But I'll resist that temptation. New writing needs to be in today. Why it's almost 9. Central.
What was I sleeping about all this time? It's not as if I spent last night drunk-blogging, like some people -- "I’m going to miss some stuff now, while I go shake another martini" -- or playing drinking games, despite joking about them. I was green-tea blogging.
***
Did all the other live-bloggers suddenly decide to put the newest entries on top within a single post? Should I switch to that? I don't really like scrolling down and then back up, but the question is: Do you want to favor the readers who are doing a lot of page-refreshing and return-visiting? Top-to-bottom within a single, frequently updated post is easier for someone who joins you late or who stops by only once.
Which reminds me, dear return visitors, I need to put some fresh things here for you, but feel free to use this post as a place to get started talking about anything you like.
Posts
46 comments:
So, any thoughts on the Obama Truth Squads in Missouri?
"Truth".
"Squads".
State prosecutors.
Sheriffs.
Welcome to the Obama administration.
It's a nice cool day in these mountains. It would be a great day to make a custard pie, invite the neighbors over, and talk about 70's music. Beer doesn't go well with custard, so we'll have to serve coffee.
I'm tired of politics.
Within a single post, the newest material at the bottom, please!
New material at the bottom, I say.
So, morning after.
Do we still think McCain won?
I think for live blogging, it is best to have the most recent entry at the top.
Doing so is more convenient for those who park and refresh, while anyone coming to the party late can scroll to the bottom once and then read their way to the top. After that, no more scrolling.
"Did all the other live-bloggers suddenly decide to put the newest entries on top within a single post? Should I switch to that?"
No. it is fine the way it is.
Jim Lehrer's performance last night was outstanding and a model for future moderators. The contrast with the blinding hackathon of the Gibson/Stephanopoulos moderated Clinton and Obama debate was remarkable. It's too bad that ego will prevent admission of error or a bit of introspection on the part of either of those two fools.
Neither won. They both need to raise their games.
(Agree with Dogwood.)
So most of us agree that Andrew Sullivan has gone stark raving mad over Sarah Palin.
The question is: WHY? Why does this woman threaten him so much? You'd think that she had personally shot his dog or something.
Pogo:
The district attorneys and prosecutors are short-handed I guess. So they have to prioritize the types of bad deeds they will pursue.
Saying mean things about Obama are the top priority then murder, then rape.
As someone who thought spending Friday night at the local high school football game was a better idea than watching the debate - is the debate worth watching? I recorded it but it doesn't sound like I missed much.
Obama's point that we took our eye off Afghanistan shows a very brittle view of the world.
Our enemy is not confined to one or another nation.
Fighting Al Qaeda is like playing whack the weasel, you never know where they’ll pop up.
But Obama is trying to argue that one hole is more important than another.
I think he is wrong.
Ms. Ann, for real-time posting (live blogging) I agree with dogwood, latest post should be at the top. That's the way Internet forums since the world wide web started anyway.
I had to scroll down like more than 30 times last night just to get the latest update. :)
"Fighting Al Qaeda is like playing whack the weasel, you never know where they’ll pop up.
But Obama is trying to argue that one hole is more important than another."
I'm always playing "whack the weasel. You're right, you never know where it'll pop up!
And I definitely agree with Obama, one hole is more important than another, but I suppose that straight guys have more of a problem with that choice, since they have more holes to choose from.
Wait, are we talking about the same thing?
I streamed about four seconds of the debate and couldn't take it.
I think if you're not into the soap opera concepts that govern everything, it's pretty unbearable.
But then I threw out the TV in 1971 and may be unusually attuned to the implied insult the medium in its socalled serious mode runs on.
Althouse's popularity has definitely outgrown Blogger's outmoded, creaky old interface. It's really, really tiresome to keep up with the comments once the number of comments surpasses 200. I call, once again, for a new blogging platform that is more conducive to the long discussions that happen here these days.
I always thought that a constitutional law profesor from Harvard studied the US Constitution.
Or maybe I just ain't too smart, and the First and Second Amendments are just good suggestions.
