“Caught ‘hanging’ out at a rest stop”
Cobag is as cobag does.
Based on recent events, I believe a formal response would be salutary. Helpful, even.
After the recent kerfuffle over an introductory Ombudsglooob post that was deemed non-ombudshelpfullike, the OARB came down on me like a ton of soggy chicken feathers. Also, the CCA sent several large stones hurtling through my front door. I believe I even pissed off the AFL-CIO and NAMBLA.
Item the First: I have discovered that I was in grievous error in describing Certain Various Citrus Monsters as Imaginary. Indeed, I was visited not only by the Grapefruit Chupacabra three nights ago, but the following night by Tucker the Orange and last night tag teamed by a Frankenlemon and what can only be described as a Key Lime Zombie. we had long discussions; while edifying, it must be said that Citrus Monsters are not sparkling conversationalists.
Seriously, it was like A Christmas Carol as written by Anita Bryant. A Citrus Carol. I fully expect to be visited tonight by an overgrown Mutant Kumquat to infect me with Citrus Canker, unless I bribe a street urchin to go buy me the biggest Pork Snorkel in the shop window.
So, in short, it must be conceded that Citrus Monsters do, in fact, exist, and are willing to disrupt your sleep patterns with long, Ben Stein like monologues if necessary.
Item the Second: The COBA has decried the lack of professionaism, helpfulness, and generally undignified state of 3Bulls. Now, in my defense, I must state that my OmbudsContract did not include the words “Dignity” “Professional” or “Helpful”; indeed, it only contained one “whereas” and three “ats”. However, there was mention of “shenanigans”, “cobagitation”, “half-assedness” and several times, “Zardoz”. Also, a whole section was entitled “When All Hell Breaks Loose”. And even though I felt there was not enough mention of “Salary”, “Vacation”, “Cuba Libre Lunches” or “Legal Defence”, the agreement was generally satisfactory on both sides.
It must needs be pointed out, however, that failure of execution is not only part of the day to day operation of this dark-blue bloggo, but that it is in fact, a time honored Tradition. I submit as evidence this Words of Wisdom, seen recently in the sidebar:
I maintain that as Ombudsglooob, I was merely conforming to the 3Bulls Mission Statement.
Item the Thrid: In the spirit of Ombuddsing, a visitor plaintively asked “Where’s My Pudding?”. The dessertly nature of this request makes our tempombudsheart fairly burst. Following on a clue left in a subsequent comment, we discovered that fish’s pudding, was, in fact, taken by Blue Girl. Furthermore, she ATE IT INCORRECTLY!! This is, of course, the prerogative of a Cookie Queen, if no less heinous for that. Without the support of my new Citrus Monster friends, though, I am not equipped to confront this person. Fortunately she spends all her time these days on Facebook and honking at old people. Maybe the CCA can send a Sternly Worded Letter. Maybe Minnesota Law Firm can send a Støørnly Worded Letter. I am going to stay the hell out of it from now on.
Item the Fourth: Phil Collins may be a talented drummer, but he is no longer Cute. Also, he has been married AS MANY TIMES AS NEWT GINGRICH!! Something Coming In The Air Tonight, Indeed. Think about it, won’t you?
Fear not, friendly 3Bulls visitor and/or Reader! An epochal Ombudspost is in the works! It will answer half your questions. Or maybe None. But full-assedness is RIGHT OUT!!
[EDIT] I believe I am offended at the Ombudsnick I was assigned. doesn’t matter which definition you go with.
Or, Papal Bull.
Recent discussion has drawn our attention to the fact that a consensus on rules has not recently been reached. One could argue that in the strictest Palahniukhian sense it should not be discussed, but the Calvinball analogy spurred me to further thought with regard to dogmatic considerations.
We take as our starting point the Five Points of Calvinism, which seem particularly apropos:
1. Total Depravity: This applies to header contests in particular, but also comment sections in general. Heartily encouraged.
2. Unconditional Election: Appointment to the Elect of the Site is a lifelong commitment, which may remain this poster’s sole encouragement, since I have not received any even semi-legitimate complaints in an awfully long time.
3. Limited Atonement: In the unlikely event that we are required to apologize, backtrack, or otherwise clarify, nuance, or revise a position, it will be in the most amusingly half-assed manner possible.
