Recently, after watching Former FBI Director James Comey’s performance on Fox’s Special Edition with Brett Baier, I wrote (in part):
My impression of Comey, based on that interview, is he is liar, and not a very good one. Clearly, he understands the legal jeopardy in which he put himself, and is spinning furiously to give the appearance of honesty and integrity, while lying to avoid legal liability. He also appears to be very much a legend in his own mind. He, like Barack Obama, is terribly disappointed in us. We let him down, and it weighs heavily on such an honest and honorable soul.
Reader “Doug (FPS/Douglite.com)” in part replied:
Now.. here’s the thing… I was drawn to your blog because you have some basic credentials that suggest some level of credibility in your opinions rather than some guttural Neanderthal spouting that’s so common on conservative blogs. Absolutely we have different opinions (as you most certainly already know from having dashed in and out of my own blog and likely dismissing my opinions as the ramblings of some misguided lefturd) and since I am a bit of a humanist I tend to be curious in the how’s and why’s people think the way they do. I don’t tend to just ‘hang around’ blogs that simply agree with my politics just to have a place of warm fuzzy chest thumping.
As regular readers know, I welcome all polite comments, and encourage civil debate. I don’t, for a moment, think I am possessed of all knowledge or that I am incapable of error. Lord knows I pray about just that daily. I also don’t spend much screen time blathering on about my personal issues. I suspect readers have more than enough of their own with which to be occupied. However, just this once, I thought it useful to comment on my writing philosophy.
I’m committed to producing an article a day for this scruffy little blog, which I am able to do primarily because I write very quickly. I’m often amazed at how relatively few typographical errors I make, and of how few errors of fact I allow to slip through. This is partially because I write an article a day, I proofread my work at least three times before posting–I read very quickly too–and partially because I work very hard to eliminate mistakes of all kinds. Even so, it’s very difficult to accurately proofread and edit one’s own writing.
credit: knowyourmeme.com
Some readers might categorize this as a conservative blog, and as I am generally philosophically aligned with conservative ideals, that’s not an unfair assumption. In fact, I’m a constitutionalist. Having studied the Constitution, and worked intimately with it for many years, I have a deep appreciation for the brilliance of the Founders–men for all time–and for the fact it is what makes America unique among the nations and in history. We lose our belief in the necessity of American constitutionalism, America is over, and so is the world. Because progressives tend to see the opposite and to see the Constitution as an inconvenient obstacle to the kind of “progress” they desire, I find little to appreciate in their philosophy, which is not to say I’m particularly enamored of what passes for conservatism these days.
I see little adherence to traditional conservative principles in the denizens of the Beltway, Republican and Democrat, and perhaps less adherence to the Constitution, though President Trump is laboring mightily to honor the Constitution and restore the rule of law. I’m sadly reduced to voting for candidates I believe will do the least damage to the Constitution, which made my vote against Hillary Clinton the easiest of my life. Thus far, Mr. Trump has been a pleasant surprise. Oh, he’s rough around the edges, which is precisely why he’s president following eight years of “no drama Obama,” the Marxist messiah.
As to Doug’s concerns, SMM is primarily an analysis/opinion blog. I have, on occasion, broken a bit of news because some of the people making news have trusted me enough to provide insight into significant cases. However, I work for a living, and don’t have nearly enough time, nor the inclination, to play full-time journalist.
Therefore, I rely on news accounts for much of my information, a fact about which I often remind readers in my articles. I trust the construction and tone of my prose clearly indicates when I am quoting sources, which I always endeavor to clearly identify, providing appropriate links, and when I am engaging in analysis/opinion. In fact, I often clearly label analysis as such. I try to find sources that have, over time, been reliable brokers of fact, but I am, as are we all, at the mercy of the sources I choose.
credit: whitewolf
As regular readers know, when I make errors which they are kind enough–sometimes gleefully so–to bring to my attention, I correct them as quickly as possible. “As quickly as possible” usually means the next evening, particularly during the school year. I do not take such useful corrections personally. English teachers learn quickly how very human we all are. All make mistakes in writing and analysis. A measure of character is how rapidly and completely we correct those mistakes, and one’s response to being corrected.
I also do my best to do in-depth analysis only on matters with which I am familiar. I don’t have something to say about everything, and recognize others are very likely to do better at analyzing things with which I have only a passing familiarity. I also generally avoid writing about cases about which I can say little or nothing new. I always feel badly when readers suggest I write about items of interest to them, but I don’t feel I really have much to say about those things. It’s certainly not personal; I just don’t imagine everyone is hanging on my every word or that I know enough to comment intelligently. I will not, for example, be writing about complex issues in advanced mathematics.
