MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
Thomas Friedman argues that blanket coverage of Trump hurts his image. Republicans are tied to the lunatic supporters of of Trump.
Comments
Does it though? Friedman provides no evidence pointing in that direction. His (Trump's) approvals are steady and his disapproval ratings falling slowly. From a GOP perspective he has cut taxes, slapped around the uncommitted NATO allies, finally started to get tough on the trade deficit, on Iran, on Immigration, on deregulation. What's not to like?
I don't think midterms swing one way or the other depending on how the soft suburban on-the-fence types vote. They depend on getting out the hardcore vote. And as opposed to the case of Obama's first midterm, Trump's base don't look disappointed.
by Obey on Thu, 08/09/2018 - 1:28pm
No one is trying to swing Trump voters. The truth telling gets the Democratic base to come out. It made a deeply Republican district in Ohio competitive.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 08/09/2018 - 2:31pm
You say
The subtitle of the piece you linked to says the following...
by Obey on Thu, 08/09/2018 - 3:39pm
I think that Republican moderates are making the choice between staying home versus voting for a Democrat. Trump voters are going to vote Trump no matter what he does. I the first category I would place white female suburban women. In the latter category I would put the farmer being directly harmed by tariffs.
The Republican moderate include people like Jennifer Rubin, Steve Schmidt, former Congressman Jolly, and Max Boot. They are not Trump voters, it is doubtful that they would cast votes foe Democrats. Other moderates are willing to vote for Democrats. Telling the truth about Trump reinforces their disgust. 80-90% of Republicans like what Trump is doing. The remainder are wondering what happened to their party. At this point in 2018, I would not count that 10-20% as Trump voters. Most will likely be Trump voters, but are not reliable Trump voters at this point. Ohio-12 was much more competitive than it should have been.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 08/09/2018 - 4:22pm
I don't see the numbers adding up to fit your reasoning. Trump's approvals are pretty much where they were on election night 2016. So why did the "down-ballot" candidate underperform in Ohio-12? You can't say the reason is Trump's fall in the polls. Because that fall hasn't happened.
Don't get me wrong, I do hope the Democrats win. I just don't see this campaign strategy working. It's the same strategy as Hillary and without a charismatic lead this time.
by Obey on Thu, 08/09/2018 - 9:51pm
There was an extraordinary amount of Hillary hate out there. Even among democrats. More than I realized existed or can understand the rational behind it. I hope that with Hillary gone democrats that voted against Hillary and republicans who disliked Trump but hated Hillary more will vote for democrats. Saying that doesn't mean I think the Hillary hate was rational. I still think she would have been a good president.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 08/09/2018 - 10:11pm
I think the GOP are running the same campaign with Pelosi in the role of Hillary. And Pelosi is unpopular with both Democrats and the GOP.
by Obey on Thu, 08/09/2018 - 10:16pm
Pelosi has nowhere near the traction of Hillary-hate. Republicans are in a bind - no visceral bloodlust to work off of.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 08/09/2018 - 10:22pm
are you the hate-o-meter expert? How does one quantify the comparison? I'll admit I was M.I.A. for a lot of 2015 and 2016 and wasn't able to watch the full detailed extent of the Hillary hate fest then, but to me from what I know of conservative talk radio and the like, Pelosi is the ultimate queen she devil tax-and-spend liberal, and has ruled that roost for many years, not Hillary, Hillary a distinct second. It's sort of like this: the Trumpster is who helped her compete. Partly cause Hillary always made it a point to act hawkish as Senator, as Sec. State, even as non-cookie baking feminist . Don't forget the whole snowflake meme, a snowflake is not so aggressive.
As far as today goes I see, WaPo is reporting apparently plenty of Dem House candidates see plenty of Pelosi hate in their districts as a plenty big problem for them
by artappraiser on Fri, 08/10/2018 - 4:34am
Nope, not even close - Hillary's worth 10 Pelosi's on the hate scale minimum, and that's not even accounting for Bill. I mean, dildos on the Xmas tree, shooting your lovers in the park black widow-like, drinking your own urine, pedophile pizza with extra toppings, take away our guns, Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi plus an orange prison jumpsuit effigy in a cage?
