Showing posts with label blogospats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label blogospats. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 31, 2010

@reihansalam Regarding your Glenn BX piece

(A response to this ...

reihansalam @bjkeefe I recommend the take offered by @MattZeitlin -- he's on to something.

... which came in response to these two ...

bjkeefe @mattyglesias (1/2)Thoroughly disagree. Agree with @TKOEd -- that article is a joke, and never mind the Malcom X part. Beck is all about ...

bjkeefe @mattyglesias (2/2)...making $$ off of playing politics. I think ur being too loyal to a friend here. Reihan says wacky shit from time2time.

... which is too long to tweet, especially with the flurry of "over capacity" screens now showing.)

__________


So, @reihansalam, i.e., my response to your above tweet, Reihan Salam:

If you mean something other than Matt Zeitlin's "willfull [sic] misreading" tweet, please link to it. I don't see anything else relevant in his twitter stream. If you did mean that tweet, feh. It's an empty assertion, shallow even by the standards of a 140-character limit. I'm surprised that's the best you can reach for.

Believe me, I've read a lot of your stuff and I've listened to almost every one of your Bh.tv diavlogs. I do not always agree with you, but I have deep respect for your perspectives (especially when they're orthogonal to the CW) and your intelligence. Thus, I really tried to give your Glenn BX piece some consideration, far more so than I would have given the same piece from pretty much anyone else. At some point, though, I think you have to accept that either you didn't make your case clearly enough (and stop blaming others for "misreading") or admit that you had a dumb-ass thesis to start. I'm gonna go with the latter, and here's what I'll say to that.

Beck may not be a pure politician, but he is at minimum -- like Limbaugh and Palin and too many others -- dining out in the political arena, and in the most piggish manner at that. He is stirring up people who have no legitimate grievances -- at least, that aren't at least as well due to the party they keep voting for and the leaders they keep revering. He is preying on their fears, he is stroking their bigotry, he is stoking their hatreds, and he is making an enormous amount of money while doing it. Not to mention lying all the while to his own fucking core audience. He is an amoral huckster, willing to say whatever it takes to maintain his ratings and his stream of benjamins, and that's the end of it. He does not merit serious discussion. He's not worth more than a moment's thought. He deserves no respect. He hasn't earned any.

Especially as far as someone of your chops and position goes.

You're supposed to be one of the thoughtful conservatives. So act like it. There is no reason in the world for you to try to show us how out-of-the-box-y you can be by trying to portray Glenn Beck as anything other than the boil on the buttocks of humanity that he is. Jesus. I'm reminded of otherwise smart drama critics trying to inflate the significance of reality teevee. Or that Paglia creature back in 2008 trying to tell us how Wasilla Word Salad was actually Just Like™ jazz. Find something else to write about. There are a zillion things more important and worthy of consideration that we'd like your take on. This country is in a very serious place, and you're wasting your time and mine fluffing someone who is nothing more than a symptom of our shared illness. Well, maybe an opportunistic infection.

Look, you went for provocative (in the Slate sense, at least), and you provoked. Congratulations. I'm sure your hit count is through the roof. But you are forgetting the wise words of Daniel Davies:

The whole idea of contrarianism is that you’re “attacking the conventional wisdom”, you’re “telling people that their most cherished beliefs are wrong”, you’re “turning the world upside down”. In other words, you’re setting out to annoy people. Now opinions may differ on whether this is a laudable thing to do – I think it’s fantastic – but if annoying people is what you’re trying to do, then you can hardly complain when annoying people is what you actually do. If you start a fight, you can hardly be surprised that you’re in a fight. It’s the definition of passive-aggression and really quite unseemly, to set out to provoke people, and then when they react passionately and defensively, to criticise them for not holding to your standards of a calm and rational debate.

As I tweeted to Matt Yglesias, you say some wacky shit sometimes. Often I enjoy it, sometimes I can admire it, occasionally it's even valuable. Not this time. Not any of these. Not even close.

