will i do a mirror site?
that's a question that came up in a lot of e-mails today as people found out from c.i. over at the common ills that there was a problem with blogger.
i don't know the answer to that right now.
i'm sorry for those who missed out on a post yesterday or before my post for today went up.
and you should know that betty feels awful that she wasn't able to get something up last night at thomas friedman is a great man. it really depressed her. this has happened before in other ways so i'm used to it.
i spent 2 hours trying to post and then just said enough. i had other things to do then beat my head against the wall because i couldn't post.
if it continues, i may attempt a mirror site. right now, i'll probably be letting c.i. blaze the trail on that. i'll be able to find out if there are any problems and whether it works without actually investing the time.
i do think that the uk computer gurus did an amazing job on the mirror site. it's really wonderful the way it looks, the colors, and everything.
and it was put together so quickly so it must be pretty easy.
but for now i'll just blog here and if the problem returns, i'll give some thought to it.
i am touched that so many of you wrote to make sure i was okay. i had no idea that so many of you were visiting this site. it's nice to know that you enjoy it and hopefully we'll have no more 'brown outs' via blogger.
sexandpoliticsandscreeds@yahoo.com is my address and i'll put that in because a lot of you said today that you would hve written sooner if you'd been able to find the address.
i'm sorry if it put any 1 out not having a post last night but i really do appreciate all the e-mails that came in.
4/08/2005
lost in pope-arama, the new york times chooses public relations over journalism
Ever since the FBI admitted it wrongly arrested him in connection with the Madrid train bombings, Brandon Mayfield has contended the government used the Patriot Act to search his home and gather personal information to portray him as a Muslim militant.
The Justice Department denied Mayfield's claims -- until Tuesday.
that's news and it's from 'Gonzales Admits Patriot Act Used in Mayfield Case by rukmini callimachi of the associated press. c.i. of the common ills e-mailed that to me yesterday.
(and i tried to post yesterday but as we all know blogger was being a total pain in the ass - and still is. this is my second attempt tonight on this post.)
but you didn't hear about that, did you?
what you got was what you got all week (and most of last week) which was 'drums keep pounding rhythm to the brain/ la de da di de/la de da di da/ and the pope goes on/ yes, the pope goes on.' possibly, since the pope was buried this morning, the news media might be able to do something now other than public relations?
that's what you've gotten day after day.
i used to work in public relations. back then we prayed for a day like this week (just a day!). some family man was leaving his wife and kids for his pregnant mistress and a day like any of the past 9 or 10 came along, we'd be screaming, 'we're putting it out now! no 1 will even notice it!'
that's what we did because that was our business, damage control and selling you products.
but that's not what the news media is supposed to be doing.
some of you may be saying 'rebecca, this was news!'
where? from where i stand, it was public relations pure and simple.
you saw 1 travelogue after another.
c.i. did a great post today about how this wasn't news. it's up at the common ills and up at the new mirror site. you can find the actual entry here and here.
i'm going to assume most of you know where i'm headed but for those who don't, let me give background that before i got married (i'm divorced now) i made my money via public relations.
(i don't have to work now -- generous property settlement.)
but i know p.r. i was trained it, i made a living at it.
and this wasn't news. this was done because it was cheap to do and because it risked offending very few people.
let's deal with the economic factor. some 1's saying 'but becky, they had to go over to rome!'
yes and once they got there they had to point and shoot. that was it.
there was no chasing down a lead.
they put bystanders on camera.
and the 'spokespeople,' 'becky, what about the officials from the church!'
they didn't have to find those people. the catholic church knows the importance of good p.r.
that's why they endorse horror movies that are from 'family movies' as long as the film presents the solution that the only 1 who can save you is a priest. as long as the message is 'take that methodists!' or whatever demonition, they don't condemn a film. they make people available to talk about the film. they may even provide the film with technical advisors.
the catholic church knows the importance of p.r. (they tried to get ahead of the priest scandals but failed to grasp there wasn't a 'feel good' spin to that.)