I am occasionally frustrated by commenters—not regular readers—whose comments reveal they haven’t accurately read what I’ve written, or perhaps, in pursuit of a narrative, have ignored anything that doesn’t support that narrative. But what can one do about that sort of thing? They’re not my students. I can’t teach them reading comprehension, but can only point out, perhaps in different terms, what I said and its meaning and implications.
I do my best to be clear in analysis about my opinions and about the recitation of facts. Take the excerpt from the top of this article about former FBI Director James Comey and his interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier. I wrote: “my impression of Comey…” and “He also appears to be,” hopefully making clear to readers what followed is opinion only. However, those impressions were limited only to my viewing of his performance in that interview, and the conclusions I drew from his statements, body language, deception tells, and manner, all of which I used to do for a living. Readers can draw their own opinions of Comey’s character and veracity by relying on fact, by doing their own research–which I always practice and encourage–and to whatever degree they’ve found me convincing, my perceived reliability and character.
Some take me to task for leaving out this or that, but to whatever degree I do this in covering an issue or event, it’s a matter of space rather than a desire to conceal anything. In writing any article, I have a primary theme I’m pursuing. Supporting that theme requires choices: some things will be included, others won’t. I do not copy entire articles from other sources—that’s a fair use/copyright issue—but do provide links so readers can see the entire articles if they wish. I generally try to keep articles around 1500 words—this one is 1429–but because I try to be comprehensive and complete, don’t often manage that. Sticking to 1500 words or less might increase my readership, but in many instances, it would be a less informed readership. There are plenty of blogs that amount to little more than sound bites. There’s nothing wrong with that, but I choose to provide more comprehensive information.
It’s up to you, gentle readers, to decide if my fevered scribblings are worthy of your time. Thus far, and I’ve been blogging here since late 2011, my daily readership and following has steadily increased and continues to increase. I’m nowhere near Instapunditlevels, but I’m not doing badly for a scruffy little blog on the wrong side of the WWW tracks. In any case, please know I appreciate each and every one of you, and I’m having a blast! I hope you are too.
Stately McDaniel Manor 
Your scribblings are indeed worthy, even if their entire effect was my acquisition of Dave Barry’s “Dave Barry Slept Here”.
I try to read your new posts, but I don’t always manage to catch them every day. And even less often do I comment here. Not out of lack of interest… but more just the amount of time I have available in any given day. But still, I’ve read enough of your stuff to know you’re very thorough in what you write about, and your opinions are based in common sense and reality. I agree with you on the vast majority of topics, but even when I don’t I would never question your honesty and reasoning. Anyway, I just wanted to say that I don’t think you owe ANYONE — be in me, or this “Doug” guy, or anyone else — an explanation. Thanks.
I fully agree with jello… you don’t owe anyone.. er, ANYONE.. an explanation… especially that “Doug” guy.
But.. to keep things in context, my comment you selected (above) was essentially made toward that other fellow who rather preferred to assign my remarks to being “your new troll”.. and if that were the case I simply wished to express my intention for swinging by. I suppose by definition I am a troll.. but quite obviously my comment was meant to get the blog author’s thoughts if they preferred having a blog of just like-minded folks or if “trolls” were accepted. You’ve already replied to my original remarks. But thanks for “vilifying” me to your loyal readership. :)
Hey Doug. Notice no quote marks this time. ;) I apologize if you thought I did that as an insult, it was not meant that way. That’s just a habit I have when I’m referring to someone else on a blog… so many people use pseudonyms (like me) that I’ve just got into a habit of usually putting the names in quotes.
No apology required… no offense taken. We are simply blogging.. and if I were all that concerned about my feelings I wouldn’t be in here posting unpopular opinion. :)
Keep up the good work Mike. Ive read your blog for years and you’ve provided clear, reasoned, and helpful insight for a fellow US Constitutionalist. I appreciate your critical thinking skills and humor you bring with it.
You might consider having a permanent link to this article on your blog home page since it succinctly and professionally discusses the organizing principles you use in your writing.
Thx again.
I’ve followed your “scribblings” for a few years now, and I especially appreciated (I originally wrote “enjoyed,” but that’s not the right word) your analyses of the Baltimore Six and the Noor cases. I may not be an entirely disinterested observer, being a retired LEO, but your revelations about the facts in the Baltimore case were not reported anywhere else I saw, and I will say the same about your analysis of the Noor case (especially the BCA’s sad performance).
Keep up the good work.
