Well done!

Thanks, Dianne

To my knowledge there are 3 conservatives on OS. Don Rich, who has had an EP, Con Chapman, tons of EPs, but not political, and Terry McKenna, also an EP. Those guys actually know what the word means, but I'm guessing in Con's case. I bet I'm right.

What may confuse you is thinking you, Chris, Gordon, Deb Young, et and al, are conservatives. You're not. Nor is y'all's political writing worth the pixels it takes to display. Why would OS want to elevate trite, mis-and-un-informed hackneyed dreck to EP status? Balance? Affirmative Action for writing that has no appeal to thinking readers? Well, other than as ripe targets...

Chris has also annoyed editors with begging to have his one-note twaddle given EP status. In the marketplace of political writing, you guys don't have anything insightful or interesting to offer, which is the real reason you get ignored. You're remainder bin ideologues, and even using that word is to elevate your writing to the base requirements of "ideologue."

However, there is an alternative here, which would be to take one of your political posts, or Deb's, Chris', etc, and EP it as yet another example of baseless accusations, leaps of logic beyond using that word, fabricated or ignored history, shrill, trite and generally ignorant thinking (beyond using that word as well).

Gordon gets a special byline column titled : How to reduce politics to adolescent sniveling. The wannabe Buckley, if Will F had suffered brain trauma.

Your idea of "conservative" is as uninformed as "liberal," but that's not highly unusual. But to think it makes what passes for conservative opinion equal to liberal, and therefore deserving of extra attention, reduces both to a playground game of tag.

Try writing something worthy of an EP, guys. Whatever that may be, it has to be about something besides politics. I don't remember a lot from my lone semester of Honors Eng Comp, but my prof, tiny Sr Sylvia, told me two things I have retained. Write what you know and Be Interesting (She thought my stuff was always interesting). I pass that on to you knowing you don't know politics, and that I'm pretty sure when she said "Be Interesting," it's linked to quality thinking, not that your writing resembles an accident scene.

Pick a topic besides politics and give it a go. Quit begging for what you don't deserve and haven't worked for.

Paul,

You are awfully long-winded. I usually have to break twice for meals before I can finish reading your comments. And your comments don't go down well on a full stomach, or for that matter an empty one.

You accuse various people of not being conservative by your definition, but somehow in all the blather you fail to state what the definition is. However, please don't take that as an invitation to launch another book-length screed.

I have had three EPs, so I must write well enough to get one occasionally. But of course none of my EPs was on a political subject, although I write about politics fairly often.

Meanwhile, the editor does pick a lot of liberal stuff, some of it pretty terrible by any standard, but conforming nicely to what the Dem propaganda machine wants out there.

O'Rourke is, to me, a great prince among men who think!

tr,

I am sure he will be pleased to read that. I find him short on manners for a member of royalty.

Seeing no lack of manners in Paul's reply Arthur. Just where do you see that?
And, as to you not getting a reply from Sugarman, I'd hope you would understand the sheer volume of whiny PM's the lad must receive. PM's regarding why who get's EPs and who doesn't are, I'm sure, at the top of his dump list. As Paul suggests, write something worthy and I'm sure the kid will feature it. And if it's a PM reply you're after, put my name in the title of same along with the word . . . bully. Works every time.

In case you haven't noticed Jacob's up to hiney with SPAM. When he first came on board, I sent him a PM with a suggestion for a EP, and he replied that he'd already spotted it and that he'd be putting it on the cover. The next morning I was happy to see it there. As far as the politics of selections for the cover, I think that what Jacob looks for is content and writing style that he finds interesting and appropriate to OS editorial guidelines. His primary objective is to bring in new readers for Big Salon so political screeds of any perspective aren't going to get a whole lot of column inches. He's looking for well written personal stuff, satire and contemporary observation with broad appeal that can move the reader to empathy or a good chuckle or two.

Arthur,
It's not my definition, it's The Definition(s). I'll enlighten you, as much as that can happen, at the same time I explain it to everyone.