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 08/10/2018 - 5:07am
Any given Tuesday, to be sure. But when put in terms of long standing effect, Pelosi wins - they've been running ads against here for, what, 10-15 years? She's actually been in government as an elected official with substantial power and influence long enough to establish some pretty potent adversaries on both sides ... what's not to hate if you're a scared white man and/or a liberal trying to climb the ladder?
by barefooted on Fri, 08/10/2018 - 3:08pm
I think/hope there's a great deal of organizing that we're missing, for new female candidates, from women inspired by the Million Women March or however it was called, for those righteously pissed about Nov 2016. TMac's out there dong stuff in Seattle, haven't heard an update from her in a while...
Yes, without Hillary and with the rise of #MeToo, there's a different dynamic in play.
Also, I think separating children from parents has a "bridge/wall too far" clarity about it that progressives never managed to clarify in normal immigration policy
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 08/09/2018 - 10:21pm
An MSNBC/WSJ poll suggests 48% of potential voters want a candidate who will put a check on Trump.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news-campaigns/391129-poll-almost-half-of-voters-more-likely-to-pick
Democrats are chipping into Republican districts in recent special elections
https://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/august-7-election-results/
I think 2 years of Trump’s warped brain has shifted the debate.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 08/09/2018 - 10:25pm
Honestly who really knows? I have never agreed with the argument that the way to shut down trolls is to ignore them. I've never seen it work and I've asked those who make that argument to cite some example where it worked. Crickets was the only response. Now the troll is the president of the US. He spreads lies constantly and hate on twitter and everywhere else. Journalist have to point that out. They have to talk about it. They have to fact check even though it often seems the facts aren't getting through. I don't know if it will work, maybe nothing will. But I've always supported the idea that we should call out trolls, not ignore them.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 08/09/2018 - 2:46pm
To add. I was very active some years ago on an unmoderated site associated with the Rainbow Gathering. Trolls targeted the site. In the end we all ignored the trolls, by leaving. One by one all the posters except the trolls left. When we were all gone then the trolls stopped posting. We ignored them, and they stopped. There hasn't been a single post on the site for years. Success?
by ocean-kat on Thu, 08/09/2018 - 2:54pm
This begs a few questions:
1) Did you ignore or surrender?
2) How was the site run? Was it a social media type group or an actual website?
Consider dag, for example. If we all ignored Peter the Troll his posts would become far less common (and past experience here proves that) and we'd continue on our way. If dag was a different sort of thing then perhaps friends of Peter the Troll would show up, we'd all get disgusted by feeling overrun on an unmoderated social site and let them have it as we walked away grumbling to ourselves.
But even if the latter proved to be the case, wouldn't sincerely driven posters just find another place - perhaps a stronger one, with hindsight - to continue? Seems like blaming trolls for shutting down a discussion (which can only be done with approval by the non-trolls) is frivolous ... how serious were you?
by barefooted on Thu, 08/09/2018 - 4:06pm
When we discuss what happened or might happen at dagbog in relation to trollish behavior we're both speaking out of ignorance. Or perhaps you have inside information. I doubt that any troll stopped, slowed down, or left dagblog simply because he was ignored by the posting dagbloggers. I suspect if the moderators posted all the private e-mail discussions they've had about and with those who violate the TOS we'd see a different story emerge. I suspect that private discussion is much longer than any of us would guess.
Back in the early days of the internet before Facebook became dominant, when there was still a MySpace, before twitter and instagram Google set aside space on it's server and wrote software to create Google Groups. Anyone could create a discussion group on any topic. The person starting the group "owned" it and they or anyone they authorized could moderate in any way, shape, or form they wanted. Because of Rainbow Family of Living Light philosophy the person who set up Alt.gathering.rainbow did no moderation. By google's metrics, which they posted publicly, Alt.gathering.rainbow was one of or perhaps the largest most active of all google groups. Larger and much more active than dagblog.
After several years of active use several trolls descended on the group. At first some of us tried to shame them, troll back, plead and beg, to no avail. Eventually we stopped responding to the trolls and attempted to discuss around them. They just increased their activity to every thread posting insults, off topic comments designed to offend, long pages of irrelevant copied data, etc. Slowly members stopped posting at all.
Now it's possible that if we had continued to ignore them and post around them they might have gotten bored and left. Suffice it to say that they had more staying power to troll then we had staying power to stick around and ignore them. We all abandoned the group one by one.
