Let's say (and as the Rude Pundit would say, why don't we) that you're a Connecticut constituent. Let's say that you voted in last Tuesday's primary (LAST Tuesday, was it only last Tuesday?) for Ned Lamont, and eight days later (ie today) you read in a Newsweek article the following paragraph:
Holy wet animals. You thought...what? That I meant...no, it never occurred to me. Yet you leapt the logic and...yes, I know that's what the other side does to its own, leading it through its paces. But I specifically stated...and you still thought I meant
This may be my last communication. I'm leaving room to change my mind. Troll-rating one who parts company with the troll-rating procedure is one thing; demanding that someone be banned for such behavior is on a whole other level.
I've emailed Kos on the issue but haven't heard back. Nor do I expect to. The provocation was what I consider an abuse of troll ratings which quickly enlarged to include the system itself. I've concluded that they're often given cavalierly, for no better reason than personal offense or honest disagreement, which hardly constitutes disruptive behavior. While, as I mentioned in my email, ratings decisions are highly subjective, that doesn't preclude guidelines or at least suggestions.
Let's play a game. Let's call it....oh....I don't know. How about: "I may have a lot of problems, personal and (to the extent that I am able to transcend the personal) political, and I may be mad as hell, and I may wish I could do this or be that, and I"...OK, enough of the main clause of the sentence, `cause here comes the rest of it, and you know - you just know - the dependent clause begins with..."but." So let's back up and hit it from a running start below the fold:
We're "progressives." We're "anti-war types." We have failed to influence Democratic politics remotely (which presumably means that Sen. Lieberman has not been threatened into Plan B-ing a way to maintain office by running as an Independent because of our anti-Lieberman campaign. Oh, no, one had zero effect on the other). Pro-war liberal (or should that be "pro-war liberal") Christopher Hitchens pities the Kos community so much he regrets having squashed a bug (that would be Kos et. al.) with a ton of bricks (that would be his razor-sharp wit), a metaphor that makes as much sense as any one sentence in his Slate editorial. Looky here and see for yourself:
Since my local paper refuses to cancel its syndication contract with Ann(droid) Coulter, I have found myself writing numerous letters and opinion pieces to its editorial pages objecting to her presence in every possible way. The good news? Most of them are published. The bad news? The need for my latest attack below:
The following should be self-explanatory. After ruminating for several days, I found myself waking to a full-fledged Diary entry dicatating itself in my brain. Let no one accuse me of being wishy-washy in my allegiances:
Not too busy celebrating Domenech's warp speed demise to appreciate the follies of other conservatives, I hope. Here's my response to Ann Coulter's latest column
What could be more democratic than writing to one's hometown newspaper? Especially when one lives in a conservative-leaning community, as I do, the prospect of converting but one fence-sitter to my view is the essence of progress at a grassroots level. Here's my latest letter to the editor:
I normally disdain political statistics, but the numbers are stunning. According to a consensus of polls, the President's approval rating is 34%. The Vice President's is 18.
That's shocking territory, considering the percentage of self-declared conservative Republicans is at least twice the lower figure, and presumably hasn't declined. It begs the conclusion that the President has hemorrhaged members of his side who can no longer support the leader of their party.
Remember aristocrat George Will on last week's edition of This Week? Read his latest column, derived from said appearance? Conclude, as I did, that he simply ignored Katrina vanden Heuvel's clever deflection of his cheap attacks on liberalism, as if it never happened, and proceeded to repeat himself? In case you didn't, and sorry, I don't have a link, he attributed the "fact" that conservatives are more "happy" than liberals largely to self-reliance, to, for instance, paying no attention to that Big Bad Global Warming in the quest for self-gratification. Here's the response I submitted to my local paper:
Hi, Ted. I'm delighted you chose the conservative attempt to overtake all facets of society to address this week. Not only is it a blatant and insidious effort to control the last liberal bastion of the American culture, it is dishonestly disguised as an innocent project to vent one of their pet complaints.
Chief among the waiting-for-Godot brand of journalists is Chris Matthews, MSNBC's sustainer of other broadcasts, who pays lip service to his humble origins while demonstrating on virtually every edition of his "Hardball" program the extent to which he has abandoned them.
