Reader's Favorites
Media Casualties Mount

Administration Split On Europe Invasion

Administration In Crisis Over Burgeoning Quagmire

Congress Concerned About Diversion From War On Japan

Pot, Kettle On Line Two...

Allies Seize Paris

The Natural

Gore Book Sales Tank, Supporters Claim Unfair Tactics

Satan Files Lack Of Defamation Suit

Why This Blog Bores People With Space Stuff

A New Beginning

My Hit Parade
Instapundit (Glenn Reynolds)
Tim Blair
James Lileks Bleats
Virginia Postrel
Kausfiles
Winds Of Change (Joe Katzman)
Little Green Footballs (Charles Johnson)
Samizdata
Eject Eject Eject (Bill Whittle)

Space
Alan Boyle (MSNBC)
Space Politics (Jeff Foust)
Space Transport News (Clark Lindsey)
NASA Watch
NASA Space Flight
Hobby Space
A Voyage To Arcturus (Jay Manifold)
Dispatches From The Final Frontier (Michael Belfiore)
Personal Spaceflight (Jeff Foust)
Mars Blog
The Flame Trench (Florida Today)
Space Cynic
Rocket Forge (Michael Mealing)
COTS Watch (Michael Mealing)
Curmudgeon's Corner (Mark Whittington)
Selenian Boondocks
Tales of the Heliosphere
Out Of The Cradle
Space For Commerce (Brian Dunbar)
True Anomaly
Kevin Parkin
The Speculist (Phil Bowermaster)
Spacecraft (Chris Hall)
Space Pragmatism (Dan Schrimpsher)
Eternal Golden Braid (Fred Kiesche)
Carried Away (Dan Schmelzer)
Laughing Wolf (C. Blake Powers)
Chair Force Engineer (Air Force Procurement)
Spacearium
Saturn Follies
JesusPhreaks (Scott Bell)

Biting Commentary about Infinity, and Beyond!

« A Risky Gambit | Main | Decapitation Train »

Unhappy Customer

A "George" comments:

I've been reading your blog for about five years now, and it is clear that mine is not a 'silly and innumerate comment.' What is also clear is that that you do not have even the slightest of respect for people who read your blog, which is why I will not be reading this blog any longer.

For the record, disagreeing with the Bush Administration on a few token issues (stem cell research and gay marriage were a couple of yours, I believe) does not obscure the fact that you are an ideological lickspittle. What if, day in and day out, I defended everything the Clinton Administration did, including rudely and intemperately insulting people who dissented in any way, and then said, "Oh, but I'm no shill -- look, I disagree with them on some details of tort reform!"

In any case, the bottom line is that you've revealed yourself to be quite a jerk, and lost a long time reader. So long.

Sorry to see you go, George. I guess.

So, apparently it's just fine to come to my web site and call me a "shill" and a "lickspittle," but when a commenter says that "...4/5ths of your posts are just snarky, content-free bashing of anyone who disagrees with the Bush Administration," I'm not allowed to call it out as the nonsense that it is?

There are forty recent posts on the right sidebar there. By Bill's light, over thirty of them should be "just snarky, content-free bashing of anyone who disagrees with the Bush administration." Anyone can go through those posts individually. I defy them to find one that meets that description. Most of them have nothing to do with the Bush administration, or its bashers.

My disagreements with the Bush administration are many and profound, not just on a "few token issues." I disagree with them on their previous disinterest in controlling spending, on the prescription drugs benefit, on airport security, on the drug war, on their education policy, on their inability or unwillingness to follow through on Iraq, on their unwillingness to defend the Second Amendment in the courts, on their cronyism as exemplified by the Harriett Miers fiasco, on their schizophrenia about how to deal with groups like CAIR, on their agricultural policies, on ethanol, on their coopting much of the New Deal and the Great Society, instead of repudiating it, on...too many things to list off the top of my head. I dare say that I probably disagree with the administration on more, probably many more issues than I agree with it. I doubt if there are very many administration policies that, were I in charge, I wouldn't change, some of them drastically.

And guess what? I've expressed this disagreement, many times, right here on this "lickspittle" blog. If it seems like I "defend everything they do" (for the record, I don't), maybe it's because I see so many nutty attacks on them (including here), which to me simply distract from legitimate criticism, that I feel compelled to defend some of the things they do. Or at least I defend them from the hyperbole.

Bill wanted to talk about what it "seemed like" to him. Well, what it seems like to me is that if I don't agree that George Bush and Dick Cheney are corrupt and evil, and make Hitler look like Mother Theresa, then I am called a "lickspittle," and a "shill."

As I've said in the past, I don't "love" George Bush. Nor do I or did I "hate" Bill Clinton. I don't generally find politicians worth expending that much emotion on. I (unlike, apparently, many) try to simply evaluate them rationally.