There were attempts to set up different spaces but they never worked. No one wanted to set up a private site. If dagblog ended, as much as I like and value it, I wouldn't set up a new dagblog. Would you? I sent a small donation last time Wolraich asked and I'd send more if he asked but who here would invest the time and money to set up a dagblog replacement? A Rainbow Gathering page was set up on Facebook but Facebook isn't set up well for this type of discussion. For these and other reasons no replacement for Alt.gathering.rainbow was ever found.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 08/09/2018 - 6:29pm
I'll let out a dark secret - there's been almost 0 discussion of trolls behind the scenes, and if anything, it was of me being too assertive when my famed Miss Manners skills lapsed & shut someone down, with a very small # of ToS warnings or timeouts. Almost 0 censorship, say fewer than 5 deleted threads. What you see is mostly what you get. I'm not sure it's fair to call resistance a troll - he hung out, he believed what he believed, he argued stuff. Peter's more the "toss in some chum/a few keyword insults to get the sharks circling and never engage seriously" type. Or we could do a Twilight Zone thing and look at each other and try to figure out who's the real troll while the aliens look on and laugh at how we self-destruct.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 08/09/2018 - 6:23pm
Now, maybe so. Not a criticism but you are recent addition to the masthead. I keep getting the sense that the original list on the masthead including Wolraich have lost interest in this site. Again not a criticism. Things change, goals and interests change. I did a short eta: that I'll include here.
I sometimes wonder what Wolraich and the rest of the originators of this site get out of it. And when they'll decide it's not worth the energy and expense to maintain it. It will be a loss for me and some others here but things change and people move on.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 08/09/2018 - 6:42pm
I think Dagblog has handled trolls quite well. The trick being in part not to let the Troll-management become all-consuming. To stay on-topic and keep the conversation going among non-trolls about the topics that matter in a non-provocative way, without trying to trigger others and if possible going out of one's way not to trigger them. I've tuned out the media pretty much and just scan google news every couple of days to see what the current outrage is. It's not an abdication of duty to refuse to let trolls hijack the conversation. The meda does a terrible job in that they give Trump blanket coverage and they do so in the most inflammatory way. There is an assignment of journalistic resources that strikes me as non-optimal.
by Obey on Thu, 08/09/2018 - 3:49pm
Let me add another thought. Dagblog has also worked well - much like the café before it was shuttered - in large part because it has ventured beyond a narrow party-political focus. If you are talking only about the issues that divide you and not about outside human stuff, it impoverishes discourse and diminishes your ability to see the other parties as other than mere mouthpieces for policy positions that you either agree strongly with or oppose strongly. Civility demands that sense of a three-dimensional person at the other end of these streams of ones and zeros. And the same goes for media coverage. I've seen it with Brexit like with Trump. There was a brief window of trying to open the lines of communication to understand what has happened to a country to create such a wildly inexplicable divide. In each case the media quickly decided to shut those windows. And they are DECISIONS. No newspaper or television station has to spend all their time on rehashing Trump's racism or sexism like it is news that needs to be shouted about and commented on.
There is a weird disconnect for me between the amount of attention and emotional energy the center and left accord Trump in the US, and Brexit in the UK, and how little interest they accord the root causes of these phenomena. If we could only lock up Trump and reverse Brexit all would be well with the world again, and we could go back to ignoring these losers who deserve nothing more. Politics shouldn't be so manichean nor seen through such a zero-sum lens.
by Obey on Thu, 08/09/2018 - 4:03pm
I think everyone recognizes th at Trump merely tapped into racism and bigotry that was present in the country. I don’t think that putting more money in their pockets is going to change things. They are angry about the country becoming more diverse. Google Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham and see what these two well off people say about diversity.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 08/09/2018 - 4:28pm
I'm glad to hear you've all come to a consensus then. My counterpoint would be that focusing on Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham and having the national conversation happen through them is an error.
by Obey on Thu, 08/09/2018 - 4:31pm
If people are still supporting Trump, it means they are silent about bigotry, racism, kidnapping of babies, and willing to ignore a Cyberwar with Russia. They are also willing to suffer under the tariffs. Hate crimes are increasing and black people are having the police called on them for nonsense. Pardon me if I don’t see many allies in the still for Trump group.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 08/09/2018 - 4:40pm
The cliche is that being democrats is like herding cats. So it is with us. I think we all agree that being liberal-ish is better than being conservative and being a democrat is better than being a republican. That's probably the only consensus we have here.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 08/09/2018 - 8:34pm
"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat." - Will Rogers
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 08/09/2018 - 8:51pm
Let me add another thought. Dagblog has also worked well - much like the café before it was shuttered - in large part because it has ventured beyond a narrow party-political focus. If you are talking only about the issues that divide you and not about outside human stuff, it impoverishes discourse and diminishes your ability to see the other parties as other than mere mouthpieces for policy positions that you either agree strongly with or oppose strongly.