'hello, my name is lana monroe and i'm with the canton weekly out of canton, ohio. we have a readership of 75.'
even something that small will be provided with a spokesperson.
the catholic church understands p.r. and they understand a p.r. bonaza which is what this has been for them. a story 1/4 as domination as this serves to get wayward catholics back into the pews and dollars back into the plate. they'll provide you with some 1, any 1, to speak with. this is free advertising for them.
i'm not slamming them for that. if they were my client, i would tell them to do exactly what they're doing. but you don't usually see the press fall over themselves so easily to become a partner in your p.r. campaign.
you've seen that with pope-arama. (credit for that goes to danny schechter's news dissector where i saw the phrase and 'the pope goes on' goes to common ills community member dallas.)
there is no digging for sources or attempting to find a hard news angle. it's all pretty visuals with the occassional 'official voice' tossed in between some quirky people (we love to play up the quirks in foreigners in our domestic media). the story writes itself, it films itself, it announces itself. this isn't reporting. it's p.r.
and while the pope-arama went on, you missed out on some serious stories.
'but becky,' you say, 'the new york times was caught up in the pope-arama like every 1 else.'
that doesn't wash.
they ran 2 stories on torture czar alberto gonzales. on tuesday he was questioned by the senate. on wednesday eric lichtblau turned in his article on that. but he didn't tell you about brandon mayfield. he took dictation but seemed to put his pen down when he came across some thing that was actually news, that actually mattered.
as if it wasn't bad enough that lichtblau ignored it on wednesday, he returned to the same topic on thursday to explain to us that 'hey alberto's pretty groovy.' that piece of printed drool made wednesday's story look better but even it could turn wednesday's story into news.
how does the new york times miss this story? how does eric lichtblau? he was assigned to cover gonzales's appearence before the senate.
from c.i.'s entry at the common ills wednesday:
Dozens of e-mails came in wanting Eric Lichtblau's "Antiterrorism Law Defended as Hearings Start" highlighted. So we're giving this New York Times story it's own entry.
Mr. Gonzales's forceful defense of the expanded antiterrorism powers granted under the USA Patriot Act came at the start of what is expected to be months of hearings in both the Senate and the House. Sixteen provisions in the law are to expire by year's end, and a decision over whether to extend them, and whether the government's expanded powers have eroded civil liberties, is shaping up as one of the biggest legislative battles in the current Congress.
You'll note that "Brand New Me" Alberto Gonzales parrots J-Ass (John Ashcroft) in claiming that the library provision is of "no interest" to the Justice Dept. And you'll note that because Lichtblau works that into his article. Haven't we been down this road before?
Question, is Lichtblau aware of a Washington Post article entitled " Patriot Act Provision Invoked, Memo Says FBI Request Came Weeks After Ashcroft Denied Using Controversial Part of Law?"
From that June 18, 2004 article by Amy Goldstein:
The FBI asked the Justice Department last fall to seek permission from a secret federal court to use the most controversial provision of the USA Patriot Act, four weeks after Attorney General John D. Ashcroft said that part of the law had never been used, according to government documents disclosed this week.
A one-paragraph memo -- saying the FBI wanted to use the part of the law that allows investigators in terrorism and espionage cases easier access to people's business and library records -- was in a stack of documents the government has released under court order, as debate persists over whether use of the anti-terrorism law violates civil liberties.
Read Goldstein's article. You'll find out that J-Ass selectively declassified a memo to make it look as though the library provision had never been used. Then when the court ordered the release of documents, we find out that the declassified memo J-Ass's remarks were neither illumating nor forthcoming.
Curiously, Dan Eggen's article in today's Washington Post also overlooks Goldstein's previous reporting. From "Congress Urged to Renew Patriot Act: Minor Changes Would Address Concerns, Gonzales and Mueller Tell Senate Panel:
"Authorities have obtained information under the controversial business records provision 35 times, including driver's license records, credit card records, Internet subscriber records and hotel and apartment records, officials said. Gonzales said the provision has not been used to obtain records from medical providers, gun shops, bookstores or libraries, although he said the administration would oppose any attempt to exempt such categories.
"The department has no interest in rummaging through the library records or the medical records of Americans," Gonzales testified. "We do have an interest, however, in records that may help us capture terrorists. And there may be an occasion where having the tools . . . to access this kind of information may be very helpful."