First a point only somewhat related: There are no hard figures for the percentage of adults using the Internet but some figures do give us an indication. A few years ago I did see one estimate that said 55% of the adult population in the U.S. has an Internet connection. More recently (about 2014, actually) one source also said that China has 640 million Internet users. So that’s about 57% of China’s total population, which fairly well correlates with the US estimate. The percentage grows every year but the point is that only about half of us are actually making regular use of the Internet. So that’s the real “impact” of all the elements of the Internet. (That and the discovery that over two hours of daily exposure is bad for you.)
Likewise, as a fifty-year politically active person I can say we over estimate the significance of what we do in politics. I just spend a day with an old friend in our old home town (we went back there for our little reunion). It’s a little town 4 miles north of Detroit, part of the patchwork of towns surrounding Detroit on the north and west sides. Okay: this turns out to be Trump Country and NRA country and the only politics we talked about with others was when a convenience store owner saw we had guns on our belts and came forth to express HIS APPROVAL. (LOL) The counter clerk was smiling too and he gave me a discount on the two coca colas I was buying for us to continue our reunion in a local park.
It’s interesting to see now-President Donald Trump taking time to stage a rally in Washington, Michigan a couple weeks ago. His strategy pays attention to the 40+% of America in “fly over country. Very smart. We already know that the Clintons and the Comeys still ignore (and deplore) over 40% of Americans. Let them continue to make that mistake because we are still out here and we are still appreciating people like Donald Trump as our real people in government.
From those experiences and with others in the area, it’s clear that Comey, the Clintons, CNN, Saturday Night Live Politicalizations, etc. mean little to at least 40% of Americans.
Having said that I still want to acknowledge that the Internet and blogging are significant, not insignificant.
As for Mr. McDaniel’s statement about the way he attends to his blogging, I could not have written a better account of my own efforts (not in blogging but on Internet forums) myself. We match up exactly in that regard.
You stated…
“From those experiences and with others in the area, it’s clear that Comey, the Clintons, CNN, Saturday Night Live Politicalizations, etc. mean little to at least 40% of Americans. ”
No.. it’s NOT clear that 40% of Americans mean little to those entities. What “seems” clear is that 60% of Americans dislike Trump as President. So, that might suggest that the real issue here… are 40% of Americans are simply enamored with Trump, the man, more than the issues and his agenda?
Dear Doug:
Actually, President Trump’s approval ratings are at 50% these days. Certainly many are pleased with his accomplishments and agenda, but I doubt anyone that voted for him thinks him a messiah. That kind of thinking is normally reserved for progressives.
Doug, you asked so I’ll answer: people appreciate the attention given by Donald Trump. While you pose it as a question, your “thought” is clearly to suggest that, as the Democrats have been doing from the start, the people Trump attracted are merely part of a cult of personality.
If so, and only the Press seems convinced of it, then that’s also exactly the situation with Democrat followers and members because Hillary began forming her cult of personality back in the 1990s. Let me say that (1) I never liked Donald Trump’s personal style or personality and (2) I was initialy horrified at Trump’s mere appearance among the 2016 candidates because I was already strongly supporting Cruz.
I even agreed at first that Trump seemed to be demogicaly attracting the least sophisticated people but realized that it was “too perfect” a picture painted by the selective Press coverage given that least sophisticated kind of Trump supporters.
So, no, I don’t believe what you ask about is true. I’ve come to see Trump’s strategy of going to the “margins” of the electorate as both pragmatically self serving but also a legitimate promise to those marginalized by Democrat elitism.
Also, I see Mike has already pointed out that Trump’s popularity has grown and probably will continue to grow based on some of the issues he’s been addressing with promised changes. Given the criminal nature of the Democratic Party elected officials, it’s clear that more people are becoming aware that the ill-spoken, unlikable Donald Trump is the better alternative.
T’would appear to be that Trump’s gaslighting is effective with some.
Doug,
FYI:
“gas-light”- manipulate (someone) by psychological means into questioning their own sanity.
I can only guess you’re reaching for any straw here. Clearly promoting the Democrat Unicorn Universe but not even able to stay on the top rail of your unicorn corral. Get a grip, man.
I realize the frustration all too well.
Having just retired from 41 years teaching high school math I just want to say that I’m amazed that you can find the time to write as often as you do. I have followed for about a year and do appreciate your well-crafted and logical approach. But c’mon, man, I know you have papers to grade and exercising to do. How…..oh I get it. A ghostwriter.
Dear plug:
Thanks for all of your years of service. And no, I’m afraid I type every word. I’m a writer, so that’s what I do.