I'm always a sucker for a cafe reference ... ;-)
I'm also constantly drawn in by the "human stuff"; largely because it defines and confirms us even as it differentiates us in ways that really matter - ways that make us more intimate with one another, perhaps less likely to strike out arbitrarily. The differences are the core, really, when we consider who we are as people. The ability to express, describe and reveal those differences is crucial to understanding not only where we differ, but where we connect.
by barefooted on Thu, 08/09/2018 - 6:00pm
I don't write essays anymore - after some period of creativity, I've just gone back to posting news items. I'm not sure we defeated trolls, or we're a tiny community that trolls itself, lather, rinse, repeat. Occasionally we elicit some nice insight on evolving news or world issues, which probably satisfies our need to be curious and evolved. We're not an activist site like Alyssa Milano's million+ Twitter feed, we're not a specific area of expertise like Emptywheel, we're not a vast community like FDL, we're not a single personality like Digby. We just rehash the news, fir better and/or worse.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 08/09/2018 - 6:12pm
With absolutely no offense intended, I'm going to state what seems to me a fact here - when arta came back the news feed erupted. She was, and continues to be, an amazing news curator who has a way of not only finding articles worth noting but expounding upon them in very interesting ways. That said, there's a clear line. Most of us follow her lead (hi, barefooted); though to call it her lead isn't exactly fair, since I don't think she ever meant to lead anything. We follow the pattern because it's easier to discuss, critique and distill a professionally written piece than to create one ourselves and open it up for consideration. And frankly? We're often overlooked when we try. Maybe we should troll ourselves ... even if it drew fire it would also draw attention.
eta: We just rehash the news, fir better and/or worse. Worse. Always worse. Rehashing anything just means that something that tasted good yesterday sucks today - but you're stuck with it on your plate.
by barefooted on Thu, 08/09/2018 - 7:18pm
I'd say Arta & I played off each other quite a bit the last 2 years, with a bit more stick-around-and-analyze what we post, or at least that's my impression. (including who's staying up posting in the Bronx at absurd hours to compensate for timezone differences or insomnia...)
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 08/09/2018 - 7:22pm
Look backwards ... even she says she took some time off. In any event, I'm talking about what you referenced, even if you don't see the connection.
by barefooted on Thu, 08/09/2018 - 7:30pm
Like Obey, I was forced to go cold turkey for a couple years by real life. It was really the worst two years of my life past anything I could ever have imagined happening to me. I don't want to talk about it more than that except to say I am surprised I weathered it without committing suicide. And that because of it,and when it happened and confluence of other things, the rest of my life is not going to be hunky dory. So if I ever seem angry or something here, it's NOTHING, you're reading it wrong, because this is all just a fun hobby. This site is a great comfort and distraction to me and my addiction gives me some joy.
I might just be a little tougher in arguing about stuff when I do because after what I've lived through, it seems ridiculous for people to have their ego in this! And not only that, L learned the hard way as a scholar in grad school, that anyone and everyone who wants to learn to communicate better in writing should welcome any and all criticism as a gift. And if someone misunderstands what they are saying, take it as an opportunity to learn how to say it clearer. To take offense at criticism is just plain stupidity, just means you're doing it for ego and not to learn how to write better or to communicate better with people.
by artappraiser on Thu, 08/09/2018 - 7:52pm
Whatever happened to and around you, arta, I feel for you and am truly sorry. I know it may seem silly - absurd, even - for a stranger to offer an apology for anything at all, but in this case I hope you'll accept mine on behalf of all those who truly owe you one. I'm glad you're here.
I've got my own trials, as does everyone else, and some of my past tribulations find a way of peeking up now and then. Finding a way to acknowledge the past while not letting it become too much a part of the present is complicated, at best, and impossible otherwise. But we do it, don't we?
by barefooted on Thu, 08/09/2018 - 8:51pm
Maybe help some: the way I describe it to my friends and family is "my news group."
The way I look at it is we got a nice little news group going on here, just like a book club of like 10 people that meets once a week in someone's home. And sometimes this goofball trollish neighbor (Peter) stops by the meeting and spits out some weird shit and some people get pissed, but I actually find that interesting too.
