Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Wanted: Leadership In America

Wanted: Leadership In America

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

It's been very hard for me to write lately. There is so much to write about, yet due to several factors (some medical) I can't get a start to writing easily. The recent news has not been very good, and we as a nation could use some good news. We need a hero, and all we get are zeros.

When a society sinks into the tarry sands, and its drive is sapped by adverse events, that is the time for a leader to arise. But the qualities of that leader determine whether such an emergence from the pack is a good thing or a bad thing. Let's look at 1933 as the example.

On this side of the Atlantic, Franklin Roosevelt stepped out of the ranks of the economically privileged and did what he could for a nation in financial and emotional distress. With stirring words, he strove to act on behalf of the sorely beset nation. His imperfect but heartfelt focus was on improving the lot of the average American and putting the nation back on the path to prosperity. He sought cooperation from all quarters, but didn't allow the lack of it to prevent him from acting as he saw fit. Some of his actions worked toward that goal, while others did not. In some initiatives he had the general support of the populace, and in others he generated powerful and dangerous opposition. But the final tally came out on the side of the average American despite thirteen years of the worst travail to afflict us outside of civil war.

On the other side of the Atlantic, Adolph Hitler stepped out of the ranks of the disgruntled and disenfranchised, seeking to do what he could for a nation in financial and emotional distress. With stirring words, he strove to act on behalf of a small portion of that sorely beset nation, turning that portion against the many other portions and claiming that all was for the benefit of the State. His imperious and deeply felt convictions were focused on improving the lot of the German Empire and putting that empire back on the path to prosperity at the expense of its neighboring nations. He sought no cooperation. He imposed his inviolate will, backed by the demonstrated threat of escalated violence should that will be opposed. In all of his initiatives, he assumed the general support of the populace, for he would allow no one to stand up against the might of his State without retribution. He should have generated powerful and dangerous opposition, but the major powers of Europe failed to stop him when they easily could (see: Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer). His audacious ambitions realized and unopposed, Hitler was only emboldened to push for more and more until he overreached and destroyed the very nation he sought to enhance. The final tally came out on the side of Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse because of thirteen years of the worst travail to afflict the world ever in its history.

In my opinion, the last real leader America had who came close to fitting the FDR mold was John Kennedy. He stepped out of the ranks of the privileged and did what he could for a nation in social and international distress. With stirring words, he strove to act on behalf of the sorely beset nation. His imperfect but heartfelt focus was on improving the lot of the average American and putting the nation back on the path to unity. He sought cooperation from all quarters, but didn't allow the lack of it to prevent him from acting as he saw fit. Some of his actions worked toward that goal, while others did not. In some initiatives he had the general support of the populace, and in others he generated powerful and dangerous opposition. But the final tally came out on the side of the average American despite the thirteen years of Vietnam and the worst racial travail to afflict us since the civil war.

Back in 2008, the nation again sought a leader, and thought it voted for one. Barack Obama stepped out of the ranks of academic privilege, and with stirring words told us that he would do what he could for a nation in economic, emotional, and international distress. He swore to act on behalf of the sorely beset nation. His imperfect but heartfelt focus was declared to be set on improving the lot of the average American and putting the nation back on the path to prosperity. Yet he only sought cooperation from a small portion of that sorely beset nation, and allowed the lack of cooperation to prevent him from acting. Through his inaction, he allowed that small portion to turn against the many other portions, and claimed that all was for the benefit of the economy. None of his actions worked toward that stated goal of improving the lot of the average American. His seriously shallow convictions were instead focused on improving the prospects of the American Economic Empire and putting that empire back on the path to prosperity, all at the expense of both its domestic citizens and Its international neighbors. In few initiatives had he the general support of the populace, and in most he generated powerful and dangerous opposition.

But the final tally has yet to emerge. The average American has now endured over thirteen months of the worst social, political, and fiscal travail to afflict us in decades, a condition which left untreated could yet lead to civil war. We sought a leader and were denied. I don't think it too strong a position to state that we were fooled again.

