TheAgitator.com
Incestuous Washington, D.C. Libertarian Rant — or — a Love Post to James Markels
Tuesday, October 28th, 2003I realize this is a bit esoteric for most of you, but I feel compelled to call out my former colleague James Markels, who has moved on to law school, and today aspires to be a federal prosecutor (as a good libertarian, I’m guessing James will limit his caseload to prosecuting treason and piracy, as per the Constitution).
James is in a huff over the way I and some of you and a few others have treated AFF conservative blogger Emily Cochran (just a side note, my post on Emily being “a satirical conservative blogger” was itself a joke — her site, her opinions and her posts are real.).
James apparently feels we have subjected Emily to ridicule both undeserved and excessive.
A few comments he’s left over at her site:
“And, unfortunately, the kind of blogging they [and here, James means me] hail from is more towards the ‘I’m smarter than you so suffer my witty quip’ side of the blogosphere.”“When your only point to being here is to ridicule her or puff yourself up, don’t bother. Go elsewhere.”
And, my personal favorite:
“Let’s steer clear of the kind of petty wars that has forced “The Agitator” blog to screen its comments sections for flames. Okay?”
I find James’ comments amusing. Emily is a political blogger. Her posts are about politics and policy, and she made a habit — at least early on — of ridiculing those who disagree with her. She makes sweeping generalizations, most all unbacked (actually, unable to be backed) by any supporting evidence.
For example:
“The Patriot Act’s most vociferous critics have never even read the Act.”“The incessant chatter of the Chicken Littles, or little chickens, is nothing but incessant chatter. Name one single abuse of civil liberties by officials operating under the Patriot Act. There are not any.”
“There is nothing in the unanimously-passed piece of legislation that is worth raising an eyebrow over.”
“The Left and libertarians, which I would argue, are leftist, have no valid criticisms of Attorney General Ashcroft or President Bush. They have no facts to back up their arguments, just bloated catch phrases and empty rhetoric.”
“But where do libertarians fit into this picture? They certainly do not support the nanny-state mommy-party policies of the Democrats, but in terms of foreign policy, are they ‘mommies’? From the looks of the libertarian blogosphere, I’d say yes, they are mommies in denial about the world and the enemy we face.”
“Ralph Peters has a fabulous piece in the New York Post about the President, intelligence and WMD…. Hope this silences the chatter asphyxiating the chicken littles — or little chickens — of the left.”
Can we dismiss the idea, then, that Emily is an innocent damsel, distressed by a gang of roughian libertarian blog-bullies?
Granted, I chose to criticize Emily’s vapid posts in a slightly unconventional way — through satire. But I never attacked, say, her looks, or her personal life, or her family (and I’ve never met her, so I have no reason to think any of those things are even worthy of criticism, nor would I if they were).
I poked at her argument and writing style, which I find intellecutally bankrupt to the point that it’s comical. Most all of the critical comments I’ve read on Emily’s site do the same. Are they direct and irreverent? Yes. But so is Emily.
The only real difference I can see between Emily and her detractors is that her detractors are simply (much) better at the game. And I say that in all humility.
Further, the fact that Emily’s site is hosted by a real-life organization that’s familiar to most young libertarians and conservatives in Washington — as opposed, for example, to a site she set up on her own on Blogspot — I think makes her even fairer game.
As for James’ implication that I’m a hypocrite for attacking Emily while “screening comments for flames” on my own site, he’s off-base. I’ve banned three IP addresses from this site. One was from a user posting the personal information of me and people I know. The other two were leaving threats, though I suspect they were ultimately harmless. I’ve deleted less than ten comments in this site’s history — out of about 13,000 left.
Even more comical, however, is James’ alleged aversion to blogging in general.
Apparently, blogging is far too pedestrian a medium for the lofty intellect of this to-be lawyer.
And he’d like everyone who reads blogs to know it.
He writes on Cochran’s site:
The only reason I read this blog and Gene’s is because Brainwash publishes my articles, so I’m trying to support the site as a whole. I normally stick to the more informationally-based blogs (like “How Appealing” and the other bLAWgs that provide the latest inside legal information to practitioners) because I get so tired of the egoism inherent in the opinion-based blogs.
What sacrifice! How noble of James to stoop to reading ego-driven, 500 word blog posts on AFF in order to selflessly support AFF, which publishes his far more intellectually rigorous, 750-word opinion pieces!
Bravo, James! Your chivalry is duly noted. I’m sure AFF is very appreciative of the “hits” your sacrifice adds to its traffic statistics.
