A couple days ago KING-5 sent a camera to my house to interview me for this Sunday’s edition of “Up Front With Robert Mak.” I was told the subject was blogging, and I assume I’ll be on the show, though I caught a promo last night that featured a shadowy shot of Stefan at his computer, so who knows how much. It’ll air Sunday on KING-5 at 4:30 PM, and again on KONG-16 at 10:30 PM.
Anyway, I’ve got a dirty little secret to tell, that I’m not sure I shared on camera… I don’t really read the blogs all that much. In fact, before I started blogging myself, I hardly read them at all. My main reason for turning HorsesAss.org into a blog was to force myself to write every day. (Be careful what you wish for.) Nobody was more surprised than me that HA developed such a large audience so quickly.
So I feel a little weird being presented on TV as the voice of liberal blogging in WA state, when I’m really such a newcomer to the blogosphere.
Fortunately, many of my readers are old hands, and they’re constantly pointing me towards good stuff that I otherwise might miss. For example, several readers have pointed me towards Balloon Juice, a conservative blog that has responded to the Schiavo Memo controversy and other current events with some serious introspection.
What I see going on around me is that my party is in power. We control the Presidency. We control the House and the Senate. Republican appointees outnumber Democratic ones on the Supreme Court, and we are poised to add more. We own talk radio. Cable news tends to be neutral to conservative (it certainly is not liberal or progressive- some outfits may have anti-Republican reflexes). We have all but eliminated partisan debate in congress, playing by rules much tougher than anything that was in place. Where there were once no conservative (or few) newspapers, there are now several. We have numerous conservative online journals. Hundreds of publications that all push the same point and pass on the same message.
And it still isn’t enough. Everything is under attack if it does not toe the same hard-right line. The university, the institution of marriage, journalism as an enterprise, the medical community, the legal community, every foreign institution, the United Nations- anything, that doesn’t cater to the conservative need for instant gratification in the form of message adherence and submission to the new doctronaire must be destroyed. Look at the recent behavior of Republicans in Congress towards REPUBLICAN APPOINTED CONSERVATIVE JUDGES. Forget ‘screw me once, shame on you.’ This new breed of fanatacism is “Slight me in any discernable way, even a mild disagreement, and I will publicly destroy you.”
Well, that’s the excerpt that seems to be getting the most interest from my fellow liberals, and I think it speaks for itself without further comment. But I’d also like to draw your attention to another sentiment that I think is too often overlooked by bloggers on both sides of the ideological divide. (You know… the few I actually bother to read.)
…most people who read blogs understand that this medium is by nature personal, opinionated, and partisan, and as such, each blogger should be read with the level of credibility they deserve.
Hate to sound like a broken record, but when it comes to blogging, caveat emptor.
I suppose my first reaction is how could someone take any one blog so seriously in any case? Of course they are going to show their own bias and have their own kooky ideas or spreadsheets. To present yourself as representing some unbiased set of facts without even the modicum of restraint that holds back those in the corporate media is ridiculous at best.
What I do find valuable about blogs is their ability to bring together communities of people interested in the same topic. It is a testament to your site and your writing Goldy that you attract a wide variety of thoughtful people who take time out of their lives to contribute here. (Ok, you also attract so serious trolls, but lets leave them aside for the moment….)
This is one of the few places on the web where I can have an honest discussion with thoughtful conservatives like Mark about local issues as well as hear from people on the other side of the aisle. While you are right to caution against treating blogs as something more then opinion in prose, this is a pretty great place none the less.
How about starting a Trolls Anonymous? Cheesy Chuckie can be the first member. “Hi, my name is Cheesy, and I’m a troll … “
Excellent link and Blog….see ya won’t be hangin here anymore.
Just Kiddin,
Love ya like an Altar boy.
Well, this blog’s okay. Nah, it’s great!
But lay off the Marummy, okay?
Becuz if you believe # of votes = # of legal voters = # of legal votes, you ARE in Marummy country!