__________


[Added] For those of you who read the above via RSS or Facebook or something, be advised that Reihan has replied in the Comments.

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

ScienceBlogs Meltdown, Part II

A couple of weeks ago, the collection of blogs collectively called ScienceBlogs experienced a storm of protest from within its ranks, due to management's decision to let PepsiCo run a self-fluffing Science™! "blog" on the Sb site. This decision was reversed within about a day, as your correspondent described elsewhere.

However, the change of mind was not enough to mollify some of the Sblings (not mine, wish it were). Some saw it as the final straw and departed to blog elsewhere. And it's beginning to look like the unhappiness isn't over -- two more bloggers, PalMD and Bora, have announced their departure, and PZ Myers's most recent post (dated noon yesterday) features a giant ON STRIKE banner and an explanation of why he's stopped blogging.

Obviously, I have no knowledge of the inner machinations of Sb beyond what I read during Pepsigate and the occasional hint I've picked up from reading PZ over the years. That said, it seems beyond dispute that (1) most if not all of the bloggers are quite unhappy (and that's just counting the ones who haven't already left), and (2) their complaints are legitimate. It's also beyond dispute to say how sad it be for Sb to fall apart.

(h/t: uncle ebeneezer, via PM)

__________


[Added] In case you've not heard of ScienceBlogs, or are only vaguely aware of the name, this graphic (via Bora's post) may help illuminate its importance:

[Added2] Scab! ;)

[Added3] PZ: "The strike is over. We had a productive discussion with the Seed Overlords …"

Thursday, July 08, 2010

Polling Analyst Catfight!

We now tie together the last two posts (squabbling + polling-nerdliness), by way of a link noticed while Googling in support of them.

(You're kind to think, "It's the heat that's doing this to him," if in fact you were that kind, but no, the truth is, I can't get enough of this kind of stuff. It's my soap opera, it's my People magazine. What can I say?)

Anyway, it appears that Andrew Gelman simply does not care for John Zogby's jealousy of Nate Silver. (And that was a way fun sentence to type.)

Meow:

Here is some advice from someone [Zogby] who has been where you [Silver] are today.

Sorry, John. (I can call you that, right? Since you're calling Nate "Nate"?). Yes, you were once the hot pollster. But, no, you were never where Nate is today. Don't kid yourself. Zogby writes:

You [Nate] are hot right now -- using an aggregate of other people's work, you got 49 of 50 states right in 2008.

Yes, Nate used other people's work. That's what's called "making use of available data." Or, to use a more technical term employed in statistics, it's called "not being an idiot."

And it just gets better from there, although by now, you're excused if you're somewhat uncertain what might be meant when I say better.

Wednesday, July 07, 2010

Jeez, Markos, all you had to do was ask Mika

The first rule of Joe Scarborough is: You do not talk about Joe Scarborough.

Except fawningly, of course.

As I noted earlier, I've been blacklisted on MSNBC because I hurt Joe Scarborouth's fee fees. MSNBC president Phil Griffin claims it was because:

I just don't know how one could reasonably expect to be welcomed onto our network while publicly antagonizing one of our hosts at the same time.

Greg Sargent laughs at the absurdity of that Justification:

It's funny. I don't recall the chief of MSNBC publicly banning Liz Cheney from appearing on the network when she cut an entire Web video "publicly antagonizing" Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews for allegedly being too frightened to debate her about terrorism:

[...]

[...]

Update: MSNBC tried to talk me out of going public with this …

(h/t: pourmecoffee)

Friday, June 04, 2010

Late to the Dance. Again. (But We Make Up For It, With Longwindedness.)

Before we get started, a Shalizi of sorts: What follows is an exceedingly long diatribe responding to a post that is ancient in blogospheric time, and in any case, will almost certainly be of no interest to non-denizens.

[Update] Or a Sterling, as the case may be.