James also obviously reads this site regularly, becuase he knows that I’ve recently had some problems in the comments section. He also reads Andrew Sullivan, though he notes that it’s “one of the few blogs worth reading.”
But again, please remember, James doesn’t read blogs.
So James has fearlessly, brazenly ventured into a blogosphere he hates for the sole purpose, I guess, of letting all the world know how much he hates blogs. And he uses blogs as his medium to deliver his blog-hating message. So it can be read by bloggers. And by people who read blogs.
I’m not done.
On his own self-published website, James has a charming third-person penned “bio” page. There, he writes:
Why doesnâ??t he [James] blog? Because he doesnâ??t think itâ??s serious writing, and itâ??s more of an ego vehicle than is tasteful. He sticks to op-eds and longer pieces.
Note that one reason we know that James finds blogging to be a distasteful “ego vehicle” is because he says so on his own website.
That he set up.
To promote himself.
And his op-eds.
And the political party he founded.
And his short fiction.
And his poetry.
But he doesn’t blog, dammit. Because that would be egocentric.
Get over yourself, James.
UPDATE: Per James’ comments below: No, I’m not angry. Not in the least. I suppose when I get on a rant, my writing can get aggressive, which can be misread as anger. In truth, I found the whole thing amusing. No, I don’t hate James. No, I’m not declaring war on anyone. There’s no “larger issue,” here.
The post was what it was — I thought it was pretentious and stuffy for a guy to denigrate blogs and blogging on websites that are actually quite blog-like (in fact, James once was part of a group blog).
I also found it comical that someone who would would criticize the egocentric nature of blogs would at the same time host a vanity site that publishes his own fiction and poetry — and that he would link to that site from AFF, a site he writes for, which also publishes two blogs.
And so I decided to compose a little rant call him on it.
But nah, I’m not angry. And again, I don’t hate James. I just think he’s a bit full of himself. But then, Washington is full of people full of themselves. Me included.
I promise, I was smiling as I wrote the entire post.
Remind me never to f with you.
OWNED
Gee, how can I provoke my own 1100 word screed?
Write something silly.
I’ll do my best.
Radley “The Agitator” Balko off the top rope with an ELBOW!
You are an angry, angry man. You’ve been angry for a few weeks. There have been multiple targets for your wrath. Emily, blog flamers and now this guy.
What’s really going on?
Wow. Somebody needs a hug.
Let’s see, the world is going to hell in a handbasket and what do we have? A personal attack on a person no one has ever heard of, gossip no one cares about, and a baby announcement.
I think this second-rate blog just slipped to third-rate.
I think all of this is really undignified and sad. very petty.
Nice post Radley, very biting but still rather amusing.
Look at what James Markels was saying in the context of this post. Cochran’s detractors aren’t “better at the game.” They’re boring and mean. It’s one thing to single out a libertarians as a whole, it’s entirely different to leave a comment (under an alias, of course) that says specifically to the writer: “You are an imbecile.”
There is a clique of bloggers and they do gossip at AFF happy hours. Sometimes their gossip makes it to the blogs. If Markels knew comments are blocked on this site it’s not neccessarily that he “reads this site regularly” — but maybe he knows someone who does. The accused blog-elitism is something you infered, rather than what he wrote.
There are pleny of “inner circle” bloggers who could use a “Horse Whisperer” or two to keep their arrogance, if not utter stupidity in check. And there are plenty of people who use their blogs to, as your post does, tastelessly disguise an ad hominem attack as a debate.
And I hardly think maintaining an Earthlink homepage is the same thing as checking your blog on technorati every five minutes. I expect better from you, Radley.
Hey Mr. Balko,
By any chance does this Emily Cochran look like a man?
â?¦ And just how big is her adamâ??s apple?
Radley’s rant wasn’t ad hominem. He addressed Markels’ beefs directly—articulating why Emily Cochran is open to criticism and why her discourse is comically weak and without substance. He also countered Markels’ attack on The Agitator for screening comments, specifically citing the number of banned IPs and deleted posts.
Then, he bitch-slapped Markels for being an ostentatious hypocrite. I’m sorry, but anyone so brazenly pretentious as to post this in a bio on his own website deserves a smack in his swollen head: “Why doesnâ??t he [James] blog? Because he doesnâ??t think itâ??s serious writing, and itâ??s more of an ego vehicle than is tasteful. He sticks to op-eds and longer pieces.”
