Transterrestrial Musings

« Go To The Carnival | Main | Heading For California »

Nomenclature

A huge off-topic discussion was fired off in the comment section here by Keith Cowing, in which he accused me (along with Mark Whittington) of having a "visceral and unwavering hatred of Democrats." Note that there was nothing in my post about Democrats, and that I don't now, and haven't ever, hated Democrats (or anyone, for that matter), but never mind that (at least for now). It's not the point.

The discussion devolved into some people wondering why I called the Democrat(ic) Party the Democrat Party. Some assumed that my intent, along with (apparently) Joe McCarthy's, Rush Limbaugh and other "conservative" luminaries (I use the quotes because I am not, in fact, a conservative, nor do I listen much to Rush Limbaugh), was simply to offend Democrats.

No.

Now, I can't speak for Rush Limbaugh (and no one can speak for Joe McCarthy, what with him being in the ground for the last half century or so), but I'm not trying to offend, but rather, simply to defend the language and the meaning of words, particularly since the left seems to have made it a project to utterly change them, or dilute them of their meaning to the point of uselessness (e.g., "racism," and one on point here, "hate").

I think that it's important to understand, if they're "offended" at being called the Democrat Party, why that might be. We are scolded and told they're offended, but they never quite get around to telling us what is so offensive about being called the "Democrat Party" when it consists of people who call themselves Democrats. We are told only that it is offensive, and that that "hateful" meanie Rush Limbaugh calls them that, so it must be, and that we should therefore be ashamed of ourselves.

So what is their real problem? I don't honestly know, but here's my theory. In order to understand that, I think that one needs to ask why they insist on being called instead the "Democratic Party."

A new term that was invented a few years ago, but fortunately hasn't become very popular, is the word "bright," to describe someone who is a non-deist, and takes their world view and belief system from science and rationality. In fact, by the definition of the people who invented it, I am a "bright." But despite that, it would never occur to me to use such a word to describe myself.

Why? Because I recognize, unlike Dawkins and Dennett et al, that when one calls oneself a "bright," one is implicitly saying that people who aren't brights are...well...dim. D&D are smart people in many ways, but they're not smart enough to realize that some people are going to be offended when they're informed by their self-fancied intellectual betters that they're not that smart, because only dumb people believe in God. From a PR standpoint, such a term is a disaster, if they're trying to convert people to their cause.

Well, just as it's reasonable for theists to be offended when implicitly told that their beliefs are dumb, it's also reasonable to be offended when non-members of the Democrat Party are subtly told that their political beliefs are undemocratic. I don't buy their self labeling of being "democratic" (and more so than thou) any more than I do of the self labeling of "progressives," or of "liberals." I don't necessarily find the beliefs of the people who call themselves that either progressive or liberal. Nor did I buy the notion that the Bolsheviks were the majority, even if they claimed to be so by their name.

My point is that I have as much right to be offended by the name "Democratic Party" as they do by "Democrat Party" (one of the reasons, by the way, that many conservatives found Bush's phrase "compassionate conservatism" offensive--they rightly don't think that it needs the modifier). In fact, I think that their version is more offensive to me than mine should be to them (and I think that the comparison of it to the "n word," as one commenter made, would be silly if it weren't another sad case of watering down true racism and hate). I suspect that the real reason that they're "offended" (or at least, being the inventors and promulgators of the cult of victimhood, feign to be, hence the quotes) when people do this is that they don't like being called out on their propaganda.

[Update a few minutes later]

Based on the initial comments, I think I've hit a nerve.

You refuse to use the proper name, "Democratic Party," and yet you get miffed when people call you a "conservative" or a "Republican." Pot, thy kettle it is black.

I think you're making a category error here. The reason that I get "miffed" when people call me things I'm not is because...I'm not. It's a far different thing to accuse someone of holding beliefs that they don't, or being members of a party that they're not, than it is to simply use the name of a party that the party members apply to themselves. In any event, it doesn't matter whether I get "miffed" or not, because I know that clueless people will continue to foolishly insist that I'm a conservative, or a Republican, or a "neocon."