I agree with Dogwood, Masterasia and Palladian - refreshing and scrolliing down gets really, really tiresome, and more and more so as the new stuff gets lower. It's ok if it's only 2 or 3 updates, in fact it seems more natural that way, but when you know in advance, as in this case, that there will be umpteen updates, the new stuff really needs to be at the top, or you need some way of having a refresh keep you at the new stuff at the bottom, if that's possible. You should probably keep the general rule of writing top to bottom, but introduce a different format for long blogs with multiple updates, and ideally the software should make the distinction.
Professor: you should appoint a threadherder whose task it is to steer commenters to the newest thread--Or, easier, lean on blogspot to update their program.
OK, can I make an embarrassing confession? I didn't actually watch the debate for more than a few seconds at a time. I don't like performance games like political debates, where the entire intent is to sit around breathlessly waiting for someone to screw up. This is perhaps also the reason that I have no interest in competitive sports. I'm much more comfortable reading the post-debate transcript, where the conflict is no longer performative. I followed the debate last night by reading the running commentary here and at other places.
Palladian--as did I, the commentary was far better than the debate from what I can tell. Not having TV listening to Glen Gould play the Goldberg variations while reading the comments is far more liberating.
The sky is clear, the air has an autumnal crispness here in southern Wisconsin.
It's a perfect day for a long motorcycle ride on rural roads. A diner that serves home made pies is logged into the day's destinations.
Computer goes off as soon as I post.
I recall how incensed people were that Bush might be listening on on their international phone calls.
But in Missouri is Obama is using State force -prosecutors and sheriffs- to forbid free speech.
Not a peep from the left. All is well.
I don't like performance games like political debates, where the entire intent is to sit around breathlessly waiting for someone to screw up.
I agree and did the same thing. Spent last night reading four different bloggers.
Debates are like interviews with national reporters, nothing more than gotcha games that really don't tell you much about a person's ideas, record, or worldview.
And I think this point is driven home by the number of people who began their post-debate analysis with variations of the theme "Neither candidate made a serious mistake tonight."
It is all rather tiring.
But Pogo my друг, my friend, is but for the economy!
Already the sheriff he wear the brown shirt. Much the cheaper!
What kind of green tea was it? Enquiring minds need to know. Life is in the details.
Re Ann's comments:
"I was watching the debate on a channel that mainly had a split screen of the 2 men head on, so it was hard for me to discern the level of interaction. But I do think McCain had a strategy of intimidating Obama and making him feel small and inexperienced."
Forget the pop psychology. Obama looked small and inexperienced because he was/is small and inexperienced. As for contempt, I think that Obama's use of the soldier as a charm bracelet - note to Barry, check the name on the bracelet before you hide behind the military prop - is worthy of such contempt.
It's wet and chill here on the Chesapeake, so I'm going to follow Windbag's lead and bake a buttermilk pie. Amaretto, not beer, to go with.
New material at the bottom, please. I park and refresh, which in Explorer (I know, I know) shows the new stuff on my screen. No additional scrolling.
I would rather you didn't.
Should I switch to [putting] the newest entries on top within a single post?
As for contempt, I think that McSurge's using, to justify continuing an unjustified war, the ultimate sacrifice of a brave soldier, is worthy of the highest contempt.
Perhaps I don't take advantage of some option I should know about, but I found it frustrating that keeping up with the comments meant that I wasn't seeing Ann's live-time responses.
The Stranger's Blog, Slog, uses an interactive liveblogging feature that allows the readers to participate along with the hosts.
Peter, do you not open the comments in a new window? Right click the link for comments and you can open them separately. Refresh each separately.
New material on the bottom of the post! I went on-line to see the commentaries after the debate, the "new material at the top" posts are cubersome.
I found the gigantic Post Office in my neighborhood is perfectly lovely inside although the exterior is rather frightening. I discovered it during the Democratic National Convention, trolling around the neighborhood looking to see what kind of trouble I could get up to. There was a riot the previous day but by the time I got out there the whole park was fenced off, so I missed all the fun. It turns out I didn't find anything much at all that day except a whole lot of wonderfully nice people excited to be in my city for an historic event. People saying things like, "God bless you," and "Hello, how are you today, isn't it beautiful outside?" and "Hello. Would you like this pamphlet? " That, and the scary looking Post Office.
The P.O. building is huge but non-desrcript in its architecture posited as it is among the architecturally interesting edifices, the U.S. Mint, the Civic Center, the State Capitol, and the * shiver * new jail.