It is still time to seek a leader, for our numerous and various needs grow worse daily. Yet on all sides we are surrounded only by self-serving fools, knaves, and mountebanks. There is no lofty vision which seeks to benefit the nation as a whole; just entrenched and venal interests seeking to enhance their personal and political advantages. There is no understanding that Main Street is more important than Wall Street. There are no candidates for leader.

The Republicans have demonstrated no vision, or else their strategy of Just Say No would have been applied at least 8 years ago when it might have done some good. The Democrats have demonstrated no understanding, for they continue to utilize failed strategies to achieve little. We currently allow no other parties to have access to power, and the American people just now are very much in want of one.

So here we now sit, disheartened by an administration which allows a foreign corporation to tell it what it is willing to doand when– while behind closed doors out of the public view (see: BP). Here we now sit, while private interests are given the cover of nationality to pursue international goals for private gain (see: G20). Here we now sit, on the curb, surrounded by all of our evicted possessions, wondering how we are going to reverse our wretched fortunes and who we will blame for them (see: Tea Baggers).

The United States is now in another 1933 situation, and some kind of a leader will eventually emerge. Human nature and history suggest that this leader will most likely be something of a self-serving opportunist, so it is not likely that we will again benefit from a new FDR. We are much more likely to experience a Julius Caesar, a Robespierre, a Napoleon, a Lenin, a Mussolini, a Hitler, a Stalin, a Mao, a Pol Pot – or worse.

We still have a choice. Are we smart enough to realize this and act accordingly? All the world is watching – and wonders.

Powered by

About pessimist

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/alan-kurtz Alan Kurtz

    I’m sorry to hear that you have medical problems, and don’t mean to poke fun, but this article is so feverish that I advise you to get more bed rest. “The average American,” you write, “has now endured over 13 months of the worst social, political, and fiscal travail to afflict us in decades, a condition which left untreated could yet lead to civil war.” Likening this situation to 1933, you say it’s “not likely that we will again benefit from a new FDR. We are much more likely to experience a Julius Caesar, a Robespierre, a Napoleon, a Lenin, a Mussolini, a Hitler, a Stalin, a Mao, a Pol Pot – or worse.”

    This is all hysterically over the top. How many nations where 99% of households possess at least one TV, and 66% own three or more TVs, have ever experienced civil war? And, please, what in God’s name do you mean by “worse” than that lineup of murderous dictators you named? How could anyone short of the Antichrist be worse than those homicidal thugs?

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    I must agree with Alan. Real, this piece is overwrought to an extreme. I don’t know how old you are, but as a practicing sextagenerian I have lived through at least 3 or 4 other serious economic downturns, most of which lasted far longer than your 13 months.

    I certainly don’t agree with your assessment of Obama. He has certainly made mistakes, but so too did your heros FDR and JFK. And as to the latter, I have always been an admirer of Kennedy, but his shortended presidency was not such that one could apply the kind of judgments you make in its regard.

    It seems to me that you are in fact buying into the Glenn Beckian hysteria and the Rush Limbaugh bullshit. Things are bad; there’s no questioning that. But to characterize Obama as you do is IMO unfair and just wrong. No president, no administration, no congress can by their efforts alone turn our economy around. It will turn around in its own time. All that can be accomplished by government is to tweak, and perhaps guide to a degree the direction the economy moves. Little more. The notion that Obama and the government are pawns being handled by big business is no more nor no less true than any previous administration, congress, etc. Your vergent hysteria and hand ringing only feed the fire which, could in fact lead to violence.

    B

  • Ruvy

    The real tally on this administration (for you Americans) is still out. Wait a bit and see how much this Gulf disaster (and the corresponding attempts at a media blackout), the authority to shut down the internet (before it shuts down Obama), the weakening market, the dollar being propped up while the euro falls, and all the other lovely stuff happening in America plays out. By the time Obama’s defenders are down to Michelle and his kids, the internet will have been shut down, and you Americans will have been told to sit down, shut up, and do what the guy with the taser and the black uniform tells you to.