Look. I can understand why they'd be upset if I called them the "Fascist Party" or the "Gun-Grabber Party," or the "Abortion Party" or (as Ramesh Ponnuru writes) the "Party of Death." It makes sense to me that all those things would be offensive. I don't understand why it's offensive to be called the "Democrat Party." And as I said in comments, the longer it takes for someone to provide a coherent and substantive explanation of why they insist on being called the "Democratic Party" (i.e., not just "it's what we want to be called"), the more confidence I get that I got it right, and guessed exactly why they do. And I'm not going to play along.

[Update]

One more thought. I find it strange that, just because some group wants me to call them by the name they choose, that I'm somehow obligated to do so, and that failure to do so is legitimately offensive to them, and that I could have no other reason to do so than to offend them. But that seems to be the position of some commenters.

So, if the Klan decided to form a political party, and decided that it would be the "Superior Race Party," am I therefore required to use that name in reference to them? If I instead call them the "Inferior Race Party," or (more simply) the "Racist Party," is it not conceivable that I have some reason to do so other than simply to offend them?

Words mean things, and as I noted at the beginning of the post, the left has long been known for its Orwellian newspeak tactics, from "Bolsheviks" to the various "Peoples' Republics." When I refuse to call North Korea a "Republic," it is not because I am trying to offend them. It's because I want to call things what they are, because I respect the English language, and because I want to prevent further incursions on it from those who want to debase it as a currency of communication.

And no, I'm not comparing Democrats to the Klan or the Communists. I'm simply pointing out the principle involved. I just scratch my head over the angst caused by simply substituting a noun for an adjective. Methinks the party doth protest too much.

[Saturday evening update]

Enough with the Keith Cowing bashing. In light of it, I regret mentioning him in the post. The only reason I did so was because his comment about my alleged (and mistaken) hatred of Democrats in the other post instigated the mess about nouns versus adjectives.

He has not claimed victimhood, he has not complained about the "Democratic" Party being called the Democrat Party. Most (in fact, all, other than mine :-) of the criticism that I see of him here looks gratuitous and irrelevant to me.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 22, 2007 11:06 AM

Comments

So, let's get this straight:

-you use a phrase that many Democrats consider deliberately insulting.

-the same phrase (word, whatever) is used by conservatives and _intended_ to be insulting.

-unlike Bush, you don't claim that it is a verbal tic or an oversight, but deliberate.

-your website features frequent attacks on Democrats and almost no criticism of Republicans.

Yet you claim that you are not a Republican, nor a "conservative."

Interesting that this whole discussion is what people want to call themselves. You refuse to use the proper name, "Democratic Party," and yet you get miffed when people call you a "conservative" or a "Republican." Pot, thy kettle it is black.

How hard is it to simply use the name that they want used?

Posted by Kevin Schwartz at June 22, 2007 11:46 AM

I'm beginning to wonder whether Rand is losing his marbles. This post is completely ridiculous. Jebeezus.

Posted by Offside at June 22, 2007 11:48 AM

-you use a phrase that many Democrats consider deliberately insulting.

So they say.

-the same phrase (word, whatever) is used by conservatives and _intended_ to be insulting.

I have no idea whether that is true or not.

-unlike Bush, you don't claim that it is a verbal tic or an oversight, but deliberate.

Yes. I just explained why. Perhaps you should read it again.

-your website features frequent attacks on Democrats and almost no criticism of Republicans.

I often criticize Republicans. You probably just don't notice, because you're so sensitive to criticism of Democrats. In fact, I have often said that the Republicans deserved to lose last fall, and that I'm glad that they did.

Yet you claim that you are not a Republican, nor a "conservative."

That's right. Is your world really that black and white?

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 22, 2007 11:53 AM

I'm beginning to wonder whether Rand is losing his marbles. This post is completely ridiculous. Jebeezus.

Do you have a substantive response, or is that it?

