The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Michael Maiello's picture

    What Is The Norm on WMD?

    By Michael Maiello on Sun, 09/01/2013 - 8:55am | Politics

    The best argument for intervening in Syria is that the U.S. would enforce a normal surrounding the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction that, whatever the short run costs, would benefit the world in the long run.  We would seek to create a world where, I don't care if the rebels are at your door, you're not allowed to infect their home village with a disease or unleash the mustard gas.

    The notion that war needs rules was hard learned.  A lot of what we call WMD today was just ordinary brutality for much of history.  Diseases were used against Native Americans.  Mustard gas was used in World War I.  Agent Orange was used in Viet Nam and might be considered a WMD today.  Of course, the U.S. has twice used atomic weapons.

    Then, I'd venture that most of us recognize that so called "conventional" weaponry can be WMD in the right hands.  Bashir Assad's tanks and cannons have and killed more than his sarin gas.  But, still we recognize that certain gasses, chemicals and types of explosive cause a type of horror that makes us specifically recoil and, we fear, they make mass execution so easy as to constitute an existential threat to humanity if used freely by those with a grudge, bad judgment, short temper or worse.

    We have seen genocides in eastern Europe, Africa and around the world, really without the use or threat of WMD.  Rwanda was a decidedly low tech atrocity. Saddam Hussein is famous for gassing the Kurds but his campaign against them was largely conventional.

    Another thing about Hussein -- he broke the norm on chemical weapons but was not directly punished for it.  Later on some hawks in the U.S. put it on the list of reasons why a cruise missile up the arse couldn't happen to a nicer guy, but nobody felt the need to "enforce a norm" right away and... Hussein did not repeat the action nor did other dictators do the same thing or act as if more powerful nations had given them a global pass.

    See, the notion that if we don't punish one dictator for doing something horrible that all of his friends in the Legion of Doom will take it as permission to do the same thing just isn't quite right.

    I don't know why.  I can guess.  One thing is that nations and people are complicated.  Dictators aren't all friends with each other.  They don't all get along.  They are often rivals.  They are not sharing notes.  They are certainly not all in a conspiracy.  There is no Dr. Doom or Cobra Commander organizing them.  This is why a lot of them never helped al-Qaeda.  Many of them were at war with al-Qaeda.  Hussein thought he was a freaking socialist.

    They also have mixed motivations.  Eary in the Iraq occupation, CIA agent Charles Duelfer wrote a report suggesting that Hussein still hoped that he could eventually work things out with the U.S. and become a useful proxy against Iran once again.  Hard to blame him.

    Another possibility, so far as Hussein goes, is that he was out of gas anyway and maybe only used it in the first place to prove to his enemies that he had it and was not to be messed with.  This is not unprecedented.  The U.S. dropped its second atomic bomb on Japan in order to make sure that Stalin's generals realized it was not a one time thing and that their development of jet fighters was too little, too late.  As it turns out, it was a two time thing.  The U.S. didn't have a third bomb.  Maybe Hussein didn't have any more mustard gas.

    The notion of enforcing norms depends on the observation, likely true, that WMD are easier to get now than they have been in past decades, because of globalization and some key failed states.  I accept that but would argue that even if they are relatively easier to obtain they are still very difficult to obtain, particularly if, as we have learned, Western powers are monitoring pretty much all electronic communication on Earth.  It might be that practical constraints are a more likely deterrent than potential blowback from the U.S. or its allies.

    Finally, foreign dictators are not Klingons.  We might be overestimating their taste for violence.  Assad is something of a cornered beast.  He definitely faces death if he loses, not just for himself but for his family and anyone close to him.  What I'm saying here can't be applied to any specific situation.  They are all unique.  Given Assad's situation, all bets might be off.

    But in general, we have not rigorously enforced the norms against WMD use and yet WMD use remains rare.  So there must be something wrong with the "norms" argument.

    Topics: 
    Politics

    Comments

    I loved this article when you posted it on Facebook too, Michael. Great job. All the comic book references are pretty classic Maeillo too but if you think about it, Klingons, Sith, Dr. Doom, etc. are all based on our perception of Eastern dictators.


    by Orion on Sun, 09/01/2013 - 9:32am

    Textbook orientalism.


    by Michael Maiello on Sun, 09/01/2013 - 11:49am

    For real - though interestingly it's based more on European interpretations than American, I think.


    by Orion on Sun, 09/01/2013 - 5:41pm

    Michael, I appreciate your efforts to fairly represent the argument, here, but I think you set it up for defeat from the first sentence. "Norm" is such a lifeless word. It evokes a sociologist's analytical essay or a technocrat's impassive report. A norm is some arbitrary cultural phenomenon like a rule against extramarital sex or eating pork.

    If Assad had launched a nuclear weapon or wiped out Syria's Kurd population or sponsored a terrorist attack on New York City, would we accuse him of violating a norm? I doubt it. Norm says, implicitly, "Well, this is not such a big deal on the scale of things."

    I've spoken with people who make that point explicitly. What's one more 1,000 deaths in a war that has killed 100,000? I find it hard to understand such cold calculations. Death is not death. Imagine two scenes:

    One, a shell hits a building next door to rebel snipers, killing a family with five children ages 3 to 11.

    Two, a soldier breaks into a house. Following orders, he shoots every member of the family in the head as they cower in the corner, including five children ages 3 to 11.

    Are these the same? To me, the second is many times more horrible.

    Chemical attacks are much more like the second than the first. Sarin gas is a very deadly, very indiscriminate killer. When Assad used it, it was as if he sent his soldiers into every house in the neighborhood and executed entire families--then hacked up the survivors to permanently debilitate them. I find the attacks utterly abhorrent to a degree that surpasses the death toll. If we can prevent them from happening, I believe that we must do so, not because we are entitled to or expected to but because we are morally obligated to.

    Which brings me to the second point: deterring future attacks. Maybe some people are concerned about the lessons that other dictators will draw from Syria, as you suggest. I'm concerned about one dictator in particular. Assad is caught in a stalemated civil war between rival ethnic and religious groups. His military has launched several sarin attacks of increasing severity. If they face no consequences for these acts, I am very afraid that they will continue to kill people with sarin gas, that the tragedy will repeat itself, and that thousands more will die silently in their homes for the crime of living in the wrong neighborhood. And if he should truly, indiscriminately unleash his sarin arsenal on the population, we would see a holocaust the likes of which the world has not seen in many years.


    by Michael Wolraich on Sun, 09/01/2013 - 10:15am

    A persuasive argument.  I didn't bring norms into the discussion, though.  The pro-interventionists did.  However, that is a side issue.  Reading you makes me wonder, though, what happens if our intervention convinces Assad that these weapons are his only edge, perhaps as a deterrent against us.