Ahhhhhhhh Goldy’s a celebrity..
So it’s adios reality
Goldy can act just like a fool
Some people think he’s cool
Just cuz he’s on TV (or a Blog)
Goldy can throw a major fit
When his latte isn’t just how he likes it
They say he’s gone insane
Just blame it on the fame
And pressures that go with..
BEING A CELEBRITY!
Goldy–you are truly one of the finest LEFTIST WingNut Whacko’s out there. Congrats!
Comment by Mr. Cynical— 4/10/05 @ 7:38 am
Yeah, but who’s the bigger celebrity?
Marummy or Goldy?
Gee, I thought so too. Soon enough, I will sing “The Battle Hymn of the Marummy State” as that’ll be our state song.
Drooling w/ sarcasm in Marummy Country!
Josef in Marummy Country, where # of votes = # of legal voters = # of legal votes
Idiot, jealosy creeping in again againt the BIAW blogger?
Goldy, If you’re the voice of liberal blogging in this state you may want to find some contributing writers. Preaching to the choir will only get you so far, it takes some “news” or “big issues” to keep the interest building.
Congrats on winning “a model election” as leader of the lefty bloggers. When you make it the rest of the way to the big time don’t forget the wing nut commenters that kept you on your toes.
jpgee-
Is there such a thing as a “homophobic homo”?
You seem to fit that unique billing.
I guess that makes you a celebrity too.
Ps
No one pays me to blog.
I don’t work for BIAW.
I eat salads…but also love to eat things that have faces…or had faces.
Goldy–
I agree with zip…you can take great pride in apologizing for the actions of your beloved Ron Sims (I remember you were a bigtime supporter of Don Ron King Sims and Dean “Weird Al Yankovic lookalike” Logan and his posse of incompetents.
Just wait until the depositions start. We need them on Court TV, don’t you think?? You know…OPEN GOVERNMENT (something you strive for in your fantasy alterego.
Idiot, faces or feces?
Comment by Mr. Cynical — 4/10/05 @ 8:19 am
I concur.
Cynical @5,
Of all the cruelly outrageous slander you have slung my way, this one I just can’t let stand unanswered. I do NOT drink lattes. Every morning I make myself a pot of gunpowder green tea… and even when I was a daily java drinker, and on the few occasions when I still drink it, I prefer to have a splash of milk in my coffee, not the other way around.
zip @8,
I agree that I need contributing writers, and that’s why I routinely plug the great work being done over at the other blogs, like Columbian Watch, Olyscoop, WA State Political Report, Also Also, Preemptive Karma, and all the others I list down the left-hand column on my home page. And that’s also why I strongly urge people to visit the blog aggregator, Pacific NW Portal, throughout the day. I’m in this to make a difference, not just pad my web stats.
GOLDY: Things must be a bit slow in Marummy County. The cows are jumping the fence to graze in your greener pasture.
Mr. Cyncial@10: Cynical has a meaning: morose, sarcastic, sneering and inclined to question the sincerity of other’s goodness. The Cynic doctrine of ancient Greece believed all people’s actions are motivated entirely by selfishness. Same as–the misanthropic “you strive for in your fantasy alterego.
Goldy,
I can relate to what you’re sayin’ in your blogs.
See, everything you say is real, and I respect you
’cause you tell it.
My wife’s jealous ’cause I talk about you 24/7.
But she don’t know you like we bloogers know you, Goldy, no one
does.
The Cynic doctrine of ancient Greece believed all people’s actions are motivated entirely by selfishness.
Ironic, that’s an apt description of Cynical himself. The Greeks must have been talking about the kinds of people who are now Republicans.
Goldy,
At the risk of showing my true colors, let me give you a piece of advice (only because I like you). Take some advertising, make some money on this new found fame. Once you are in the #1 spot you will have more grief and probably more out of pocket expense, compensate yourself.
Mr. Cynical@9 “…..but also love to eat things that have faces…or had faces. Cannibals have their rules of etiquitte, your supposed to quit eating while your having a ball (or two) and you wouldn’t be so full of shit.
