First, with the title of this page I am not implying that I myself am sane. 
Second, I am not representing myself as any sort of deity or authority on political blogging. There are no real consequences to breaking any of these 10 Commandments, apart from perhaps getting kicked off this blog.
Third, while stated as “Commandments”, they are really just a suggested set of guidelines that I think should be followed if discussions about politics are allowed to come to any sort of conclusion. If you have any to add or think some should be removed or changed, please feel free to suggest so here.
Lastly, you’ll likely sense a bit of frustration in some of these. Let’s face it, some bloggers (including myself at times), can be overly opinionated and frustrating, if not worse. It begs the question, “To what end?” Who knows – my next post may well be “The Ultimate Uselessness of Political Blogging”, but in the meantime while I still enjoy the dialogue I wanted to suggest some guidelines that may help to make the discussions all of us have more productive, a little more civil, and yes, a little more sane.
The Ten Commandments of Political Blogging
1. Thou Shalt Not Accuse Someone of “Hating America” Unless Thou Was A Founding Father, Or Has Fought In A War Against People Who Do In Fact Hate America. I guess this goes for other countries as well.
1.1 (NEW!) Thou Shalt Not Call A Retired OR Active Member Of Our Military a “Piece of $hit”, a “Liar”, and a “Disgrace to our country” when discussing military matters unless:
a) That person has been convicted of a crime which has in fact disgraced the uniform (ex: something resulting in a dishonorable discharge)
2) The blogger accusing him or her has in fact themselves served in battle on the front lines of ANY conflict so much as to even a fraction of a clue as to what they’re actually talking about when making their accusations, or
3) The blogger accusing the service member actually has the balls to say these words to their face in front of me personally as well. At this point they must be able to either kick my ass, or handle a serious beating from me personally after throwing their baseless, childish, and cowardly insults. (Note that this name-calling idiot won’t get a beating from the service member. Why? Because our service people are sworn to and take pride in PROTECTING civilians – even the bigots.)
2. Thou Shalt Not Refer To Their Own Blog Name Like It’s Some Sort of Newspaper. Seriously, get over yourself. This also applies to people calling themselves “a humble correspondent” in any sort of serious way. It’s the Internet – how “humble” can one pretend to be?
3. Thou Shalt Not Let CBO Conclusions Go Unchallenged. This also includes taking only a snippet of a CBO opinion that supports one’s position and ignoring the rest of their opinion that negates it, like when they say they think something will lower the deficit, but then go on to say that they have no real way of knowing whether or not this will actually be true.
3(b). Thou Shalt Not Constantly Refer to the CBO as ‘The Bipartisan CBO’. Its spin, and it’s annoying.
4. Thou Shalt Not Insult Where A Fellow Commenter Happens To Reside. That refers to country, state/province, city, and neighborhood. Where you live yourself may suck simply because, well, you live there.
5. Thou Shalt Distinguish Between Opinions And Facts. It helps to state your opinion as your opinion, and be ready to back it up. (Although at times it is fun to just throw an opinion out there as fact just to see what other people do!)
6. Thou Shalt Not State Statistics As Ultimate Truth. How can you really know? Which poll is right all the time? What other factors are being left out of the correlation? A great story about the “validity” of statistics here
7. Thou Shalt Not Speak Of Conspiracies, Cabals, Or The End of the World As Truth Unless Thou Is Doing So From Inside An Actual Bunker (Or Ark, Or Whatever). Speaking these things from your bunker doesn’t necessarily make them true, but at least it will show that you truly believe what you’re saying. Note: economic disasters are the exception here, with the caveat that one must actually have investments themselves (or what’s left of them), in order to rightfully comment.
8. Thou Shalt Not Christen Any Expert With the Word “Legitimate” Unless Thou Is An Expert In That Field (or a Related Field) Themselves. The same goes for the opposite, such as labeling someone an “idiot”, “dumb f**k”, “little sheep”, “left-wing loon”, or some other childish insult or schoolyard taunt in a desperate attempt to make one’s point or avoid a challenge to their argument. As tempting as personal attacks may be to the weak, all they do is show a lack of dignity and maturity.