    But, trying not to be strident here.  My brain is, as usual in, "I'd rather we didn't."  But every situation is unique.  What I took from Libya is that a lot of good can happen over legitimate objections.


    by Michael Maiello on Sun, 09/01/2013 - 11:43am

    If I remember correctly, Michaels, "norms" are pretty standard issue for most political science and international law courses.

    The idea is that there are certain behaviors that are normative for the whole world and following those norms is what lets you be in the X club, which we are in along with Canada, Australia, Europe, etc. or in the Z club, which countries like Syria are in.

    The reality of what a "norm" means in the world is social, however. It's not actions that the United States defines as norms - I highly doubt this sort of response would occur from the administration had Saudi Arabia used sarin gas on its people. The United States has and does support all sorts of governments that violate moral norms of behavior - but since they haven't yet violated the norms of engaging the United States economically, they're not getting threatened with cruise missiles.

    The perfect example of falling in and out of the real standard for norms is Iraq. Iraq attacked and went to war with Iran over several years in the 1980s but whatever horrible things that Saddam Hussein did were all normative for us because he was pursuing our interests. Wikileaks has revealed that Saddam Hussein and George H.W. Bush negotiated before Hussein attacked Kuwait and Hussein indicated wishes to invest his oil elsewhere. In that case, Hussein violated our norms, whereas he was still within our norms when he was attacking Iran.

    I realize I may be coming at this from way to the left of most people on this site so please don't chew my head off.


    by Orion on Sun, 09/01/2013 - 5:51pm

    "Norm" is technically accurate, but it has broad, abstract connotations that aren't suitable for discussing injustice. Technically, Adam Lanza violated a norm, since our culture does not consider mass-murdering children to be acceptable behavior. But no one would ever put it that way. Imagine someone wrote a blog post after Sandy Hook titled, "What is the norm with killing kids?"

    To the second point, I'm aware that American response to injustice is inconsistent. Sometimes that's by necessity. I really wish that we could do something about the terrible injustices in North Korea, but we cannot do so without a triggering a holocaust in Seoul. In other cases, the U.S. is guilty of applying double standards. But that doesn't eliminate our moral obligation when we are capable of averting a slaughter.


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 09/02/2013 - 8:21pm

    what happens if our intervention convinces Assad that these weapons are his only edge, perhaps as a deterrent against us.

    I don't see how that follows. If using the weapons leads us to intervene, then how do they act as a deterrent?


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 09/02/2013 - 8:12pm

    But isn't one of the biggest issues here whether it was Assad who used the weapons? At least as I read around, this seems to be in doubt.

    Also, how do we deter effectively? I don't think ANYONE is against deterring the use of chemical weapons. The question is, will a strike do any good or do more harm than good?


    by Peter Schwartz on Mon, 09/02/2013 - 8:14pm

    Just so you know:

    Sarin Gas: 

    One of the world's most dangerous chemical warfare agents. Sarin is an extremely toxic substance that disrupts the nervous system, overstimulating muscles and vital organs. It can be inhaled as a gas or absorbed through the skin. In high doses, sarin suffocates its victims by paralyzing the muscles around their lungs. One hundred milligrams of sarin (about one drop) can kill the average person in a few minutes if he or she's not given an antidote. Experts say sarin is more than 500 times as toxic as cyanide.

    500 times as toxic as cynanide. Think about that for a while. And then think about this, like MW says above, if we don't do something about Assad's stockpile of Nerve Gas, remember Sarin is a nerve gas, and he does this over and over again, are we not responsible for allowing this to happen? Are our treaties and international laws meaningless? Do we do nothing? And when there are many more deaths, is it not on our shoulders and what I mean by our shoulders I do mean the entire international community. And our we war weary, yes we are, but that doesn't mean that we just sit back and do nothing. As the Foreign Policy column by Rosa Brooks, we are stuck between a rock and a hard place, but there is a right and wrong here, and we don't really have a choice.  And now Congress is going to have to make a decision, they are going to have to pick a side.  

    It is the Hobbesian Choice.


    by tmccarthy0 on Sun, 09/01/2013 - 10:47am

    I am generally anti in cases like this but, with Assad having in the position he's in... it's hard to imagine the limitations on his behavior.  I am thrilled, however, that Congress will not be allowed to sit this out.


    by Michael Maiello on Sun, 09/01/2013 - 11:26am

    Its not just congress that should not be allowed to  sit this one out. If we are truly trying to enforce international "norms" the international community can't sit it out either. America can't unilaterally decide what the international norms are and unilaterally enforce them. For any action to be effective there must be some substantial coalition at least verbally backing it.

    It appears as though Obama is going to seek this. And I've been reading that its likely that England will have a second vote after the UN analysis.


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 09/01/2013 - 2:55pm

    This is a very compelling topic.   I would like to be able to participate and share what I know about the use of poison gas, the "norm" as you refer to it.  1925, lots of people knew why we were saying no worldwide to poison gas, including my grandpa's older brother who along with other young American boys were sent with limited training to die in trench warfare. My uncle and other folks survived to tell the tale.  

    Unfortunately, I will not be able to participate because of my inability to participate without abuse of an ugly kind.   

    I brought this up with you privately as you know.  

    Norm?  Where I come from the norm is to tell folks to keep ugly stereotypes out of the conversation.  That to me is as normal as the apple pie my mother makes, just like the American moms.  

     

     


    by Bruce Levine on Sun, 09/01/2013 - 11:47am

    I'm sorry you aren't able to participate.

    I went to this thread when I saw your name under "Latest comments" and feel cheated. Not by you but by the abusers who have silenced you.

    Too bad.


    by Flavius on Sun, 09/01/2013 - 12:08pm

    Not sure you're cheated Flavius, and this is not about me.  As others have acknowledged to me in private, it is those who are disinclined to express their views because of ugly stereotyping that we as a group should be concerned.  I can out MF anybody 'til the cows can come home and I can do it with grace or not.   But it is the principle.


    by Bruce Levine on Sun, 09/01/2013 - 12:13pm

    Flavius, it is obvious that Bslev is able to participate even if he chooses to do it on his own completely different topic and to do so with completely unsupported aspersions. You may very well have, in fact, been cheated if you did not see his comment you responded to in its original form before it was edited to remove the ugly stereotypical charges, one of which is a completely wrong judgment and the other provably false. 

     Bslev, please have the integrity to repost your first comment in its original form. Even if Flavius saw it and his response has its full text in mind, there will be many who come later to read this and be deprived of the full story if you don't. 


    by A Guy Called LULU on Sun, 09/01/2013 - 2:13pm

    No thank you.


    by Bruce Levine on Sun, 09/01/2013 - 2:45pm

    Everywhere you go you will find stupid people doing stupid things. Its absolutely impossible to tell every stupid person how stupid they are, and its a waste of time. Most stupid people are to stupid to realize how stupid they are.

