Steve, I like to think of you as an incomplete schmuck.

Seriously, this is a good post, and good of you to take responsibility for the fact that you should have thought of the ramifications the first time a political guest was invited.

It's so refreshing to read a real apology, and not "I'm sorry if anyone was offended by my actions."

Good post, Steve! Sometimes people make decisions, or go along with decisions of political friends, which don't look real great to the outside world. Sometimes Gwen Ifill ends Washington Week (as I'm guessing she might this Friday) with a segment about such misjudgements titled "What were they thinking?".

Thanks for saying yes, the outside world does have the right to come to conclusions a small group of people may not like. And that how things look really does matter!

It is a lesson a certain SC Congressman may not have a chance to learn---reportedly his website crashed after he yelled at the president, he got hammered on Twitter, and his opponent (for a rematch, apparently) has gotten all kinds of contributions.

I knew the civility tide had turned when not only John McCain and Lindsey Graham but Eric Cantor said publicly that respect is due to any president speaking to Congress and that the Congressman went over the line.

In upcoming primaries, if we can keep it so that Democrats are the party of manners, of people who know that stepping over a line of appropriate behavior has a political cost, we will be winners no matter which candidate ends up with a particular nomination.

Ability to self-criticize is an admirable trait in a smart, successful, well-connected person. Congratulations, Steve.

But the problem with they Junta goes beyond its all male membership. Check into how many public office holders and members of influential committees have worked for Stoel Rives and Ater Wynne. We do not know all the group's members, but I'd wager that "well-connected" would describe most.

In a Utopian Aristotelian democracy, this would be just fine - a discussion group of the best and brightest who promote life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all. Unfortunately, we live in a corrupted republic where wealth and power guide government through seen and unseen hands. While members of the elite may see this as meritocracy, it is, in effect, most of time closer to kleptocracy. Members of a group like the Junta are mostly either kleptocrats, employed by kleptocrats, or retained by kleptocrats - even are they are jolly nice fellows with progressive ideals.

Opening a group like the Junta to women mostly serves to widen the talent pool of potential best-and-brightest lackeys. One of the lessons of women's movement is that women are just as capable as men at serving the masters.

Steve, don't die. However, if you want a hole to crawl into, I understand there are four thousand holes in Blackburn, Lancashire.

We shouldn't be so hard on the Junto... the City Club has become far too inclusive: women, minorities, radicals. They even let me join!

Steve, I felt that Karol's writing had some good points. It obviously caused you to reflect and come to your current decision. I have more respect for you as a person and potential leader. Thank you.

Steve, nice reflection and some good comments. I know of other high profile groups meeting on a regular basis without as much scrutiny or criticism. Groups which are exclusively ethnic based and/or gender specific. The hypocrisy strikes me in a concerning way, but I am not really sure how to express it. Just seems OK in some other situations. Kinda like PC police discrimination. Still good to hear your self evaluation and thoughts.

Steve,

Casablanca (the city, not the movie) has very little to endear itself to anyone. It is literally a "hole". But if you decide to take the plunge please stop by Rabat (1 hour north) and share a beer first. Maybe I can talk you out of it. (although you'll have to wait until Ramadan is over)

In all sincerity, I think you've done a great job at apologizing. And it appears Jake Leander (above) has already feminized the Junto by changing its name to Junta.

James Mattiace currently in the Kingdom of Morocco

Jake Leander,

I think you meant "Athenian democracy," not "Aristotelian democracy." Aristotle had some rather nasty things to say about democracies in the <u>Politics</u>.

Steve,

I'm glad you haven't crawled into a hole, because if you had, we wouldn't benefit from this fine example of the old saying "If you mess up, fess up."

Thanks, Steve. Amiel

If you jump into a hole you will die alone, and Scylla wanted to die with someone who loved him. But regardless, stick around: we need you.

Hullo Steve - not sure I can tell you the exact best place to die, but one of our doughty leaders did allegedly say, "It's a good DAY to die"..... spoze that's all I can contribute to your list of Future Possibilities should you fall prey again to willfully disingenuous manhood, heh. As a petulant seeker along the path, thanks for being alive in the journey - it's about the road you are taking as much as the places you try to get to. The journey of consciousness, foolishness, reawakening and daring to share it and also daring to believe it IS indeed of interest to others. I'm pretty grateful for such storytelling along the way.

DANIEL: you kiss your mup widdap mouth? Eh! Putz is the fear of all men, schmuck being the guilty leaving. Schmeckel is mighty sad too. But my personal favorite is schmegeggy.