9. Thou Shalt Not Pretend To Be Omnipotent. If one was so infinitely wise and could actually see the future, at the very least they’d be rich enough to have people blogging for them. Please refer back to Commandment #5.
10. Thou Shalt Never Go To Bed Angry.* While this may be the hardest one to follow at times, at the end of the day we should celebrate the fact that whether we agree with other people or not, their opinions help us strengthen our own – no matter how different.(* Bigots, Racists, and Haters, however, should go to their bed (lair) and never wake up.)
I love it. Makes the point along with much needed humor!
Thank you! It tempers my cynicism!
just ready over your commandments. very nice. speaking to your challenges of the CBO, i think you might like my latest post.
Glad you liked them! I’ll come over and check out your CBO post.
You should send this to our friend at the Drugdge Retort.
Glad you like them.
Some of the commandments were certainly inspired by him, but not all. Some were actually a “check and balance” for me! With political commentary it’s so easy to get wrapped around the axle. I’ve caught myself a few times.
You’ll perhaps have noticed an absence of him on this site and me on his. We had some civil discussions (see my post on the Davis-Bacon Act), but after too many examples the other way over on his blog I had enough and decided no longer to comment there. I stated my reasons why, and he removed them. He then came over here, so I told him to beat it.
If he tried his “f–k you, you little sheep” crap to me or anyone I know face-to-face he’d immediately get punched and would be put on his ass, but regardless, I find his discourse ultimately to be too vulgar, too immature, and too hypocritical for my taste. He seems to equate the popularity of his site with the popularity of himself personally, and as you can see it goes right to his head like he’s some sort of Arianna Huffington. I’m not going to enable him.
So no comments for our friend, but no matter, he wouldn’t hear them anyways. The only thing that gets in his ear is Paul Krugman’s tongue.
I rather enjoy debating with folks who use profanity and ad hominem. It makes it easier to calmly and dispationately crush them in an argument.
Plus, it generates traffic to the site.
By the way, I hate Davis-Bacon. I would always ask VCs that question when they tried to tout that they won a federal loan guarantee. There answer was typically: “Oh, most of our work is automated, so the wage guarantee provisions are not much of problem.”
“I rather enjoy debating with folks who use profanity and ad hominem. It makes it easier to calmly and dispationately crush them in an argument.”
No problem with that! I’ll enjoy the crushing from a distance. Ben does care about his country, though, and he wants to see change so I admire that. At the end of the day we are all on the same side (I think?!)
Re: Davis-Bacon, not sure if you read it but I did a post on it here. Even Ben couldn’t believe the b.s. of it. I’m not sure how it plays out in other states, but in Nevada where I am (normally) it’s a gong show. Interesting that you work with VC’s – how’s that been, overall?
“Interesting that you work with VC’s – how’s that been, overall?”
The industry seems to be in decline primarily as a result of decimalization on the stock market and Sarbanes Oxley. Both make it more difficult for the IPO market to thrive and in venture that is where people make most of their money (returns are a power law distribution).
The industry is also dysfunctional. A lot of people got rich in 1999 by betting on anything. Now people who bet on the best companies lose their jobs before they can see an exit.
The bottom line is that there are more lucky than good investors from vintage 1999 funds and more good than lucky investors in current funds. The problem is the former have all the credibility and track records, while the later do not.
Your take is similar to my own. I’m in conversations with a few at the moment on a new project. I see some interesting developments in the industry:
1) A split in the VC community between the VC “Dads” and the VC “Partners”. In “The Social Network”, Justin Timberlake as Shawn Parker explained it well. “Good idea, kid, but the grown ups are going to take it from here.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uC5wVJrhzl0. The new guys have more vision than a lot of these old dudes ever had. Like you say, many were more lucky than smart, but they didn’t learn why they were lucky so they could be more smart.