“I’m in this to make a difference, not just pad my web stats.”
A-MEN. No matter how much I agree w/ you or not – I have to respect that!
Oh and the Marummy Country shitck – that’s just an ad for the Rossi Campaign, to signify my belief that the only votes that should count are from legal voters and that the # of legal voters = # of legal votes. Of course, Marummy is our (semi-unofficial) G-rated campaign hottie!
But for a link Goldy may have to delete – you ought to go to the British rag “Online Sun” and check out the Sunderbirds!
KING 5 HAS THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE FIRST SEGEMENT AND THE FULL STREAMING VIDEO UP NOW!!
Go HERE
Horse’s Ass is a good blog ‘cuz the words are in big print; and reading it is like looking eye to eye with someone and not seeing knives. Maybe, Goldy is actually a closet Moderate. Ooo, I can see the knives of distrust flying.
Cynical @ 9
NEWS FLASH! Mr. Cynical Denies Working for BIAW!
Well you sure fooled me. You and Tom McCabe could be kissing cousins.
Say, Cynical, are you related to Tom McCabe?
zip @ 17
Ain’t that just like a Republican — with them it’s always about money, money, money.
Josef @ 19
If you give Zits a bikini for her birthday, maybe she can upgrade to an R rating, and she might even let you fuck her too. But get your shots first, in case she does.
Wsux @24
Dammit, Don! I did not need that visual…
Don @ 23
You are so predictable my man.
Josef @ 20
Hey thanks for the link Joe! Great job, Goldy! You tell it like it is!
zip @ 26
Typical Republican, can’t even spell his own name. It’s R-o-b-s-o-n Walton, dummy.
Don @ 28
Typical liberal with no coherant arguement: invoke a few invectives, spew a few epithets and call your opponent denigrating names.
So much for the intellectual elitism of the left.
“If you give Zits a bikini for her birthday, maybe she can upgrade to an R rating, and she might even let you fuck her too. But get your shots first, in case she does.”
Zits? Who? Marummy doesn’t have zits!!
Comment by Dubyasux— 4/10/05 @ 1:44 pm
Welcome.
Dubyasux@24. Soon as Goldy gets his name in lights, they pop out of the woodwork to get a piece of the action.
Goldy, your predictable caveat emptor is getting old, stale and boring.
How about…
Re vera, cara mea, mea nil refert.
Comment by MAYBEDubyasuxbutDonistheSUCKEE— 4/10/05 @ 2:57 pm:
FROM DICTIONARY.REFERENCE.COM:
caveat emp·tor ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mptôr)
n.
The axiom or principle in commerce that the buyer alone is responsible for assessing the quality of a purchase before buying.
—————-
[From Latin caveat mptor, let the buyer beware : caveat, third person sing. present subjunctive of cavre, to beware + mptor, buyer.]
I know what it means – he’s worn it out already.
B
O
R
I
N
G
Caveat Emptor is right. That’s why all serious debaters are reading a wide variety of blogs, MSM articles, listening to talk radio, reading other non-fiction, magazines, etc. You won’t get the truth from any one viewpoint that’s for sure, and you certainly won’t get the truth with blind adherance to either the Democrats or the Republicans.
On the whole though, even though there’s an obvious concentration of left leaning readers on this site, the ideas of the left have been applied over the last thirty five years and they have failed. We would be a lot further on as a society if we didn’t have the constant pandering to political correctness, affirmative action, welfare, environmentalism, etc. and a whole host of other sociali$t ideas that Goldy panders to often in his writing.
To his credit, Goldy is a fantastic writer with a razor sharp wit, he employs a lot of good humor which I do enjoy, although that is sometimes sadly diluted by his profanity fetish. And Goldy does get it right on some ideas, but if you want the whole truth, you’re going to have to sniff a lot more than just what falls out this HorsesAss.
Estne tibi forte magna feles fulva et planissima?