And please, check out all of Markels’ website if you want to see an egregious example of Internet self love. Sure there’s some ego inherent in blogging, but his Web site will make you wretch. “At this time, the [Constitutionalist Party] is the brainchild of James Markels, the founder . . .”
Yikes.
Umm, “[bitch-slapping] Markels for being an ostentatious hypocrite” is an ad hominem. Thank you for playing, man-with-an-alias
Wow, I sure touched a raw nerve, now didn’t I? When I heard about this post, I thought, “Oh please, Radley’s smarter and calmer than [i]that[/i].” Oops.
First off, I don’t want to be a federal prosecutor. I’d rather be a state prosecutor. Just so you’re up to date.
Second, I never defended Emily’s content. I don’t agree with much on her site, which is usual enough since I’m libertarian and she isn’t. What I disagree with is the rank name-calling and “I’m smarter than you” crap. Fine, you think her arguments are so dumb that they don’t deserve the work it takes to debunk them. I’m cool with that. But substituting those arguments with ad hominem attacks just doesn’t wash. If she’s that bad, then just ignore her. People ignore stupid blogs, right?
Third, I never, implicitly or explicitly, accused you of being a hypocrite. I had heard that your blog had resorted to some form of screening in the comments section to prevent excessive flaming — which is correct since you are screening out some IP addresses from posting. All I wanted was for the situation in Emily’s blog to not get to that point. I didn’t know you were insulting Emily on her blog (there have been multiple aliases doing it, and of course I’m no mindreader in the matter — plus Emily suspected you were doing some of it but all I had seen was that someone had linked to your post here slagging her, so I thought what was more likely was that your blog was attracting your readers to her blog, and it was they who were doing the attacking). You’re basically accusing me of knowing more than I actually did about this whole matter, and infering my intent (wrongly) from there.
Fourth, no, I don’t read your blog. I did read that one post of yours that was linked to in Emily’s comments section. I’ve never said that I “don’t read blogs,” as you assert. I’ve stated quite clearly which blogs I do read (mostly bLAWgs that focus on law-related information, as well as Sullivan as a guilty pleasure), so your attempt to set me up as some enemy of bloggers is simply wrong. I don’t blog, I say as much. I prefer to write op-eds. Blogging, in my mind, rewards the habit of typing faster than you think. It’s not the size that matters (although you seem to think of that as some sort of maxim — perhaps another anger-related issue of yours?), it’s the opportunity for reflection that does. It’s just a personal taste thing — I’m not throwing down this online gauntlet at the blogosphere. And all the referential linking and such is just too ego-driven for me. Is a personal Web site ego-driven? Sure, but not as much so. I’m not pushing people to link to my site, proudly displaying my list of “referrers.” I’m not pushing constant content to maximize my hits per day or anything. It’s just a standard personal Web site. I archive my writing (even my admittedly crappy poetry, which I’m surprised your petty rage didn’t glom upon and quote extensively) and some other things there. Big deal. The whole point and drive of a blog is completely different, which is why they are a different medium online and are referred to as “blogs” and not “personal Web sites,” natch.
So, it seems like you’ve taken a couple of innocuous comments of mine, blown them up into some ridiculous Bloggers-vs.-Markels online war, and then lambasted me for things I didn’t do and intentions I never had. See, if you had taken a breath and just sent me an email, we could have talked about this and cleared up the misconceptions. Instead you go on this silly warpath. Why are you so angry? A person makes the slightest inclination that blogging isn’t the best thing since the car radio and suddenly it’s time to go psycho? Christ, give it a break.
Oh, one final thing. CowboyDan had a problem with my noting on the Constitutionalist Party Web site that the CP is my “brainchild,” since he thought that was a pretty egotistical statement. I wrote that because I kept getting email from people who thought that the CP was a real, established political party, and they wanted to know how to register, vote for CP candidates, volunteer, etc. It seemed to me to be the best way to tell them that the CP is just an idea of mine at this point, not a full political party, so don’t bother registering for it or looking for CP candidates. Note that I don’t copyright anything on the site; the whole thing is me thinking out loud about how I would put together a viable third party. I don’t care if people steal the ideas or not, with or without attribution. I merely don’t see any reason why I need to dupe people into thinking that it’s a real political party. That’s all.
See, now this is what I’m talking about. Forget the boring political commentary blogs. Leave that to the online magazines. I’m looking for bickering. I’m looking for mud-slinging. This is the kind of thing that entertains me while I’m slogging through work.
Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!
