Test!

I believe that the blogosphere's fallibility is the essence, or at least an unavoidable side effect of the essence, of its success. It is RAW, and that is its attraction. I understand that there will always be bloggers who have refined their art and their audience to the point that they feel the need to become something more. I respect that impulse and those who have the talent and dedication to accomplish it, but I disagree that the blogosphere as a whole is on that trajectory, or that it should be.

Good comment. For me personally, some of the rawness can be off-putting when folks are trying to nail down a story. But I guess it's just part of the medium, and always will be.

I'm always interested in building my vocabulary. I have to say, though, that I've been unable to find "fabulism" in either Webster's or Dictionary.com. I can tell by the context what you mean, and since fabulous and fabulist are words, I suppose fabulism is a logical extension. Is this an example of bloggers adding to the lexicon?
by the way, I check for new reports from you and others frequently (my son is a Marine in Iraq). I really do appreciate your work.

That's because Bill loves to make up words, just like he loves to make up facts.

Just kidding. Bill's got more integrity than anyone else I know of in DC. Granted, that's not a very high bar, but still...

Michael T,

Your comment about blogs adding to the lexicon has some truthiness to it.

Michael T -

It think it's a logical extension, though it's also specifically defined in the MSN Encarta Dictionary.

It also seems to be a term in the art world for "truth and imagination combined to analyze real-world concepts and problems." That's amusingly accurate when applied to the "Scott Thomas" dispatches for the New Republic.

Thanks for the compliment.

Bill... the voices from the cheap seats are unavoidable when the venue is unrestricted. But only an unrestricted venue can produce the best possible commentary (and the worst). It is up to the blog consumer, all of us, to determine what views to rally around and which blogs to vote for with our hits.

Hey, I'm even checking your site from Poland...:-)

Seeking A Reverent Platform in Politics

Congratulations on your being listed on Washington Post.Com “2004 Best Blogs - Politics & Elections Readers' Choice Awards” Since you obviously draw a lot of concerned citizens that believe in the political necessity of dialogue for democracy, perhaps my recent political discovery may be of interest.

I have recently been pardoned from the toils of earning a living in Supai AZ. My employing benefactor recently released me from service and suggested that I pursue a more meaningful and prosperous calling. Upon soulful reflection upon such matters, I am now seeking to form a scouting party to determine the rank and file that best matches my nature and gratifies my calling.

Having total respect for your insight … intelligence … wit and wisdom, perhaps you might volunteer to be an esteemed member on my council of advisors in such matters. Allow me to explain my platform … as I now need to know which party is in most need for my attendance.

The Reverent Platform of Politics

“Telling a woman she is beautiful …or a man a sage … is a most endearing and reverent act of love. It raises the mirror and brings out their ideal construct every time. Ponder the opposite for a moment. Broadcasting the truth of the design will construe her as shocking and he as thick as sagebrush. No man of gentle and righteous mind would ever reveal the naked truth in the presence of the ladies.

However, a smart attire and charming banquet of lies served now and then will most certainly appeal to mans divinity and attract a hungry congregation at the same time.

So there you have it. Endearment is in deteriorating supply … while truth is consuming the entire banquet. With such appalling politic, I can restrain myself no longer … Rooting for the underdog is my nature. I shall repent … adorn my best attire … attend the highest banquet in Washington and announce my candidacy for office this very moment.”

The Honorable Yrral Nosrac
Aka Larry Carson - LJCarson@msn.com

Now that comments are enabled again, I would like to comment on your post just below re: blogospheric scalp hunting.
I have a son in the military. Obviously, I know him rather well but, I also know a whole bunch of other military friends of his. When the Scott Thomas story first hit I read it carefully. So much of it made no sense to me. My heart sank because, once again, our military were being painted as lunatic criminals run amok. Obviously, I don't subscribe to that theory...
My point here is two fold; first, once the toothpaste is out of the tube you can't put it back in. So, I believe that there are a number of people that will take what is written at face value and place it next to their hearts. This is what they want to believe. I assure you that next Christmas I will be at a holiday party and someone will state as fact something Scott Thomas wrote.
The second point is that we have publications in our country that are willing to run the most vile trash just to further their political point of view. Like the toothpaste, once they have said it, it has been said. This is terribly dangerous to our nation.
The fact that so many currently serving and former military hit this hard is to their credit. Gloating? Scalp hunting? How about standing up for the men and women that make up our armed forces today? My son happens to be one of them...

I'd find it unfortunate if you think I don't agree with defending military personnel from unfair characterizations ...

I generally agree with your focus, but I think that if you're trying to make the case against the veracity of Beauchamp's story, it's more effective to keep the heated arguments distinct, or at least stay away from some of the more over-the-top rhetoric out there.