Josef in Marummy Country— 4/10/05 @ 3:05 pm
Bene, cum Latine nescias, nolo manus meas in te maculare!
jeffb
why is it, voodoo economics, had to be supplemented with tax increases by both reagan and bush 1, before the economy took off?
Diggindude @39.
It’s not voodoo economics, it’s tax increases. Republicans are just as addicted to tax increases as Democrats because they feel that they must compete with some of the altruistic ideas of the left in order to appeal to the swing Democrat voters. Both sides are wrong. And that’s not coming from a libertarian point of view. Some taxes are indeed needed, but most of what’s proposed by the right and the left is not needed and only contributes toward the cause of statism and away from personal responsibility and individual freedom. The old GOP of more robust personal responsibility is long gone. The GOP is still a better fiscal choice than that of the spending crazed Democrats, but not much better, and then you also end up with the social disaster that is the far right side of the GOP.
That’s why party politics will get you nowhere and why I don’t think Goldy’s writing is objective or useful enough (he’s too far to the left.) The bottom line is that to arrive at the correct set of ideas, you have to be an independent and choose a la carte from the subset of correct ideas that come from each side of our bipolar extremist system.
Comment by MAYBEDubyasuxbutDonistheSUCKEE— 4/10/05 @ 3:31 pm
TRANSLATE PLEASE!
TRANSLATE PLEASE! -Comment by Josef in Marummy Country— 4/10/05 @ 4:28 pm
LOL
Bene, cum Latine nescias, nolo manus meas in te maculare =
Well, if you don’t understand plain Latin, I’m not going to dirty my hands on you
;-)
jeeb
I think you’re wrong about spending, the democrats will tax and spend to be sure, but what is much worse, is what the republicans are doing, which is give tax cuts, and raise spending at the same time. This is our biggest problem in this country today. Its the reason for the record deficits, and leads to nowhere.
sorry about the name slur, it was unintended.
I meant jeffb
Jeff B. @ 40 — I hate to disagree, but the new Republicans seems worse than the old Dems even–even talk radio is mentioning that there is more hidden PORK in the bills these guys pass without reading than ever before. I think we need to vote in all new people–all around! And if the newspapers like them, throw them out hard! Vote for a nobody with no history and get rid of anyone who can corrupt them before they get their bearings (i.e. Ted Kennedy, etc.)
In case you need translation: vote for inexperience and humility–the gridlock will be more productive than any ‘bi-partisan cooperative efforts’ ever could be.
@46 and 45,
It really depends on your point of view, both both are equally bad. Whether it’s continuing the tax growth to the point that we look like Sweden on the Democrat side, or running the deficits up on the Republican side, both are bad and both are a problem. What bothers me is when either side paints their picture as the solution, and both are guilty. The problem is that the underlying philsophy in our society is far too altruistic. We can’t get out from under the thumb of all of this welfare and spending because whether from a left/secular standpoint or a right/religious standpoint, altrusim is accepted as beneficial and needed for our continued success. Hence titles like Goldy’s post about Social Security being the most successful welfare program ever, and all of the rhetoric that it’s about the children. The problem is that we even consider it moral to build a giant safetey net in the first place. The more we encourage people to rely on the government, the more they will, and the closer that we come to Sweden.
I’ve got some friends who recently immigrated from Sweden. If you don’t know what it’s like there, you might go find a Swede and ask. We bitch about taxes here in the US, but their soceity is taxed so heavily and so progressively that there’s a limit to the success that anyone can attain before being taxed to the point that it’s better not to attain any further success. This is exactly the kind of dangerous and frankly un-American thinking that we are hearing from Bill Gates Sr. of late. The essence of the problem is that no longer is it simply a question of whether or not we should be taxing the segment of our population that is most capable of advancing our quality of life through investments in new technology and capital that will create new wealth for our country and new ideas, health innovations, products, etc. that make the quality of life better for the whole world.
No, now the question is just how much we should be taxing the rich, and how the rich shouldn’t even consider it wrong for their wealth to be appropriated for the public good.