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 22, 2007 11:54 AM

How hard is it to simply use the name that they want used?

Why should I play along with their little word games? I refuse to accept the implication that people who aren't them are undemocratic. I'm still waiting for an actual explanation of why it's insulting to be called a member of the Democrat Party. The longer I have to wait, the more confidence I'll have in my thesis.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 22, 2007 11:56 AM

"How hard is it to simply use the name that they want used?"

For one thing, it isn't accurate. "Democratic" doesn't describe many of the actions of the democrat party.

Those who belong to the party commonly refered to as the GOP call themselves and are referred to by others as "Republicans". Their party therefore is the Republican Party.

Those who belong to the party commonly represented by a donkey call themselves and are referred to as "Democrats", therefore their party should be called the "Democrat Party". To call themselves and to demand that others to call them the "democratic" party is to co-opt the meaning of the word democratic.

Any Democrat who is offended at being called a member of the Democrat Party is just looking for something to be offended by.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 22, 2007 12:03 PM

Rand, you want me to give you a substantive response on a completely ridiculous post?

I think you have made your position clear. You will refer to a given person or entity by a name entirely of your own choosing irrespective of the name that person prefers. How democratic !

Would you ban me if I called you Rant ? I really don't mean anything negative by it.

Posted by Offside at June 22, 2007 12:15 PM

Would you ban me if I called you Rant?

Of course not. Many have done that. And it's just as much of a thigh slapper the hundredth time they do it as it was the first.

I really don't mean anything negative by it.

Ah, well, you see, there's the difference. It's perfectly clear what you mean by it. Just as it's completely unclear what is insulting about being called a Democrat.

Is it your position that when Democrats insist on having their party called the "Democratic" party, that they don't really mean anything negative about other parties?

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 22, 2007 12:25 PM

You know, this whole dems vs. reps thing is rather amusing, considering that there is no substansive difference between the two parties; the only real difference is that one side are cowards and the other side thugs. They both believe that an increase in government power - more to the point, their own power - is a good in and of itself. Their only arguments with each other are the methods of implementation of the socialist agenda.

Posted by Ed Minchau at June 22, 2007 12:28 PM

Amazingly enough the definition of each word is close to the same...one who advocates democracy.

I'm forced to agree with one of Rand's replies...

Just as it's completely unclear what is insulting about being called a Democrat.

Please define what is insulting. Is it insulting becuase Limbaugh uses it? Is it insulting because you just don't like it? Or is it insulting becuase the Democratic National Committee told you not to like it?

Posted by Mac at June 22, 2007 12:38 PM

Democrat or Democratic, if they get offended by the words you use, then they are certainly not liberal.

Posted by Leland at June 22, 2007 01:08 PM

Leland: "Democrat or Democratic, if they get offended by the words you use, then they are certainly not liberal."

Nor progressive.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 22, 2007 01:11 PM

The Kerry/Edwards campaign used the slogan Democrats for Change. And if you google that phrase you'll find a whole lot of Democratic Party sympathetic organizations using the slogan as well.

Clearly the Democratic Party has a problem on their hands.

Posted by rjschwarz at June 22, 2007 01:14 PM

There is also the "Liberal Democrat Voice" website.

I guess it must be ran by evil name calling arch conservatives too.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 22, 2007 01:44 PM

Why would the Klan need to form a party when it exists already?

Posted by Offside at June 22, 2007 01:49 PM

Can we call them Democratics?

Posted by Jonathan at June 22, 2007 01:50 PM

Why would the Klan need to form a party when it exists already?

What party is that? And even if that were true (it's not, as far as I know), it's a side issue. Just change the words "form a political party" to "change the name of their political party."

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 22, 2007 01:54 PM

Rand: you are so easy to spin up and so entertaining to read when you spend all this time splitting hairs on a silly issue of semantics. One has to wonder why you spend so much time talking about Democrats ... you and Mark Whittington make such an entertaining duo.