__________


Someone is wrong on the InternetA while back, over at Balloon Juice, the almost-always insightful DougJ showed a rare moment of cluelessness. Even more sadly, a number of regular commenters quickly piled on to his "questions," each attempting to outdo the last with expressions of disdain, nearly all of which were cringingly uninformed. The topic was Bloggingheads.tv, and the consensus was, it is Teh Suxxx. Somehow, just about everyone there was able to come to this agreement without, to all appearances, ever having watched a diavlog, or participated in the forums. I exaggerate only very slightly.

I was away from the blogosphere at the time, so I could not chime in with the one or two brave and lonely voices of protest in that thread. And though it does not really matter, since no one at Balloon Juice is compelled to like a site that I very much do, or even to give it a fair shot before opining on it (this being the blogosphere, and we being humans), I am going to try to make late better than never and rebut a few specifics. And then make a pitch in favor of reconsideration.

Althouse meltdownTo begin with, a concession. Does Bh.tv give entirely too much air time to utterly useless gasbags, like Jonah Goldberg, Megan McArdle, Jim Pinkerton, Byron York, and Ann Althouse? Yes. No argument there. It's a complaint I myself have made many times, and if you haven't seen any of them posted lately, it is due only to my recent grudging acknowledgment that this battle is lost, that people such as these, for reasons passing my understanding, draw a lot of traffic to the site. So be it. It's easy enough to skip those diavlogs.

Another of the most frequent justifications given by the Juicers for hating on the site, if memory serves, is The Mickey Connection. At least one commenter even went to the trouble of visiting the site's About page, to "prove" that Bh.tv exists, evidently, as little more than an additional outlet for the blatherings one might politely call Kausfiles. [Added: more accurately, as is pointed out in comments responding to this post over at Balloon Juice, the commenter who referred to the About page was not solely or even primarily responsible for the claim, in the original thread, that Bh.tv exists primarily as an outlet for Kaus's views.]

Mickey Kaus and friend In fact, Kaus has almost nothing to do with the site anymore, though it's true that he was a co-founder. He used to appear weekly, then went to biweekly, then irregularly and even less frequently. (I apologize if this sounds like I'm talking about his bowel movements.) He now shows up only every few months or so, and maybe only once since he started his lookit-me-I'm-gonna-be-a-Senator! thing.

As I understand it, Kaus cut formal ties with the site quite some time ago, due partly to worries about conflicts of interest, when he was still blogging at Slate, and partly, it would seem, to some combination of time constraints, laziness, and dwindling interest. If I had to guess, I would say the About page retains mention of him as a founder because Bob Wright, the current sole HMFIC, once thought that featuring his name would add appeal (balance?) to potential investors (many of whom seem to thrive on the same sort of Third Way, Broderish, faux-Democratic attitude Mickey likes to promulgate). Maybe Bob still thinks this, or thinks that the recognized name is still worth something for other reasons. Or more likely, I suspect, it has most to do with Bob having a few thousand other things higher on his priority list than updating the site's About page.

Anyway, you'll get little argument from me if you want to harsh on Mickey, except that he genuinely seems like the kind of guy I'd like to have a beer with, but don't think he has anything to do with Bh.tv anymore. He doesn't.

__________


Woman wearing headphonesOne last bit to rebut: If I recall correctly, another of the complaints in the Balloon Juice thread was along the lines of "Who wants to sit in front of a computer for an hour, watching low-res video, that in any case is just two heads, talking?" If that complaint wasn't raised there, it certainly has been elsewhere, so let me just say that if that is your main objection to giving Bh.tv a shot, set it aside. Every diavlog is available for download, as audio (MP3) or video (WMV and MP4). There are also various podcast-y-type options, again both audio or video, including through the iTunes store, for free. Point is, you don't have to be chained to your computer.