4. Irresistible Grace: The healing powers of Animal Crackers are not to be defied. Also, the mere sight of the Sacred Track Pants is enough to cure blindness, impotence, male pattern baldness, and whatever the hell it is that’s been bugging George F. Will since the Restoration.
5. Perseverance of the Saints: Certain unnamed cob-loggers will begin posting again. This may coincide with the heat death of the universe, but statistical dispersion dictates that it is bound to happen eventually.
We welcome our beloved commenters’ contributions to the field of Applied Theological Pointlessness. All dogmas and denominations considered. Cash only.
There will be no refunds.
I don’t hate Somerby. I do read his blog but generally only a few posts a month and that’s all I can take.
Somerby has chosen a very unpopular job: a progressive who spends a fair amount of his time criticizing the “liberal” and “progressive” media and political establishments. For that he is to be commended. The establishment of the left isn’t faultless and needs to be criticized. As the influence of the blogoshpere has increased I think that Somerby has naturally tended to pay more attention to it. Where it all turns to custard is the way in which Somerby goes about his criticism. Yes I’m talking about the dreaded ‘tone’ and also the repetitiveness of his criticism. I don’t know if his shtick is meant to be humorous but it no longer tickles my funny bone. I’m over it.
It really has come to the point, where to my mind at least, some Daily Howler posts are unrelenting in their name calling and rather weak on factual criticism. Somerby makes some good points but only seldom is the criticism constructive. And I think that’s primarily where he falls flat. Let’s face it, the right-wing media and blogosphere could care less about what Somerby thinks or writes about them. The left-wing blogosphere (his ‘nominal allies’) and to a lesser extent the left-wing media probably do care but he often comes across as such an asshole that he ironically makes it easier to walk away from such criticism. I feel like he pisses away his best chance of making a difference. Yes maybe his targets need to toughen up but maybe Somerby also needs to take a step back from his blog persona and think about what it is he’s trying to accomplish and what the best way to accomplish it is. He’s got the chops but what I attribute to bitterness and anger take away from his criticism. They make it indigestible.
Lately I’ve found myself reading the Daily Howler using the same metrics that Somerby himself applies to others. I don’t think that the results are that flattering for Bob. Work isn’t shown, he often plays the mind reading game, and his research, apparently impeccable for all things Gore, routinely falls flat. This is most unsatisfying for somebody that sets such a high bar for others.
I started this post a long time ago but pretty much gave up on it as laziness consumed and as the moment passed. It was about the Keith Olbermann dust up of a few months ago, which I actually didn’t follow that closely. But at the time it reminded me of a DH post of 19 February, which I found less than satisfactory. It’s probably been already covered in a much better fashion elsewhere but the original (unfinished) post is below the fold. Continue reading ‘Dead Ant, Dead Ant’
Now the LORD will give you meat, and you will eat it. 19 You will not eat it for just one day, or two days, or five, ten or twenty days, 20 but for a whole month—until it comes out of your nostrils…
Some scholars dispute, however, whether this can truly be called Biblical justification for the pork snorkel.
Let’s continute in that vein. John Aravosis is making it awfully hard to parody him. He also always changes the post title, essentially burying the original haloscan comments, where 600 people (minus scottinsf, who wouldn’t live in SF for 75K a year, god love him). We bring you that link here.
Words of wisdom:
NOTFROM JOHN: Bruce, you are responding to numerous arguments I did not make.
I said that the problem isn’t that one $300 check is going to break anyone making $75k a year. Never said it. What I clearly said was that far too many proposals from the Democrats are ONLY geared towards the poor, or at the very least don’t help everyone – fixing health insurance for example and only focusing on poor kids when everyone else is scared to death of what their insurance won’t cover should they suddenly have a catastrophic illness, or fixing education by only focusing on “inner-city” schools and ignoring the vast number of suburban schools that now have gang problems, drug problems, metal detectors etc.
I never said that there is something wrong with helping the poor. I said that a political party that only helps the poor with every single proposal, and ignores the rest of America, isn’t going to be winning a lot of elections, or solving a lot of our long-term problems.
NOTE FROM JOHN: Liar. This is what I’m talking about. People simply lie because they disagree with you, so they simply must instantly hate you. When did I say that the Democrats should never ever do anything to help the poor? Never did. But again, you lie because it’s the only way you can justify the personal attacks.