Posted by Keith Cowing at June 22, 2007 02:29 PM

Keith, I think that "spun up" much better describes people who claim victimhood because someone substitutes a noun for an adjective. And I don't in fact appreciate being falsely accused of having a "visceral and unwavering hatred" for Democrats, any more than you do about NASA.

I mean, you sure do get "spun up" about the space agency. Why do you spend so much time talking about it...?

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 22, 2007 02:39 PM

What party is the Klan's party? Ask Senator Robert Byrd (D) or David Duke (ran for President under both parties but who's policy positions are aligned with Senator's Byrds). I think the answer is clear.

Posted by rjschwarz at June 22, 2007 02:51 PM

I never claimed "victimhood", Rand. Where do you get this stuff?

Posted by Keith Cowing at June 22, 2007 03:13 PM

I never claimed "victimhood", Rand. Where do you get this stuff?

I didn't say you did, Keith. Where do you get this stuff?

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 22, 2007 03:32 PM

Cowing: "splitting hairs on a silly issue of semantics."

Of course that would NEVER happen at NASAWatch.com.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 22, 2007 03:46 PM

You guys crack me up - you're confused by your own rhetoric - and accusations.

Posted by Keith Cowing at June 22, 2007 03:54 PM

Rand: I think that it's important to understand, if they're "offended" at being called the Democrat Party, why that might be.

It's your refusal to call it the Democratic Party that's in question, not the substitute itself. The one and only motive for what you're doing is petty mendacity, trying to subordinate the English language to some ideological nomenklatura of approved adjectives. There is no even fractionally rational objection to calling it the Democratic Party, and you seem to revel in the contempt your feeble excuses display.

But since you've taken it upon yourself to rename a party you've never been a member of, purely by virtue of disliking the implications of its name, please allow me to do the same for the falsely-named Republican Party and select a name I think more fitting to its character: The Fascist Porcine Fugpuckers. Now let's get a Democratic President in the White House to refer to his FascPorFuggit opponents in public speeches, have radio talk show hosts all across America use that as the standard, and then take bets on how many seconds it takes your head to explode after reading about it on NRO.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at June 22, 2007 03:56 PM

I don't think that I'm the one confused, Keith. Still waiting for you to cite where I accused you of being a victim.

I suspect, just like my other requests to understand why the Dems insist on being the "Democratic" party, that I will wait a long time.

Swiderski's comments, as usually is the case, are incoherent, and unworthy of a response.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 22, 2007 04:09 PM

It's name is the Democratic Party. Tortured explanations notwithstanding, calling it something else is behavior motivated by either ignorance or malice.

Meanwhile, I think I will start a trend calling the Republican Party the Rich White Guy Party. No offense intended.

Posted by billg at June 22, 2007 04:09 PM

Meanwhile, I think I will start a trend calling the Republican Party the Rich White Guy Party. No offense intended.

In other words, you're going to completely pervert the name of the party name (as I suggested in my examples) as opposed to simply calling it by the name that its members call themselves.

Not to mention the fact that you completely missed the point of my post (not surprising).

I'll note that I still await an explanation of why "Democrat" party is offensive, but "Democratic" party is not.

The continued silence on this pressing issue remains hilarious.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 22, 2007 04:13 PM

Rand revels in contempt is right. Rand, you demean yourself and lower yourself into a gutter of your own making.

Utterly silly, childish and demonstrative of a small, mean, attitude today. Go ahead and laugh at your own hilarity. It's your blog.

Posted by Offside at June 22, 2007 04:23 PM

Rand, you demean yourself and lower yourself into a gutter of your own making.

You know, you can say silly stuff like this all you want, but until you actually have a substantive response, I think that thinking people will continue to consider it silly. Sorry, but it's not sufficient to simply say that it's not worth actually responding to (thought that's certainly the case with Swiderski's incoherent and non-factual nonsense).

The difference between Swiderski and me in this in this instance is that he is merely commenting (read--graffitiing) on my blog, whereas it is my blog.

Provide an actual response, that responds to my actual points, or expect to be ignored.

