February 21, 2007
I HAVE A RESPONSE TO PAUL CAMPOS IN TODAY'S ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS: The opening sentence: "Paul Campos has beclowned himself."
UPDATE: Jeff Goldstein comments.
ANOTHER UPDATE: "Beclowned" is the word of the year, so far. Which has Tim Blair gloating.
MORE: I see that at least one commenter at the RMN is calling for Campos to be fired. That rather misses the point of my column. Yes, he wrote a silly, uninformed, hysterical, and rather thuggish column. But the solution to bad speech is more speech, not suppression. That Campos hasn't learned that reflects poorly on him, but I don't think firing is the solution.
STILL MORE: Linda Seebach from the Rocky Mountain News emails:
You're used to this, no doubt, but I thought you might be interested to learn that a few minutes ago the number of comments on your piece exceeded the total of all comments posted to the preceding 76 Speakout entries since we started accepting comments Jan. 23. I think I said in one of the first messages I sent you that I thought your blog had a bigger reach than the Rocky, and more engaged readers; well, there you have it.
Maybe that means I should open up comments. Or, maybe not. . . .
MORE STILL: Reader Julian Biggs emails: "Ok, maybe he shouldn’t be fired, but perhaps the keys to his very small car should be taken away." That's fair. Actually, when he's not obsessing about me, or the war, Campos can be okay. I've enjoyed his columns in the past, which is why I've been taken aback by his increasing hysteria and hostility in recent months.
And nobody seems to want me to open comments. Typical is this email from Daniel Jenkins: "If you are seriously considering opening comments, please don't. Comment threads almost always turn into grade school back and forths. I really like your current practice of posting reader emails you find insightful. "
No, I'm not serious. Comments are nice, but past a certain traffic level they tend to devolve rapidly. And I'm way past that traffic level.
FINALLY: Campos has responded over at Glenn Greenwald's. Being kind of busy, and bearing in mind the mud/pig/wrestling rule, I think I'll just point to Dan Riehl's treatment, and note that Campos doesn't seem to understand the difference between an executive order and a statute, or the point of my Libya example. Neither surprises me. And I liked this comment. Heh.