And we have Michael Wolraich's home to do it in! And he spends a lot of his free time taking care of it--making sure a site like this is always working takes a lot of time-- even though he doesn't use it that much now, he takes care of it because it might be useful for him in the future and it's a nice addition to a C.V.
What I don't get, and why I sometimes get into arguments with one person in particular, is that they don't seem to see it that way, they don't see the reality of site as just a small bunch of people talking about the news and a few others posting a blog here and there when they want to try out writing something up, or they want to get a few more clicks going on something they've published elsewhere.
I don't "get" why anyone would think posting certain news on a theme to advance political activism, which one might do on a much bigger site to help the theme go viral. To me, that's like insulting your friends that are in your small group. Or it is delusional about the reach of this site, as if there are hundreds of lurkers (surely not.) Not talking about disagreeing or debating, that's different, friends do that. But to come to here to try to instruct the group how they are thinking all wrong, and need to shut up and listen, that's the only thing that gets me ornery. But in the end, it's okay too.
by artappraiser on Thu, 08/09/2018 - 7:39pm
Or it is delusional about the reach of this site, as if there are hundreds of lurkers (surely not.)
I am constantly befuddled by the number of "reads" attributed to my posts. And certainly not just mine - haven't you noticed Dick Day's fascination with his numbers? I have no idea why or how a post of mine garners up to 10,000 reads or more ... I can only suppose that the link is being shared on social media (on which I have no presence).
by barefooted on Thu, 08/09/2018 - 8:10pm
A book club of like 10 people is a good description but there is something that confuses me. Each thread gets hundreds and sometimes thousands of "reads." I don't really care how many people read just those I'm talking to but WTF? Are "reads" discrete readers or does it count every time I and others click on a thread. Even if it's every time we click there's a thread up now that has nearly 5,000 reads. Some threads get thousands more. Even if we expand it to 25 of us I never clicked on any thread no matter how long 200 times. Where do those numbers come from?
by ocean-kat on Thu, 08/09/2018 - 8:15pm
I am absolutely 100% certain it counts every time anyone clicks on a thread to post a comment or look at a comment.So when I comment and then 10 people all look at the comment, and then someone replies and all ten look at the reply, all those visits count, it easily gets up there. And even when you edit your comment, that's another count too! You edit twice, that's 3 visits just making a comment. I remember telling Richard that long ago, that those are not counts of people but clicks on the thread but it didn't seem to sink in with him.
As to the old threads appearing as "hits of the day" that could have something to do with spamming or indexing spiders or the like, that I don't know.
by artappraiser on Thu, 08/09/2018 - 8:27pm
Yes yes it must be that. I like talking to you all but we're not that interesting. There can't be that many lurkers. But still, if I click on a thread 10 times a day including edits for 10 days that's 100 clicks. And I can't imagine I click that much. How does that add up to more that 5,000 reads.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 08/09/2018 - 8:39pm
If you look at the diaries, those that reach 5000 "reads" have 50 or more comments - roughly 90-100:1 reads to comments. It's largely self-driven - each of us coming back to read the newest comments, occasionally posting a new one. The biggest breakthrough was something like 20,000 reads by Hal a while ago (during the campaign?). Since then the biggest hit might have been 10,000. Now I see a typical blog might get <100 reads, then it jumps to 2000 or so if attracts interest, and if really catches fire it's 4000-5000.
Also note that while sometimes we're reading the last 5 comments, other times we're clicking on each new comment, even if on the same thread. Also, whenever I edit a comment, that's another read, and I often edit comments 2-3 times. So it all adds up.
"Hits of the Day" seemed to have some hiccups for a while, where old articles with big reads might appear again (maybe somebody wandered in to read something old, maybe it was some of the spam hacks we had to weed out giving false positives...) but seems to reflect reality at the moment.
ETA - and then there's refreshing the page to see if any new comments - if done within a post, adds a new read.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 08/09/2018 - 8:47pm
Nope. Try as you might, it doesn't work to say that we just click ourselves to dagblog heaven. For instance:
http://dagblog.com/arts/can-you-say-hero-25317
That's a post in the least noticed sidebar - and has accumulated as of tonight 1969 reads. Driven by four whole comments?
by barefooted on Thu, 08/09/2018 - 9:04pm
Fess up you ego driven narcissist. You clicked on it 1950 times yourself just for bragging rights. I always click on my own blogs 4 or 5 hundred times a day until I get a few thousand.