NOTE FROM JOHN: Again with the cute personal attacks. Are you aware that my trips to Europe are usually free? My tickets are usually covered by another business trip that I piggy back France on, or last summer I had friends watch my apartment, and they paid me, and it made up a big chunk of my ticket. I’d call that about as smart and frugal as you could get. You go to Florida and you pay for it. I go to France and I don’t. And you simply do not live in Washington or NYC as a 40-something paying health insurance, paying off or having paid off what in today’s economy would be $120,000 in student loans, try to put money away for your retirement and buy your first home. It is simply wrong to suggest that $75k a year is swimming in money for someone in that situation. You can make all the cute remarks you want, but facts are facts, please argue them. Oh yeah, and I rent a small studio in a neighborhood that had, and still has, a pretty high crime rate. You simply don’t know Washington, which is my point.
NOTE FORM PINKO: Buuuuuuuuuut wheeeeeeennnnnnnn willllllllll I seeeeeeee Suuuuuushi and NAssssssssdaq??????????
Settle down? Again, this is what I’m talking about. You guys can’t make a single point without throwing in a snippy or bitchy comment.
John Aravosis | 01.25.08 – 12:52 pm | #
NOTE FROM PINKO: Apparently “settle down” to someone frantically appending notes to critical comments, so frantically in fact he appends a note to someone’s comment that could possibly seen to support his point (with some chiding) is an aggressive personal attack.
Actually, Nero, I worry that any health care fix is going to leave a lot of people out – those who are not “poor.” And let’s face it, very few of us could afford $2000 a month premiums – and probably none of us could afford something catastrophic. But I fear that the Dems don’t really care about helping people beyond the poor. Again, helping the poor is a wonderful thing. But if it’s the only people you help, then everyone is pretty much screwed.
John Aravosis | 01.25.08 – 1:01 pm | #
NOTE TO JOHN, FROM GOP: Don’t say you want me, don’t say you need me, it’s understood. Don’t say you’re happy, out there without me. I know you can’t be. It’s no good. Come running to my open arms.”
OH MY GOD! SCOTTINSF RETURNS:
You know John, I agreed with your post. Sad that so many posters consider me “elitist” because of my income and the city I live in. I like your post and the issues you brought up.
scottinsf | 01.25.08 – 1:42 pm | #
Let’s set the seriously socklike scott in sf the scene:
And to those whining about 75K being rich or something…..give me a break. Making 75K in San Francisco means living check to check in a three bedroom/one bath flat with roommates. 75K ain’t shit. I wouldn’t dream of trying to live here on that.
scottinsf | 01.24.08 – 6:46 pm | #
This is a lie. Let’s say you make 75, we’ll give you 55 after taxes. Let’s say HALF that goes to rent- you splitting a 6K a month apartment with two other guys, wow- you must be living in the Tenderloin. Take that bullshit elsewhere.
Pinko Punko | Homepage | 01.25.08 – 4:39 am | #
You must be a parody. I’m sure you have to subsist on dollar tacos in the Mission, every other day. I bet you live underneath 24 hour Happy Surprise massage on Turk.
Pinko Punko | Homepage | 01.25.08 – 4:56 am | #
I read Gregg Easterbrook’s ridiculous and sadly verbose eruptions of cobaggery every week at his Tuesday Morning Quarterback gig. Of course he thinks to himself that his stories are the most commented on every week, so he must be doing something right. I would argue that you are not necessarily a player, even with a boatload of haters. I read him every week so I can read 100-1000 comments talking about how stupid he is. On top of that, his cheerleader jones makes him look sadder than Hinderloaf at Powerline. For the ultra awesome in non-player hatin’, I bring you the ESPN Ombudswoman, Le Ann Schreiber, who frankly would do an awesome job at the Washington Post, or editor-in-chief of the Times. She doesn’t post that often, but she is a real journalist and she doesn’t pull punches on the clearly market driven choadery at teh ESPN. I think she and everyone knows that ESPN isn’t becoming more like a real news outlet, everyone else is fakening more like fake-real ESPN. Allow me to excerpt her taking Easterbrook to school RE: his Patriots obsession (consider Eastie a talentless Tacitus, and Belichick his Tiberius, and you’ll get the hint):
Extremes of opinion varied from Sean Salisbury’s “the media is making way too big a deal of it,” voiced on both ESPN TV and ESPN Radio, to columnist Gregg Easterbrook’s inflammatory piece, prominently played on the front page of ESPN.com, claiming “the situation with the National Football League is a lot worse than people realize” and forecasting the demise not only of Belichick but the entire NFL. “Belichick’s head might be necessary to preserve the integrity of the game,” Easterbrook concluded.