The habitues of The Living Theater, they used to call me Sam Geggy cause I uttered that word so often. Blame Ira Cohen.

Steve, I just lost a lot of respect for you. Not because you happened to choose to associate with a number of people who have some degree of moxie and smarts about government (not all of them), but because you now show no moral judgement in what the problem is.

First, there are few female or male commentators on Blue Oregon who have anything truly intelligent to say. This blog is about public political mutual masturbation. That's it, and as my mother used to say without apology: "The truth hurts, so get used to it". So I don't give any respect at all to any of the complaints about the "Junto" based on the juvenile justifications presented here.

Second, it's the candidates --- male and and female alike --- who deserve the greatest portion of moral condemnation for legitimizing the "Junto" by appearing before you rather than shunning you. If they had shunned you, you would just be a bunch of irrelevant frustrated guys who could be the butt of jokes in an ignorable reality show. Of course, these are people who lust to be politicians, with the questionable moral character that all too often entails in this era. To a large degree it's narcissistic to make this about "you" and deny them their moral responsibility.

Finally, it's not about the fact that a group of people chose to associate. The freedom to associate privately is one of our bedrock Constitutional principles. It's how that group of associates chose to articulate a set of values for action, and acted on them that you haven't even addressed here that raises the true moral questions and why your masturbatory confession here, vicariously witnessed by so many here, is so unredeeming. You haven't actually explained, or apologize if necessary, for however the "Junto" may have chosen to ACT in the public political realm. You could have made a good start by listing the candidates who agreed to meet with you so we could hold them accountable to explain their motives in meeting with your little group and what they felt they gained from it.

Jake Leander should change his gender and bring his grump to your club. Sheesh. :)

Paulie, "they have turned in with the highest validity rate of 92.5% of any of the No Tax organizations looking to kill the raise in corporate income tax."

Are you saying that a specific number of signatures has been turned in by this group and verified by elections officials? If so, what number of signatures has been verified?

I thought blogging on BlueOregon meant never having to admit you were wrong. Once again, and always, a class act.

I know you once famously compared Junto to a men's book club that doesn't read books. Coincidentally, I happen to belong to one of those. We wield no power. You are officially invited.

Yawn.

"Nigel Jaquiss and Karol Collymore were right, and I was wrong. Maybe writing this is wrong, too. One way or another, I feel like crawling into a hole to die. "

My grandfather taught me about 70 years ago that it takes a good man to admit to being wrong. It was one of the best pieces of advice I ever received even if there were occasions I didn't live up to his standards. It is, unfortunately, a rare quality on Blue Oregon - and elsewhere for that matter.

So funny -- the requisite progressive self flagellation and guilt over ... what, exactly? Nothing of substance. And of course the progressive foot soldiers all instantly forgive Steve because to be a Leftist is to always judge by two standards -- a low one for the friendlies, and an impossibly high one for the unfriendlies.

And of course Steve's over the top "wanting to die" is just hilarious. Oh, I'm so bad, I'm so guilty, I'm so wicked.

As for a women's group being unable to get a politician in as a speaker, you obviously haven't tried. Politicians are bottom feeding scum suckers who would love to come to any group of three or more voters, living or dead.

My limited respect for Steve has fallen a notch. My opinion of Progressives as emotion-driven drones without real values is reinforced.

Well, Mr. Novick, it's easy to see why you will never make it to Washington D.C to represent the state of Oregon. You've tossed both women and the Junto to the curb because you want to emote online. Yes, your post was a mistake.

First, there are few female or male commentators on Blue Oregon who have anything truly intelligent to say. This blog is about public political mutual masturbation. Wow. I wonder why you bother reading?

For the same reason I read the rightwing blogs and keep an eye on Fox and MSNBC: To collect the example source material needed to talk seriously about the impoverished quality of discussion and critical thinking in the blogosphere.

Steve certainly offered an amusing new twist on the prime motivation within the blogosphere of gaining attention (If no one reads your blog do you exist in the blogophere?).

A guy who makes a show apology for the moral failings in the motivations of those who legitimize him and his coffee klatch as an instrumental means to gain status within this group that itself seeks attention on the web. But somehow never actually explaining to what ends and by what means the klatch actually exercised power --- or on behalf of whom --- other than to be legitimized by those anonymous elected power seekers whose apparent moral failings he appropriated for his own goals. One of those true "Wow!" moments one has when trying to understand a phenomenon.

Good on you, Steve. And if you try and die, we'll resurrect you, cause we're going to need you in the fight/s to come.