Yes, some of the "liberal" stuff is not that great, and every so often I see some factual errors, but if you can find any of it as full of cheap ideological themes, lies, factual abandonment and disjointed thinking as the aforementioned bloggers, I'll chop it to pieces like any one of y'all's and credit you for the find.

One of these days you guys may figure out that the "conservative" media has been playing you for fools, but I doubt it. If you can't see how inadequate your assertions and arguments are now, you don't have the compass to locate reason.

Of course, being ideologues you always think you're dealing with other ideologues, which is one way you arrive at the "gee, we're victims" idea of equivalence. That might be part of why you think shrill accusations and absurd linkages equal "valid argument." It's not the issue, it's the ideology, so no details other than the label you attach to the issue is required.

I never argue with "conservatives," as it usually never gets beyond correction, reaction, ridicule.

That aside, I'd be honored to bear tr ig's love child. I say that in the most manly, southern central plains way.

Thanks for the tip, tr.

Ditto, jmac.

Arthur, as for meaningful approval and recognition of merit, I'd take a single dig by PJOR over three EPs.

You really stepped on a land mine when you activated his unique approach to vocabulary and name tags. His dictionary went out of print with the coming of the Great Flood.

But we shouldn't be too hard on him. Consider his English teacher. Every decent writer knows that "interesting" is the least interesting word in the English language.

My sole purpose in contributing to OS is to pop the balloons of puffed up liberals like PJOR and to contribute to the cause of getting rid of Obama, who daily proves himself to be a greater and greater threat to the safety and prosperity of the American people.

I did get an EP once due, I suspect, to the editor's inability to catch my drift. I regarded the "honor" as an acute embarrassment.

Gordon,
I understand the need to let off steam, but I doubt that we are changing any minds here. I don't know if there are any minds, anywhere, that can be changed anymore.

dam AL i read this thikin' youalls might be com-plainin bout the dam tech issues - hell who reads the eps? Post as Sally and bitch about your fox watchin husband who beats you! I sures wonts be readin you.

Now whys dont you get out there and enjoy the nice texas air - damn used to love that place when Lady Bird and Lyndon were plantin all them flowers...

oh ...and i did rate ya fer jus bein u !

snowden, I don't know what to say, so I'll stop here.

really... ?

The only conservative blogger I read here is Don Rich. This is because Don demonstrates consistently that he is intelligent and takes the trouble to become informed and to convey valuable information in a dispassionate way. Don doesn't preach to any choir or address with sarcasm people he assumes are beneath him. In fact his writing is so free of ideological cant I occasionally forget his political orientation is to the right of my own. To me, a writer who wishes to persuade others to his or her point of view would do well to study the unassuming style of a writer such as Don Rich.

Chick,
Sounds like PJOR could learn comportment lessons from Don.

It wasn't my intention to leave out Con Chapman, whom I read with relish for his craftsmanship, wit, range and consistent good humor. I read his comic sketches, his poetry, his profiles of under-appreciated musicians and his insightful serious fiction. It rarely occurs to me as I read anything by him (I've read and reviewed here two of his novels and a book of his stories) where he stands on the political spectrum. Frankly it doesn't matter to me, either.

The only way you could change minds around here is if you had a way to deny them oxygen, because these people are much smarter than you.

I think the intent of "interesting" is "compelling." That what you write feeds interest to the point the reader is drawn through the piece, at least for some reason other than witnessing the accident and carnage. Gordon doesn't know crap about politics, which is why he reduces it to sniveling personalization and empty quips. He has no business in a serious political discussion and is as "interesting" as watching dirt.

The same is true of all the "conservative" bloggers here. Every one a waste of time, even when we have time to waste. Clucking ideologues to the man or woman, regurgitating well-worn Rwing media themes and displaying laughably inadequate cerebral ability.

That why you cry about being victims--you can't back up the stupid things you say or argue your way out of a paper sack. If you could, you would, and in your victory would find comfort. You can't, so you look to blame anything but your lack of talent. "Conservatism" as an excuse for being dullards.

Art, PJ needs no lessons from anybody. He knows what he's doing, and he's damned good at it. He doesn't suffer fools. Perhaps he'd have a wider readership if he did, but I suspect he's happy with what he has.

