Give ‘em hell, Louise! From The Gavel, the new blog for the Speaker of the House, Louise Slaughter’s statement on the alleged crack-down on dissenters in the Walter Reed Hospital beds:
The Gavel ? Blog Archive ? Rep. Slaughter on the Silencing of Walter Reed
?The only acceptable course of action for our military and civilian leaders to take is to fully and openly address any and all concerns regarding veterans? facilities nation-wide,? Congresswoman Slaughter continued. ?Any attempt to silence the very soldiers who brought their own mistreatment to light, or to hide ongoing abuses from the public eye – if such attempts are occurring – would be morally reprehensible. It would be an abdication of one of the most fundamental responsibilities of our government: the protection of those who have fought to protect us.?
No one bristles quite like Louise. You gotta love it in a Representative. Resent it in a mom, perhaps, but ya gotta love it in a Rep!
Technorati Tags: Louise Slaughter, Congress, Walter Reed
powered by performancing firefox
Someone identifying themselves as “d’Oh!” responded to my post on the Nevada Democratic Presidential Debate situation (which I must tell you, I had fun writing). They point out the following article, written by Tom Gallagher, as a response. I shall cite a few lines:
Nevada Today – The debate about the Debate – a counterpoint on Fox
My point simply is this. In Nevada, and throughout most of the West, Democrats don?t win by preaching to the choir. No matter how hard you work, no matter how much money you raise, and no matter how fanatic the netroots may be – you don?t win unless you reach beyond the true-believers.
More. . .
So to those who are apoplectic about the Fox decision, I say this: if you haven?t put your own butt on the line and run for office, if you haven?t had your name and reputation out there for the attack dogs and mudslingers to slander ? take a deep breath. Is network purity more important or is winning the West?
OK, I’m not sure “Network Purity” or “Der Uber Channel” are concepts we’re necessarily going for, here. At the same time, I don’t think the George Costanza, “let’s do the opposite” theory of political science necessarily applies, either.
Just because you’ve lost by a slim margin in the past does not necessarily mean that you should therefore go drop trow for Fox News because they have a larger market share. I understand perfectly well the idea of spreading the word out to those who might not otherwise hear it, but the question is, at least in part: can Fox News be trusted not to impose its own agenda on that word? I mean, forget O’Reilly. Even the news desk stiffs can’t pass up an opportunity to shake their heads disapprovingly whenever a Democrat fills a headline.
Moreover, while Mr. Gallagher addresses this issue only in terms of politics, the fact is that a lot more viewers will tune into Fox that night than even their already admittedly large audience. That means advertising revenue, especially since so many people will be snagging snippets and putting them on YouTube.com. And how about all the other news organizations that take clips from the show? I honestly don’t know if they pay for those or not, but I suspect they do.
Does Fox deserve to be handed these extra revenue streams by the very people they already make a significant amount of money off demeaning in the first place? My personal opinion is no.
He says that the Republicans attacked him on every network they could. Fine, go tit for tat, if you like. Go after them on Fox.? Buy attack ads during the O’Reilly Factor, but that’s just not what this is. Hand them a fish, but don’t give them your ass as a lure.
Technorati Tags: Nevada, Democrats, Debate, Fox
powered by performancing firefox
It doesn’t get more out of touch than this:
Democratic Leaders to Finalize Iraq Plan – washingtonpost.com
The House Democrats’ plan brought a sharp response from Brian Kennedy, spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.
“If this is the Democrats’ last ditch effort to appease the ultraliberal wing of their party while appearing to support the troops at the same time, I don’t think they are going to convince either one of any commitment whatsoever,” Kennedy said. “This appears to be political posturing at its worst and yet another attempt to undermine the mission of our troops in harm’s way. The American people are going to see right through it.”
Way to go, dude. Refer to 70% of the population as “Ultraliberal.” This proposal is about as watered-down as it gets, and simply asks that the president report his actions without explicitly setting any rules by which the Congress can intervene. It’s politically embarrasing for the president (assuming he doesn’t use a “signing statement” to neuter it, which he will), but that’s it.
In fact, while I think it’s an OK increment towards a withdrawl, the real question is not whether this appeals to the “ultraliberal,” but whether this is going to impress the middle of our political spectrum. Will “The Middle” give as much leeway to the Democrats getting us out of the war as they did to the Republicans who got us into it?
Technorati Tags: Iraq, Congress, Democrats
powered by performancing firefox
It’s always fun to look back at critical moments in history that you thought you knew and reassess them for new meaning and new insight. At least, I’m boring enough to think so. . .
To whit: Corporate Personhood. Yes, I know. It’s not something we’re likely to change in the next SCOTUS session. Still, this has more to do with curiosity than with any specific agenda or goal.
So, check out Wikipedia’s article on the subject, if you’ve got some time:
Corporate personhood – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Corporate personhood is a term used to describe the legal fiction used within United States law that a corporation, under the concept of legal entity, has a limited subset of the same constitutional rights as a human being. The choice of the word ‘person’ in ‘personhood’ arises from the way Section One of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution was worded and from earlier legal usage of the word ‘person’.
powered by performancing firefox
You may have read me saying that somewhere in the past. . . . . But damnit! The D&C sucks sweaty camel nads!