The amount of opinion was so vast, its range so wide and contradictory, that it was beyond hard for readers and viewers to get their bearings within it. It was clear Belichick had violated a league rule, but what kind of “cheating” did that amount to, what kind of unfair competitive advantage could it bestow? Reporting might have answered that crucial question, but the question was tossed to the realm of opinion. If you search the archives of ESPN.com, if you remember the scores of opinions voiced on dozens of different programs, you are free to conclude: (A) It bestowed no competitive advantage whatsoever; (B) it might have provided the winning edge for those Super Bowls, which would then warrant a Bondsian asterisk in the record books; or (C) nobody knows, but you shouldn’t let that stop you from choosing option A or B because having an opinion about it is all that matters.
And feel free to custom design the opinion of your choice out of rumor, speculation and twisted logic, as Tuesday Morning Quarterback Easterbrook did, not once, but twice, in manufacturing extended false analogies between Richard Nixon’s Watergate and Bill Belichick’s tapegate, as if stonewalling to the press is the same as stonewalling to congressional investigators, as if violating a league rule is the same as violating federal law, as if he didn’t promptly hand over to the commissioner all the material that was asked of him and accept his punishment.
Easterbrook is entitled to his opinion, to his logic, to his analogies, however strained I think they are, but what is not OK is cloaking opinion in the camouflage of reporting. In his Sept. 18 piece, “Dark days for NFL,” Easterbrook indulges in several speculations about Belichick’s spying, couching his imaginings in “perhaps” and “might have beens” and “the rumor mill says,” which leads him to suggest “the Patriots’ cheating might have been more extensive than so far confirmed.” That “so far confirmed” is sneaky, implying there is only a small gap between his imagination and fact. Well, all right, sneaky implications are within bounds for a column. It is when he vaults from speculation to posing this question — “What else is there about New England cheating that the team or league isn’t telling us?” — that he goes out of bounds. Not what might there be, but what else is there. That’s where the line is — the line between the grammar of speculation and the grammar of implied fact — and he crossed it.
Ironically, in his next piece, written after commissioner Goodell had demanded not Belichick’s head but $500,000 from the coach and a draft pick from the Patriots, Easterbrook accuses NFL spokesman Greg Aiello of trying to pull off a sneaky Nixonian “non-denial denial” by using the verb “is.” “There is no such evidence,” Aiello had written in response to Easterbrook’s asking whether the Patriots’ material had shown evidence of Super Bowl cheating. “But wait,” Easterbrook writes, “three days earlier, the NFL destroyed the evidence.” Because the NFL had shredded the tapes and notes Belichick surrendered, of course they could say there is no such evidence, but maybe there was evidence. This loophole of tense allows Easterbrook to continue speculating about the Patriots’ cheating during the Super Bowl.
Asked to explain his attitude toward the use of speculation and rumor, Easterbrook said, “I’m uncomfortable with dropping the barrier about rumor mills about purely private behavior, but in this case, the rumors were relevant to something that was on the league’s plate, that was in the sports news. The way I approach it is to ask if there is some reasonable reason to believe the parties involved would be lying to avoid public disclosure, thus forcing people who want to talk to reporters onto the rumor mill.
“I had a reasonable reason to think that the parties involved were trying to keep something off the public record that should be on it. Since I can’t get them to answer the questions, I don’t know whether they are hiding something or just being weird and evasive. Believe me, I’m working on it, I know some things that are not in that column, but I don’t have them on the record yet. I hope to be publishing proof of all those things in great detail.”
My attitude is that you get the proof, or at least sources whose reliability you are willing to characterize and vouch for, before you publish. Until then, you keep your rumor-based speculations to yourself.
Emphasis mine, Easterbrookian hackery in the quoted material undoctored. I think ESPN should give Le Anne a yardstick for her to whack the crap out of these chumps.