2) They waste a LOT of time. What I’m told is typically a 60-day due-diligence process can be done in 1/30th of the time with the right tools.
3) They still think 50% failure rate is “normal”. I find they have nothing but instincts to gauge the “GrowthIQ” of the business, but instincts become dull when you’re not actually “in” the business. That’s why I think their portfolio failure rates are so dismal. There’s the soft, “human” element of the business that traditionally the only professional in that space is HR, and HR knows zero or less than zero about fast growth.
I see more VC’s now that represent this new generation of truly backing the people behind the idea, more interested in being pioneers and game changers than followers, but still being smart about the numbers. At the risk of sounding corny, it’s this “new breed” that gives me faith in our economic future.
Vern,
For some reason, I missed your response. I agree with 1 and 2. However, if the company is super hot (i.e., the herd thinks it is super hot), some firms will sometimes do no DD at all just so they can get into the deal.
However, I disagree with your third point. I’ve seen the data over the past 25 years and it is fairly consistent. About 60% of investments don’t return capital and a little under 5% of investment dollars are responsible for 60% of value. The strategy that appears to work is shooting for homeruns — taking big risks knowing ahead of time that the company will either fail spectacularly or return a fund. Based on the math, a single and doubles strategy just doesn’t work in venture.
Companies like Google and Juniper more than cover up for a firm’s bad investments.
You are also very right about the herd mentality in venture. It is definitely there.
“I disagree with your third point. I’ve seen the data over the past 25 years and it is fairly consistent. About 60% of investments don’t return capital and a little under 5% of investment dollars are responsible for 60% of value.”
We’re not disagreeing there. The data’s real, and I don’t dispute it. However my point wasn’t whether the current strategy works or not, but rather, can it work better? In predicting a Facebook or Google, probably not, but getting more insight into potential low and medium performers is very possible, either to avoid more low and medium performers or better yet, to bring them up to more stellar levels (assuming where the DD already met minimum standards).
My “theory” is that there’s only been CPA’s and MBA’s to try and answer that question, drawing from a largely quantitative-level of expertise which is the wrong focus for the other half of the equation. Qualitative-level expertise has come from HR & OD, but with all due respect to the profession, both lack serious knowledge about how to truly grow a company, leaving those in decision-making roles to rely largely on instincts for that “soft” half of the equation as I call it.
Consequently, I feel VC’s can be “correct” but fall short of being “accurate” on what truly separates the potential winners from potential dogs, hence the more/less “spaghetti on the wall” approach that exists.
Bottom-line is there’s a better way to measure the potential stars pre-money beyond what most in the VC field are using. It’s a new project of mine, but regardless I think the “new crop” of young guns in the VC arena are doing it intuitively and focusing more on the intangibles that most traditional VC’s are scared of. They’re almost being contrarian in that respect to “traditional” VC’s, but regardless they’ve got a much more pioneering spirit which gives me hope. It’s like there’s two herds now.
These seem like a good set of rules.
I find there’s too much discussion these days that focuses on assuming certain motives for a position. I guess that ineveitable, but shouldn’t one recognize (as I think you do) that the motives of others are in fact in their head and not really knowable if one is honest.
Hi Bruce,
Thank you for your comment, and for stopping by. They’ve been a fun set of rules to accumulate and consider as I read certain blogs and reflect on my own.
You’re right – the motives of others are not really knowable if we are honest with ourselves, and it’s easy to get caught up in the hype. In another post I talk about “restraint”, and as a culture I think we often lack it – especially in the blogosphere. Someone may want to see more social programs, for instance, but that doesn’t mean that person wants to turn America into a socialist country. With many political bloggers they only see the bottom of a slippery slope, which almost always ends up with a personal attack based upon what one believes another’s motives to be. I prefer a more balanced approach which is what I find on the blogs that I frequent – less dramatic and perhaps less “exciting”, but overall more constructive. Thanks for contributing to mine and I look forward to contributing to yours.
these wont work for liberals and barak hypocrite obama defenders
No, I don’t imagine they will. Interesting that there’s still defenders, though. They once were so gushy over Obama’s “Hope and Change” (translation, “anybody but Bush”), but it now it seems fashionable for Dems to speak out against him. No one’s ever good enough, it seems.