    You don't have to talk to everyone here. You don't have to discredit their talking points. Most of the people here are pretty smart and fairly well read. Most can see those who discredit themselves with their posts.

    I suggest you try picking and choosing who you talk to. Skip the hyperbolic or insulting posters. That's just troll bait, don't let them pull you in. Again, you don't need to discredit them. They discredit themselves. Talk to those who make valid or cogent points, whether they agree or disagree.

    If you allow stupid people to stop you from posting you allow them to win. They've silenced you. Just ignore them and often so will most everyone else. Those hyperbolic or insulting posts will often just sit there alone. No offense meant but I don't understand why you find that hard to do. Though in all fairness that seems to be one of the biggest problems on the internet, people can't stop themselves from feeding the trolls.


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 09/01/2013 - 2:37pm

    Thank you O-K, you're a gem, but this is not about me as I wrote to Flavius.  And I'm not asking anyone to be banned or management to spend their time monitoring every quote.  I just want to be able to express myself without lulu challenging me inapporpriately every step of the way.  

    And with all due respect to the dude, he's not stupid, but I am flabbergasted how much time he obviously spends on all things Israel--far more than yours truly I bet--and then he's supposed to be excused as some friggin' yokel because he is ignorant of the most fundamental components of what it is to understand the history of the Jewish people.

    It is absurd.

     


    by Bruce Levine on Sun, 09/01/2013 - 3:06pm

    Again, not trying to offend, but it is about you because you decide who to dialog with.

    I had some difficulties with a couple of people here. I felt myself getting angry and getting into unproductive and endless debate. Some people are intent on always having the last word. I decided to rarely  acknowledge their replies to me. I told them I was done debating with them, why, and almost always didn't. Fortunately it was made easier for me in that most people here came to similar conclusions about those I had difficulty with. They discredited themselves without me being involved. But it wouldn't have mattered if I was alone, if everyone here thought they were brilliant. I still wouldn't have engaged them. I decided it wasn't worth my time because I decided their comments were "inappropriate".

    I'm not taking sides. I know so little about Israel that I don't focus on those threads. But if you feel that some people aren't worth dialog with, just don't dialog with them. Don't silence yourself with everyone else because of it. Like flavius, I'd miss your posts.

     


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 09/01/2013 - 4:10pm

    Hi Bruce,

    I think you should ignore the comments by certain folks and let er rip. The internet is a weird place and anonymity makes people write stuff they wouldn't say IRL to anyone, lest they get their ass kicked. Oh but you and I have had this conversation.

    So if anyone makes some fucked up, creepy, anti-Semitic comment, shoot me an email and we'll rake them over the coals, but don't hold back on commenting. 

    Teri


    by tmccarthy0 on Mon, 09/02/2013 - 9:08am

    Thank you Teri.  I am grateful.

    I've tried not communicating with Lulu in the past and was convinced by others that I should break bread and I did.

    I am now on a final warning.  If there is a subject that has anything to do with the Middle East, lulu will be on me like flies on ****.   It is not possible for me to participate without the stalking--this I have concluded based upon experience after experience. 

    There is a major decision to come in Congress about which I believe I have a perspective and a background that would help frame the issues appropriately, and with respect and decency.  I'm an arrogant bastard, I know, but if it's true it ain't bragging--as some old baseball player once said.

    But I will not take the advice of anyone, even from those whom I admire (like you, like OK and others) to ignore someone who doesn't understand or just doesn't care that suggesting that a Jew would have someone do his fighting for him enters really, really ugly territory.  Not sure if you remember Bluebell, but she typified that perspective over at the Cafe.  

    And, of course, the dual loyalty charge should be entirely off-limits as well.  But it isn't and it comes up over and over and over again with this lulu character.  

    It's not about me as you know Teri.  I can handle that kind of stuff and give it back and then some--albeit with one arm (my final warning) tied behind my back.

    I'd rather bring attention to the fact that even when it comes to Jewish people, ugly tropes are unacceptable.  And that's why I'm using a management thread.

    I am an American citizen who happens to be deeply proud of his heritage.  

    I have the right to have an opinion without being judged on the basis of anything else but the quality of my opinion.

    Happy Labor Day.

    Bruce

    P.S.  Thank you Teri, I just saw what you posted elsewhere.  Thank you for actually taking the time and looking beyond the presumption that I am being overly-sensitive or worse.  

    There's a there there.  One more time.  I don't want anyone punished by management, especially on Labor Day and I mean that.  

    I am overwhelmed with gratitude for your demonstration of solidarity.  You did not have to do that.  Thank you again--from my heart.


    by Bruce Levine on Mon, 09/02/2013 - 11:01am

    I am now on a final warning.  If there is a subject that has anything to do with the Middle East, lulu will be on me like flies on ****.   It is not possible for me to participate without the stalking--this I have concluded based upon experience after experience.

     Bruce, I do not know why you are on probation. Was it something you said and maybe how you said it?  And, do you really think I have stalked you and replied to your comments more often than you have jumped on mine?

    There is a major decision to come in Congress about which I believe I have a perspective and a background that would help frame the issues appropriately, and with respect and decency.

    So do the world a favor quick, throw it out for examination. Considering that millions of Americans say we should stay out of Syria, you might expect some questions and even some disagreements unless your perspective and background allow you to write an obviously perfect solution.

    But I will not take the advice of anyone, even from those whom I admire (like you, like OK and others) to ignore someone who doesn't understand or just doesn't care that suggesting that a Jew would have someone do his fighting for him enters really, really ugly territory.

    Speaking of ugly, this is just another example of defamatory innuendo that you cannot support based on anything I have ever written here. It is very possible that I linked in the past to one of the hundreds of articles, some out of Israeli newspapers, that say Israel would like to see the U.S. attack Iran so that they don't have to. If that is what you are referring to then you sure put an ugly slant on it and one which would encompass many, many people including pundits, politicians, and academics, some of whom are respected on the right, some on the left, and some broadly across the spectrum. But if you choose to vent all your venom on me then go right ahead.

    And, of course, the dual loyalty charge should be entirely off-limits as well.  But it isn't and it comes up over and over and over again with this lulu character. 

     Then it should be very easy to post a link to one time I ever did that. Once about two years ago, in I believe a comment to another person, I said that I had loyalty to only one country, I repeat that now, and your head exploded with claims that I spouted some anti-Semitic trope. Everyone else who responded said you were out of line and that what I had said was a fair comment. Now you still come back with that charge every time you get pissed off, though you mix it up a bit with the claim that I have called you disloyal to the U.S. I have absolutely never done that.

    One more time.  I don't want anyone punished by management, especially on Labor Day and I mean that.

