If you haven't noticed lately, my blogroll is getting a little bit out of date. (And they took down the Tard Blog! Why? WHY???) So, out with the old, in with the new.
Now, to the major announcement.
In case you haven't noticed, I've opened the comment boxes on Thief's Den.
I originally did not allow comments for three reasons.
Q: Why don’t your comment boxes work?
A: Because I don’t want them to. There are some sites where the comments are mostly intelligent and informed. But the majority of them are just random people saying either “I agree” or “you suck.” I don’t want that to be the case here. For comments, the model that I have come to respect is Steven Den Beste (who is, in the truest sense of the word, one of the main inspirations behind the Den.) Steve doesn’t have a comment bar on his site. You want to comment? You write him, and leave him what you want to say, or simply a link to your blog. Substance rules. It's going to work the same here. You want to comment, you write me. (That and the fact that you people may just blow my cover, and checking each post makes sure that doesn't happen.)
Q: That’s not fair!
A: Life is not fair. Cry me a river, build me a bridge, and get over it!
First, I did not want to have to deal with checking each comment for profanity, bad arguments, spam, spam, spam, spam, general idiocy, spam, spam, spam, and spam...
[MUSIC] Spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam LOVELY SPAAAAAAM WONDERFUL SPAAAAAAAAAAM... {whack} [/MUSIC}
Ahem. As I was saying...I didn't want to deal with checking each comment.
The second reason is that most of the blogs that I respected (i.e. This guy, and this guy) did not bother with comment boxes. Of course, I later found out that this is because, to echo Vertical Horizon, "they are Gods and I am not." I've had a grand total of 3 comments. And one of them was mine. Pathetic, no?
Anyway, I figured that if I was going to make the Den the best blog it can be, then I need to let readers talk back to me, if only to challenge my ideas and give me feedback. And most of the comments I've seen on numerous blogs actually had something to say. So I was wrong, the readers were right.
But the third reason still stands. And it is the reason I must ask something out of anyone who wants to comment.
When I first started thinking about blogging, I was looking for a job. Some employers (like the one I have now), don't give a hoot about your politics, they just care that you do a good job. But remember, this is still Washington, DC. Everything is political here. When I started blogging, I kept thinking that having strong beliefs is fine, but what good are beliefs if you can't pay the rent? (Or for that matter, the kneecap-breakers?) Thus, when the Den started, I felt I needed to compartmentalize my blog identity and my real name. Enter "Thief." A Pseudonym.
In hindsight, this was an overreaction, at least as far as job searching goes. Everyone has their politics, and only a real asshole would use his own political beliefs as a basis to cut someone out of a job. At my place of work, I've started to let my politics hang out just a little bit, but never to the point where I force my politics in people's faces. But in the inner temples of the political realm, where the real power is, it's not like that.
Political types, myself included, tend to accept ad hominem fallacies at face value. An explanation:
Attacking the Person (argumentum ad hominem)
Definition: The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. This takes many forms. For example,the person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by the company he keeps. There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:1. ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
2. ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the author points to the relationship between the person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.
3. ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a person does not practise what he preaches.Examples:
You may argue that God doesn't exist, but you are just following a fad. (ad hominem abusive)
We should discount what Premier Klein says about taxation because he won't be hurt by the increase. (ad hominem circumstantial)
We should disregard Share B.C.'s argument because they are being funded by the logging industry. (ad hominem circumstantial)
You say I shouldn't drink, but you haven't been sober for more than a year. (ad hominem tu quoque)Proof:
Identify the attack and show that the character or circumstances of the person has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the proposition being defended.
It is precisely for this reason that I blog pseudonymously. I want my ideas to be judged on their own merits, not my merits as a person, and certainly not based on my race, my religion, my political affiliation, my ethnicity, or my past.
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, Steven Den Beste wrote this:
The other side of the coin is that Demosthenes has made no attempt whatever to prove that he is entitled to wield the moral authority he presumes to, by attempting to advise us as to what we should do. If he is so certain of his position, and if he wants the rest of us to act on what he says, then why does he himself not demonstrate the courage of his own conviction and himself act on what he says? Why does he ask us all to publicly embrace his opinions when he won't do so, and ask us to accept the social consequences he is trying to avoid?And why should anyone listen to him if he won't?
Demosthenes would, I suspect, respond to that: "Listen to the arguments, not to the arguer." But if the arguments are convincing, then why doesn't the voice who presents them act as if he believes them? If anyone should follow an advocated course of action, surely the person doing the advocating should be first.