I thought you rocked before, during, and after your senatorial campaign, Steve, and my opinion hasn't changed a bit. Thanks for admitting your mistake, and keep on going!

Steve-Great post. Glad you cleared all this up. When I first read about it, I was briefly amused by the image of you in a smoking jacket with brandy snifter and cigar. But, I knew you'd do the right thing. Please don't die on us.

Ja. D.: what do you have against mutual masturbation, anyway? Sounds like we have another R/R leaner headed down the pike to being Outed for a healthy case of reaction formation......

Steve: Ja.D. should be invited to join - he seems to have more than his fair share of the grumpiness factor! On your way out the door, why not set it up?

(And please don't die)

Steven M, every "smoke-filled room" of the past had its starting place. Perhaps there was no actual malfeasance. But Steve N. has now experienced just how slippy-slidey easy it is to indeed enter back-room power-broking of even the most menial variety.

Perhaps there is no massive mea culpa needed, but it's great to share the wake up calls along the road to being a sound politician instead of a standard-issue politician.

And so it is he tells us what he saw. I agree that the politicians who visit such groups bear responsibility for such patronage. That is, if they do not examine the patronage to begin with.

Eye of the beholder is important. I have also seen the flip side of this---back in the 1980s when there was a qualified male candidate and a qualified female candidate. Some groups with women in the title just automatically assumed they would endorse the woman (which might be fine if all members were female, but some had male members and some women thought there should be a formal endorsement process) and then wonder why they lost respect relative to the groups which had the same process for all: questionaire, interview, membership vote, whatever.

Even EMILY's List, started with the best of intentions, sometimes hit the same slippery slope Steve Novick is talking about. They did good campaign schools for women candidates, but the idea that "this person is endorsed by EMILY's List, you should support her and not the male candidate" was as offensive to voters regardless of gender as "vote for her because she is a woman".

Anon wrote:

I think you meant "Athenian democracy," not "Aristotelian democracy." Aristotle had some rather nasty things to say about democracies in the Politics.

My reference is to Aristotle's definition of democracy, not his preference of political system. Aristotle criticized all pure forms of governance.

Steve. Ignore these anonymous apologists for male separatism and privilege. Buck up, my friend. Here, have a tissue.

On the other hand, Steve, you might want to ignore people who talk in empty cliches.

Ja. D.: what do you have against mutual masturbation, anyway? Sounds like we have another R/R leaner headed down the pike to being Outed for a healthy case of reaction formation......

rlw - Can you point to anything that says that? It's just that egotism, lack of brains, and immature moral outrage that typify most Blue Oregon "opinion leaders" is just such a complete turn-off.

Steve: Ja.D. should be invited to join - he seems to have more than his fair share of the grumpiness factor! On your way out the door, why not set it up?

Katy R. thanks for providing another example of what I referred to. Just exactly where did the comment that Steve's "apology" is the utter epitome of male egotism, even denying female wannabe electeds responsibility their moral failings for legitimizing his coffee klatch lose you?

Steve Maurer, The difference between the Junto and the other groups you mentioned is that A: They are public organizations that accept all members regardless of sex, gender or race and B: They operate in the light of day.

I just want to point that out not being a jerk, but just showing the difference.

Karol, not to confuse by injecting some critical thinking into this wankfest of self-indulgent outrage, but maybe you can outline the critical argument why your point even matters? Steve advanced a thesis, you threw out a red-herring. The power-privilege argument, even in the pop-culture misappropriations that typify the low-intellect of the blogosphere, kind of depends on the exercise of genuine privilege and power. When you actually demonstrate that by, referring to Steve's "Junto", listing the candidates who agreed to meet with you so we could hold them accountable to explain their motives in meeting with your little group and what they felt they gained from it., then you may have something. Specifically, a true failure of character for which we genuinely can hold those politicians accountable if indeed they did benefit by legitimizing the group. Somehow, though I suspect integrity and accountability is not the goal here because it would expose a lot of politicians for what they aren't. In the meantime, thanks again for the concise example of the non-critical thinking typical of the blogosphere.

Steve - you're trying to convince the Blue/Progressive fringe equivalent of the teapartiers/birthers/tenthers here, so you don't waste your breath. Each side has it's fools to bear, at least you know where at lot of them are. Sometimes, though, it's useful to throw an intelligent comment just to capture some of the irrational reaction for it's illustrative value. I think you've seen that here.

BTW - That latter "Steve" is "Steve Maurer", the former "Steve" is "Steve Novick".