No interest? What of Goldstein's reporting? Apparently that's down the memory hole. (Thanks to community member professional journalist for the e-mail heads up alerting me to Goldstein's article which I'd never read before p.j. steered me to it.)
The Times is a competitor of the Washington Post's. Why Eggen, writing for the Post, is unaware of Goldstein's reporting is another issue.
the 'all the news that's fit to print' new york times could have had a story, a real story. they didn't bother. unless they want to change the slogan to 'all the p.r. that's fit to spin,' they need to take a hard look at their actions this week. there is news and there is p.r. and they might be able to argue with me of how news worthy a news story was, but i was trained in public relations and i know p.r. when i see it. that's basically what we got, p.r., in this week's new york times.
and they still haven't told readers that the government has lied repeatedly. that the government did use a sneak & peak aspect of the patriot act to search brandon mayfield's home.
and that they lied when they repeatedly stated that they hadn't done that.
they did do it. and gonzales admitted it or bragged about it tuesday on the senate floor. why didn't the new york times cover that?
The Justice Department denied Mayfield's claims -- until Tuesday.
that's news and it's from 'Gonzales Admits Patriot Act Used in Mayfield Case by rukmini callimachi of the associated press. c.i. of the common ills e-mailed that to me yesterday.
(and i tried to post yesterday but as we all know blogger was being a total pain in the ass - and still is. this is my second attempt tonight on this post.)
but you didn't hear about that, did you?
what you got was what you got all week (and most of last week) which was 'drums keep pounding rhythm to the brain/ la de da di de/la de da di da/ and the pope goes on/ yes, the pope goes on.' possibly, since the pope was buried this morning, the news media might be able to do something now other than public relations?
that's what you've gotten day after day.
i used to work in public relations. back then we prayed for a day like this week (just a day!). some family man was leaving his wife and kids for his pregnant mistress and a day like any of the past 9 or 10 came along, we'd be screaming, 'we're putting it out now! no 1 will even notice it!'
that's what we did because that was our business, damage control and selling you products.
but that's not what the news media is supposed to be doing.
some of you may be saying 'rebecca, this was news!'
where? from where i stand, it was public relations pure and simple.
you saw 1 travelogue after another.
c.i. did a great post today about how this wasn't news. it's up at the common ills and up at the new mirror site. you can find the actual entry here and here.
i'm going to assume most of you know where i'm headed but for those who don't, let me give background that before i got married (i'm divorced now) i made my money via public relations.
(i don't have to work now -- generous property settlement.)
but i know p.r. i was trained it, i made a living at it.
and this wasn't news. this was done because it was cheap to do and because it risked offending very few people.
let's deal with the economic factor. some 1's saying 'but becky, they had to go over to rome!'
yes and once they got there they had to point and shoot. that was it.
there was no chasing down a lead.
they put bystanders on camera.
and the 'spokespeople,' 'becky, what about the officials from the church!'
they didn't have to find those people. the catholic church knows the importance of good p.r.
that's why they endorse horror movies that are from 'family movies' as long as the film presents the solution that the only 1 who can save you is a priest. as long as the message is 'take that methodists!' or whatever demonition, they don't condemn a film. they make people available to talk about the film. they may even provide the film with technical advisors.
the catholic church knows the importance of p.r. (they tried to get ahead of the priest scandals but failed to grasp there wasn't a 'feel good' spin to that.)
'hello, my name is lana monroe and i'm with the canton weekly out of canton, ohio. we have a readership of 75.'
even something that small will be provided with a spokesperson.
the catholic church understands p.r. and they understand a p.r. bonaza which is what this has been for them. a story 1/4 as domination as this serves to get wayward catholics back into the pews and dollars back into the plate. they'll provide you with some 1, any 1, to speak with. this is free advertising for them.
i'm not slamming them for that. if they were my client, i would tell them to do exactly what they're doing. but you don't usually see the press fall over themselves so easily to become a partner in your p.r. campaign.
you've seen that with pope-arama. (credit for that goes to danny schechter's news dissector where i saw the phrase and 'the pope goes on' goes to common ills community member dallas.)
there is no digging for sources or attempting to find a hard news angle. it's all pretty visuals with the occassional 'official voice' tossed in between some quirky people (we love to play up the quirks in foreigners in our domestic media). the story writes itself, it films itself, it announces itself. this isn't reporting. it's p.r.
and while the pope-arama went on, you missed out on some serious stories.