I suspect that if we ran all of Paul's OS comments past a psychiatrist, we might get a diagnosis of "delusions of grandeur." Normally linked with that lamentable state of mind is "paranoia."

I don't know whether to laugh or cry when he sounds off. I have raised kids, and observed their friends, and he reminds me so much of a disturbed child who is totally insecure about everything. Not a poor, dear thing, but the aggressive, psychotic kind.

PJOR is fortunate in his choice of Web sites. There is a tendency for the liberals on this site to forgive people who share their politics for almost any kind of aberrant behavior and expression. If he were out in the real world, to continue the kid analogy, someone would pull down his pants and through them into the upper branches of a tree.

oops...I meant throw, of course, and now that I see Chicken's latest comment, which crossed mine in the mail, I find new reinforcement for my theory about the liberals who will tolerate anything from other liberals.

Art,
Don could teach you what conservative means. Because he's not a moron, he doesn't tag himself as conservative, he just "is." Given the "conservatives" are just washed-up ideologues, I wouldn't blame him for not advertising his principles using that word without the explanation that would have to follow so he could distance himself from y'all.

The funny thing is 99.9999% of "conservatives" simply think they are, but aren't. You and Gordon, for example, don't know the first thing about its meaning. To you, it's a game between The Conservatives and The Liberals. Funnier still is the philosophy of American conservatism is liberalism.
Chew on that fact for awhile. It would be entertaining watching you try to figure out why that simple fact is true or why you think it isn't.

Gentlemen, I rest my case.
But Paul won't, because I have never known him to let anyone else have the last word.
Maybe my next unanswered message to Jacob will be about how to screen OS members before admitting them.

Art,
If you're feeling froggy, all you have to do is engage me in a debate over the issues. I can reduce you to chowder because you're simply not bright or informed. Given that, your whiny attempts at insulting me fall far short. Like I said above, if you could, you would. You can't, so you look to gain an edge by characterizing your inability as something else. Straight up, standard rules of debate, I can eviscerate your paltry arguments and skip rope with the entrails. So can a lot of other people here, there and everywhere.

You see?
Waiting for the rejoinder...

Are you ever going to get tired of holding your wounded paw up, Art? Hell, even my dogs know that only works once or twice, and from then on it's just a signal of fear of being scolded.

maaan,
If I wanted more readers I'd write more often. I do well enough, but when Ed I Tor passes up a couple of articles on 1798 healthcare that end up getting me linked in the WaPo and start a conversation among legal eagles and other pundits, I get discouraged. Or, my last really good piece about Newt and the Republican's Rump gets passed over in favor of far less entertaining fare, and I figure I must be on the Do Not Read list. So, maybe a ditty or 2 here and there, but crafting good work takes time, so why make the effort? Most of what I write gets a couple of thou hits, so it could be worse, I guess. At least I have a legitimate EP complaint, but I'm not the type to beg.

In my entire professional career I don't believe I've met anyone who constantly harps on how bright he/she is. It just isn't done. Yet any comment by PJOR is full of statements about how much more he knows than others. That he says it is the best evidence of its falsity.

There ya go again, Gordie, looking for an external edge to replace what you can't do. The best evidence of falsity would be for you to take me on and prove me false.

It's no great claim to be smarter than y'all, and in this area, at least, I am. The reason you guys can't take me down is that, and that I don't try to B-S my way through things I don't know. I am actually concerned that what I say is factual or logical, so I don't make Arthurian errors. Integrity is its own reward.

Come back when ya have something besides a squirt gun, Gordie.

Paul, we can start on the love child after the new year. Looking forward to that. We could hook up in say, Wichita.
Would really love, in the meantime to see Art or Gordon do great fine reports on conservatism-- EP type stuff, well done. That would be something right. I would like to understand how all that works in their minds.

tr ig,
Already my loins burn for the fruit of your Fruit of the Looms. However, it'll take a few things to overcome my natural resistance. A bottle of Crown, some hot wings and chloroform. After jest-ation, we'll put the lil' bugger up for auction and split the profits evenly, 60-40.
Then we'll both write a blog about it and see who gets the EP. I call dibs on "I Sold My Man-Love Child on E-Bay."