Some of us are lurkers on some threads. I rarely participate in the Creative Corner threads. I always enjoyed the haiku threads and miss them now that they're gone but never participated since I don't write poetry. Or the cooking threads. I liked to read them to get to know people a little better but I hate to cook.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 08/09/2018 - 9:25pm
Well .... okay .... but just that once! Really!
by barefooted on Fri, 08/10/2018 - 2:44pm
Creative Corner seems to work different - lots of reads, few comments, few posts.
Maybe Mr. Smith is still pulling miracles, bless his soul...
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 08/09/2018 - 9:25pm
I never refresh a page to see if there's a new comment. Dagblog keeps track and tells me if a thread has new comments. And mostly I use the Latest Comments section. The most I could click on a thread is the number of comments, though as arta pointed out a few edits might add to that. I might reread the thread when someone adds a new comment but I don't click just to reread if nothing's been added. It's actually usually less than the number of comments. I left to do something today and when I came back there were several new comments on this thread. I clicked once to read them all.
Interesting to think about but in the end who cares. Even if there are hundreds of lurkers dagblog would still be too small for us to have a measurable effect on politics.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 08/09/2018 - 10:00pm
I post articles that interest me.Looking at pastors who sat down with Trump. analyzing Trump’s tweets about black people, and looking at museum efforts to increase diversity all seem worthwhile news stories. Discussion of the black son of a police chief attacking an elderly Sikh man leads to question of gang culture (assuming mental illness is not a factor). Part of the culture is Gangsta rap. The articles seem appropriate to me.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 08/09/2018 - 9:23pm
Surprised me, checking back a few days in June I see AA posting about 3-4x the news items I do.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 08/10/2018 - 12:44am
Dagblog handles trolls by censoring them. There have been several trolls here. They're either gone or controlled. Where is resistance? Gone. Others gone so long I don't even remember their names.
I don't get this idea that somehow Trump is treated differently by the media than other politicians or other news. The media applies blanket coverage to everything. It's comprehensive and detailed on every possible issue. It gave blanket coverage to Benghazi, to Hillary's e-mails, to Clinton's affair with Lewinsky. It gave detailed coverage to making the case for war with Iraq and against it. It tells us everything and more than we need to know about the Kardashians. It's still telling us what Lindsey Lohan thinks about anything. I just saw a article today. Lindsey Lohan for christ's sake. I thought she had disappeared in a flame out of notoriety years ago. But no, she's still relevant and news worthy.
If people think that all the news talks about is Trump and it's different and greater than the way it talks about any other topic they're just not paying attention to all the other topics. It's their choice not the media's fault.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 08/09/2018 - 4:51pm
That sounds wrong to me on several levels. You can count articles and quantify screen time given to any given topic. Democrats famously complained that Hillary's campaign was not given equal screen time nor equal newspaper coverage or that the media's focus was unfair. Too few articles on her policies, less video of her speeches, etc. Too much coverage of her emails. Secondly, there's which aspects the media chooses to highlight. I'm sure Fox does cover close to "everything", but the patterns they draw and the commentary follow-up gives weight to certain issues and aspects of issues which makes their treatment less than unbiased, right? There's a CHOICE involved for any media outlet in terms of where attention is directed.
by Obey on Thu, 08/09/2018 - 10:05pm
Within any single news source there is to some degree or sometimes a great degree of single side reporting. Sometimes even outright lying in support of partisan affiliation. FOX is pravda for the far right republicans. If that's your sole news source you'll have a very skewed and incorrect picture of reality. MSNBC spins for liberal democrats. While more truthful than FOX that spin will give a skewed picture of reality if it's your only news source. Perhaps less skewed than FOX but still skewed. Getting all your news from a single source is a choice that people make.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 08/09/2018 - 10:27pm
FWIW, new and I haven't read it, but they are headlining it
Trump blows up GOP's formula for winning House races
A POLITICO analysis of the vote breakdown in Ohio's special election shows that the party's suburban problem might be even deeper than feared.
by artappraiser on Fri, 08/10/2018 - 3:31am
Hey folks, I've been paddling around in the wilderness since Thursday, so I'm just catching up now. I'm touched by the comments here and proud to host such an intelligent group of writers. Dag's 10-year anniversary (wow) is coming up next month, so that will be a good time for a retrospective blog post, but I'll address a few of the questions raised in the thread.