For those who are not familiar, this is out and out socialism and what it will do is bring us all down to a lower quality of life. It may end up raising the quality of life for a small number of the poorest Americans, but in general we all suffer when capital flees our shores, and it will if we create a hostile tax environment.
So again, stop choosing between Republicans and Democrats, both are wrong.
A corrolary to the initial thread- blogs certainly require buyer beware. So does mainstream media. Goldy, your experience is typical. I once gave an interview, went back to my car and heard myself “live”. I had been spliced around interviewer questions to further their point. I can give other examples. What you wse or hear is not necessarily what was said or intended.
“see” not “wse”
Im not saying dems. dont need to cut spending, but spending needs to be cut, by eliminating unnecessary programs, and duplicity.
Not by pulling the rug out,and seeing who’s left standing.
Spending, and cutting, is a recipe for disaster, far greater than a few unnecessary programs.
Well, I’M all for more conservative judges who actually interpret the law rather than make it up according to what France is doing.
Jeff B. @ 36
You criticize environmentalism, so let’s discuss this issue.
The survival of our species, and our individual lives, depends on this planet sustaining us. Environmental science involves its ability to do so, and environmentalists usually argue for sustainable-use policies.
In the 1970s, the Pacific Northwest’s forests were being cut much faster than growth rates. This temporarily provided a large number of jobs in the forest products industry, but this employment level was not sustainable regardless of harvest policies. If the harvest rate wasn’t reduced, all the trees eventually would be cut. Then there would be no jobs at all.
Another example is commercial fishing. Regulating the catch has proved to be very difficult, and virtually all of the world’s major fisheries are overexploited. Many are in serious trouble, and some have collapsed, no longer providing either jobs or food. Regulating catch rates at sustainable levels, as advocated by environmentalists, would enable a fishery0 to provide jobs and a food supply forever, unless the fishery was destroyed by some other factor such as pollution.
Washington state has a set number of rivers which cannot increase. The amount of water in the rivers varies depending on precipitation and snow accumulation, but in any event our state’s water supply is finite; and all of it is spoken for and being used. There is no reserve capacity for future population growth, or industrial or agricultural expansion. If we allow anyone to dump toxic wastes into our rivers, there will be a subtraction from existing supply. The need for careful management of our rivers and water supplies is manifest, yet some people still resent and resist efforts by federal and state authorities to manage, conserve, and allocate our water supplies.
Animals breathe in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide, and burning fossil fuels also releases CO2 (in vast quantities) into the atmosphere. Plants, on the other hand, consume CO2 and release oxygen. The planet’s forests, especially its tropical forests, act as air filters to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and replenish its oxygen supply. Consequently, forests play a vital role in the planet’s — and our — health. Yet the world is being denuded of forests at an alarming rate. Within a generation or two, the tropical forests may be completely gone.
The environmental policies advocated by Democrats and liberals are not some whimsical scheme intended to inflict distress on those who concern themselves only with short-term profit. These policies are designed to protect the health of the human population and manage renewable resources in such a way that they keep producing at the maximum sustainable level. Regardless of whether we have environmental scientists and environmental advocacy, our society also must have a way to resolve competition for limited resources, for example a way to divide the water in our rivers between agriculture, municipal and household use, hydropower production, industrial use, navigation, recreation, and water-dependent resources such as fish and wildlife.
What do people like you gain from opposing environmental science, dismissing efforts to intelligently manage our planetary resources, and regulating practices and preventing pollution that damage our resources and harm our health? That’s shooting yourself in the foot, because short-sighted and selfish policies will hurt you along with the rest of us.
finger @ 46
It’s a sentimentally appealing idea, and I used to like it, visualizing a legislature and Congress full of waitresses and truck drivers, but it wouldn’t work. Much as I hate to say it, I’m convinced that professional politicians make better decisions, communicate better, respond to the people better, and provide better constituent services than amateurs ever could. You wouldn’t ask a truck driver to do surgery on you, would you? So why would you ask a person with no knowledge of government to analyze complex budgets and tax proposals, and make difficult policy decisions? Just ask Minnesotans what they think of their state’s amateur ex-governor.