I think that George Bush is a decent man, trying to do his best, but who is often misguided. I also think that Bill Clinton is a corrupt narcissist, to the point of sociopathy, some of whose policies I agreed with, most of whose I didn't. I don't say these things because of any preconceptions I have about either man. They're simply observations based on my...observations. In Mr. Clinton's case, it's in fact a clinical, dispassionate observation. I don't say it because I "hate" Mr. Clinton (even if I did "hate" him, this would be a confusion of cause and effect).

But when I point these things out, those who truly do hate George Bush seem to think that anyone who doesn't "feel" (and isn't that the key word with these people?) as they do must love him, and be a fan or, a "lackey." And those who do (for who knows what reason? Not me...) love and defend Bill Clinton thinks that anyone who doesn't must hate him.

I simply call them as I see them, and if some commenters or readers don't like that, there are in fact a lot of other blogs out there. Here's your money back...

Go forth and read them instead.

[Update a few minutes later]

Here's a piece by Jim Garaghty defending himself from charges by Hugh Hewitt that he's Romney bashing.

What does it have to do with this post? Not much, really. Except for this one little bit:

Look, it’s no surprise that people who hate Romney liked my piece. And naturally, they either didn’t read or ignored my item from Friday that said the Mitt-should-have-fought-porn-at-Marriott criticism was strikingly lame. That’s the way a lot of people (and bloggers) are; they love stuff that reinforces their preconceived notions and disregard or attack anything that doesn’t.

Emphasis mine. I think that a lot of people read this blog with Bush-hating glasses, and are hypersensitive to any defense of him whatsoever, which is what causes all the hysterically hyperbolic (e.g., "4/5ths of my posts...") commenting.

[Update on Sunday morning]

There seems to be some confusion in comments. I think it would be pretty clear to those who followed the link, but as I've often noted in the past, a lot of commenters here often choose to spout off without doing so. I attempt to write my posts so as to be comprehensible to people who follow the links, but if I provide a link, it is generally a key part of the context of the post, and I expect readers to follow it, and I accept no responsibility for confusion that arises when they can't be bothered to do so.

But for the link-following challenged, the above post is a response to a recent previous post (to which I just linked again, hint, hint), in which Bill White made the statement about "4/5ths of my posts" ascribed to him several times in this post, and which I (accurately) described as palpable nonsense. Commenter "George" thought that, by thus properly characterizing Bill's comment, I was being "rude" to Bill, and was a "jerk," not to mention a "lickspittle" for the administration, and told me that he was going to no longer read my blog. Upon which I boohooed. Not.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 07, 2007 02:21 PM

Comments

Rand,

I would be willing to wager for starters Goeorge is a lying bastard. If you checked your IP logs, you would find he is not a longtime reader as he claims.

This is simply the opening gambit the retarded use to cloak themelves in the faux sheath of 'reasonablnes'.

If he were a long time reader, he would know everything you just posted. He is obviously a little troll that wandered over some recent time.

I would not dignify him with such an effort on your part. I would lock him and not say a damn word. Let him dissappear into the sewer like a stain in the washer. Obvious trolls deserve nothing more and this is an obvious a one as you will find.

Posted by Mike Puckett at July 7, 2007 02:49 PM

So, Mr. Simberg,

/s on

Your post makes it obvious that you are a lickspittle shill for Bill Clinton.

/s off

Hmm... That didn't feel good to write. I wonder what is the attraction? I guess I am not deranged enough (yet).

Posted by MG at July 7, 2007 03:13 PM

What Mike said.

Posted by Leland at July 7, 2007 04:10 PM

Rand:

I think the "logic" works like this:

Any posting that is NOT an explicit denunciation of the Reichswing Bushitlerchimpburtons is to be considered an implicit (if not explicit) statement of support for them.

Or, as someone described Brian Swiderski, you need to make sure that you're loudly denouncing Bush at every movie, whether it's showing "Fahrenheit 911" or "Bambi."

By that "logic," 4/5 of your posts probably are not outright denunciations of Dubya.

And besides, "George" and his ilk aren't looking for logic anyway (anymore than Swiderski or "anonymous" were).

Posted by Lurking Observer at July 7, 2007 04:15 PM

As another mostly non-fan of GWB, I can't think of anything except the GWOT and maybe a bit of free trade stuff that you do support him on. But then the GWOT - especially Iraq - is really the main moonbat litmus test isn't it?

Posted by Dick Eagleson at July 7, 2007 05:03 PM

Your recent responses show you are letting them get under your skin. Why allow cyber wraiths to feed upon you?

Posted by D Anghelone at July 7, 2007 06:13 PM

There's a difference between letting them get under your skin and suffering fools. If he really did read for five years, he's obviously in the mental slow lane to only just now realize that he has nothing in common with Rand.