Trolls have never been the a big problem at dag, perhaps bc we're too small, or perhaps because people here are good at shutting them. The moderators have blocked a few of them, but we don't block trolls just for being trolls. We block them when they break the rules--personal insults, racism, etc. Resistance and a few others were trollish but mostly law-abiding, which is why we permitted them to hang around for so long.
And honestly, I would never waste much time on a random troll with no connection to the site. The people to whom we've devoted significant moderation time are the regulars--good writers and smart contributors who occasionally lose their cool or develop personal animosities with other regulars. Some we had to eventually block, some didn't appreciate the moderation and left, but a number of folks took it in stride and are still with us. Those communications with the contributors and between the moderators took a LOT of time. I wish I could take back hours lost to arguing with Articleman over whether such-and-such should be censored, suspended, or blocked for some infraction. Fortunately, that seems to be mostly behind us now. Those of us who remain are pretty good about treating one another more-or-less respectfully.
The other banes of dag moderation have been spammers and hackers. I was able to shut down the spammers with a few tricks, but it took me a few years to figure out how to do it. Hackers have been a problem more recently. I've previously written about a big hack a few years ago which I had to hire someone to fix. We had another one last year that I dealt with myself with invaluable assistance from Peracles. It's been smooth sailing since then.
On the page hits question, yes, every hit is counted, so you can boost your count by refreshing a lot. ;) Hits from designated search spiders are not counted, but there are plenty of unofficial bots that don't advertise themselves, so the numbers inflated. That said, we're search-indexed, so a number of the hits are from people who come in from google searches. And every once in a while, someone even links to us.
I'll say more when I write that anniversary blog post, but for now, I just wanted to hi and thank you to everyone who keeps this place special. It means a lot to me.
by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 08/13/2018 - 12:19pm
I just wanted to say that since that somewhat painful afore-referenced event, I'm much more fluent in hex code, so might even write an anniversary post in compressed binhex, yay!!! Almost as fun as doing bitcoin calculations in your head.
BTW, not just Dag is holding its 10 year anniversary - a couple days ago AirBnB celebrated its own as well. So instead of herding a bunch of political cats, Michael, you could have been retired somewhere in the Seychelles counting wads of cash and chatting with Erik Prince across the fence - glad we saved you from that unpleasant fate. You're way too intellectual for such bourgeois loafing.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 08/13/2018 - 2:01pm
Who says I'm not?
416c6c20796f75722062617365206172652062656c6f6e6720746f20507574696e
by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 08/13/2018 - 10:12pm
Cause even there it's no random sequence of numbers - I see historic figures rising and falling, a crescendo of digital concepts packed tightly for effect, expressions sublimated within an effervescent code, hidden, then revealed, then gone again... you, sir, are no stuffy Piers Brosnan - you're an artiste struggling to get out within your packed compressed medium.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 08/13/2018 - 11:37pm
I thought you were fluent in hex. Try https://cryptii.com/hex-to-text
by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 08/14/2018 - 10:24am
Oh totally - I just concoct these hexgraphs in my head when bored or irritated. Like my favorite hex mantra: 4d 79 20 62 61 62 79 20 64 6f 65 73 20 74 68 65 20 68 6f 6b 65 79 20 70 6f 6b 65 79 2e
Or when in a more intellectual mood, 4c 61 20 64 61 20 64 65 65 0a 4c 61 20 64 61 20 64 65 65 20 64 6f 6f 0a 4c 61 20 64 61 20 64 61 20 6d 65 0a 4c 61 20 64 61 20 64 61 20 79 6f 75 0a 4c 61 20 64 61 20 64 65 65 0a 4c 61 20 64 61 20 64 65 65 20 64 6f 6f
PS - those be some lazy ass dogs.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 08/14/2018 - 11:05am
Cool, I was thinking of taking dag all-hex since most of our readers are AI bots.
by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 08/14/2018 - 1:06pm
It's always good to hear from the lurker running the place.
by artappraiser on Mon, 08/13/2018 - 2:04pm
I had some trouble with my avatar a bit ago (gave it a refresh and couldn't upload it to the site), as you may recall, and I want to say that while I understood the issues I greatly appreciated you making sure I was me again as soon as you reasonably could. Thanks again!
by barefooted on Mon, 08/13/2018 - 3:21pm
You should thank me for resisting the urge to make this your avatar...
via GIPHY
by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 08/13/2018 - 10:24pm
If you had, you wouldn't have liked the result ...
by barefooted on Mon, 08/13/2018 - 10:36pm