The New Republic

"Truth? We don't need no stinkin' truth!" Honestly, if these people weren't so potentially dangerous, they would be laughable.

- zardoz67

September 15, 2009 at 5:46pm

picky, picky Orr. millions, hundreds what is a few zeros among enemies? Don't you know when Democrats march they are traitors, thugs, bullies, but when Republicans it is a flowering of Democracy? You have much to learn, perhaps you should go back to reviewing movies. Oh wait, come to think of it, Glenn Beck can't possibly be a real person, he must be a movie character and I actually have been reading one of your movie reviews.

- blackton

September 15, 2009 at 5:47pm

Someone, somewhere slap Rockefeller silly. Please tell me this is just him venting, that he won't torpedo the only hope of some reform (something that can be improved in the coming years) because it doesn't adhere to what he wants. Maybe he is being politically shrewd, by whining loudly when he capitulates Obama can look the centrist and allow the blue dogs to feel like they won. If he is doing that, then I got no problems and retract the slap comment, but if I realize that maybe the blue dogs will as well so will just discount Rockefeller as doing theater.

- blackton

September 15, 2009 at 5:48pm

-

"If you can't convince them, confuse them." - Truman

- michael

September 15, 2009 at 5:54pm

There actually were two million people there, but roughly 1,930,000 of them were killed by roving government death panels.

- ratnerstar

September 15, 2009 at 6:12pm

Wasn't it Carl Sagan who once predicted "Gazillions and Gazillions" of evangelical Christians would march on Washington demanding the Constitution be scraped for the Bible? I truly miss Carl. Anyway, as I noted previously, the mathematically challenged folks in BeckWorld have their own way of calculating things like this. For instance: * each marcher who brought a gun, a knive and/or a grenade counted as two, three or four people...quadrupling the number right there * all those who weren't actually there but attended "in spirit" or "in their hearts" were counted * all those who were stuck inside college football stadiums [and those forced to watch the games on tv] would have attended if they could; so they got counted * everyone in the South is counted automatically * God assured talk radio that millions of folks in Heaven were ordered to tune into Fox [the only cable news channel in large swaths of the Promised Land] to follow the event; so they were included * Tweets about the march were counted as boots on the ground even if the tweeters' boots were in Wasilla, Alaska * the organizers used calculators manufactured by Diebold Besides, Beck assured them, lying about the numbers was okay because lying in the service of The Conservative Cause is being twice as honest as telling the truth in the service of The Liberal Cause. And the lies don't hurt his bank accounts either. gw

- iambiguous

September 15, 2009 at 6:44pm

You know this guy had a segment a few weeks ago, all week long (I was at the gym, where the TV choices are made by the morons), called "The New Republic" talking about Czars or some other such BS. The font even looked similar to yours before the latest re-design. Can't you guys sue his ass hard for trademark infringement?

- Crock1701

September 15, 2009 at 6:55pm

I hate this new system, I posted a comment to the wrong thread because there is nothing above to indicate which thread is which.

- blackton

September 15, 2009 at 7:10pm

Actually, over at 538.com, the discussion thread on the 9/12 crazies is one of the funniest I've ever read there. In fumbling attempts to claim that this was an unprecedented historical event, some of the conservative ranters skipped the entire game of telephone and just linked directly to news articles talking about the attendance at the inauguration, claiming that they were about the protests. To be fair, Nate Silver did probably raise some tempers at the beginning of the discussion by equating the attendance claims with claiming to have a 53-inch penis. The belief that the entire city of Washington got together with the entirety of the national media to conspire to ignore a major historical event that, had it happened, would have brought the city to a grinding halt, is apparently very passionately held. It's also interesting to observe, like listening to someone explain how ties are part of the Freemason mind-control death-grip on the reigns of power...

- janus

September 16, 2009 at 9:56am

I don't know, Dan Bana = Ban Dana (in another anagram world) probably has these guys thinking they're pretty clever. They probably also worked pretty hard to try get Fin Toil, another product that can be wrapped around one's head for protection, added to the park service rolls as the Scandinavian park service employee that also counted a gazillion marchers (Fin can see all the invisible marchers that the government's inviso-ray blocks).

- jet

September 16, 2009 at 10:24am

- blackton wrote, "I hate this new system, I posted a comment to the wrong thread because there is nothing above to indicate which thread is which." At least your reply went through. Over the weekend I experienced a lockout (the spamfilter wasn't working) but now the sekrit kode option is gone. That's one way to we'll see real change. However, I do recommend clicking 'ADD NEW COMMENT' with the wheel on your mouse as it should open the comment page in a new tab (depending on your browser). But I think I know where they went wrong in the redesign. I realize this isn't a forum, but in the past it was more user friendly as a place to quickly find new information (not in the current issue) and respond easily and rapidly. In the new configuration, articles from various sources are co-mingled making it more difficult to cull the new from the old. It's clear there's less interaction from readers and the proof is in the number of comments. Most have fewer responses, some have none and I've seen articles listed in 'MOST COMMENTED' with only six or eight replies. If the intent was to encourage more interaction, it doesn't appear to be be taking hold. Again, I don't think reader feedback was the goal and pushing out as many teases as possible, on one page, (increasing subscriptions?) is the most dramatic difference in the design-layout. If features related to responding or interacting suffered? Too bad. It may be receiving more traffic and if subscriptions are up, that's great. But I think the design could serve the interactive community by segregating the newer articles and addressing the sort of complaints you noted. I do like the ability to access MOST VIEWED and MOST COMMENTED and that feature means interesting topics have a longer lifespan. But I'm afraid the decision was made to create a One-Way-Website where the emphasis would be on pushing out information rather than pulling in reader's thoughts. -

