The Mythical Good Old Days
By Mitch Berg
I’ve been blogging for about six and a third years, now. In the world of blogs, I’m not Methuselah, but I was a few classes behind him in high school.
This blog has “succeeded” far beyond my wildest dreams; I’m around 2,000 unique visits a day (according to my server logs – which is down from the 3,000 I got a few years ago, but a fair chunk of that was hits on spam comments, which are largely gone now), with big surges on occasion. And as I’ve said for years, the rewards are even greater than the traffic; I’d still do the blog if I still had the 10-20 daily readers I had in the summer of 2002.
I’ve gotten a lot of great reactions, of course; recognition, fans of all kinds, and that feeling of satisfaction you get from doing something you enjoy, well enough to put your name on it with at least some pride. And of course, the blog has opened up things in my life that had been closed for a long, long time – since Twenty Years Ago Today, in fact; my “radio career”, a place in politics that I kind of enjoy – you know. The usual.
Of course, not everyone’s a fan. I have my critics; when they make a good point – and they frequently do, because let’s face it, I’m no Rhodes scholar – I appreciate it and learn from it (or try to). I have my detractors – a few people out there who just plain don’t like me or my blog. They don’t bother me especially; if I want their opinion, I’ll grant them the right to have one [*].
In fact, in six years and change of doing this blog, there’s really only one criticism that’s ever really rankled me; “Your blog used to be good, but it’s not what it used to be”.
Now, it doesn’t rankle me because of the implied criticism of the blog; the point pretty much invariably accompanies some sort of political screed. That’s fine.
On the other hand – no! The blog is not what it used to be! I’m not who I used to be! The only blogs that never, ever change are the ones that either publish five posts and go silent, the ones on some subject that never changes, or the ones written by groups so big that changes are swallowed up in the law of averages.
The last six years of my life have been a trip; rewarding, gruelling, joyful, excruciating, happy, depressed, fun and a freaking deathmarch – sometimes simultaneously. When I started the blog, my kids were nine and ten years old; today they’re 15 and 16. Since 2002, I’ve been a contractor at six companies, and am finally an employee at a place I think I like an awful lot. I’ve had dozens of first dates (and not a few second third and twentieth ones), a few breakups that were worthy of country-western songs (and one that was probably more speed-metal)…
…and there’s just no way on earth that anyone can do all that and not have something change. Usually for the better, sometimes not, but always just a tad different.
My politics are mostly the same; I’m a conservative. Some things have morphed; I’m less accepting of gay marriage than I was, but a stronger supporter of civil unions (and getting government the hell out of the marriage business). I still oppose capital punishment, but I’ve morphed from supporting concealed carry and the right to self defense to supporting mandatory gun ownership for the law-abiding and “make my day” laws. (I’m being tongue in cheek. Mostly).
So here’s a word for the wise; if you want to take a ding at me, I’m happy and not a little proud to tell ya “you’ve changed” really isn’t what you’re looking for.
[*] Simulated hubris performed by a professional in a closed thread. Do not attempt.
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:49 am
Ah, the transition from single digit kids to kids with their licenses ranges from no fun to traumatic depending on the kid. But I just remember what my (psychologist) parents tell me: your kids think you get more stupid and unreasonable each year until sometime around 19. After that, you start getting smarter again. The hard part is giving them enough rope so that they only give themselves rope burn rather than hang themselves.
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:13 am
Your ‘change’ since the last election mostly, has not been an evolutionary one that you imply. It was been one based on beat and blast ideology without consideration for the other point of view. One ‘used to’ be able to come here for debate, but now it is a smear fest coupled with put downs if one doesn’t toe your ideological line. I don’t expect you to admit the obvious, that would mean that you would have to admit you are wrong, as you tend to be far more often now than a few years ago. But I’ll sit back and watch the parade of Mitchkateers as AC calls them, defend you. The political screeds are full of Town Hall bullet points, and the Comment Threads are as predictable as the DFL winning the 4th CD in a land slide.
Personally, I used to come here multiple times a day, now it may be a few times a week, because what I have found is your influence is only on those who already agree with you. My work is done here, I have moved along!
Flash
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:28 am
It was been one based on beat and blast ideology without consideration for the other point of view.
This blog has NEVER considered other points of view. Which implies the change is actually on your part.
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:33 am
the Comment Threads are as predictable
I predicted that flash would come in here and say that.
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:47 am
All comment threads are predictable; they all tend to draw the same people 80% of the time.
Just like yours!
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:48 am
The political screeds are full of Town Hall bullet points
Really?
Because I read Townhall maybe every two weeks or so.
Try again!
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:07 am
Mitch,
As you know, I agree with Flash on this entirely. Let me give you an example (and by the way, I recall our mutual friend Bill Haverburg saying the same thing to you when he basically said he wasn’t going to come here as often any more).
In 2005, I made a comment to you that Bush was understood to be ‘incurious’ – a point others made since, including Scott McClellan, and Admiral Fallon (as I recall).
In the past, I would have a discussion with you which you’d rationally consider the points, and have a rational response.
In THIS case, your response was “He was smart enough to beat YOU twice”
Of course, Bush didn’t RUN against me, and more important, that quip was one which was being widely used nationally as a reply to commentary about Bush’s smarts, but I’m not just some random hack commenting on your blog, and this was face to face.
Your response was uncivil, it was trite, it was dismissive, and it was enormously condescending. It was thoughtless.
A man who I considered my friend gave me the back of his hand, essentially saying “I can treat you as a fool”, “I don’t have to reasonably engage you and consider this issue”.
That’s something you’d have NEVER done before. We hadn’t reached some great level of acrimony, FAR from it at that point. You just treated me as some sort of idiot hack, and that was FAR different from who you once were.