     I am curious why you  keep talking about being down to one strike and how you don't want to see management punish anyone. Do you think anyone else has contacted management about you and wants you punished? In case you think so or especially if anyone else thinks so, I want you to know that I have never contacted management privately to complain about you or anyone else here at Dag. Never once and I never will except openly for all to see. I have also never contacted any other participant here to talk about any other participant in a private forum.

     

     

     

     


    by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 09/02/2013 - 2:32pm

       You may not have said he was disloyal to the U.S., but you did say he was loyal to Israel. Sounds like a charge of dual loyalty.


    by Aaron Carine on Mon, 09/02/2013 - 6:26pm

    Ooh, kay.  I posted from vacation and have been reading and responding but not really modding.  Though I usually take a light touch, that might have been a mistake here.  There's now a bunch of meta out there as well as some negative personal criticisms between users.  This isn't the sort of thing our host likes to leave lying around.

    Rather than erase or edit stuff, I'm going to make some suggestions going forward.

    First, remember that we are mostly all just curious people with legitimate questions, concerns and convictions regarding activist foreign policy, security concerns and humanitarian obligations.  Dag is not an echo chamber and that's a good thing.

    Not an echo chamber.

    ...ber ...ber ...ber.

     

    Second, no matter who you are, what your last name is, who your opponent is or what their last name is, we have to be able to discuss issues of liberal interventionism and genocide prevention without the conversation necessarily turning to Israel, Zionism and the like.  All roads do not lead to Tel Aviv.

    Third, it's just a blog.  A great one, but just a blog.

    Fourth, how can you people argue amongst yourselves when Wolraich, just up thread, disagreed with me, in public? Defend me, minions!  Attack!  Attaaaaaaaack! (Wolraich.)

     


    by Michael Maiello on Mon, 09/02/2013 - 6:33pm

    I have nothing further to say Michael except I am sorry to have interrupted your vacation.


    by Bruce Levine on Mon, 09/02/2013 - 6:58pm

    I'm not on vacation, just behind deadline. I would just add: Five, cut out the personal crap, people. We talk about the issues here, not who said what to whom. 

    And I strongly disagree with Four, which was obviously written by a racist mentally unstable moron.


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 09/02/2013 - 8:09pm

    "And I strongly disagree with Four, which was obviously written by a racist mentally unstable moron."

    No comeback possible.  Dammit.


    by Michael Maiello on Mon, 09/02/2013 - 8:26pm

    I will try hard to participate in the spirit of your comment going forward although I have never got a good handle on what is considered objectionable meta.
      On a side note, thanks for your recommend of Infinite Irony on the summer reading thread. I have been listening to the audio version as I drive and when I am doing dumb work. It is great like you said and the reader of the audio version is excellent.


    by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 09/02/2013 - 8:11pm

    If it's about contributors to dagblog--their intelligence, their intolerance, their meanness, their mental state, their ignorance, or their bellybutton lint--as opposed to issues or public figures, it's meta.

    Meta happens, obviously, and we don't stamp our feet and throw out warnings unless it's egregious, but extended acrimonious discussions about blogger behavior--by name or by insinuation--is particularly unwelcome. That's the TPM Cafe stuff that we started dagblog in part to avoid.


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 09/02/2013 - 8:51pm

    If I could just be excused to just add one meta thought. It is something that has always struck me about Dagblog, something different from all other places I have participated. There's a problem here with this part of your explanation -as opposed to issues or public figures. For some reason, here if someone choses to call a public figure a name, like Greenwald or Assange or Cornel West, or to be insulting about a group, like "progressives," or a generality about a country, there have always been some members who react like that person or group or country is their sainted mother who has been besmirched. As if they have been personally attacked and must fight back personally against the evil besmircher. (And not just once, but hold the grudge about the besmirched mother for a long time.) Everywhere else, people seem to get the explanation, that it's not meant as a personal affront if it's an insult about a public figure that you happen to like, and the other person does not like, that personal means only if you attack the forum member directly. (And of course, it's very uneven, as no one fights here for the honor of poor Rushbo. cheeky) I must admit I dunno how you fix this, or why you have attract such unusual users like this, or how you 'splain it all to them. And no response necessary, I just wanted to point it out.


    by artappraiser on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 2:03am

    What Michael said: "Extended acrimonious discussion about blogger behavior -- by name or by insinuation -- is particularly unwelcome."

    Hard to say what I hate more -- the initial meta crap or the discussions about the meta crap. Both keep recurring and I keep figuratively biting my lip and trying to stay above the fray, even while what I call "the dagblog label wars" drives away some very smart contributors.

    It's fine to criticize Assange or Greenwald, and it's fine for others to come to their defense -- ideally, with arguments from facts. But let me do an ellipses thing on your complaint: "For some reason, here if someone chooses ... to be insulting about a group, like "progressives," ... there have always been some members who react ... as if they have been personally attacked."

    Yes, because some members take offense at the cheap rhetorical shot that consists "by insinuation" of labeling their opinion "libertarian," "progressive," or "pro-Morsi." Maybe I'm Mohamed Morsi's brother-in-law; in what way does my presumed motivation affect the validity (or not) of my case that the Egyptian junta are a bunch of blood-thirsty, self-serving thugs? Not a bit. (Matt Taibbi has a powerful post up about how even a right-wing blog needs to get the same unbiased evaluation that one we instinctively agree with gets.)

    What I'm saying is that there are two main ways that posts degenerate into personal vindictive. One is when a poster treats any disagreement as a personal attack; it's pretty obvious when that happens. The other is more subtle: when commenters don't bother to address the point the poster is making, but instead try to smear the group or position he or she is presumed (often erroneously) to be coming from. You can't expect to skate by with, "Nothing personal, but you liberals ... "


    by acanuck on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 5:20am

    It happens for sure, but there's no way to moderate labels. We can't exactly ask people not to insult Republicans, and I have no interest in enforcing a list of protected categories.

    The truth is that there are many excuses for personal attacks in addition to the ones you and AA mention: trolling, bullying, offensiveness, condescension, ganging up, thread hijacking, insulting a buddy, sexism, racism, being called a sexist or a racist, and on and on.

    I've been moderating dagblog for five years now (wow), and I've found only one consistent thread in personal attacks. Almost everyone who does it is unbearably self-righteous about it, as if it were their inalienable right, indeed their moral obligation, to smite down the evil offender with adolescent taunts and sanctimonious tut-tutting.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 3:59pm

    Michael,

    If this is how you feel about my conduct, please tell me.  


    by Bruce Levine on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 4:05pm

    I've already told you at length how I feel. I've tried the same with other people whose participation I value. It doesn't do any good. Everyone thinks their own case is special.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 5:16pm

    I appreciate your candor, and I know you understand the reason I asked the question and I appreciate that you at least appeared to have considered the natural consequences of your response in good faith.  You know I cannot remain here under the circumstances.