Posted by Orville at July 7, 2007 06:27 PM

Couple of final comments...

Yes, I really have been reading this blog for about 5 years. I realize I have no way of proving this (I remember when this blog was on interglobal.org, FWIW, and IIRC, this blog was the place I first read about the Xerus), and my IP right now is temporary and will have changed many times in the past 10 years. Believe me if you like; I suppose it makes no difference.

That is quite a laundry list of disagreements you have with the Bush Administration. FWIW, the only things I actually remember you commenting on negatively were the Harriet Miers nomination and their ethanol policies, and most of your posts regarding the administration have been about foreign policy. You're right, it is incorrect that 4/5ths of your posts are pro-Bush shilling -- but it wouldn't surprise me if this is approximately true for your posts that are actually about Bush fall into that category.

But, as the commenter above me notes, I obviously did not just notice this, and this doesn't bother me in and of itself. I am a regular reader of the National Review and DailyKos, Instapundit and Andrew Sullivan and TalkingPointsMemo. I enjoy reading different viewpoints, and contrasting biases keeps things interesting. Frankly, I tend to actually agree with your own views on foreign policy more than those of your dissenting commenters -- I supported the Iraq invasion (something I now regret), for example, and tend towards libertarian rather than liberal viewpoints. I don't think our disagreement goes much deeper than the past two years of specifically Iraq War policy. Our most glaring point of agreement is space policy -- like you, I am a diehard alt.space advocate, and, also like you, I wrote about this on sci.space.policy for a long while. In fact, we've had direct discussions on SSP before, although that was some time ago.

My real complaint, and maybe I wasn't clear enough about this, was simply that you do not treat your readers that disagree with you with respect. You have a number of regular commenters here that disagree with you significantly on (mostly foreign policy) issues, and you are frankly very rude to these people. These are people that not only read your blog, but actually take the time to craft a response to what you say. In my opinion, it speaks ill of you that you are so rude to these people, and this is why I have made the decision to remove you from my bookmarks.

I have taken the time to type this out because I appreciate that you took the trouble to write a thoughtful response to my comment. I hope you'll consider being more polite in the future.

Posted by George at July 7, 2007 07:08 PM

Or George, you could try applying for a man card so your feelings aren't so easily dinted.

Posted by Mike Puckett at July 7, 2007 07:17 PM

I would recommend that you note the tone and subject matter of the comments that Rand is often responding to. Yours is nothing compared to what we've had to put up with from anonymous, Brian, and to a lesser extent others. Context matters.

Oh, and Rand is secretly an acolyte of George Soros. After all, when's the last time that Rand said anything bad about him?

Posted by Big D at July 7, 2007 07:56 PM

"Any posting that is NOT an explicit denunciation of the Reichswing Bushitlerchimpburtons is to be considered an implicit (if not explicit) statement of support for them."

Lurking, you probably mean to be sardonic, but I've read somewhere (maybe a description of something in the "Indoctrinate U" documentary, which I haven't seen yet) that some professors say their students are able to identify their non-lefty political position simply by the fact that they DON'T drag certain subjects into their lectures.

Posted by Mark at July 7, 2007 08:31 PM

After being off the intarweb for about 24 hours, I find myself reading through Rand's post and at some point "George" appears to transform into "Bill"

Third paragaph for example:

There are forty recent posts on the right sidebar there. By Bill's light, over thirty of them should be "just snarky, content-free bashing of anyone who disagrees with the Bush administration." Anyone can go through those posts individually. I defy them to find one that meets that description. Most of them have nothing to do with the Bush administration, or its bashers.

Who is the "Bill" of which you speak?

Posted by Bill White at July 7, 2007 09:31 PM

George wrote, "In my opinion, it speaks ill of you that you are so rude to these people, and this is why I have made the decision to remove you from my bookmarks."

To rephrase this more honestly, "I'm posting to tell you I'm ignoring you." Still in junior high, George? Emotionally, that is.

"I hope you'll consider being more polite in the future."

You apply the words "shilling" and "lickspittle" to Rand, and *you* lecture *him* on *politeness*?

People like you are why I'm ashamed to have ever voted Democratic.

Posted by Jim C. at July 7, 2007 10:41 PM

Rand:
Fact: the more successful you are, the more numerous and nasty the critics will become. If this blog is something you want to continue in the future, I would highly recommend filtering your reading of the trolls.

Not just for you, but for your readers. It's profoundly boring and ultimately meaningless to spend time shooting idiots in a barrel. Let's get back to the good stuff.

Posted by K at July 8, 2007 12:49 AM

"I hope you'll consider being more polite in the future."

Man, there's someone whose balls are almost as big as his ego.

Posted by Andrea Harris at July 8, 2007 05:59 AM

What K said.