I'd add that I rarely actually watch the diavlogs. I usually stream them, with the video box off to the corner of my computer screen, while I'm doing other things. Then, as the audio provokes me, I'll glance over, or stop what I'm doing, and really watch for a few minutes.

Onward.

__________


Cat swats dogTo the content of the site: As the two commenters noted above suggested in the Balloon Juice comment thread, and as I have said several other places elsewhere online, Bh.tv is a rare bird indeed on these Internets. It is a place where a real and ongoing effort is made to present a wide range of views, and not just in that annoying MSM check-the-"both sides"-box kind of way. Further, the selection of guests has sustained a comments forum that also displays continued diversity. And rarer still for this Web of ours, sometimes the participants -- in the diavlogs and forums both -- can even have meaningful and civil disagreements. These perspective-ranges, I'd add, refer not only to political matters, although that's most often the genre of the site, but also to hardcore wonkery, philosophy, science, and cultural affairs.

Cat and dog: awwwAnd contra DougJ's misapprehension, it is quite unlike the Crossfire-style shoutfests of cable teevee. While there are of course diavlogs that are nothing more than a hurling back and forth of the usual talking points, and a few of the guests (beyond the Furious Five listed above) are too ideologically hidebound ever to admit their partners may have a point, it is much more often the case that the format -- hour-long discussions -- permits real detail and nuance to be presented. Complex ideas aren't given short shrift. If common ground is not always achieved, and Kumbaya is almost never the closing number, at least arguments are given the room they need to be hashed out. And again, to say this is largely to ignore the non-political discussions, many of which are not calcified into Left Versus Right, and so are even more likely to be instructive, not to mention entertaining.

By the way, not every last diavlog is structured as a debate. A decent amount of them are more along the lines of an in-depth interview, a la Fresh Air or BookTV.

__________


Is Bh.tv perfect? Of course not. There are execrable regulars, as noted above. There are a few too many Villagers-in-Training. There have been one-off moments of sheer disgrace; e.g., Jerome Corsi, Rick Arndt, Paul A. Nelson, and Michael Behe. There is too much squishy tolerance given to religion and worse, to faitheists. There aren't enough real lefties -- it is fair to say, I think, that the spectrum of political views all too often ranges from moderate left to infinitely far right, and that of the lefties who do appear, virtually every one of them is allergic to making a full-throated defense of Obama, his policies, or liberalism writ large without littering his or her words with a whole mess of "to be sure"s and "of course, some will see this as"es. However, impatient-making though this can be, this characteristic of pretty much every lefty of any prominence is really more a feature than a bug, when all is said and done.

In any case, to acknowledge that the site is not perfect does not support a claim that that it's worthless. I challenge anybody to name a site that's even close to as good as Bh.tv at what it does.

__________


Furious babyNow, some of the Juicers, some of whom may have even given the site a bit of a look, will howl about the likes of David Frum making regular appearances. Or Eli Lake. Or Peter Beinart. Or Ramesh Ponnuru. Or whomever one might identify as Exactly The Sort Of Person Who Is Ruining This Country And Why Is He On My Teevee AGAIN???, but whom I would classify as worth my time, at least once in a while, and at least on some topics. (Frum on Israel, for example, is the epitome of been-there-heard-that-got-the-T-shirt, readily conceded.)

As to objections to specific individuals, I will say only, if you don't like someone, fine. Skip that diavlog. But to base a dislike for Bh.tv on the once-a-month appearance of some individual is like refusing to watch ESPN, ever, because once in a while, they show the Steelers. (ducks)

As a general matter, though, it is to my mind worth listening to smart people with whom you do not agree, with whom you might even violently disagree. You could say that it's good to stretch your brain, and challenge your own beliefs. You could say that it's good exercise to see how strong a rebuttal you can post to a skilled proponent from the proverbial other side. Worse comes to worst, you could say it's worth it in the spirit of Know Thine Enemy.

