I personally find it offensive that Obama feels the need to run around the world talking about our mistakes without, at the same time, extolling our many virtues with equal fervor.
How about extolling our virtues, and shutting the hell up about our mistakes? What exactly do we gain by airing our sins to the world at all from the President's podium? Obama is a temporary President, and he does not really speak for all Americans--though he should. Not an empty suit here--more like an evil suit.Comment Posted By mannning On 13.06.2009 @ 21:45
I don’t think I can recall a single instance where a blog commenter lost their job, or was harassed or stalked, or suffered in any way for commenting on a blog post using their own name.
You now have two reported instances here of commenters that have been harassed: mine and Gaia's Child. You can recall them henceforth.Comment Posted By mannning On 11.06.2009 @ 13:46
I will add one more thing. Most publishers and broadcasters in the media have both policies for the content they publish, and editorial staff to enforce both the policies and the decency standards they have adopted.
So, in theory at least, nothing gets to the audience unless it passes the staff.
The only governors for commenters are the blog owner/staff and the commenter's own ethics. If the commenter is really out of line, it is up to the owner/staff to edit or deny posts.Comment Posted By mannning On 10.06.2009 @ 20:25
Well, IMO, what is posted by a blogger or a commenter stands or falls on its content, not its true or false name on this particular medium. Total annonymity, however, is another story: virtually untraceable.
The "audience" must take a back seat to the protection of the family. End of story.Comment Posted By mannning On 10.06.2009 @ 20:01
Gaia's Child: thank you, and you have my sympathies too for your trial by harassment.
I think Busboy has it about right. Your pseudonym stands for yourself, and it is just as much a part of you as your real name in matters of opinion when commenting and blogging. There should be no degrading of comments because of the use of a cover name; none, in my opinion, either in my comments or on my blog. Which reminds me, out of laziness I have not typed in my blog address for some time. It is there now.
Perhaps many on the web are not really tuned in to the use of pseudonyms by authors, which is a well-known tradition. A close relative of mine wrote short stories for the pulp market, and was good enough to have three stories in one issue a number of times. She was forced by the publishers to adopt several pseudonyms as a result.
I would ask anyone what is the harm? If you really want to find a commenter or blogger, and have real cause, it is possible to do so. But, that act leaves a trail also, I am told, so if there is any harassment problem the attacker can be found, even through proxies, if you have proper legal cause. One hopes it never comes to such an end.Comment Posted By mannning On 10.06.2009 @ 15:17
When you ARE a publisher, even of a blog that has a tiny audience, I do think you have an obligation to put your name to it.
An obligation to whom? Since when does the general public or any blogger's feelings take precedence over protection of family?
Using a pseudonym is perfectly proper and fair.
Since when does the sensitivity and ego of a blogger take precedent over polite but firm freedom of expression, right or wrong?
I am seldom if ever provoked to use any smutty language or name-calling, but I do state my opinions as directly as I know how, and, I can be dead wrong, too.
On this site, one can expect to be snarked now and then, although I have been given a no-retort pass almost all of the time by Moran.Comment Posted By mannning On 10.06.2009 @ 10:44
The problem of stalking and threats may be a different matter...
May be a different matter? How easily you gloss over an essential problem! Perhaps you have never been harassed in person, in writing, or over the phone for your opinions on the net. Perhaps you never had your wife pick up the phone only to be subjected to vile comments--upsetting her terribly--by obviously leftwing kooks!
Perhaps you have never had serious threats made to you, and the police, you find, are simply not interested in your situation. "If he calls again, let us know!" So he calls again, and no action. Yes, most threats of this kind are empty, but try telling that to the wife!
You want to post comments, but you do not want this harassment of the family. So you adopt a pseudonym, and go on posting. THIS is my reason for being mannning and not using my real name anymore, and I will continue to do so, here, and elsewhere (unless banned, of course).Comment Posted By mannning On 9.06.2009 @ 23:23
"The names have been changed to protect the innocent."Comment Posted By mannning On 8.06.2009 @ 15:25
First, you comment on some matter, however free of nastiness, and the blogger decides he doesn't like the comment.
So, second, he sends sleeze back in his usual way, and that angers the commenter.
Retorts fly back and forth, until the blogger decides to out the commenter, and publish his real name.
With this name, and a few other hints, any creep or pervert on the internet can find your home address, and begin harassment, or worse, on the net, through the mails, by telephone, or even in person. If you live in a city, the likelihood of 25-50 creeps or perverts living nearby is very high, and it only takes one of them on the net to make home life miserable.
Such revolting activities are unacceptable, and threaten the home and family. All because of some comment that was objected to by the blogger.
Rick Moran does not out anyone in such a manner. Anyone that does do that, and threatens the home life, should be barred from all sites possible. Note that it isn't the outer that is necessarily the danger--think about it!Comment Posted By mannning On 8.06.2009 @ 14:30
Most fiscal conservatives would support an agenda that included: 1)taking a very hard look at every government program and agency to reduce its budget responsibly; 2)to eliminate duplication and regulatory redundancies in government; 3)to plan and execute a greatly decreased spending agenda more fitting to our GNP and revenues; 4)to reduce the number of personnel in government accordingly in a humane manner, such as not replacing retirees in the sectors reduced; 5)to work to reduce the deficit and reach a balance in a responsible manner over time; 6)to align defense budgets with both long and short-term threats; and, 7)to stop nation-building efforts where possible, while living up to our commitments.
Most fiscal conservatives would go along with tax increases to pay down the debt and stabilize Social Security and Medicare, if they could be assured that the increased revenue would be spent for the purpose intended.
The problem is, any increase today would most likely go to programs that have the effect of growing government greatly, and not to the economic stability we want. Universal health care, universal college education for all, subsidies and earmarks left and right, and little fiscal restraint or careful supervision is what we believe would take place. As Senator Grassley said, government agencies go over their
authorized limits in a heartbeat if they think they can get away with it. Those universals may be highly desirable, but not when we are serious debtors. Nations that have such benefits also have tax levels that are onerous: 60-70-80% at the high end plus VAT at 18-20% for everyone for everything purchased.
The key is fiscal responsibility, and the current Congress and Administration leave us with zero faith and trust that they are acting responsibly.Comment Posted By mannning On 4.06.2009 @ 14:54