    I have wrestled with these issues for years with some of the same people who are still here, many of them nurtured on folks like MJ back in the day.  But with all due respect, I never have asked for special treatment--I wanted equal consideration of my concerns. 

    And please, I never expected you are Michael to play traffic cop.  

    This is as good a time as any I guess to check out.  Best to all, and Michael I promise to read your book, and indeed look forward to it.

    Bruce S. Levine

    New York, New York.


    by Bruce Levine on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 5:29pm

    Bruce, we have given equal consideration for your concerns. Indeed, we have given more consideration for your concerns than we usually devote. The trouble is not that we did not consider them; it's that we did not agree with them.

    I don't think that I expressed anything here that I did not already communicate to you, if somewhat less diplomatically, but I'm very sorry that you feel that you can't continue to participate under the circumstances. I will certainly miss you, and I do hope that you reconsider.

    m


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 5:56pm

    Hate these Jewish goodbyes. wink

    Michael, you know how much I like this place.  Indeed, remember I was telling you how my buddy and my wife were making so much fun of me because I was sad about being suspended.  And you didn't get that--you couldn't understand why I was so bummed about what happened.  Different strokes, but I enjoyed our correspondence.

    AA convinced me long ago that it is not easy to be a moderator, and I have come to understand that.

    Thank you for asking me to remain, but I hope you understand why I have knowingly crossed a red line.

    I really do wish you and everyone well.  This is quite a place you folks done went and built.  Next time do it union. cool

    Bruce

     

     


    by Bruce Levine on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 6:14pm

    Just got here and what do I find?  Bruce, I can't possibly know why you've chosen to say goodbye to dag, but I hope you'll give yourself some time to think about it and reconsider.  You have a lot to add to the mix here and if the discussions get heated because the topic is volatile, it only proves that the topic is one that needs to be discussed. 

    We do need to consider how our words might affect others but I hope we don't get to the point where we can't be honest about our own opinions.  For the most part we work to keep it civil here, but if the argument is hot and heavy on the issues, with personal insults kept to a minimum, we let it go until it's done.  There will always be instigators and agitators, but as someone above said, the way to deal with them is to ignore, ignore, ignore.

    I'll be sorry to see you go, if that's your final choice.  Keep up the good work, Bruce.  

    Yours in solidarity,  Mona 


    by Ramona on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 6:37pm

    I don't understand, actually, in your case or in any of the others. We have more or less one rule at dagblog: no ad-hominem attacks. It seems like such a simple and commonsensical rule, easy enough to follow. We only moderate a miniscule fraction of the comments on this site and only when the violations are egregious. We have hardly banned anyone.

    And yet so many have found it so hard to live under such tyranny. It's very sad to me.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 6:39pm

    Michael, please, I have never accused you of tyranny.  This a lively, vibrant place and you guys are tolerant of quite a bit more than you have to be.  I'm not claiming to the contrary by any stretch of the imagination.  I really do mean that.

    But I don't think that my views have been appropriately respected, and not necessarily for reasons that I would consider to be in bad faith.  I know you disagree with me.  


    by Bruce Levine on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 6:50pm

    Response below


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 7:05pm

    I go tilt on the mismatch  between the seriousness of Assad's use of Chemical warfare and Obama's promise of a limited response.

    I suppose Obama means limited with respect to casualties but powerful with respect to Assad's ability to continue.  

     


    by Flavius on Sun, 09/01/2013 - 12:27pm

    I usually dislike "what ifs." But in this case, I cannot help but wonder what people who feel strongly that the fixation on chemical weapons is wrong in the context of so much conventional death and destruction think about this "what if": What if early this coming week Assad took the time out advantage and launched a much larger chemical attack with a lot more deaths, like 10,000? Would they change their minds about some kind of punishment or intervention then? If so, their current argument is not as pure as they are making it out to be. That's all I'd like to point out.


    by artappraiser on Sun, 09/01/2013 - 6:34pm

    I don't think either side can claim purity.  I'm also not sure that strict consistency makes the best foreign policy.  My answer to this what if is that I still don't know.  it doesn't really change my opinion that other countries have a greater obligation there, which is also some cause for concern.  It may be that our government really doesn't want others to step up.  If we do, then acting first might be a bad way of encouraging it.  But, that may also leave us waiting forever and allowing a lot.


    by Michael Maiello on Sun, 09/01/2013 - 6:59pm

    I'm with you. I personally am pleased that somehow Obama was convinced to wait, even contrary to advisors in his bubble. (He's gone way into the bubble in his second term, mho, and for someone with his style, that is way more dangerous than with other types of presidents.)  I am further heartened by the suggestions I am reading now that the military says what they are ready to do is not time sensitive. I feared that what they were planning to do was the opposite, and that Assad would just move the targeted assets to playgrounds or whatever, in a classic move of dictators like him. But overall, I am convinced we don't know enough yet; hence the involvement of Congress is very welcome, and also, there is time now for the U.N. inspection team to add their two cents.


    by artappraiser on Sun, 09/01/2013 - 7:12pm

    Dragging Congress into this is smart, I think.  I also definitely buy that time is on our side, given the power differential.  The bigger issue of the bubble is, I think, inevitable for a technocrat who prefers the company of other technocrats.  They have little patience for the unquantifiables of policy in  democracy.  I gather it's always bothered Bloomberg, for example, that some of the arguments that he thinks are clearest have been met with "but, we don't wanna."  Congestion tolling of traffic, for example.  I think Obama sometimes just wants to say, "Look, can you let me and the generals handle the military stuff while me and Larry Summers do the economy? Because I know you have an opinion but it's uninformed, almost by definition."


    by Michael Maiello on Sun, 09/01/2013 - 7:15pm

    Oh and another good thing about the delay: it allows some to hash out about this all at the G-20 summit. Even if they say they aren't going to do that, they will.  Even if that doesn't fertilize alternative international responses, it offers interaction other than dueling propaganda through media manipulation, so leaders get a better idea of stances.


    by artappraiser on Sun, 09/01/2013 - 7:19pm

    The norm these days in some Muslim nations seems to be intra-national conflict.

    GWB spreading 'God's gift of freedom' seems to have increased the 'norm' of Muslim violence by some order of magnitude. The lesson of our invasion and occupation in Iraq was violence is the means to the end. Be it accomplished with missiles, bullets, depleted uranium, drones, suicide bombers, IEDs or poison gas.

    If you believe more US bombing will help Syrians, look at Iraq.

    I think Obama realized bombing Syria would have no lasting positive affect, which is why he asked for Congressional approval, which experience indicates, he will not get.


    by NCD on Sun, 09/01/2013 - 8:28pm

    See, the notion that if we don't punish one dictator for doing something horrible that all of his friends in the Legion of Doom will take it as permission to do the same thing just isn't quite right.