Even odder, I just noticed that back in July, 2002, Radley had a post titled, “Friend and colleague James Markels,” where he substantively agreed with an op-ed I wrote for AFF’s Brainwash. So, uh, what the hell happened in the last 16 months that suddenly made him read all these attacks into my words? I know I’ve disagreed with a couple of things on this site before I stopped reading it, but I definitely wasn’t criticizing Radley in a way that deserved this all-out declaration of war. It was just in fellow good-naturely disagreement. The July post header was correct; we certainly were friends and colleagues then. Not anymore. A friend and colleague would have at least had the decency to check with me about what I knew/meant before going off on a rampage.
Jeez, when I criticize leftists and conservatives, they don’t get nearly as angry as when I dare disagree with my fellow libertarians. What’s with that?
Well, James, libertarians are an undersexed bunch. That can cause anger. I mean, you’ve been to the conferences and seminars, I’m sure. They’re great if you’re a gay man who happens to like ugly men, but otherwise your SOL. I include myself in this, of course.
I’d like to point out that people who don’t like ad hominems are assholes.
Truly, ad hominem is a LOGICAL fallacy. So you can’t logically establish P by attacking someone who maintains ~P. But if the proposition you want to establish is that Bob is a dick, an idiot, or a hypocrite, then ad hominem against Bob is THE ONLY WAY to go. Nothing wrong with that!
I’m still trying to figure out whether op-eds are a step up or a step down from blogging.
Uh, there’s nothing “comical” about someone who thinks that blogs are too egocentric but that personal Web sites aren’t. You don’t detect a difference between the two types of sites? Your argument boils down to saying that anyone who thinks blogs are too egocentric are hypocrites if they maintain any other Web presence whatsoever. Got an account on Friendster? Egoist! That’s stupid. It would be comical if I thought blogs were too egotistical but then maintained an online diary or something. But I don’t.
You just don’t like it when someone doesn’t think that blogs are the Next Big Thing or something, so you took it personally.
And if you think “smiling as [you] wrote the entire post” while ripping into me for things I didn’t intend or do is supposed to make it all better, then three words for you: Fuck you, Radley.
But comments threads are definitely a step down.
Wow. This one really blew up.
Joanne, I am familiar with what an ad hominem is. My point was, Radley addressed Markels’ agruements head on first, then bitch-slapped him.
To clarify further, Radley didn’t say, “Markels’ arguments are wrong because he’s a pretentous ass.” He said, “Markels’ agruments are wrong, and he’s a pretentious ass.” There’s a difference.
bonsai
bonsai tree
bonsai trees
gardening
trees
http://cbpower.pedronetwork.com
depression test
clinical depression
symptoms of depression
cause of depression
depression symptoms
http://medagd.pedronetwork.com
golf
golf clubs
jack nicklaus
sports
pga
golf tips
http://bizonline.pedronetwork.com
fishing
fly fishing
bass fishing
lures
http://fishinglures.sweetbuyz.com
get paid to shop
shopping jobs
professional shopper
http://get-paid-to-shop.bargainfront.com
cellulite treatment
cellulite reduction
getting rid of cellulite
causes of cellulite
cellulite cream
http://callenbr2.pedronetwork.com
quit smoking
stop smoking
smoking cessation programs
cigarette addiction information
nicotine addiction
nicotine patch
http://quitsmoking.crpublish.com
motion sickness
dizziness
causes of vertigo
nausea
dizzy
http://netpi2.pedronetwork.com
hiking
hiking boots
hiking gear
backpacking equipment
http://backpacking.sweetbuyz.com
http://rule.playpoker-tip.com/kykpypfeu/ lockernevershave
http://real-estate_school.ivtcscs.org bikerdisregardedinclosed
http://finance-companies.finances-inco.com/nudxkzp/ mattordealskirt
http://texasloan.m-moore.org/xovtreqo/ causedisdainfamous
888
cartoon porn
gqheukptj xtlu hptjnfi wnipvth fqzrejku uwyvszr clhvad
http://www.ringtones-dir.com/get/ ringtones site free. Download ringtones FREE, Best free samsung ringtones, Cingular ringtones and more. From website .
http://www.ringtones-dir.com/get/ ringtones site free. Best free samsung ringtones, Cingular ringtones and more, Ringtones for free. From website .
hkzjniw lvpamcisg pfeuticor omijf koteb lzqmvnycs sljxaqfdw
szlhifabj xmaqzyic stynugipm okbe jwvdic jlnrk srtvl http://www.ysjgua.rbuvcxdq.com
jonny