Do you realize what this means? No? It means I don't have to drive to my old neighborhood where the tiny P.O. is familiar to do those priority mail things, that's what.
* glees *
All this caused me to realize I failed to put up the clown fish/sea anemone pop-up card on my web site. It can be viewed here, if you're interested in such things.
Ben (The Tiger):
Do we still think McCain won?
Certain of it, especially after I went to the live-blogging comments section of SLOG, a Lefty site.
It's true that liberals tend to be self-defeatist, but they were hitting the exact same points we all were here. We have a much more varied commentariat, politically, so you know it's close to the truth.
Cheers,
Victoria
Re: comments.
You can try a test run of down-up comments, because large threads can be unwieldy.
But otherwise, I like the older ones at the bottom, like most other commenters here.
Err, newer ones at the bottom.
I don't view debates in terms of winning and losing. I realize that's ridiculous and runs counter to scoring polemical points, but that's just the way I am. I rather watch them to gain insight into character that debates can flush out. They can also be complete disasters. The debate last night was difficult to watch and difficult to hear, and difficult to read.
McCain kept repeating portions of his lines. That bugs me. Obama kept repeating his talking points. Most difficult of all were the things left out. Main St. VS Wall St. * stabs ears with fork *
Here's a few things for the War College graduates among us: It's wise for a commander to choose the fighting ground and not have the ground chosen for him (or her). Better still, if two or three or more things can be accomplished at once.
1) The elimination of a resolute enemy, determined to cause trouble however, whenever possible. (Hussein)
2) The elimination of autocratic dynasty (Hussein)
3) The discrediting of a burgeoning enemy (al Qaeda)
4) The replacement of a hostile government with a friendly one. (Iraq)
5) The elimination of the possibility of WMD being acquired by a hostile government. (Iraq)
Go ahead, pile on. See if I care. You won't change my thinking by hurling invectives, and I've already rejected counter arguments.
That's how thick-headed I am.
Why? Because I believe some things are worth going into debt for. And because I see a brighter future ahead for us all. But mostly because I'm so proud of my country and impressed with the people that populate it that I can hardly stand it. Call it a character flaw but I'm unlikely to change anytime soon or by any direct assault.
Chipper: Didn't you forget that "Mission Accomplished" line from your Bush administration talking points?
We've been listening to this crap for 5 years and you merely repeat it...again.
And yet, here are, with 100,000-130,000 American soldiers still in Iraq, sending 1,000's to Afghanistan...and according to McCain (and you?) we can't tell anybody when and if we'll ever leave.
Great plan, great execution...and a great deal of bullshit.
vbspurs: Provide a poll that says McCain won.
Even Fox has Obama winning.
You're dreaming.
Back from a lovely ride. The leaves are beginning to turn colors.
I enjoyed a slice of home made peach pie here. Home made is in peeling the peaches and making the crust on site. No peach-ey pie filling glop from an industrial baking supplies company.
Deeelishus!
/is = as
Did you know McCain would make a pie...but he can't turn his head to see if the oven is pre-heated.
"On a Saturday conference call with reporters, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe called Gov. Sarah Palin "a terrific debater" who has "performed very, very well" in previous debates with opponents in her state."
And there you have it: Sarah Palin is a master debater.
chip, we would have done a lot more good by invading North Korea. Here's the case, made in your terms:
1) The elimination of a resolute enemy, determined to cause trouble however, whenever possible. (Kim Jong Il)
2) The elimination of autocratic dynasty (Kim Jong Il, Kim Il Sung, et al....)
3) The replacement of a hostile government with a friendly one. (North Korea)
4) The elimination of the likelihood of nuclear weapons being developed by a hostile government. (North Korea)
5) Replacement of a government which starved its own people, diverting all resources to building up its military. (North Korea)
6) The encouragement of a two burgeoning enemies.(al Qaeda and Iran)
7) Enabling a burgeoning enemy to establish itself in entirely new countries. (al Qaeda)
May I suggest FLS that invading north korea that happens to share a border with the PRC just might be a bit dicey? Do you have any sense at all of geostrategic politics? Do you think one of the worlds three superpowers would contenance an invasion on their border?
Post a Comment