    Looks like fun. Happy 234th!

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    I see you can’t actually keep your promise/threat to stop commenting here Ruvy, just as you can’t stop making hysterical over the top remarks that make no sense, regardless of what it is you are trying to talk about, secular or spiritual.

    Have you seen the TV show called Grumpy Old Men? You ought to contact them and see if they’ll have you on!

  • Mark

    …some kind of a leader will eventually emerge

    We don’t need no stinkin’ Leader. Individual social responsibility — there’s the ticket.

    Death to guru worship!

  • Mark

    BTW, No president, no administration, no congress can by their efforts alone turn our economy around. It will turn around in its own time. All that can be accomplished by government is to tweak, and perhaps guide to a degree the direction the economy moves. Little more.

    Dunno, Baritone. The story is that without TARP we would’ve crashed and burned. And without the stimulus unemployment would have run significantly higher…hardly ‘tweaks’.

    And now the government is shifting pain onto the unemployed — class war at its finest and a ‘big fucking deal’.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Mark,

    You are correct about the above. However, over the long haul, any major economy will go its own way – as it appears to be doing now despite efforts to stem the tide of unemployment and generally poor performance in most of the economy. TARP and the stimulus package were extraordinary moves which had a dramatic effect in the short run, but have thus far failed to provide enough umph to get us over the top (or bottom) of the current downturn. Regardless of Rep/conservative complaints to the contrary, I believe they were necessary moves. Their implementation – especially regarding TARP left a lot to be desired, but they did serve to prop up the economy adequately to avoid its going completely off the rails.

    It’s easy for congress to dis the unemployed as they have no real voice and certainly have nothing to add to political coffers. The denial of further unemployment benefits by congress among other things defended by notions of fiscal responsibility concerns is certainly disingenuous given all the hundreds of billions handed out to Wall Street, the banks, etc.

    B

  • Mark

    Makes one wonder how long folks’ll put up with a political system that supports a boom and bust economy.

  • Doug Hunter

    #8

    We could live under the permanent bust / everyone born as a slave to the government. With a 13 trillion $ debt we’re pretty much already there. IMO that has been the plan all along, to make us all debt slaves (at least with a private business I get a chance to review the contract before they screw me).

  • Ruvy

    Rest assured, Christopher, of one thing. British Petroleum’s abiotic oil (along with the benzene, hydrogen sulfide and other goodies) will reach Britain – carried to you for free by the Gulf Stream!

    I’ll be publishing an article here in the not too distant future, and as little as I like dealing with you as a comments editor, I’ll have to comment. Afterwards, I can go back to my silence and to ignoring the mostly irrelevant articles that inhabit this site.

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    Maybe it will, Ruvy, but we’ll cope if it does.

    Nothing to say to defend your utterly wackadoodle prophecies about the USA? Thought not; we both know it is just more embittered, pessimistic twaddle.

    Tell you what, why don’t you consider ignoring the site completely? I doubt anybody will much notice or care.

  • http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/author/danmiller/ Dan Miller

    Here is my well thought out solution to the problem.

    Dan(Miller)

  • John Wilson

    How ’bout if we start by getting rid of the Senate, which has consistently been a stumbling block to progress.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/alan-kurtz Alan Kurtz

    Christopher Rose (#11), I agree that Ruvy’s contributions to Blogcritics are “embittered, pessimistic twaddle” and that his prophecies about the USA are “utterly wackadoodle.” But it troubles me that a Blogcritics editor would suggest: “Why don’t you consider ignoring the site completely? I doubt anybody will much notice or care.”

    Is this an official request by you on behalf of Blogcritics? If so, I think it ought to be communicated privately by email, not in a post for everyone to see. Moreover, if Ruvy’s ouster must be done publicly, it should come as an announcement cum explanation by publisher Eric Olsen or executive editor Lisa McKay.