I mentioned above that the diversity of views in the diavlogs helps sustain a forum with the same characteristic. I like this, a lot. I don't spend a lot of time reading the comments at a place like Balloon Juice, or any other lefty blog that gets more than, say, ten per post, even though I read virtually every one of the blog posts, because for every funny line, I have to wade through twenty me-toos. Granted, that's an over-simplification, and not universally true, and I know I'm missing some good stuff. (Also granted: How would YOU know if you don't read them? I'm just sketching out my impression from past experience, and regular toe-dipping to this day.)

YummyAnd to be clear: no diss intended to the regulars, at Balloon Juice or anywhere else -- if that is where you like to hang out, go for it. It's just that it happens that my ears grow weary in echo chambers. Or, in some cases (more common on other liberal blogs), with battles over another's insufficient purity. I like to discuss and debate (and admittedly, flat-out argue with, and sometimes even try purely to zing, for lulz) people who are more like diametrically opposed to my point of view. Sure, it's fun and even restorative, every now and again, to get together with a bunch of like-minded people and group-bash the wingnuts, but just as I love chocolate chip cookies, I can't live on nothing but them. Gotta have some meat and potatoes and broccoli, too, and not just because it's good for me, but because I actually like the taste.

So, is Bh.tv for everyone? No, of course not. No reason to feel bad if listening to long discussions, much less continuing them, is not to your taste. It's completely legitimate to want to go online only to catch up on the news, have a few quick laughs, and say hello to friends, for example. However, it really does burn me up to see a bunch of otherwise intelligent people mouthing off in a thoroughly uninformed way. I think a lot of DougJ, and the rest of the co-bloggers, including John Cole, of course, and the whole Juicer community, and that is precisely why that post and its comments really put me off. (If this had taken place on RedState, for example, I would have forgotten about it the next day.) Bh.tv is a lot more than the superficial views presented in that thread would suggest. One day on that site is very often not at all like the next. It's got a whole lot to offer.

End vent.

Exhausted marathon runner

No, one last admission. Truth is, my lobbying on behalf of the site is driven not only by embarrassment at my side sounding as dumb as a bunch of wingnut parrots squawking about Teh Liberal Media. It is also driven by self-interest: I would always like some fresh blood in the Bh.tv forums. There are a lot of smart and funny people who hang out at Balloon Juice, and I wouldn't mind seeing some of them posting at Bh.tv, too.

End bleg.

Finally, a disclaimer, just in case: I have absolutely no monetary interest, or any other material interest, in Bh.tv. I'm just a fanboy.

(I'm on Soros's and Sunstein's payrolls, of course, and a fully brainwashed O-bot, to boot, but who among us isn't, in our new totalitarian paradise?)

Thanks for reading.

__________


(pic. sources: wrong, althouse, kaus and friend, listening, dog and cat, cat and dog, Balloon Juice commenter furious baby, yummy, exhausted marathoner)

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Line of the Day: 2009-06-30

Adam Serwer on the petulant Dana Milbank:

I'm not of the opinion that bloggers make old school shoe-leather reporters obsolete. Not by a long shot. But someone like Milbank? He's a rotary phone. And I think he knows it.

Sunday, April 26, 2009

Big Time, Baby!

I'm movin' on up, it appears. To illustrate a claimed "trend over the past few weeks" about "a tendency on the Left to dismiss Twitter both for its apparent limitations as well as its embrace by the political Right," conservative blogger and self-described Internet analyst William Beutler quoted part of a comment I posted on the Bloggingheads.tv forums. My comment was in response to one of the diavloggers, Townhall.com blogger Matt Lewis, who had asserted that conservatives "are dominating on Twitter." Here's the part William quoted:

Is this anything worth bragging about? What does it even mean, that there are more Republicans spewing out sound bites and ill-considered thoughtlets? … [G]iven the choice to “dominate” on Twitter compared to, say, the blogosphere, let alone actually getting people off their couches to go knock on doors, I know which one I’d pick.