I'm still awaiting an explanation as to why "Democrat Party" is offensive, but "Democratic Party" is not.

Again, I'm not foolish enough to hold my breath.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 22, 2007 04:31 PM

All this verbiage about ... what? Again, you guys crack me up.

As to your request: You equate being "spun up" with "Victimhood" and then you suggest that I get "spun up"

"Keith, I think that "spun up" much better describes people who claim victimhood because someone substitutes a noun for an adjective. And I don't in fact appreciate being falsely accused of having a "visceral and unwavering hatred" for Democrats, any more than you do about NASA.

I mean, you sure do get "spun up" about the space agency. Why do you spend so much time talking about it..."

Posted by Keith Cowing at June 22, 2007 04:36 PM

It's name is the Democratic Party.

Really? Most voting ballots say "Democrat," not "Democrat-ic."

Are you saying all the ballots cast for those candidates are invalid?

By the way, "it's" means "it is." Many Democrats (Democratics, if you prefer) use "it's" instead of the possessive "its." So do many Klan members. I await a scathing expose in the Washington Post. :-)

Posted by Edward Wright at June 22, 2007 04:44 PM

So...I take it from some of the above that we should be seeing newspaper articles with the following line:

"The Democratics, following a party line vote..."

I'll have to instruct the editors at the newspaper where I work that they've gotten it wrong for the past 104 years.

Posted by BruceB at June 22, 2007 05:19 PM

BS: "Now let's get a Democratic President..."

We've always had democratic presidents, they are all elected through the democratic process.

I would bet big money that and in ANY OTHER discussion on any blog you and all you whining "Democratics" would have written "Now let's get a Democrat President" but in this instance you just had to add the "ic" (funny, that is what I think when faced with the possibility of a Democrat President: ICK) or otherwise reveal what a idiotic position you all are taking on the subject.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 22, 2007 05:44 PM

Keith Cowing:Democrat Party::Dan Goldin:NASA Worm

Posted by Leland at June 22, 2007 05:48 PM

(Sigh) Leland, you will not find a complaint from me about on this "Democrat" party nonsense (someone else on this board got their panties all tied up in a wad over that). Try again.

Posted by Keith Cowing at June 22, 2007 06:02 PM

He doesn't wear panties, does he? Though whatever he is wearing is thin right now.

Though if Keith wants to call them such, and precluding a substantive argument to the contrary, why not?

Posted by Offside at June 22, 2007 06:47 PM

Fair enough. I apologize.

Posted by Leland at June 22, 2007 06:52 PM

> Keith Cowing:Democrat Party::Dan Goldin:NASA Worm

Keith's one-man crusade to save the worm logo ended when Sean O'Keefe came to power. Apparently he really didn't care all that much about the logo; it was just an excuse to harass Goldin.

These days, he's moved on to hard-hitting investigative pieces on NASA's failure to adequately promote the Reader's Digest spelling bee, "Flat Gorby" sightings, Photoshopped pictures of NASA employees wearing Spock ears, Photoshopped pictures of the Space Shuttle being attacked by Darth Vader, and his own call for NASA to spend tax dollars to "do a poll and see where the 'we didn't land on the Moon' urban legend is the most pervasive."

No "silly issues" there. :-)

Posted by Who Watches the Watcher at June 22, 2007 06:56 PM

Ah, another dedicated reader!

Posted by Keith Cowing at June 22, 2007 07:35 PM

> Ah, another dedicated reader!

But not a paying customer, since I don't use Internet gambling sites, natural pet medications, or "boy hair removal products," whatever those might be. Do a lot of NASA Watch readers have "boy hair" problems?

According to NASA, "use of the NASA name and initials is protected under 42 U.S.C. 2459b" and "use of the NASA name or initials as an identifying symbol by organizations other than NASA is strictly prohibited."

Is the NASA Watch part of NASA?

Posted by Who Watches the Watcher at June 22, 2007 08:14 PM

Ah, another dedicated reader!