    Personally, I’d be sorry to see that happen because I prefer to think of Blogcritics as a place where even wackadoodle twaddle, however unpopular it may be, can be published as long as it’s competently written. Much as I detest Ruvy’s sentiments, I urge him to resist your pressure to get rid of him, and I hope Mr. Olsen does not follow your dismissive example.

  • STM

    Just want to offer my sincere and heartfelt condolences to all Americans on this July 4, celebrating the sorry anniversary of your great mistake in splitting from the British Empire.

    This is obviously the cause of all your leadership problems.

    The solution: Simply call Liz at Buck House and ask if you can come to the table, and ask if you can run the whole thing. I don’t think they’d be in a position to say no.

    Under the parliamentary democracy system, you can then get rid of an unpopular and badly performing leader any time you like, provided you can convince the party apparatchiks and pollsters of the value of it!

    There is also scope for elections to be held BEFORE the full term is up.

    Why wait four years. The time is always now!

    Apart from that, I hope everyone had a great Independence Day, and didn’t a) eat too many hotdogs and b) drink too much beer.

    If you did, though, that sounds pretty good to me, especially if you get a sleep in.

    Cheers Yanks!

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Well, we had homemade pizza, only drank three beers and stayed in to watch a James Bond movie. Didn’t even bother driving over to the local high school to watch their display this year.

    Sorry, Seppos, but Firework Night without a warm coat, a raging bonfire and going indoors for mulled wine and mince pies afterwards just isn’t the same.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    I don’t think there was anything “official” about Christopher’s suggestion. I think it was just personal opinion. As an editor, it may be incumbant upon him to measure his comments a bit more than others. His suggestion to Ruvy above may have edged a bit closer to the “line,” but I don’t think he quite crossed over it.

    B

  • STM

    Doc, I prefer the Queen’s Birthday long weekend, which is traditionally our old fireworks’ night but given the different state legislation now regarding the letting off of “personal” fireworks, now it’s just a beer and barbecue long weekend.

    What I particularly like about it is that it’s not even the Queen’s birthday!

    Only in Australia could you have a long weekend celebrating something that’s not even on that day :)

    British Fireworks’ Night is the celebration of Guy Fawkes and his Catholic mates getting busted before they blew up the houses of parliament and the King and his family along with it, right??

    In which case, that must date back four centuries to the period when Spain, France, Rome, Catholics and the Jesuit order conspired to remove the denmocractic traditions of England and replace it with absolute monarchy guided by the black hand of Rome??

    Love it.

    You should take a leaf out of the Seppos’ handbook and get the hotdogs on, though, with lots of red, white and blue. They do now how to hold a party over that side of the very big pond.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Methinks Alan’s obsession with the comments process here is a little overbaked.

  • STM

    Alan’s a relative newbie, right??

    He doesn’t understand that Chris and Ruvy what could best be described as an understanding … to slag each other off at every opportunity.

    Where’s the harm in all this? Nowhere.

    This is, in fact, free speech at its best and carried to the Nth degree.

  • STM

    Agree with him on this passage, though: “not likely that we will again benefit from a new FDR. We are much more likely to experience a Julius Caesar, a Robespierre, a Napoleon, a Lenin, a Mussolini, a Hitler, a Stalin, a Mao, a Pol Pot – or worse”.

    What too many Americans given to spouting this kind of rubbish conveniently forget is that their system of government is underpinned by rule of law.

    He’s possibly right on the Julius Caesar/Napoleon bit, though … American presidents have too much power and unfortunately have often carried on like the celebrated but doomed emporers of Rome and France.

    Removing more power power from the president and his unelected cabinet and giving it to the elected representatives of the people in Congress would be one way out of the morass.

    The US presidential system is that different from electing an all-powerful monarch every three years.

    Time to make the president’s job more of a figurehead role, do away with unelected cabinet members and have a Prime Minister’s role or equivalent, with a controlling party in Congress, who is both head of government and wholly answerable to the people, along with an elected cabinet.

    This is the great flaw in American democracy (and I mean democracy in the modern sense, not the ancient Greek).

    In America, sadly it’s not that democratic. Too many influential lobbyists and corporate heads whispering in important ears in the corridors of power in Washington.