Since 2004, you’ve treated issues with pure disregard for real discourse FAR FAR too often, and that was a prime example of it.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:10 am
Mitch said:
“Because I read Townhall maybe every two weeks or so.”
And yet they exercise total control over your blog, those Scaifenet overlords. How do they do it?
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:50 am
Let’s see if we have this straight, Peev.
Mitch wrote something you didn’t like in 2005. I didn’t start coming to this blog regularly until 2007, but what I’ve seen is that you’ve filled the comments section with intemperate, spittle-flecked invective pretty much on a daily basis, quite a lot of it ad hominem.
You’ve got your own blog now, Peev. Get over the 3-year old slights and tend to your garden a bit. It would be good for you.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:22 am
“He was smart enough to beat YOU twice”
Of course, Bush didn’t RUN against me
And that’s why trying to discuss things with you in this format is so utterly fruitless. The “YOU” was plural – “Y’all”. Democrats. This opponents.
That you chose to personalize it is…well, odd. That you took that kind of an offense at it was weird.
I hope you start getting lots of traffic and commenters at your blog, Peev. You’ll need to thicken your skin up right quick.
Oh, and Flash is wrong. Sorry. Them’s the facts.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:25 pm
No Mitch, we talked about it then, I pointed it out that it wasn’t me, and that it wasn’t Bush, it was Rove.
The point was that it was an unproductive, churlish response. It wasn’t offered as a joke, and it was grossly offtopice, and defensive, rather than thoughtful.
As far as skin goes, mitch, as I’ve shown here time and again, my skin is far thicker than you give it credit for, and in my opinion, far thicker than yours. I’ve certainly taken far more crap, and put up with far more crap, than you.
And you didn’t know I took any offense at the time, I didn’t take offense to be honest, I thought it pointed out someone who was using pithy and immature argumentation, rather than thoughtful. It wasn’t on point, it was worthless to the discussion.
That was the point. and it had nothing to do with your blog, it was between you and I, and you basically back-handed a real concern, without even deigning to discuss it.
This is part of the reason I don’t personally look to you for advice on the thickness of my skin, but thanks for offering it I suppose. You get offended pretty easily, someone says you, me, everyone has a bit of bigottry, you get incessed, start barking out orders, make threats. Yet you call Cole a bigot without proof offered. Your behavior has become VERY aggressive, bombastic, excessive, off-point, on this blog – and I was pointing out how it did so in real life. Your comment was needlessly aggresssive and base. I wasn’t offended, don’t confuse yourself, I was surprised that someone who NORMALLY discussed things rationally, gave such a lack-wit, knee-jerk response.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Put another way Mitch, AFTER that discussion we had a very productive discussion about Gitmo, you may or may not remember. I didn’t insult you – why would I? – you didn’t insult me – same point.
We agreed that using US troops to break what are considered ‘norms’ of conduct for troops watching over prisoners was a bad idea, but that torture – in extreme cases – might be necessary. It was a rational discussion. You didn’t say “What are you, a mollycoddler?” Whether the ‘you’ in that sort of hypothetical discussion was me or ‘your opponents’, would have never been the point. I of courese knew Bush didn’t run against me, and that you knew it, my reply was making the point that your response wasn’t productive, and you needed to be just a bit more careful with your wording. You assumed I firmly believed in and worked for Kerry, I didn’t – I wasn’t part of Bush’s active opposition – but the point was that your response when we talked about Gitmo, was completely different. I made the point that Gonzalez’ memo was really, really dangerous, that Powell opposed it – and underlined why.
You had a good discussion about it – as opposed to the one about Bush’s lack of investigation and insular advisory circle.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Wait a minute… what is this post about again?
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Something about “the good old days weren’t always good and tomorrow ain’t as bad as it seems” or something.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:59 pm
I thought the Peeve had his own blog
June 3rd, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Peev, here is an idea for you. Why don’t you learn from Mitch and fisk him on your own blog with your voluminous screeds, and then post links here if you must.
Who says wingnuts don’t compromise?
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:26 pm
I thought the Peeve had his own blog
You gotta figure the guy still has plenty of reserves.
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:28 pm
We need to encourage Peev to use paragraphs, punctuation, bulletpoints, bold formatting, italicized formatting, links, embedded links, quote formatting, colored text, titles, titles wit hembedded links, etc.
So we can actually read his posts.
Either that, or someone ought to copy his post, format it for him, and re-post it.
Hey!
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Amen to the idea that we are static. I completely understand some short respones to questions that have been covered 1 million times before. The Bush lied about WMD’s one gets no serious responses from me any longer as there is no point.
Also, I am also less a fan of Gay marriage than I was, but I also harbor more hostility towards evangelicals after Huckabee and their refusal to vote for a Mormon. People expect us to keep and open mind, but after 3 years of debate, some issues have been settled, or at least one side looks way better than the other.
Finally, Mitch’s output has been pretty consistent, but I know that mine and quite a few other bloggers have had ups and downs. Sometimes I sit for hours waiting for a client, so I can do long well researched posts. Other times I have about 30 free minutes all day so what goes up what I have time for.
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Finally, Mitch’s output has been pretty consistent
Well he does claim to be a polemicist. By definition that requires some volume.
June 3rd, 2008 at 4:07 pm
You gotta figure the guy still has plenty of reserves.
Clearly, I was way too optimistic.
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Perhaps if Flash were to offer an opposing opinion with out calling his opponents Nazi’s (as one frequent commentator does) or wandering off on a tangent, rehashing ground that has been covered time and time again or without insulting the half of America that voted for the Republican guy, he would find this site more to his liking in the response that he would receive.
June 4th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Mitch titled another recent post with “Nothing is forgotten or forgiven.” Peev proves it. (All night).