You wish. Keith, you are a rss feed. That's it.

Look, I created my own SpaceRef. It even has links to multiple news sources.

Want it in RSS? Done!

Oh wait, you only want NASA press releases. Done!

Posted by Leland at June 22, 2007 11:20 PM

I have to sympathize with Rand on this one. I don't think 'because that's what they want to be called' is a compelling argument, especially for a group that is ideology-based, not ethnically or otherwise inherited. And if Rand is dropping the '-ic' to stick it to the Democrats, what of it? That doesn't make him or anyone that does the same some Republican lackey. After all, even if you detest both parties, it could be that one of them just ticks you off more regularly and outrageously than the other.

In any case, the 'Democratic' moniker is nowhere as smug and condescending as the 'Progressive' label. While terms like 'Republican' and 'Democratic' can be anchored in specific beliefs and policies (even if the parties that use them don't actually adhere to these), the label of 'Progressive' delivers little concrete information while adding a feel-good spin to anything the user wishes to promote.

Posted by P. Aeneas at June 23, 2007 12:13 AM

Dear "Watcher" (afraid to use your real name eh?): Call NASA OGC and OIG. The issue was settled a decade ago. Nice try.

Posted by Keith Cowing at June 23, 2007 06:02 AM

>>"...you completely missed the point of my post (not surprising)"

No, I'm just ignoring it, as your opinion about the subject is not relevant, as is everyone else's. (I did, however, catch the silly insult. Typical.)

The Democratic Party gets to decide what it's called. There's no conflict between a party called "Democratic" and members called "Democrats".

"Democrat Party" is an insult primarily because its use is intended to be derisory by propagandists like Limbaugh, etc. (It also fails the grammar test, since "Democrat" is not an adjective.) When you can't be bothered to use the correct name of an opponent, it is a sign that you hold that opponent in contempt. I hold the post-Nixon Republican Party in contempt, hence the moniker Rich White Guy Party.

Posted by billg at June 23, 2007 06:19 AM

The Democratic Party gets to decide what it's called.

Yes, just as, if it so chooses, the Klan gets to decide that its political party will be called the "Superior Race Party."

"Democrat Party" is an insult primarily because its use is intended to be derisory by propagandists like Limbaugh, etc.

How do you know that? Perhaps he does it for the same reason I do--he's interested in truth in advertising.

Once again, the unsubstantiated, tautological claim. It's an insult because it's intended to be an insult.

Hilarious.

I guess I'll have to wait forever to hear the real reason.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 23, 2007 06:55 AM

So .... I guess its OK for you to call people and or their organizations what ever you wish, eh Rand? OK. You are a democrat hater - cuz I say so.

Posted by Keith Cowing at June 23, 2007 07:12 AM

So .... I guess its OK for you to call people and or their organizations what ever you wish, eh Rand?

Yes, that's what freedom of speech is all about. I know that it's an alien concept to some Democrats, though, particularly on campus.

You are a democrat hater - cuz I say so.

You can say whatever you wish, Keith. It doesn't make it true.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 23, 2007 07:37 AM

You can say whatever you wish, Keith. It doesn't make it true.

I just leave that up to you -- and what you write....

Posted by Keith Cowing at June 23, 2007 07:50 AM

CIA World Factbook, "United States":

Political parties and leaders: Democratic Party [Howard DEAN]...

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

Now stop making asses of yourselves, you Orwellian quacks.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at June 23, 2007 10:14 AM

"Now stop making asses of yourselves, you Orwellian quacks.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at June 23, 2007 10:14 AM"

If hypocracy caused cancer, you would have killed your grandfather in the womb.

Posted by Mike Puckett at June 23, 2007 10:52 AM

See Rand, we finally got an answer...

"Democrat Party" is an insult primarily because its use is intended to be derisory by propagandists like Limbaugh, etc.

So, its an insult because Limbaugh uses it. The left is once again showing a knee-jerk reaction to adversity. Even children would handle this one better. "Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me." But, but, but MOMMY, he called me a DEMOCRAT!!!