    The only people who count in this equation are the people.

    The people ARE the government in a free, democratic society. Time to get a real handle on that concept in the US.

  • Ruvy

    I’ve decided to leave off commenting here for one basic reason, Stan. I’ll not have a comments editor erasing my hard work in comments here, no matter how civilly I present them.. Your opinions, Chris’ opinions or anyone else’s opinions here are just that, opinions, and like me, everyone is entitled to have them.

    But I’ll not work hard on a comment and waste my time at this site, only to see my comments erased.

    I’m done here until my next article.

  • Arch Conservative

    I know Ruvy. I’ve recently had some pretty mundane comments erased twice.

    Apparently the editor’s of this website ave recently subscribed to the “Barack Obama” school of free speech.

    As for looking for worthwhile leadership in this nation. Washington DC is the last place one should be looking

  • Mark

    The censors have given both of you lots of leeway in the ‘personal attack’ department over the years. I guess they just got sick of your shit.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Chris is perfectly entitled to enter the comments fray as freely as any other commenter, as long as Commenter Chris does not interfere with the responsibilities of Editor Chris.

    As comments editors, Chris and I are well aware of the potential conflict of interest which comes with also being participants in the site. We have an arrangement that if, with our commenter’s hat on, either of us becomes embroiled in a heated discussion in which poo is thrown, we will leave it to the other to do any necessary wielding of the scissors.

    It is interesting to note that Chris and I have, on occasion, become involved in a heated discussion with each other, although not as yet of a nature which would need editing!

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Archie, you and Ruvy are among a small group of commenters who are given less indulgence than most because of your past behaviour.

    You have become much more civil of late than you used to be, though, which has been noted and is appreciated.

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    Mr Kurtz, in response to your #14, my remarks to Ruvy are entirely my own.

    He is the one who took it upon himself to say that he was no longer going to make comments here because his ego wouldn’t allow him to accept that he had in fact made lots of extremely offensive remarks towards Americans, the British and most other Westerners, to say nothing of Turks, peace activists and the “wrong kind” of both Jews and Israelis.

    He has even called more than once for the nuking of everywhere from London, Tehran and even Tel Aviv. If a Muslim or a Nazi made such a remark about Israel, I wonder how he would feel about that?

    Naturally and quite properly I have either edited or deleted those remarks and informed him as to why they were unacceptable, yet in his “messianic” zeal he has continued to post them whilst making pointless, inaccurate and hostile complaints about me to the bosses of this site, rather than accepting that he has gone too far.

    He is also very hostile to this site in general, as you can see for yourself in comment #10 above and, in my opinion, is only exploiting this site’s far greater popularity in comparison to his own blog in order to promote his largely hate-filled and entirely unachievable beliefs, which are based on the religious works of fiction which he believes to be of divine origin and therefore above mere human thought.

    He even uses his Blogcritics writer biography to call for people to come to his site as he “won’t be commenting at this site” but, as you see, can’t even manage to do that, preferring instead to continue to spew his ludicrous bile here. I simply invited him to stick to his words and consider taking it one step further.

    Baritone: Thank you for your #17.

    STM: You are mistaken in your #20. Ruvy slags me off at every opportunity, in my opinion because his ego is bigger than his ability to reason.

    I merely repel his excesses, which only enrages his extremism further, just as reason enrages all hate-filled people. If it wasn’t for the fact that he is still currently a Blogcritics writer, he would already be banned from the comments space.

    As you can see in his #22, and setting aside the irony of him making a comment despite saying he wouldn’t, he still thinks his comments are being edited or deleted “no matter how civilly I present them” rather than accepting what he has been told many times, that racist, hateful and/or murderous remarks will not be accepted, no matter how they are expressed.

    Archie: You are ascloseasthis to being banned yourself for your chronic inability to stop making personal attacks on other commenters.

    Indeed, it is only my commitment to embracing as wide a range of opinions as possible that makes me edit out your immature hostility rather than simply banning you, which I would be entirely entitled to do if I so chose.