But that's not the important part. The important part is that my words are sandwiched between references to John Cole and Markos Moulitsas.

!!!

From now on, I will be referring to myself as the number-three man in the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy.

Or a #3, maybe.

HEY EZRA: WHERE IS MY JOURNOLIST INVITATION?

__________


As to William's thesis, well, meh. It's hard to agree with the idea that there is a recent trend, for one thing. It seems to me that "the Left" has been mocking "the Right" for their belief that Twitter is their new magic bullet since about three seconds after one of them first made this claim. Certainly the #dontgo "movement" was a target-rich environment for snark for a couple of weeks, way back when.

Wait, what was the #dontgo movement again?
My point exactly.

William also claims that this dismissiveness is more than just libtards being libtards …

We can’t ignore sour grapes — for the first time in a while, the Right is being recognized as doing something online better than the Left. It only makes sense the Left would want to minimize that, both to reassure themselves, discourage the Right and encourage skepticism among outside observers.

... to which I can only respond: sounds like a whine. (And nitpick that you can't say "both" and then list three things.)

But seriously, it is far from clear to me that "doing better" on Twitter is measurable or is even a meaningful concept. And who besides you, Matt Lewis, #TCOT co-founder Michael Leahy, and Erick W. Erickson is doing this recognizing?

(For those just joining in: #TCOT is a Twitter hashtag,
and it stands for Top Conservatives On Twitter.)

I might also raise an eyebrow about who is reassuring whose self, in light of a recent lament from your fellow #TCOT, Milo Yiannopoulos.

Milo Yiannopoulos frets about liberals dominating on Twitter


Sweet raisins!

__________


As to Twitter's importance -- or not -- overall, what I said in that forum post still applies. Here is some elaboration.

First, let's have some perspective. Here is a side-by-side comparison of screen shots taken a few minutes ago of the "followers" part of the respective Twitter screens for the #1 of all the #TCOTs and some random liberal, from Hollywood:

Gingrich and Kutcher Twitter followers compared


So, never mind orientation, left or right. There is, right off the bat, some reason to question the political significance of a Twitter presence at all.

I think Twitter is fine for what it is: handy for sharing jokes, quick thoughts, and links. It is potentially useful for coordinating meet-ups. Maybe, occasionally, it helps to build or sustain excitement for a short time about some event or talking point among a few people, although it seems to me that most such people are already interested and would just as willingly stay interested and in touch through some other technological channel. In particular, I do not think, as William seems to, that Twitter was a significant factor in boosting the much-ballyhooed teabagger rallies; I'd be strongly inclined instead to credit Fox News, conservative talk radio, and bulk emailing by corporate lobbying outfits for the turnout, such as it was, by anyone who wasn't already a committed conservative activist.

Twitter, it seems to me, is just another way to reinforce cocooning among like-minded people (e.g.), to allow politicians to spew more self-promotion, often to unintended comic effect (e.g.), to aggravate simpleminded divisiveness (e.g.), and to further encourage people to unleash their ids (e.g.).

Do I use Twitter? Sure, sometimes. But I don't kid myself that it's doing anything much to develop ideas or foster useful debate. The liberal in me is delighted that conservatives are wasting time obsessing over the latest shiny object rather than doing anything substantial to get themselves back into the game. On the other hand, the cynic in me realizes that the best thing that can be said about most Democratic politicians is that they are only slightly less worse than their Republican counterparts, so I'd like an intelligent check on them. The idealist in me wants those on the right to acknowledge the seriousness and depth of the problems we now face, and to think about how they could make substantive contributions, rather than clinging to their attitude of obstructionism and their belief in quick fixes.

So, depending on my mood, I find it either hilarious …

Right-wing dorks


... or depressing that so many conservatives activists are still prioritizing messaging over message, and message over ideas.