Ummmmmm.... steve? I attacked noone. I saw some attacks upon the mere idea that perhaps Mr. Novick has sensitivity to his access and how he COULD use it unfairly were he to wish to? Is it ok with you and others of your thought that HE have his OWN experience, and his own consciousness? I think I personally was simply delighting in the introduction of complexity into this blog. This particular kind of complexity, which relates to the shaping of our characters, and the fact that we CAN continue to evolve throughout our lives, and even after we have a stake in not evolving possibly available!

As far as I can tell, Mr. Novick (hope I meet 'im some day) simply came to his senses realizing how easy it is to slip a few shadows. And to develop, yes, a power elite situation. Let's just allow this discussion to percolate in a general sense so that we CAN look at all the dimensions of power, access, exercise of power and also of the need of like to gather with like.

A recent Fresh Air interview (I think) engaged a social scientist in a discussion of homogeneity of close friends vs. the heterogeneity of consequential associates. And so we have to balance that ubiquitous human dynamic whilst remaining willing to be sensitized well beyond ourselves.

Could I ask you to help me out here? Who attacked anyone? Seems like a bleeding lovefest up on this thread, man! Maybe I just forgot someone's fangs in my seemingly-newly-gentled aspect since returning home from Bear Butte.

:)....

Ja.D: again, what's up with the masturbation talk? Wankfest? You are really really obsessed with the spectre of the orgy, the circle jerk, the mythical boyscout circle! Or is it some other species of daisychain that keeps surfacing in your fevered psyche and slipping out onto the pitched moshpit of this blog?

Yeeeeeesh buddy! :).....

Heh. At least you ain't bringing wimmin's body parts into it. The other guys, I suppose, could take pointer or two...

STeve M - yep, that's the thinking that got our asses shot off now and for some years to come. But meanwhile, I'm not certain that the thoughtstream you describe is what is going on here. Willy Week maybe - I cringe whenever any of you quote WW as if that is reading to be sourced from or proud of. Yah... it's an Oregon Wierd Rag, but the Village Voice it just ain't.

So WW might be going there, but not really sure that's happening up here? IN my head it ain't. I'm just a big fan of personal insight work.

Ja.D: again, what's up with the masturbation talk? Wankfest? You are really really obsessed with the spectre of the orgy, the circle jerk, the mythical boyscout circle! Or is it some other species of daisychain that keeps surfacing in your fevered psyche and slipping out onto the pitched moshpit of this blog?

rw - quit being so immature. Note that I cited the responses people had made who, like you, clearly have an adolescent fascination with the whole topic. It's telling, though, what you fastened on and made the subject of your whole comment without context. In your case, complete with pop culture misspellings of words that belie the intellectual and emotional immaturity commensurate with that. You function on the limbic level and are clearly frustrated that you don't have anywhere close to the brainpower to develop and present any kind of analysis of Steve's egotistical exercise. So you act (I'm carefully avoiding the existential are for reasons that will become clear below) like the Blue Oregon mirror image of the teabaggers/birthers/tenthers who throw out childish asides to change the subject.

It's clear that you are a person with some verbal skills. You provide an example, however, of how verbal skill are quite apart from critical thinking skills. The ability to recognize that apparently that's pretty much all that you are: A superficial thinker who works very hard to hide that behind a smokescreen of verbal distraction is what ultimately renders you inconsequential.

For the other readers, a sign of this, other than the failed attempt at ad hominem attacks on me I quoted, is the rather amateurish rhetorical tactic of misrepresenting a proposition another offered for other purposes than to actually answer that proposition.

Ummmmmm.... steve? I attacked noone

Just by noting how rw starts without a reference to which 'Steve', and without citing a quote that can be examined first to judge the rw's response, we can hypothesize rw's goal here clearly is NOT to engage Steve. Moreover, we can find evidence that rw egotistically introduces a strawman to launch into self-aggrandizing rhetorical flourishes and pop social theory which ultimately contains no argumentation. If 'rw'='rlw' and 'Steve'='Steve Maurer', rw/rlw seemingly is trying to dishonestly leverage this comment:

rlw: Perhaps there was no actual malfeasance. But Steve N. has now experienced just how slippy-slidey easy it is to indeed enter back-room power-broking of even the most menial variety. OK, so we should start attacking people, not because of any actual threat, but because we think they might potentially do something bad in the future? With no evidence for it, other than our own prejudice? Isn't that precisely the kind of thinking that got us into war with Iraq?