    You should be glad that I am trying very hard to be inclusive, rather than taking an easier course, but please don’t make the mistake of assuming my tolerance of your lack of impulse control is infinite.

    Mark – If anyone is a censor, which is debatable, it would be those who drafted the comments policy, not those who apply it.

    However, just as Dave Nalle’s naively optimistic philosophy that every person should take on complete personal responsibility rather than delegating certain matters to government, although superficially attractive, will never actually happen, interaction on a comparatively high profile site like this would be impossible without having some boundaries, precisely because of people like Ruvy, Archie or worse.

    This site is welcoming of an incredibly broad spectrum of people and their opinions, far more so than other more partisan sites, which is one of its main attractions. Its users simply need to adopt a modicum of good manners and a dash of common sense and would then rarely if ever have their comments moderated, a situation I would love to see but sometimes despair of ever seeing.

  • Mark

    …did I say censors? I meant slashers.

  • http://www.joannehuspek.wordpress.com Joanne Huspek

    I think what Realist is saying is a true feeling for those who put so much faith and hope into one man. (Sorry to hear about your health, R. Hang in there.) This I agree with him on… there are NO true leaders leading this country. What we have are a bunch of rock-stars-in-their-own-minds who delight in mugging for the camera and spending someone else’s (ours) money. Look for a statesman among the lot, and there are none.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    A statesman is just what a politician likes to call himself.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I must agree with Mark. Ruvy is delusional if he keeps on referring to most his comments on BC as civil in tone and by-product of hard work and thought. Practically every other word coming out of his mouth, or pen as the case may be, is a term of insult.

  • Arch Conservative

    From dreadful I get…

    “You have become much more civil of late than you used to be, though, which has been noted and is appreciated.”

    and from Christopher I get:

    “Archie: You are ascloseasthis to being banned yourself for your chronic inability to stop making personal attacks on other commenters.”

    Well which is it? I think it’s the former as I have in fact not been making any personal attacks as of late. Admit it Christopher, you just have a personal dislike for me.

    I had a comment removed from “let them play golf.” I don’t know why the comment was removed as it did not contain a personal attach but rather a reference to the fact that Michael Moore does not follow Barack Obama around with a camera when playing golf.

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    Archie, I don’t have a personal dislike for you at all. In fact, I have a certain sympathy for parts of your opinion arc, but not a lot for the way you go about it.

    It may be too much for you to take on board but both statements are true. You have been more civil lately but you have also had six comments deleted and three edited just since 15 May so, given your record, your are ascloseasthis, but are now only on probation rather than double secret probation!

  • Arch Conservative

    So why was the Michael Moore golf comment removed?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Why don’t you repost it so we may have a good look?

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    Archie, you are confused; that comment was never removed at all. See for yourself – Posted by Arch Conservative to And So It Goes: The Implosion of the Obama Presidency on 2010.06.27, 05:07:29 AM

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/alan-kurtz Alan Kurtz

    Christopher Rose (#27), in your aside to Mark you write, “If anyone is a censor, which is debatable, it would be those who drafted the comments policy, not those who apply it.” I’m unsure what you’re getting at here. Are you, as comments editor, distancing yourself from the comments policy? If so, that’s rather extraordinary, and begs the question: How in good conscience can you serve as comments editor if you disagree with the policy?

    Anyway, it’s clearer than ever that you’re trying to expel Ruvy from the Blogcritics promised land not because of his tone (which is indisputably uncivil) but due to the content of his posts. Just within the space of two comments on this thread, you’ve cited Ruvy’s “utterly wackadoodle prophecies … embittered, pessimistic twaddle … largely hate-filled and entirely unachievable beliefs, which are based on the religious works of fiction which he believes to be of divine origin and therefore above mere human thought.” This has nothing to do with the BC comments policy, does it, Christopher? It’s all about your personal animus against Ruvy.

    In my opinion, that animus is well deserved, and I deplore Ruvy’s ideas as much as you do. But the difference is, I’m not in a position to banish him from Blogcritics, and like to think I could resist that temptation even if I did have such power.