Posted by Leland at July 8, 2007 06:05 AM

Who is the "Bill" of which you speak?

The one who started all this, by claiming that "...4/5ths of your posts are just snarky, content-free bashing of anyone who disagrees with the Bush Administration." Do you have short-term memory problems, Bill? It's right there, in the post I linked to.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 8, 2007 06:56 AM

I thought Rand's defense of Lewis Libby's actions was a bit much.

Posted by Adrasteia at July 8, 2007 07:05 AM

I also agree with K on moderation. At the very least consider moderating politics (White House past and present, any Dem vs Rep issues, and anything to do with the war) out of the space threads. I particularly enjoy those and it's a shame that discussion is so often destroyed by trolls.

Posted by Adrasteia at July 8, 2007 07:19 AM

I thought Rand's defense of Lewis Libby's actions was a bit much.

This coming from the commenter who complained about Rand posting 10 pro-gun posts in a row, when in fact there was maybe 3 gun related posts, and 1 had no stance at all (it was just a post about the shooting at JSC). When I read the 4/5th comment, it reminded me of another commenter, Adrasteia, that often uses hyperbole while claiming Rand is over the top.

Adrasteia, have you met kettle?

I haven't read Rand defending "Libby's actions". Rather, his complaint seems to be the actions of the special prosecutor. Supposedly there was the heinous leak of the name of a covert CIA agent that required a special prosecutor. So now we know who leaked the name, but apparently, nobody seems interested in prosecuting Armitage. Why is that? Wasn't that the primary job of the special prosecutor?

Posted by Leland at July 8, 2007 07:40 AM

Rand, I did not post any of the "George" posts.

If you or anyone one wishes to believe I am also "George" there probably is nothing I can do about.

Posted by Bill White at July 8, 2007 07:49 AM

Rand, I did not post any of the "George" posts.

Who said you did?

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 8, 2007 08:19 AM

Rand, I suppose it would be a good idea to make it clearer who said what, but I was able to puzzle it out.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at July 8, 2007 08:27 AM

Okay, I think get it now. Maybe.

Somehow I thought you were saying I am also "George", in some sort of intarwebs alter ego thing. Okay, my bad on that and mea culpa.

To the extent George alleges you (Rand) were rude to me (Bill) my response is "George, butt out, okay? I can take care of myself."

Rand has never posted anything I found personally rude or insulting to me.

Rand posts lots of stuff I disagree with, but hey, that is part of the beauty and genuis of America.

Posted by Bill White at July 8, 2007 04:31 PM

Oh, and sorry for the triple post . . .

Posted by Bill White at July 8, 2007 04:33 PM

Triple posts are not a problem, Bill. I've deleted the redundancies.

You are always welcome to comment here, as long as you are willing to accept the consequences of those comments, in terms of responses to those comments.

And I appreciate the fact that you don't need "Georges" to cover your back.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 8, 2007 06:24 PM

the only things I actually remember you commenting on negatively were the Harriet Miers nomination and their ethanol policies

Ah, there we go...the memory is fading...in other words, I may have been wrong.

I enjoy reading different viewpoints

And after being here five years, you should know what the host's views are. By your words above, you should enjoy Rand's posts as a different viewpoint than the other sites you visit.

My real complaint, and maybe I wasn't clear enough about this, was simply that you do not treat your readers that disagree with you with respect.

Rand and I have differed on a few occasions, but he's never been rude. I would think reading for five years, then suddenly posting the "I hate this site" speech would considered more rude.

These are people that not only read your blog, but actually take the time to craft a response to what you say.

And to a great extent, the people who are on the receiving end of Rand's barbs are those that cast the first stone. Whether or not Rand's being rude to those people who are rude first is immaterial since this is Rand's blog. If those that wish to insult Rand cannot bear being insulted back, they shouldn't post in the first place.

I have taken the time to type this out because I appreciate that you took the trouble to write a thoughtful response to my comment.

Rand usually has thoughtful responses to those that wish to debate or discuss. His acerbic wit is reserved for those who strike first. But then, if you've been here for five years....you'd know that.

Posted by Mac at July 9, 2007 05:50 AM

"ideological lickspittle"

I don't think I agree with George at all. However, "idelogoical lickspittle" is a fascinating phrase. All those i's and l's. I wonder if he made that up himself or got it from somewhere else. I think I'll try to use that in a debate sometime when I want to make everyone have to think for a second to decipher the meaning.

Posted by Jeff Mauldin at July 9, 2007 12:32 PM

This coming from the commenter who complained about Rand posting 10 pro-gun posts in a row

Um, did I? If so Rand, I was probably tired and angry over something else and I apologise for bringing my crap onto your blog.

Posted by Adrasteia at July 9, 2007 07:38 PM


Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?