@trig and paul: proof that libs are funnier than ... what are we calling art and gord-o if they aren't conservatives? hmmm. well, whatever they are. they certainly lack any semblance of a sense of humor. can't wait to see how much $$ there is to be made from your biohazard offspring. :)

Sweetness, I think the problem is your use of the term "EP picker." It's offensive. It implies menial, seasonal labor like "tomato picker" or "hoe rower".

Give the guy a few more days to get over his hurt feelings then try again. And for heavens sake refer to them as "EP selectors general". Or puff it up even more; you're so good at that.

Candace, If you have something to say to other posters on my blog, please do it elsewhere. This is not the central switchboard.

you're right, art. that isn't good blog etiquette, and i do know better. i'm sorry.

you can delete it, if you like. it's a silly, de minimus comment anyway. but you might leave it and your admonition and my apology as sort of a public service announcement for others. someone in particular, actually.

I started out as a libertarian, which someone once defined as a Republican who smokes pot. I don't smoke pot anymore, so I guess you know what that makes me. Tom Cordle has pointed out that a Massachusetts Republican--socially liberal, fiscally conservative--would be a Democrat in another state, and he's probably right.

I was a Democrat when I first arrived in Mass. in my twenties, but Democrats kept getting sent to jail; 3 out of 4 of the last Democratic Speakers of the House (but I repeat myself--they have a monopoly) have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes, and the fourth isn't out of the woods yet. As Lord Acton says, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I get paid for writing about politics, and I don't get paid (very much or very often) for writing humor, so you know which stuff I'm going to give away for free on OS.

Rated for your quixotic spirit!

Thanks, Con. Nice to see you here.

Con, When you have taken the time to comment on my pieces I have always been able to see how you get to the point you make, even if I don't agree. That said, you really should be getting paid big bucks for writing humor!

Mr. Klingaman,
If you have something to say to Mr. Chapman, please send him a PM. This is not a mail drop or a central switchboard.

I couldn't agree more with you and I am pretty liberal and I am going to vote for Obama. That doesn't mean I don't see his flaws. Besides, a good liberal one-sided post definitely deserves a conservative one-sided post. Screw the guy who thinks the only good conservative read is a "balanced" one. As if the liberal rants that get play are "balanced". I have a liberal bias, but at least I know it. I like to read your stuff.

Thanks, Michele. What we have is two basically different ways of looking at the role of government. Neither one nor the other is "correct" in an absolute sense. They are each a matter of taste. Makes for a lot of noise, but few conversions.

Art,

Unlike you, I did receive a reply from our current editor regarding my suggestion that the cover of OS be modified to include a corner for countervailing opinions. The suggestion included a hint that embracing opposing viewpoints could be healthful for OS, and perhaps even Salon.

After all, Air America went bankrupt with a similar one-note policy; and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that Salon’s similar guiding principle is equally rewarding in a financial sense. However, my suggestion was not made for monetary reasons alone.

All debates are improved when corralled by the facts and when sharpened by a vigilant opponent. Perhaps Jacob is not old enough to remember how adding the Op/Ed page to newspapers increased interest in them when radio and television threatened their markets. In fact, he may mistakenly believe that “Op/Ed” is an abbreviation for “Opinion/Editorial”.

Whatever the case, his lack of response in your case, and his statement to me that the editorial policy of the cover page will not change, are both likely reflections of the thinking of those who claim to be publishers of the material to which both you and I freely contribute. In this environment, only Mr. Sugarman can tell us how much he rolls his eyes.

The advantage to all of this is, of course, that OS becomes a place where the wildest Progressive fantasies can be indulged without much examination by those who would otherwise deride them. Thus, we might soon see a post in proposing a “Shoe Stamp Program” on the front cover for those Americans who claim to be shoeless. Better yet, someone at OS might express their support for Sandra Fluke’s request of a Rolls Royce Corniche at national taxpayer expense.