    There is so much carnage and so many atrocities out there, especially when one starts turning the pages of history further and further back, we sometimes can just see human history as the history of man's inhumanity to man (and all art as symbolic of it). 

    But if one stops and think about it, one can make the case of just the opposite - that the fact we have been able to create civilizations, to trade and build monuments and create great works of art is testament of our ability to be "civilized."

    Most of the first season of HBO's Deadwood gives a great portrayal of how humanity carves out something resembling civilization when one would think that it would devolve immediately into bloodshed and chaos.  Most people, even some down and out prospector or cowhand, just wants to get along and not cause any trouble.

    Into that struggle between chaotic slaughter and something resembling society, we get the leaders.  Deadwood's Ian Shane and his portrayal of Gem Saloon owner and Deadwood's de facto dictator Al Swearenger was probably one of the best at first setting up the character as the bad guy monster and then slowly revealing his humanity.

    The Al Swearengers and Assads of the world are different than others from their desire to be in complete control, and see all means to that end ultimately justifiable.  At the same time, they are still human.  We want them to be monsters, just like we want to make out the people who go into some school and start shooting people to be not-human, to be some kind of monster.  Any foreign policy approach to the dictators of the world have to avoid making this mistake.

     


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 09/01/2013 - 9:50pm

    The Repubs have never met a military response they didn't like until this one. I can only conclude that it is yet another example of them wanting something until President Obama wants it (although I don't really believe he actually WANTS this, just that he thinks we don't have much choice) then all of a sudden they don't want it anymore. I wonder if they have considered that they are siding with Assad, Putin, and China. Politics certainly does make strange bedfellows. Interesting.


    by stillidealistic on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 2:16am

    Well I'll have one more stab now that we have heard from the really mature bloggers who think of this as fun and games, regardless of what is said.   With all due respect I know and presumably most of your readers know the difference between real life and blogging.  But I have always thought it a bit presumptuous for folks to assume that participating in a venue like this requires one to get all analytical and divorced from one's beliefs.   I don't believe I need to be told what games I have skin in; that's my choice.

    I respect both Michaels deeply and AA of course is a mentor.  But I am terribly disappointed in how cavalier and "run of the mill" my concerns appear to be perceived at this point.   If you believe that I have overreacted to what I have objected to then I respectfully disagree.  If you believe that there is not a problem then so be it. 

    Yea, it's only a blog, but please.  

    Finally, we negotiate progressive discipline clauses to protect employees when we are able to.   A fair policy provides for expunging offenses after a reasonable period of time.   I know I have skin in this game, but please think about a little amendment to  your policy.  


    by Bruce Levine on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 2:44am

    OK, Bruce I'll break my own rules and say something, Mods, feel free to delete it if you like. An example: I was so disturbed by this comment Lulu made to me more than a year ago, never forgot it, so I could find it real easy with a quick search.

    I didn't respond back then and I still don't respond when he starts acting that way. His comments to me since then sometimes seem unhinged, he'll bait, get perversely personal, use sarcasm to make it seem like you must be beating your wife or love killing brown people, seems want to start a bar fight, etc.

    When he acts like that, I don't know whether he's having a PTSD attack and is seeing me as an enemy in the jungle, or doesn't mean harm at all but just can't write well, or is off his meds. or something else because I don't really know him. So I don't care! And furthermore, he's just one more voice of many here, and even smaller in import if counting lurkers. So it's quite easy to just ignore him when he gets that way! Just try it! I never felt the need to complain, because I can ignore him whenever I want, am allowed to do that. It's his problem, not mine that I have learned to be wary of interacting with him! Unless he wants to be known as someone yelling at the moon, but then that's not really my business either.

    The way I've always seen it is you just got to let go and have faith that enough lurkers out there who don't care to get involved see the sense of what you said and think well of how you behaved and think badly of those behaving badly. Where you don't get into it with someone else when they get crazy, don't let them bait you to anger, but let what you said previous stand for itself. Unless you enjoy eternal tit-for-tats, think that's fun, over and over, on the same issues, with personal angst thrown in. (I don't really care when that happens with others, I usually scroll past most of it myself, as in: oh they're playing that game again.)

    Don't you have faith in anyone else out there seeing what the deal is? Do we have to always say so? This is not the schoolyard, you can escape schoolyard here, you can just ignore it,even bullying or stalking. Because you get to edit yourself, are never forced into anything, and res ipsa loquitor.What's the use of discussing people behaving badly? Or even getting into it with them? I know it's a little different when you have identified your meatspace self, but still, have you no confidence in what you have said before such a person got in it with you, no confidence in your own rep? Don't let them bait you into ruining your rep in anger. Just say your piece and stop.

    Also realize this: coming from the mod & proprietor p.o.v., the problem with bad behavior is actually not the hurt feelings of participants--again, this is for grown-ups and is not the schoolyard--it's that the lurkers get turned off and going away and the contributors not wanting to contribute to such a place. So someone like you ending up feeding bad with more bad because you're mad is much worse than just one baddie comment here and there. The latter can be easily scrolled past with the thought "WTF is this guy's problem?".


    by artappraiser on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 5:05am

    If my major objective were to be the best analyst on the block, I would agree with your assessment.   I am familiar with the art of persuasion.   Unfortunately I am offended by what I see as prejudice being tolerated.   And it is exacerbated by the fact that I have tried to stay away from what I see as the problem.  So what people think of me in terms of analytical credibility at Dag is meaningless.  Seriously a lot of stuff is tolerated that I find obscene.

    Update--I need to clarify the above, which was written at a time when I am usually fast asleep (something that for a confluence of reasons I'm not getting enough of).  In any event, I don't disagree with you as a general principle, but (and please this is not saying I'm correct but this is how I feel) when one is subjected to the kind of personal interrogation as I was solely for expressing my opinion on a critical issue before our country, and when that interrogation is done by someone who consistently posts things that I believe speak for themselves in an ugly way, and when I have tried in the past to avoid the same person, your suggestion that I walk away like others do when their feelings are hurt falls flat.  And I know you mean only the best.

    If one accepts that there is a steady and consistent historical predicate--one really extending globally for the millenia--of allegations of Jewish trickery behind wars and other atrocities, and one then sees consistent posts about the one nation in the world with a Jewish majority being behind the most heinous crimes of its neighbors, then AA your recommendation to walk away is something I find to be disconnected from what is proper.

    Make no mistake, and I do this only as example and I will accept for the purposes of this comment that the poster thought in good faith that it truly was appropriate for sharing this most recent article.  I have a real problem accepting that analogous postings by supporters of David Duke would be considered benign and perhaps even proper.  