Vern – how is it that I never saw this page before? I’m about 96% with you on the list.
Did you ever try to figure out that Fantasy Politics log in page? I’m disappointed. It could have been fun..
Hey Moe! Thanks! I wrote it after a certain individual we know told a reservist that he “h@ted America”. Had the one commandment and then the rest sort of followed. People added some, too. Which one don’t you agree with, out of curiosity?
As for that Fantasy Politics page, didn’t get far either. Not totally understanding it, either – do you “bet” on which states go which way, or ? It would have been more fun in my opinion to try and predict the primaries.
8. Thou Shalt Not Christen Any Expert With the Word “Legitimate” Unless Thou Is An Expert In That Field (or a Related Field)
I’ll accept someone as a ‘legitimate expert’ no matter my own status. Gotta do that or we’d never accept any informaton. I would however, note an exception: MSNBC seems to have discovered the word ‘expert’ and they apply it to every single guest – who of course, are the same people all the time. They’re apparently expert in many,, many areas.
By the way, yeah, gaming the primaries owuld have been lots of fun. Much more material. And with the debates and state primaries, there would have been more tension.
“I’ll accept someone as a ‘legitimate expert’ no matter my own status.”
I should clarify: it was in regards to people who would call Paul Krugman a “legitimate” economist while calling every other economist illegitimate. Personally, I can’t tell what makes someone with a doctorate from Harvard any better or worse on face value than one who has theirs from Yale, for instance.
First, economists iwth a different perspective have plenty of legitimacy. No one would call Milton Friedman illegitimate. Many Keynesians (like Krugman) would disagree, just as he would disagree witth Keynesians.
That said, the Nobel for Economics for theoretical work done decades ago which has proven to be correct, is a serious credential suggesting htis is someone to listen to. And then there is this quote from David Frum, a Bush 43 speechwriter and a classic conservative even tho he was a neo con fan of those damn wars:
“Imagine, if you will, someone who read only the Wall Street Journal editorial page between 2000 and 2011, and someone in the same period who read only the collected columns of Paul Krugman. Which reader would have been better informed about the realities of the current economic crisis? The answer, I think, should give us pause.”
I’d say those things mean the guy is a seriously legitimate economist.
I think he is as well. My point was that many on the far right will automatically call him “illegitimate” because he’s left-leaning (perhaps hard left), whereas many on the far left would automatically call him God.
Personally, I think any scientist who has sold out in a sense to the media has lost their objectivity – arguably, some of their “legitimacy” – but that being said he’s an economist nonetheless so his opinions are always considered.
[any scientist who has sold out in a sense to the media has lost their objectivity ]
How ’bout Jacques Costeau? Carl Sagan? Of course, I guess it’s all in what does ‘sold out’ mean.
It’s all context. Krugman’s entitled to his political opinions and if how he views economics leads him to those political opinions, so be it. What I object to is people simply dismissing Krugman based upon his political leanings, just as I’d object if people rejected Sagan and Cousteau for theirs. We don’t see people calling Sagan or Cousteau :”illegitimate” yet we do see the left calling any other economist but Krugman that very thing, in my opinion.
[What I object to is people simply dismissing Krugman based upon his political leanings]
And in that I agree iwth you 100%. I know liberals who will claim Dennis Miller isn’t funny any more, I assume because he hangs out with conservatives. That’s an annoying judgement and we see it all too often.
I think Miller is a hoot.
And Maher with his New Rules cracks me up!
“I think Miller is a hoot.”
And that’s why you’re my favorite liberal, Moe!!!