If you lefties stop reacting to it, Limbaugh will stop using it.

Posted by Mac at June 23, 2007 10:56 AM

I am a leftie and I simply don't care. What is hilarious is how you righties wave your arms around about this as if it is an issue worthy of this level of attention.

Posted by Keith Cowing at June 23, 2007 11:29 AM

Has is always been the "Democratic" party? Honestly, I have, my entire life, called it the "Democrat" party and don't recall ever having heard it called Democratic. I agree with Rand on this issue and am tired of Newspeak. Democrats have a long history of trying to control language to control issues. Republicans do it as well but just not as often or as brazenly. I'm a 90% Libertarian and 10% Conservative and completely disgusted with both the Republicans and the Democrats should anybody wonder at my vantage point.

Rand, I've seen you address these morons calling you a Republican repeatedly on your main page. Why do you keep feeding these trolls? I can appreciate that you don't want people to try to define you as something you aren't but they have demonstrated themselves as incapable of learning.

Consider putting together an essay on how you define yourself, or a pithy phrase, and post it to the top of your blog. If, after that, these losers harass you on your blog and refuse to stay on topic then IP ban them.

Posted by Gerald Hib bs at June 23, 2007 12:16 PM

Dear "Watcher" (afraid to use your real name eh?):

I'm the famous "anonymous source," Keith. Don't you remember me?

Since when does the NASA Watch believe in using real names? You usually attribute everything to me.

Call NASA OGC and OIG. The issue was settled a decade ago.

The NASA Watch got special permission to use the NASA name from the General Counsel and Inspector General?

What did NASA get in return?

I see the NASA Watch is now peddling "Moon Property" for $29 an acre.

Did the General Counsel approve your using the NASA name to sell Moon Property, too?

Posted by The Anonymous Source at June 23, 2007 01:07 PM

I'm the famous "anonymous source," Keith. Don't you remember me?

No, not really - since you all use the same name.

Posted by Keith Cowing at June 23, 2007 01:37 PM

The NASA Watch has some interesting associates.

The Lunar Embassy, which the NASA Watch links to for "Moon Property," claims its founder is "co-chairman of the Republican Congressional Business Advisory Council."

See http://www.lunarlandowner.com/

I can't find a website for the Republican Congressional Business Advisory Council.

That's not surprising because based on news reports, the Republican Congressional Business Advisory Council looks to be a group of porn stars and others out to embarrass the Republican Party at fundraising dinners.

See http://lc.smattk.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=3846

I suppose this isn't nearly as bad as calling someone a "Democrat" instead of a "Democratic," now, is it, Keith?

Posted by The Anonymous Source at June 23, 2007 02:15 PM

Then sue me. I am such a bad person.

Oh yes people (such as you) who are afraid to use their own names when they snipe at people on blogs - simply for the sake of sniping - are afraid of a lot of things in life. Those things will eventually catch up to you.

Posted by Keith Cowing at June 23, 2007 02:34 PM

Rand [Keith] has not claimed victimhood, he has not complained about the "Democratic" Party being called the Democrat Party. Most (in fact, all, other than mine :-) of the criticism that I see of him here looks gratuitous and irrelevant to me.

An astute blog course correction. Thank you.

Posted by Keith Cowing at June 23, 2007 03:30 PM

Of course if you describe Rand as a Neo-con
he goes off the handle

Posted by at June 23, 2007 04:57 PM

Of course if you describe Rand as a Neo-con
he goes off the handle

No, I don't "go off the handle," Anonymous Moron (assuming that it's the usual anonymous moron, and not a new one).

I simply point out that it's not true, and whoever is calling me that is an obvious moron. And interestingly, they're always anonymous...

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 23, 2007 05:26 PM

Might I say:

"Worst Cowing bash thread ever!"

http://www.squishedfrog.com/images/comicbookguy.gif

Posted by Mike Puckett at June 23, 2007 06:38 PM

Post a comment