In battle, a good officer leads from the front.
I'm not ashamed of what I write. Demosthenes confesses that he is, however, ashamed of what he writes and fears to let those around him know what he really thinks. This affects how readers interpret what each of us says, but not in the same way.
This is, to put it bluntly, wrong. Did Madison, Hamilton, and Jay not believe in what they wrote in the Federalist Papers, published under the pseudonym "Publius?" (In the same vein, did all the other writers on the subject of the proposed Constitution, both Federalists and Anti-Federalists, not believe in what they wrote simply because they used pseudonyms as well?) Was George Kenan, a career foreign service diplomat serving in Moscow during the opening days of the Cold War, not "leading from the front" when his groundbreaking work on the new doctrine of containment was published, pseudonymously, in Foreign Affairs as the "X Article?" Were the Chinese democracy activists who posted pseudonymously on the "Democracy Wall" in 1979 ashamed of what they believed? Most certainly not.
The reason why all these authors wrote pseudonymously was that they believed their works were controversial enough already; leaving their real name would have meant that these valuable ideas might have been shot down on the basis of their author's failings (or in the last case, their authors would be silenced.) Though my works are certainly nowhere near as important as what all these people did, I have the same concerns, and others, too. I want my work judged on its own merit, not by my own personal foibles or errors.
One of the things this country needs right now are patriots. I mean, real, honest to goodness people who believe in this country and what it stands for, and who will fight like hell to defend it and the light it brings to the rest of the world. And I'm not just talking about soldiers and sailors and airmen and Marines (though they are all important). I'm talking about police officers, sheriff's deputies, detectives Border Patrol agents, Customs inspectors, FBI agents, Coast Guardsmen, DEA agents, ATF agents, and Park Police officers to uphold the law. I'm talking about prosecutors and investigators who will pursue criminals and terrorists as far as the law allows until they all rot in jail. I'm talking about CIA case officers, NSA cryptography wizards, NGA imagery gurus, and of course, analysts, to find out what our enemies are thinking and give us warning enough to stop them. I'm talking about Foreign Service Officers to build up real and lasting alliances between the United States and other nations, not based on convenience or common enemies, but like minds and shared values, And, contrary to what the stereotypes may say, congressional and executive staffers and law clerks to lend their hands and their enthusiasm to our leaders, so they might look beyond the headlines and the polls and pursue wise and just policies. Someday, I hope to join the ranks of organizations like these.
But still, there are those who say that holding strong political views is incompatible with public service, that people with strong opinions are incapable of following the law without passion or prejudice. They may have a point, but more often than not, I believe that the powerful use these criteria to eliminate from consideration anyone but those who will follow orders blindly and always obey their superiors, even when the leaders have gone astray. This may ensure smooth sailing and uncontroversial tenures, but it also sucks the soul out of public service. A leader may be right 99 times out of 100, but is it really healthy for democracy to have that leader backed up by nothing but yes-men who will nod their heads and agree? I would much rather they have followers who will follow rightful orders and yet still posess the courage and strength of character to go before the leaders and tell them, "If this is your order, I will follow it, but I believe you are wrong, and here's why." I don't want the public servants of this nation to laud their leaders the 99 times they are right. I want public servants who will question their leaders the one time in 100 they are wrong.
I can already hear the Bronx cheers out there. "So you're afraid you won't get a job in government. Why should I take you seriously if you won't put your career on the line?"
Because I want you to be able to engage me in conversation, but at the same time I don't want to perpetuate the myth that people must choose between excercising their inalienable rights and serving their fellow man. Pseudonymity allows me to do both. If that means you won't take anything I say seriously, there is very little I can do to change your mind. But what I lose through pseudonymity, I will always try to compensate for with earnestness and sincerity. (Even when I'm being tongue-in-cheek.)
I've met more than a few of you, and every time I've always been impressed by the wit and wisdom you've freely offered me. It would be a most painful thing if I had to choose between my blogging and my quest to become one of this nation's servants. But you are all among the most honorable people I've known, and I trust that my confidence in you is not misplaced. I want you to be able to talk to me, and I want to make Thief's Den a place where reason rules the day, and I want to be left free to contribute more to the world than the occaional insight or joke. So I ask you not to let my secret out.
Posted by Thief at February 25, 2004 12:32 AM