Jeff B. @ 48
“The problem is that the underlying philsophy in our society is far too altruistic. We can’t get out from under the thumb of all of this welfare and spending because whether from a left/secular standpoint or a right/religious standpoint, altrusim is accepted as beneficial and needed for our continued success. … The problem is that we even consider it moral to build a giant safetey net in the first place.”
Here is where I, as a liberal, fundamentally disagree with you. We have over 200 years of historical experience with which to test your concept of rugged individualism without societal involvement in individual well-being. There is no question that people are better off today than in 1820, 1880, or 1933. Safety-net programs like unemployment insurance, Social Security and Medicare, injured workers and veterans benefits, public health programs, and housing and food assistance have made life longer, healthier, and more comfortable for the masses. Today, only about 2% of our population lives on farms, and the other 98% of us have no possibility of living off the land and are interdependent on each other. Conservatives seem to want a brutal society of winners and losers, in which the smartest or strongest prevail, and the losers (or just plain unlucky) are left without the basic necessities of life. The whole point of having a civilization is so that everyone can survive and no one has to starve, freeze, or live in utter poverty and degradation. If you want society to be a jungle, then why even have society? Your world view is a profoundly egocentric and self-centered one that focuses on getting as much for yourself as you can and to hell with everyone else. Many of us do not want to live that way, or in that kind of society. You are entitled to your views, but I will not vote to turn our nation and community into that kind of a society.
M @ 52
Judicial interpretation is an absolute necessity. Legislative bodies often pass laws that are vague or contradictory, and it’s impossible for any legislative body to anticipate everything that may occur and write a law that covers every situation. Judges have to fill in the gaps.
In addition, the U.S. Constitution would have ceased to be a useful document long ago if judges did not constantly reinterpret it to meet the needs of contemporary society. The men who wrote it couldn’t possibly foresee the government having access to your medical and financial records via internet link. Yet we look to the Constitution to answer the question whether such governmental intrusion violates our fundamental and guaranteed privacy rights. (The Constitution doesn’t even mention privacy; and such rights exist only through judicial interpretation.)
The Constitution didn’t even answer the question of who decides whether a law passed by Congress violates the Constitution, or what happens to such a law; the power of judicial review of legislation itself was created by judicial interpretation (to be precise, by Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, 1803).
And how can you define a concept like due process or equal protection, and apply it to a specific situation, without judicial interpretation?
The meaningful debate is not whether judges should have the power to interpret the Constitution and laws, but rather whether that power should be exercised in slavish fidelity to the literal words of a legislative enactment, or whether judges should try to discern and effectuate the legislative intent in a manner that produces the maximum benefit for society. A fundamental component of this debate is whether the judicial branch is to be a co-equal or inferior branch of government, and how we answer this question will profoundly affect the functioning of our system of checks and balances. That system works well, and only fools would alter it for short-term partisan gain.
Judges were creating law hundreds of years before there was a Constitution or a Congress, and for the first 150 years of our country’s history most of our law was common law (also called judge-made law). Micromanagement of society by legislative bodies is a recent development, and has not proven to be superior to judicial reasoning as a method for regulating society and resolving conflicts.
Even in terms of your own partisan aims, you would be better served by activist judges of a conservative viewpoint than judges who see their role as a pimple on the legislature’s ass. And if you value individual liberty, the last thing you want is judges who will let Congress do anything it pleases, and never lift a finger to protect your individual rights.
How ironic is it that for those who have followed this site since BEFORE blogging became passee, that it was never your intenion to create the monster you know posess. Maybe you shold change your moniker to “Frankengoldy”. What a beutiful creature it’s grown to become.
As for “Trolls Anonymous”… I’m DamnageD, and i’m a troll…so fuck off
!