Note carefully Steve was asking a rhetorical question. Not accusing rlw/rw of attacking anyone. rlw/rw, being verbally skilled, cleverly opened with the quoted statement that in isolation could be a rhetorical question or a purposeful distortion of Steve's comment into a personal attack. We can find two pieces of evidence that support the hypothesis rlw/rw is dishonest. The first is that part of the rest of that comment is only ambiguously, rather than clearly, rhetorical. The second, however, is that unlike for Steve's comment which stays on the same rhetorical theme he started, we find evidence that rlw/rw really is out to distort Steve's comment into a personal attack that is wasn't. About half way down the whole comment turns self-referential: I think I personally was simply delighting in the introduction of complexity into this blog.

So rw/rlw we have some justification to doubt that you have anything of merit to contribute. Despite that fact, do you actually have any argumentation to offer on the point that the problem and culpability, to the extent there is any at all, lies with the elected wannabes who legitimized Steve's coffee klatch by meeting with them that we can analyze for it's critical quality? And that the whole power-privilege thing depends on, referring here to Steve's "Junto", listing the candidates who agreed to meet with you so we could hold them accountable to explain their motives in meeting with your little group and what they felt they gained from it.?

Oh, and by the way, do you disagree with the proposition that freedom of association is one of the bedrock principles of a representative democracy?

Or is the sum of your mental prowess the ability to parrot popularized, superficial, easily misunderstood by cognitively challenged people like you, social theory from intellectually lazy infotainment like "Fresh Air" and NPR?

Ja.D: Karol calls folks to task for racism, genderism. All thru the threads I am entertaining myself but ALSO making a serious and honest point - each time one of you men selects a woman-oriented curse to launch at your enemies, I often experience a bit of a visceral punch.

And I'm a tough old gal. But it gets me in the gut that the most-progressive men still unconsciously opt into this.

And of course I am fastening on your use of masturbation as your way to poke the masses you so despise. You intended that.

Darling man, cool your fevered brow, blow off that smoking keyboard and get over it. You toss out the M word over and over again, and, since you have little else of merit to engage my interest, I'll be poking you back.

It's easy on my head, does not kill the brain cells I save for the things that I REALLY do.

You would carp and whinge if I introduced some of my favorites: Buber, Kierkegaard who cursed God. And would also demean and decry were I to tell you I get a hot, sweaty, laughing rise out of the hilarities of the likes of the doughties on Philosophy Talk.

I'd like to request you now turn your awfully Grand Self on Joe White.

You will enjoy it less, as he is actually taking himself seriously up here - but the predictable and inveterate distortions in his thematics will keep you quite busy. Much more work to be done on him by quantity and quality of posting materials to work from.

It will keep both of your hands AND your mind busy. Too busy to think any further about.... MASTURBATION. Heheh.

Enjoyed your writing. Glad to continue to be your Muse.

rw, I read your first polemic against certain comments involving women's body parts with a wry grin. Now, after Ja. D. takes up the challenge, he is found woefully short in his use of terms referring to much of the conversation as mental self stimulation.

Well, in the spirit how about some of these alternatives?

Bombing for peace Arson for the environment Destroying to re-build Individual serving plastic water bottles

Please note that in the spirit I left out F**king for virginity.

Peace ;-)

Hahahah... wry is good. It's not worth a pissing match and was never intended to start one. :)... and >gasp< I like poking folks saucily, especially if they express as Ja.D. does. :).... shoot man, I'm gonna fail my GREs when I finally turn my attention back to "that master's I really SHOULD have gotten" (the bawl of every failed coulda shoulda mental giant such as me, eh!) - I've gotta sit still long enough to getcher analogs.

I like it that you skewer extremism/radicalism. So many people seem to truly believe that radicalism calls for violence! :).... "Individual... bottles" is my most favorite example of violence in that array. :).... I think you just pulled out some Buber on me, in your own way.

F** for virginity? You left it out why? It would help drag Joe Dorkness and others like that into the lowbrow scuffle we are enjoying here. :)...

Gosh - I like the sounds of that! The internal logic of THAT speaks to the godless pagan in me who believes in offerings and sacrifice.

Of self, that is.

So: if I go out and offer up my sacredly round body, suffering the lustreless embrace of this one or that, could I rightly sue for membership in the Party of the RIGHT/BEST/ONLY WAY? After all, I'm doing my bit for virginity too!

Excellent witty response!

I left off F**king for virginity because it is so 60's and well, you challenged us males to keep the vagina's out of the discusions.

Peace.

Oh heck, Kurt, I really meant don't use that sublime article of physiognomy to demean or depose from blogging thrones those you despise.

Very courtly of you. Glad to add male perplexity to your day. Don't you just LOVE a world run by women?

Ack.

;)....