    The article is poison, and it is poison because, among other things, it ends with a quote from an article by Craig Murray, who is a former British ambassador.  Murray is quoted making an unsubstantiated claim that is fully consistent with traditional, long-standing anti-Jewish tropes pertaining to Jews (and now extended to a state).  It is, with all due respect to everyone's sensibilities blatant hate speech and anti-semitic.  Here's Murray, and here's what is being presented at Dagblog:

    Former British ambassador Craig Murray argues that the U.S. claim is hogwash:

    It is therefore very strange, to say the least, that John Kerry claims to have access to communications intercepts of Syrian military and officials organising chemical weapons attacks, which intercepts were not available to the British Joint Intelligence Committee.

    On one level the explanation is simple. The intercept evidence was provided to the USA by Mossad, according to my own well placed source in the Washington intelligence community. Intelligence provided by a third party is not automatically shared with the UK, and indeed Israel specifies it should not be.

    But the inescapable question is this. Mossad have nothing comparable to the Troodos operation [Britain's top spying facility]. The reported content of the conversations fits exactly with key tasking for Troodos, and would have tripped all the triggers. How can Troodos have missed this if Mossad got it? The only remote possibility is that all the conversations went on a purely landline route, on which Mossad have a physical wire tap, but that is very unlikely in a number of ways - not least nowadays the purely landline route.

    ***

    Israel has now provided “intelligence” to the United States designed to allow the United States to join in with Israel’s bombing and missile campaign.

    The answer to the Troodos Conundrum is simple. Troodos did not pick up the intercepts because they do not exist. Mossad fabricated them. John Kerry’s “evidence” is the shabbiest of tricks.

    I just don't buy that this is acceptable.  In any event, no disrespect to you or anyone but I am totally out of pocket and will unlikely to be able to participate until the weekend.

     

    I


    by Bruce Levine on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 9:17am

    Speaking for myself, I don't find the claim that "Israel is behind all U.S. wars" or "Jews routinely manipulate the U.S. into war," to be acceptable either.  They are offensive in the context of history when made as blanket statements.

    However, an argument like, "The Mossad, as directed by Netanyahu might well pass on false of misleading intelligence in pursuit of a certain policy outcome," is totally fair game for debate.  It might be wrong, but I don't see how it is out of bounds to as an argument.  Given the gravity of such a claim, I'd hold it to a high bar of proof.  I don't think Murray reaches it.  His seems one conspiracy theory amongst many as it is based on the pretty weak logic that if her majesty's secret service doesn't know something that there is no way Mossad can.  I don't buy it.  In any event, it falls prey to the same logic which is that since the U.S. intelligence agencies are collectively so much more powerful than Britain's then it would be the NSA, not MI6, who would know if Mossad is telling the truth or not.  I don't believe that either, just saying it's the same weak form of argument.

    As a mod, I don't see everything, nor do I keep score or a running tally of offenses.  Many of my interactions with people will differ from yours.  If I run into blanket statements about Jews and conspiracies to control the world's supply of gold and weapons, I'll act.  Things like Murray's claim about Mossad passing phony intelligence, however, should be allowed to stand and then should be dealt with through superior argument.


    by Michael Maiello on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 10:50am

    Then I guess that's that, although I'm not sure why you choose to focus on "ifs" instead of what is actually written.

    Perhaps I am alone in seeing such a claim--that Mossad fabricated evidence of the slaughter of babies with chemical weapons so that it could trick the U.S. into starting a war in Syria--as anti-semitic hate speech.

    Perhaps I am alone in  understanding that the stereotypes directed against Jews as individuals now coincidentally provide the prism through which others view Israel.  And this is illustrative, I submit.  And it's ugly stuff and I submit that the only way you could come out where you do is to ignore history and context. 

    Or perhaps I am out of step with the conventional view of anti-semitism among left-leaning folks, which IMO seems to be that unless certain buzz words are actually used, then anything goes, regardless of history, regardless of context, regardless of anything really.

    That to me is not the deferential presumptive "norm" appropriately applied to other prejudices.  That other norm is the one I've sought to instill in my own flesh and blood.  

    Silly me.  Just another Hebe screaming anti-semitism when there is no there there.

     

     

     


    by Bruce Levine on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 11:21am

    If you're saying that I am missing some dog whistling here, or worse succumbing to it without thinking, we should definitely discuss.  I did lay waste to that British guy's argument, did I not?


    by Michael Maiello on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 11:59am

    The claim is that Mossad fabricated evidence that Assad was responsible for the attack not that they fabricated evidence of the slaughter of babies with chemical weapons. I find the arguments offered as evidence that Mossad fabricated evidence in this case unconvincing.

    I think the evidence is pretty clear that over the years America fabricated evidence as a pretext for war.  There's even fairly good evidence that America at least colluded with Kuwaites who fabricated evidence that Iraq removed babies from Kuwait hospital incubators to move those incubators to Iraq during the run up to the first Iraq war.

    Its a consensus view that America fabricated evidence and that the Kuwaites fabricated evidence. This fabrication of evidence has become accepted as true by most of the mainstream news media and cited as a major cause of Britain's recent war vote. Its certainly acceptable to claim that America has fabricated evidence as a pretext for war.

    I realize that Israel has far too often been slandered over these types of issues. And that there's an vile anti-semitic history surrounding it. Is it therefore, given that history, never possible to claim that Israel fabricated evidence? Is there any way to do that without being anti-semetic?


    by ocean-kat on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 3:20pm

    Israel has fabricated evidence even before it was a state OK.  

    I regret that you feel it necessary to ask me that.


    by Bruce Levine on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 4:08pm

    That wasn't quite my point. I'm just not understanding why this particular accusation is seen by you as anti-semetic. For personal reasons I have strong feelings about anti-semetism and I'm inclined to support you. Yet in this case I'm just not seeing it.


    by ocean-kat on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 4:25pm

    I understand there's a lot of history here (with respect to forms of anti-Semitism), and that furthermore I'm ignorant of much of it. For example, a while back I learned from Genghis that Rothschild was Jewish. Prior to that, if I had read a comment about a Rothschild being a capitalistic crony (or whatever the comment was where Genghis gently schooled me), it never ever would've occurred to me that such a comment might be considered to be anti-Semitic.

    Similarly, my default response when someone says something insulting about Mossad (although I do know that they are an Israeli agency), I don't see it as much different as if someone said something insulting about our NSA or CIA. To claim that a spy agency is engaging in unsavory practices seems to me to be a very unsurprising claim, regardless of that spy agency's country of origin. Now, that's not to say that such claims should be left unchallenged if the evidence is wanting, just that it seems that such a claim might not necessarily have any sinister intent. It's very easy to believe that spy agencies participate in false flag operations, because they have in the past. Of course, that's a danger in itself, looking for the easy explanation. My point is just that I think it's unlikely to be helpful to start with a position that the person making the claim is making that claim due to bigotry.


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 4:18pm

    Mossad is an intelligence agency that has been known to take liberties, yes.  I understand the presumption you make on that basis.  I would suggest that there might be more to consider.