I’m sorry. That came out all wrong. What I meant to say was that your online edition’s content management is about as useful as tits on a bull.
In the interest of being more constructive, let me add the following:
- I don’t want to fill out your stupid, piece of shit questionnaire. I didn’t ask to, I didn’t want to, you just shoved it in my face and prevented me from getting to the article I wanted to read. It’s bad enough to put advertisements in as landing pages, or use popups, but at least I understand the compulsion to make advertising revenue.
- Ask software writers (especially of the SpyWare variety) and they’ll tell you: when you force people to fill out forms to get to content, they’ll type in any old thing to get past them. We’ll just keep clicking “Next, Next, Next” to get past it because we have no personal investment in your survey or whatever. You cannot rely on the information to be accurate, and in fact, there are some assholes out there (me) who will intentionally fill out bad information to piss you off.
- And say! Here’s a tip: if you’re going to piss people off like this, you might at least check to find out whether the page they want to get to is actually there or not. It’s bad enough to find missing content on your antiquated CMS. It’s bad enough to have to fill out forms like I’m buying fertilizer and copper wire at the same store. But to have to fill out the forms only to get this is just maddening:
Democrat & Chronicle:
We’re sorry!
We’re sorry, the article you’ve attempted to reach is not available, is temporarily unavailable, has moved or is no longer available on the site. If you’ve reached this page from one of our email newsletters, or if someone has emailed the story to you, the story may have been updated and moved – please visit democratandchronicle.com for the most updated version.
Oh, well, fuck you very much! I really don’t appreciate it! You’re sorry!
Actually, I’ll confess I don’t really think you’re all that sorry. If you were, you would long-since have improved your content, but you have not.
Hugs and kisses,
DragonFlyEye
powered by performancing firefox
You may have read me saying that somewhere in the past. . . . . But damnit! The D&C sucks sweaty camel nads!
I’m sorry. That came out all wrong. What I meant to say was that your online edition’s content management is about as useful as tits on a bull.
In the interest of being more constructive, let me add the following:
- I don’t want to fill out your stupid, piece of shit questionnaire. I didn’t ask to, I didn’t want to, you just shoved it in my face and prevented me from getting to the article I wanted to read. It’s bad enough to put advertisements in as landing pages, or use popups, but at least I understand the compulsion to make advertising revenue.
- Ask software writers (especially of the SpyWare variety) and they’ll tell you: when you force people to fill out forms to get to content, they’ll type in any old thing to get past them. We’ll just keep clicking “Next, Next, Next” to get past it because we have no personal investment in your survey or whatever. You cannot rely on the information to be accurate, and in fact, there are some assholes out there (me) who will intentionally fill out bad information to piss you off.
- And say! Here’s a tip: if you’re going to piss people off like this, you might at least check to find out whether the page they want to get to is actually there or not. It’s bad enough to find missing content on your antiquated CMS. It’s bad enough to have to fill out forms like I’m buying fertilizer and copper wire at the same store. But to have to fill out the forms only to get this is just maddening:
Democrat & Chronicle:
We’re sorry!
We’re sorry, the article you’ve attempted to reach is not available, is temporarily unavailable, has moved or is no longer available on the site. If you’ve reached this page from one of our email newsletters, or if someone has emailed the story to you, the story may have been updated and moved – please visit democratandchronicle.com for the most updated version.
Oh, well, fuck you very much! I really don’t appreciate it! You’re sorry!
Actually, I’ll confess I don’t really think you’re all that sorry. If you were, you would long-since have improved your content, but you have not.
Hugs and kisses,
DragonFlyEye
powered by performancing firefox
It’s hard to put into words just how bad an idea the Nevada Democratic Party came up with for their Democratic debate. Neigh on impossible, actually. Yellow Dog takes on the news with the best style I’ve read so far:
BobGeiger.com: Fox News Sponsoring Democratic Debate; Fur Council and PETA Merge
And, as much as I was sure I was hearing something that was fabricated on, well, Fox News, I have since found out that it’s true that the Nevada Democratic Party will indeed allow the network that loves to hate on Democrats to broadcast the state’s August Democratic presidential debate.
What are you going to tell me next? That Britney Spears shaved her head while I was gone?
Indeed. And what, pray-tell, is the Democratic National Committee’s response to all this? Certainly, not all Democrats want to send their party and our nation further down the toilet? Please, let’s hear from the hero of the party. Let’s hear it from the man who had the balls to call the country on the war before anyone was ready. Let us now hear from the man who we all put so much faith in to lead the party to a brighter future:
Dems in uproar over Fox plan to cover debate
“This is about talking to voters, not a network,” Dean said Thursday. “While the Fox News Channel rarely has coverage that is fair and balanced, we believe that Fox viewers, who are potential voters, should have the opportunity to see a debate between our candidates. These forums provide an important unfiltered opportunity for potential voters to see Democrats without the bias of the network.”