__________


By the way, I came across this notice of my promotion to the big time mention of my name not by ego-surfing, believe it or not, but by happenstance: I followed a link from a fisking of William's post over at Whiskey Fire, one of my regular reads. You might be interested in what Thers has to say about this "the Right is winning on Twitter" business.

(dorks pic. source)

Saturday, April 18, 2009

Taken to Task over Steve Schmidt

My post yesterday about Steve Schmidt, along with one from the HuffPo's Mark Nickolas, did not sit well with Mr. Bispo.

Schmidt called yesterday for the Republican Party to support same-sex marriage. Mr. Bispo did not like Nickolas's or my dubiousness about Schmidt's motivations. Mr. Bispo argues on behalf of Schmidt's history of sincerity on this issue with a fair amount of supporting documentation, and says, regarding me:

It's shame that I need to defend Schmidt from a liberal.

He adds that Nickolas and I should have done research about Schmidt's stance on this issue before mouthing off.

Points taken.

I would say in response, first, that I stand firmly behind my original hedging:

Of course, Steve Schmidt is right out of the Karl Rove mold, so for him, it's just as likely he only cares about this in the context of it being a winning or losing issue.

Emphasis added.

As to the question of research, eh. In a world of infinite charity toward all, yes. But given Schmidt's record of employers, one of whom (George W. Bush) ran for president in coordination with a vicious anti-gay marriage message that meshed with a multi-state ballot initiative to ban it (coordinated by Karl Rove), not to mention Schmidt's well-documented repugnant style during the past campaign, I'm not going to feel overwrought that I failed to consider the possibility that he's got his head on straight right concerning this one issue. Still, though, maybe he does. Mr. Bispo makes a good case, at least.

So, Mr. Schmidt, if you're reading this and Mr. Bispo is right about you, I apologize if I seemed dismissive of your sincerity on this issue in my last post, and I wish you the best of luck in continuing to push for support of same-sex marriage and in dealing with the haters on your own side.

I should also be say that I (like Nickolas) wrote in response to reports that you were planning to speak, not in response to what you said. In light of that, I am happy to point readers to what appears to be the full text of your delivered remarks: Look for the heading, "Steve Schmidt speech April 17, 2009 to Log Cabin Republicans," partway down the page on Box Turtle Bulletin.

Friday, April 04, 2008

Oxymoron Watch: Military Intelligence

You've heard about edit wars in Wikipedia, right? Here's a story that brings to mind many military terms, stealth not among them:

A Wikipedia article about Maj. Alan Rogers, a gay soldier who was killed in January in Iraq, was apparently edited by someone in the Pentagon, who removed any mention that Rogers was gay.

The user on Monday redacted details about Rogers that appeared on the online encyclopedia site. Information that was deleted included Rogers' sexual orientation; the soldier's participation in American Veterans for Equal Rights, a group that works to change military policy toward gays; and the fact that Rogers' death helped bring the U.S. military's casualty toll in Iraq to 4,000.

Rob Pilaud, a patent agent and a friend of Rogers who attended the soldier's funeral, restored the information to the Wikipedia article the next day. Pilaud was among Rogers' friends who created the Wikipedia page.

The anonymous poster also provided the following comment in the "discussion" section about the article:

"Alan's life was not about his sexual orientation but rather about the body of work he performed ministering to others and helping the defense of the country," the poster wrote. "Quit trying to press an agenda that Alan wouldn't have wanted made public just to suit your own ends."

The IP address attached to the deletion of the details and the posted comments is 141.116.168.135. The address belongs to a computer from the office of the Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence (G-2) at the Pentagon. The office is headed by Lt. Gen. John Kimmons, who was present at Rogers' funeral and presented the flag from Rogers' coffin to his cousin, Cathy Long.

The Army's public affairs office did not return a call seeking comment.

The whole article.

The Wikipedia "talk" page for the entry in question.

(h/t: Jake Tapper, via Steve Benen)

ShareThis