    Here's a podcast from Tablet Magazine, which is an internet magazine that focuses on Jewish issues.  It's an interview with an author named Daniel Goldenhagen who has just written a book on the historical adaptability of antisemitism and how that is manifested in a globalized setting.  I know podcasts are long--this one's about a half hour--and the interview covers many of the questions we wrestle with here, including the relationship between criticism of Israel and antisemitism.  

    I don't agree with Goldenhagen on every point and in particular I do think that he is a little dismissive, although not to the point of being disrespectful, of those who wrestle in good faith with this or that line.  On the other hand, I think he frames the issue in a way that could be helpful in at least one respect, and it really is kind of simple.  It is one thing to preface every discussion of peace between Israelis and Palestinians by asserting that the Israeli government is not serious because of the settlements or whatever.  It is quite another thing to accuse Israel of practicing a war of extermination against the Palestinian people, or I submit respectfully to treat Israel's real and indefensible conduct outside of all proportion in relation to other events, and to do so in a way that is inextricably linked to ancient anti-Jewish tropes.

    But in any event you seem to want to give this writer every benefit of the doubt in this particular case, and indeed you appear to be in good company, and you presume that the writer sees no daylight between a Mossad or a CIA.   But that on its face doesn't work for me, because, again, here's what the guy actually writes:

     

    Israel has now provided “intelligence” to the United States designed to allow the United States to join in with Israel’s bombing and missile campaign.

    The answer to the Troodos Conundrum is simple.  Troodos did not pick up the intercepts because they do not exist.  Mossad fabricated them.  John Kerry’s “evidence” is the shabbiest of tricks.

    Thank you for engaging me.


    by Bruce Levine on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 4:44pm

    Well, first of all, I'm not familiar with the entire history of those involved, nor do I care to be.

    That said, I could easily substitute "Britain" for "Israel" and "MI6" (or "SIS" to be more technically accurate) for "Mossad" in the portion you quoted, and the paragraph reads the same to me. (I'm assuming that's not true for you, however. I have no idea if it's true for the person who wrote it.)

    Or, more aptly, if I first switched "United States" to "Britain", and then "Israel/Mossad" to "United States/CIA", it sounds very much like what has been alleged regarding the lead up to the Iraqi war.

    Again, I recognize that there are histories here that elude me, but I suggest they might also elude the author (or the author might not care, I honestly don't know).


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 4:56pm

    But I don't think that my views have been appropriately respected, and not necessarily for reasons that I would consider to be in bad faith.

    What do you mean by "appropriately respected"? On the rare occasions that you've drawn our attention to content that you've found offensive, we've carefully reviewed it. On a couple of occasions, we've taken steps, including removing the content. In other cases, we've politely disagreed.

    We have moderated you on rare occasions when the violations were egregious and only after extended discussion between the moderators. Two of us have had lengthy email correspondence with you to explain the reasons.

    This strikes me as 1000x more respect than you would get at some big blog like TPM Cafe. So what more would you ask of us (besides agreeing with you)?


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 7:05pm

    Michael,

    I was suspended for inappropriate conduct, and I deserved it.  And we corresponded and I asked if you felt that I could post freely without harassment by two posters, only one of whom remains now apparently.  You told me, rightfully so, that you couldn't promise me anything.

    I came back, I tried posting about things that would avoid this topic. 

    And then last week, I posted that I felt strongly about the need to respond IF chemical weapons were used, and I proceeded to be harassed by a poster about my alleged "urge to kill" to the point where I felt it not worth discussing the issue.

    I object to that kind of unchecked abuse coupled with things that are posted that you and everyone else around here--to me--are bending over backwards to deny what I see as hate speech.   

    I'm not sure what you could do, and I'm not blaming you for anything.  We are at impasse Michael.  It happens, and it also happens that maybe it's me, but for the life of me I don't understand how people who have an iota of understanding of prejudice cannot recognize the prejudice in the postings -- the few postings--- I've complained about--as well as the current one which I didn't complain about but was using it as an example..  

    The combination of those postings and being abused IMO and your understandable inability to play hall monitor, is what doesn't work.


    by Bruce Levine on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 7:30pm

    Bruce, you just wrote me that you were leaving dagblog because we--the moderators--did not appropriately respect your views.

    I can't speak for the other moderators, but since I did not see the Syria discussion you refer to, and since you did not alert us that you were personally attacked, I cannot see how that demonstrates any lack of respect.

    As for the hate speech, we are not bending over backward, we simply disagree with you. That is not disrespect either.

    So I ask again, how have we disrespected your views?


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 7:43pm

    I take back that phrase.  It was not what I meant to convey.  I apologize for that Michael and I hope you forgive me and understand--as I think I've written--that I'm not blaming you for my decision.

    You're right, I could have complained last week, and I didn't.


    by Bruce Levine on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 7:54pm

    There's nothing to forgive. You didn't hurt my feelings. I would just prefer that you not leave dagblog.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 8:07pm

    Me too.


    by Ramona on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 8:15pm

    Bless you Ramona.


    by Bruce Levine on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 8:20pm

    Thank you Michael.  I hope you understand that I feel this is the right thing for me to do--for heaven's sake someone might read my stuff out there in the real world, and whoa! :)

    In any event, I have a 13-pound brisket to contend with.  Sweet things in the coming year my friend.


    by Bruce Levine on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 8:31pm

    Shana tova, Bruce


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 09/04/2013 - 12:27am

    Bruce,  I was trying to make a point which I still believe is relevant. I took almost the exact same tack with Wolraich on the same subject and he didn't appreciate the way I persued it either. Looking back as well as paying close attention to all of the following conversation I gotta conclude that I handled it in poor taste. I apologize.

     I do not want to see you leave and I suppose it is at least partly for selfish reasons. Your anger is with me and I don't want to feel responsible for driving off a Dagblogger who is highly respected by so many. I hope you can believe that that includes me even if my own anger on occasions has caused me to be far less than polite and to enter conversations that include you with a bit of a chip on my shoulder. I am not trying to slide from responsibility saying that, just trying to say to what extent I see it as my fault. I can promise to monitor my own speech but I cannot agree to avoid certain subjects. Hope you reconsider. This fucking crow tastes pretty bad.  


    by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 8:28pm

    Lulu,

    I have a very huge bark, but I honestly would never wish you any ill will.  It's not anyone's fault but my own.  You and I are just looking at the same picture and seeing totally different things.  Good luck, and maybe listen to the podcast I link to--although it's long.

    It's not about eating crow--we both feel badly.  I am sorry and hope you can forgive me for those times that I could have listened to you a little better.  And I say that without deviating from the other stuff I have written in the past, and perhaps someday. . .

    Peace.


    by Bruce Levine on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 8:43pm