Oh, man. Howard, just STFU, already. “Unfiltered?” That’s the whole problem: they already consider themselves “fair and balanced,” of course they’re going to tell you that they’re giving you the “unfiltered” debate, but they won’t.
Remember the whole controversy with Bush and the supposed wire during the debates in ’04? Yeah, camera angles and unflattering cut-aways matter. So does the ticker at the bottom of the screen. So, even, does sound mixing.
And as the above-linked article points out, so does post-debate analysis. Letting Fox’s bullpen of hyper-conservative pundits loose on the air immediately after the debate is bound to turn whatever enthusiasm drummed up by a given challenger into cold oatmeal in seconds. Oh, maybe they won’t tear anyone apart right away, but the entire discussion will be “well, Bush screwed up, so I guess we have to pick one of these losers.”
“But the real question, I think is,” drawls Robert Novak, leaned back in his chair, “can Americans stomach four years of Hillary Clinton as president? I mean, because I just don’t see anyone else winning in this field.”
Kirsten Searer, the only representative from the Nevada Democratic Party without the requisite seniority to avoid talking to the press, said “A 50-state strategy means talking to every American.” Then she emptied the trash, put a new liner in, and pushed her cart on to the next cube.
OK, Kirsten, fair enough. But until Howard Dean dresses up in a latex mask, leather thong and nipple rings for an appearance at a fetish rodeo, he hasn’t quite spoken to everyone, now has he? Why should we start with Fox News before hitting up the ball-gag crowd?
Technorati Tags: Democrats, Fox, Debates, Journalist Watching
powered by performancing firefox
On my BlogTalkRadio.com radio show, I spoke with Jon Greenbaum of Metro Justice. While discussing his latest article in the City Newspaper, I hit upon an important topic of discussion on the whole issue of tax give-aways in New York. At least, it seemed important enough to me to write it out.
When most people think of property taxes, like most issues, we tend to think of our own situations. For private citizens, the single largest investment they have is going to be their house, and as much as a third of the mortgage payment each month will be taxes.
This is not the case for corporations or even businesses in general. Of all the operating costs for your average mid-sized to large corporation, the taxes they pay on the land they use are a trivial consideration. Jon’s article cites a figure of around 4 to 5 percent.
That is an important distinction to make for people, however difficult that may be. Because we tend to think provincially, even those people who disagree with Empire Zones and COMIDA practices – even if they say “give me the tax credit, not some damned corporation,” even if they say, “our schools need that money,” – still acknowledge the presumed notion that a tax break is a worthy inticement for corporate investment.
That notion is patently false. Despite it’s falsehood, it is axiomatic and serves to make arguments against Empire Zones weaker than they actually are, while at the same time, imparting a certain inevitability to the rationals for corporate tax cuts. After all, we need jobs in Upstate; we need to offer them something, don’t we? Don’t we?
It is, admittedly, a very nuanced argument to make, and even more difficult to reframe. Where is Jeffery Feldman when you need him? Perhaps a slogan-ish thought like “corporations counting pennies cost our schools millions,” would be illuminating for many people. At least, it might be the right frame of mind from which to argue the point.
The below-linked article includes nothing but bad news from Iraq (big surprise, I know). But the major headline out of this: someone managed to pass a bomb past security at a big-wig convention in Baghdad, killed 12 people and tagged the Iraqi VP:
Iraqi VP wounded, 12 killed in bombing at ministry – CNN.com
Insurgents bombed Iraq’s Ministry of Municipalities building as top Iraqi officials gathered there Monday morning for a celebration, Iraqi officials said.
The attack killed at least 12 people and wounded 42 others, including Iraqi Vice President Adel Abdul Mahdi, the officials said.
Mahdi, a member of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq — a powerful Shiite political group — suffered minor injuries to his hand and leg in the blast, SCIRI spokesman Haithem al-Husseini told CNN.
Don’t tell me there wasn’t someone on the insurgent payroll doing security at this gig. This is huge and either represents a breathtaking failure of security in the middle of Baghdad or a daring infiltration of security in the middle of Baghdad. Either option is bad, but the second one seems more likely, given what we know of the situation there.
Technorati Tags: Iraq, Adel Abdul Mahdi, Vice President
powered by performancing firefox
For those of you who have not tried it, I highly recommend Performancing for FireFox to blog with, especially it seems, if you have WordPress 2.1 installed.
Most of you who have installed WP2.1 (or WP2.1.1, which is where you should be in this trunk, now) have undoubtedly noticed a huge performance boost with this new version. I don’t know about you, but I was forever getting those nasty error messages whenever I posted with WP 2.0+. Those are gone and posting happens at break-neck speed compared to the previous incarnations. “Save as draft” is a nice touch, as well.
But I’ve just noticed that Performancing works killer as well. I mean, way faster! That’s a huge help to me, since I spend more time publishing from Performancing than from the WordPress editor by far.
Vive la WordPress!