- michael

September 16, 2009 at 10:41am

Michael - I'm kind of mixed on the redesign. Obviously, as you've noted, the number of comments has suffered, but I wonder if that's just people figuring out the new layout before leaping back in. I am still hopeful. I am baffled by the page layout, honestly. Why, when the blogs are the most updated and most discussion-promoting part of the site, am I shown a page where the actual blog content actually takes up only a third of the width of the page? I really don't have any need for GIANT PHOTO LINKS to other articles taking up the middle of the page in addition to that "Most Popular" links up in the upper right...that I can't see while I'm composing this comment. And on the front page, there is just way the hell too much going on. More robust web publishing is great, but there's only so much you can put out there in parallel columns before it's the neon storefront of news and people miss things. Also, I'm really hoping that subscriber profile information becomes accessible again at some point. I may be missing something, but I can't find any analogue whatsoever to the simple "My Account" link that used to appear by your name when you were logged in (which also doesn't appear anymore). We could display information about ourselves, and there was even the always-teasingly-disabled private message function to let you contact other users, and I think that'd be a very nice thing to promote community on this site. (Really, I'd like to invite ratnerstar and rozenson to chat politics in person here in DC and maybe mock a shitty movie together sometime, but putting my email out there in a public post seems a bit unwise...) On the other hand, I was able to call up an article from seven years ago in two mouse clicks, and comments appear instantly, not delayed by hours or days. That's a hell of an improvement, but I hope it's just a start.

- janus

September 16, 2009 at 11:12am

- janus wrote, "Why, when the blogs are the most updated and most discussion-promoting part of the site, am I shown a page where the actual blog content actually takes up only a third of the width of the page? I really don't have any need for...".

Disclaimer: I began designing websites when a 'web page' was a single page. I wasn't surprised to see Parkinson's Law (Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion.) or a corollary, apply to design. When it became possible to provide more information and include design elements, increased content and graphics could make it more difficult for the user to navigate and rapidly access the poop they wanted. Yes, too many websites suffer because form rules over function. Plus, the blogs and more current articles appealed to a group familiar with the authors and TNR but there was probably a need to attract new visitors so they dumped 'something for everyone' on the front page. They concluded it is less important to have a few readers spend more time at the site rather than appeal to a wider audience and provide more bits that can be linked to, via other sites. A new visitor is likely to be more impressed with large, cycling graphics and be bombarded upon arrival with the promise the site is crammed with popular topics. No, a person who wanders in form HuffPo or the Beast hasn't followed Crowley or Chait and doesn't want to engage them or us. But I believe it's possible to present a busy first page and also have a single link to a more simplified section where accessing, reading and commenting on the current articles would be more useful to the smaller but active group of more readers.

- michael

September 16, 2009 at 12:52pm

I have to say I like the overall look of the new site. My old, failing eyes find it much easier to read and comprehend. I very much dislike the fact that we no longer have the three latest stories links on each blog thread. It was much easier to check in every few hours to see if there was something new to catch up on without having to click on the banner. Posting comments is much more difficult because of the need to re-login each time and I hate the way you don't get the entire story on some articles. Have to click on "Read more". What was wrong with the "Remember me next time" function? The lack of postings makes the entire experience less fun and rewarding.

- desertdog

September 16, 2009 at 3:11pm

Even the simple act of moving the "add a new comment" button to the bottom of the thread where the most recent post is, appears to be beyond the online editorial capacity at the moment. Initially I greeted the new version of the mag enthusiastically, but now I have to say that it doesn't look as if TNR was that interested in the kind of intense discussion threads that we used to have. It's a pity, because our input even gave the staffers some thoughts now and then -- they occasionally picked up on an idea or two and took it further -- but it seems as if it's now meant to be a one-way site, as noted above. But even three simple corrections would do a lot: 1. Move the "add comment" button to the end of the thread (or add another) 2. Introduce a "remember me" option at login 2. Expand the "most commented" listing to include the time/author of the most recent post

- ironyroad

September 16, 2009 at 7:07pm

I say leave everything exactly the same by changing everything. Actually, in most philosophy venues the content of the threads themselves are generated by the members. Here, you have the option to respond only to the stuff the editors feel is interesting. Why not have a section where TNR subscribers can start their own threads on there own topics? Merely restrict the content to the sort of stuff TNR publishes. Surely, the editors wouldn't be intimidated by the competetion. Or would they? They do this for example at Daily Kos with the readers "diaries". Or at least they used to. gw

- iambiguous

September 19, 2009 at 3:02am