  • http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/author/danmiller/ Dan(Miller)

    Christopher, re #36 I think you are confused. Arch said, in Comment 33,

    I had a comment removed from “let them play golf.” I don’t know why the comment was removed as it did not contain a personal attach but rather a reference to the fact that Michael Moore does not follow Barack Obama around with a camera when playing golf.

    I saw the comment there, briefly, and then poof! It was gone. There were three, one from Glen, one from Arch and one from me; and then there were but two. I saw nothing in Arch’s comment there which could in any reasonable way be construed as in violation of the BC comment policy.

    Dan(Miller)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    There were ten Indians to start with, and then, there were none.

    BTW, Alan, I don’t object to Ruvy’s content, only to his style.

    I find it deplorable and beyond the pale. So yes, I would exercise the banishment option for that reason alone.

  • http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/author/danmiller/ Dan(Miller)

    Christopher, the comment by Arch that I meant to link was number 32, not 33 — unless perhaps some intervening comment was deleted in while I was posting.

    Dan(Miller)

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    Alan, I’m not sure what you are getting at, but would have thought the distinction between those who draft laws and those who apply them was clear enough.

    I think our comments policy is pretty good, it makes clear the type of thing we don’t want and avoids the trap of spelling out precise rules so that we don’t have to put up with people getting obsessive about the “letter of the law”.

    As to Ruvy, as I plainly said, it is nothing to do with his tone, but his constant, obsessive and mind-numbingly repetitive offensive remarks that is the issue.

    I don’t support his views, find them hate-filled & offensive and consider that they even undermine his own cause, so it follows that I think the site, which he clearly doesn’t care about at all, would be better off without him, but that is not my call to make.

    From my perspective it is nothing to do with anything personal between him and me and has everything to do with Blogcritics comments policy and, indeed, our content policy, which has always been opposed to discriminatory content, so I consider your argument to be incorrect.

    Dan, the comment editing tool allows me to see all the comments made by a particular individual. I went through all Archie’s comments until I found one that was about Michael Moore and golf. None of his deleted ones were, so I can only assume the one I linked to is the comment in question and that you, like he, are mistaken.

  • http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/author/danmiller/ Dan(Miller)

    Christopher,

    I know what I saw and read on the let them play golf thread and I was surprised when it vanished.

    Arch evidently saw his comment on the thread as well, hence his comment #32,

    I had a comment removed from “let them play golf.” I don’t know why the comment was removed as it did not contain a personal attach but rather a reference to the fact that Michael Moore does not follow Barack Obama around with a camera when playing golf.

    I doubt seriously that it got trapped in the robot spam filter, because when that happens (infrequently) to my comments they do not appear, even for an instant. They are rejected at the preview stage, with an inane comment that states,

    Our automatic software filters have blocked your comment, either because of something within the comment, or because of who we believe you are.

    It’s nothing personal.

    We use several different measures to try to avoid blocking valid comments, including storing blocked comments for manual review. If our review determines that your comment shouldn’t have been blocked, it should eventually appear on the site.

    You, Lisa, Clavos and I had an e-mail exchange about this on 18 June and you were kind enough to recover my comment from the spam filter and post it.

    Perhaps you might consider checking the spam filter to see whether his comment got trapped there.

    Dan(Miller)

  • http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/author/danmiller/ Dan(Miller)

    Christopher,

    Further to my Comment # 42: Arch’s comment you found on the Implosion thread was shown as posted at 0528 on 26 June, BC time. Whether you are using GMT or something else and you are correct in stating that it was posted on 2010.06.27, 05:07:29 AM I don’t know. His comment on the golf thread was shown as posted three days later, on 29 June, about simultaneously with mine shown as posted on 29 June at 1010, BC time.

    Whether that might help in what I am confident will be your diligent search I don’t know, but here it is.

    Dan(Miller)

  • Arch Conservative

    My apologies Christopher. I get confused in this heat we’ve been having.