For example, I thought a lot of the commentary at Mudville Gazette was pretty good and measured. I thought commentary at various blogs attacking Matt Sanchez's past and digging up dirt on Beauchamp's personal life was awful.

And I think endlessly flogging the story with personal speculation and theories - without airing new facts - was a bit annoying, as it dilutes the case and adds noise.

But it's just the natural blog process, I guess. In the end, the truth outs.

Point taken Bill. Unfortunately, I happen to think that it doesn't matter how forcefully the story is refuted at this point. It has been said and we lose...

I disagree Babs. I think every Jesse or Scott whose hide is nailed to the wall makes the prospect of following in their footsteps a little less attractive.

If all of our troops turn into hedonistic cannibals, that is important news that we need to know, but only if it is true. Note that Beaucham's story in TNR that started the fuss was his third. In previous stories, he was less ambitious about his inventions, and the stories flew under the radar because, although they were false, they weren't implausible enough on their own to warrant arguing about. But when Beauchamp decided to go with a three-fer, the obvious incredibility of all of these things both a) happening and b) happening to, or in the presence of a single soldier was too obviously fiction, especially when added to his previous stories.

The enemy has to understand that unsubtle fabrications will be challenged and destroyed, or they will "fire at will". Yes, the story did some damage, but likely not to the perception of anyone who wasn't predisposed to believe it. In the process, the reputation and credibility of what was thought to be one of the more rational actors on the liberal side has been severely harmed. That is important, not because we need liberal publications to be damaged, but because we don't need respected publications printing falsehoods to be able to maintain their respectability. Not only will this discourage future Scott Beauchamps, but it will discourage other liberal publications that wish to be taken seriously from accepting sensational stories without proper vetting.

In other words, WE win.

"I disagree Babs. I think every Jesse or Scott whose hide is nailed to the wall makes the prospect of following in their footsteps a little less attractive."

Of course, I want to believe that. I also am proud that the Army acted so quickly to investigate. What I am not looking forward to is this year's tour of holiday parties where I will have to refute these articles. I spent a significant portion of last year's holiday parties debating the Lancet study... But thanks for the words of encouragement. I certainly hope your scenario prevails.
And Bill, I would just like to add that I didn't wade through the muck of this discussion. You obviously did. Like I say about the NYT, you read it so I don't have to! My initial comment did not take into account the "downside" of the blogosphere conversation.

I think it's an apple-and-oranges comparison Babs. People tend to look at the final score of a demographic survey and then pull what they want--what supports the position they have already taken, and stop. Try talking to them about the methodology or the confidence level of the survey, or even mention those terms, and most folks eyes start to glaze over. Although plenty stepped forward to refute the study, most of those individuals or groups were as unknown to the average Joe as Lancet itself, making an on-the-spot determination of relative credibility difficult.

With Beauchamp, OTOH, who better to refute the allegations of an Army soldier than the Army itself? The soldier himself? We got both, assuming Goldfarb's source gave good info. The sniff test on Goldfarb's veracity is that he had only a bit to gain from the story's truth, but everything to loose if it turned out false, so he must have had great confidence in the source. That doesn't make either infallible of course, but it's about the best we can do until the recantation is confirmed by the Army or Beauchamp.

Sooo... instead of having to deal with complex arguments to refute the beliefs of people who are hostile to your point of view, you have a simple: "The Army found the stories to be false, and Scott Beauchamp admitted he was lying."

afterthought: "Didn't your read the USA Today, Washington Post or New York Times articles?"

Look at it this way, babs, what chance do you think Beauchamp will have now of getting elected to the Senate and making a run for the Presidency? How might John Kerrys career have turned out it blogs had been watching him and his little friends during the Winter Soldier fiasco? Good bloggers like Bill give us the ammo and targets we need to try to stop this mess, it is a huge improvement over the way things were before.

Bill, Immolate, Babs;
I think much of the sharpness of the response here was the fairness-violation-overkill sense that was generated by the Boobchump stories. They made overt the hidden (?) contempt for the soldier which oozes from the "we support the troops, as long as they're being withdrawn" crowd, whose empathy extends far enough to pity them for being suckered/ordered into yet another abuse-and-exploit international victims-of-color caper -- but no further. Their hyping of Abu Ghraib and any and every other instance of misconduct (and absolute, frozen silence with respect to AQI's horror show, viz. Yon's Bless the Beasts and Children, Part 2), form the context into which Boobchimp confidently floated his invented memories. His offended shock that they weren't welcomed and praised as courageous journalism is patent and pathetic.

Outing and stomping him into tartar was necessary and salutary.