. It is the origin of all the violence, the anger between the two peoples. Yes Yassar Arafat screwed things up, so did Isreal. Now the only solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict is the creation of a Palestinian state.this is the only solution possible to stopping the bloodshed is ending the occupation. Not going into Beruit and killing anything breathing. Even Ronald Reagan got out of Beruit. Ending the violence in the Middle East requires not only creating an independent Palestine but also approaching the conflict from a political, not religious, perspective and using impartial mediation but not the United States government.From the outside looking in, it appears that as long as Palestines are occupied, It’s unfortunate that Americans sit back and let the Bush administration (supported by the democrats) use tax payers money to build “Berlin typeâ€? separation walls, that our U.S. tax dollar finances through the Israeli security budget.It would be nice if our United States government would use the billions of tax payer dollars used in Iraq and Israel to build bombs to blow up people, and keep people seperated, to build schools and hospitals, and not walls, then things would change. But Michael van der Galien would just like us to throw a cuple of WMD’s into Beruit and Iraq and call it a day. Then what?
Micheal. Sorry for the confusion regarding your post. I wish you well.
Michael van der Galien , yes Israel is in a catch 22 but bombs and arm conflict is not the answer.
I am afraid there is no other way, but to use force.
What a silly people. Live by the bomb die by the bomb! Let the massacre begin.
I’m glad South Africa took the road to peace versus the road to war. Unlike America that went to Civil War around slavery. In the end, Israel will never have peace without justice. Continued Israeli Apartheid. What a stupid decision.
AAPP:
I appreciate that. You’re an honorable guy, and you and I are totally cool.
Now let’s find something to fight about.
Michael van der Galien said :
And you do have a point. One could argue that Israel is facing the difficulty she is facing because she wasn’t willing to start a large scale ground offense for quite a few weeks.
Looking back, one could argue that it would be wiser to have started the ground offensive after a few days of airstrikes already instead of just now.
I make this comment with all due respect to you Michael.
One can always argue a hypothetical. But I would suggest that the military experts in Israel are far more adept at determining the best military strategy to impure at this time. They have a far more complete understanding of the relative strength of their own forces Vs that of the enemy no to mention other issues involved.
The recent success of Israeli forces suggests that they were correct. One can always ponder the outcome of another direction. But you simply can’t argue with success. Remember too, that we are not privy to the best intelligence information which could drastically alter the best course of action at any given time.
Michael van der Galien
No. The Israelis create the deception that they have no way out. They have formulated every aspect of this conflict for 75 years.
I suspect this forever war with the Arabs will continue as long as we keep giving them billions of dollars year after year.
What an enterprise.
MichaelF:
You are right that Israeli experts know more than I do. That’s logical. They wouldn’t be experts if they didn’t.
The problem is that Israel is losing the war of propaganda. Also: Hizbullah is still able to fire a lot of rockets at Israel every single day. Would they have gone in full force, it’s assumable (not an undeniable truth of course) that more Hizbullah terrorists would have been taken out.
Of course it’s not a sure thing. As I said “one could argue”, “it is assumable“.
I don’t think it is even probably .