'but becky,' you say, 'the new york times was caught up in the pope-arama like every 1 else.'
that doesn't wash.
they ran 2 stories on torture czar alberto gonzales. on tuesday he was questioned by the senate. on wednesday eric lichtblau turned in his article on that. but he didn't tell you about brandon mayfield. he took dictation but seemed to put his pen down when he came across some thing that was actually news, that actually mattered.
as if it wasn't bad enough that lichtblau ignored it on wednesday, he returned to the same topic on thursday to explain to us that 'hey alberto's pretty groovy.' that piece of printed drool made wednesday's story look better but even it could turn wednesday's story into news.
how does the new york times miss this story? how does eric lichtblau? he was assigned to cover gonzales's appearence before the senate.
from c.i.'s entry at the common ills wednesday:
Dozens of e-mails came in wanting Eric Lichtblau's "Antiterrorism Law Defended as Hearings Start" highlighted. So we're giving this New York Times story it's own entry.
Mr. Gonzales's forceful defense of the expanded antiterrorism powers granted under the USA Patriot Act came at the start of what is expected to be months of hearings in both the Senate and the House. Sixteen provisions in the law are to expire by year's end, and a decision over whether to extend them, and whether the government's expanded powers have eroded civil liberties, is shaping up as one of the biggest legislative battles in the current Congress.
You'll note that "Brand New Me" Alberto Gonzales parrots J-Ass (John Ashcroft) in claiming that the library provision is of "no interest" to the Justice Dept. And you'll note that because Lichtblau works that into his article. Haven't we been down this road before?
Question, is Lichtblau aware of a Washington Post article entitled " Patriot Act Provision Invoked, Memo Says FBI Request Came Weeks After Ashcroft Denied Using Controversial Part of Law?"
From that June 18, 2004 article by Amy Goldstein:
The FBI asked the Justice Department last fall to seek permission from a secret federal court to use the most controversial provision of the USA Patriot Act, four weeks after Attorney General John D. Ashcroft said that part of the law had never been used, according to government documents disclosed this week.
A one-paragraph memo -- saying the FBI wanted to use the part of the law that allows investigators in terrorism and espionage cases easier access to people's business and library records -- was in a stack of documents the government has released under court order, as debate persists over whether use of the anti-terrorism law violates civil liberties.
Read Goldstein's article. You'll find out that J-Ass selectively declassified a memo to make it look as though the library provision had never been used. Then when the court ordered the release of documents, we find out that the declassified memo J-Ass's remarks were neither illumating nor forthcoming.
Curiously, Dan Eggen's article in today's Washington Post also overlooks Goldstein's previous reporting. From "Congress Urged to Renew Patriot Act: Minor Changes Would Address Concerns, Gonzales and Mueller Tell Senate Panel:
"Authorities have obtained information under the controversial business records provision 35 times, including driver's license records, credit card records, Internet subscriber records and hotel and apartment records, officials said. Gonzales said the provision has not been used to obtain records from medical providers, gun shops, bookstores or libraries, although he said the administration would oppose any attempt to exempt such categories.
"The department has no interest in rummaging through the library records or the medical records of Americans," Gonzales testified. "We do have an interest, however, in records that may help us capture terrorists. And there may be an occasion where having the tools . . . to access this kind of information may be very helpful."
No interest? What of Goldstein's reporting? Apparently that's down the memory hole. (Thanks to community member professional journalist for the e-mail heads up alerting me to Goldstein's article which I'd never read before p.j. steered me to it.)
The Times is a competitor of the Washington Post's. Why Eggen, writing for the Post, is unaware of Goldstein's reporting is another issue.
the 'all the news that's fit to print' new york times could have had a story, a real story. they didn't bother. unless they want to change the slogan to 'all the p.r. that's fit to spin,' they need to take a hard look at their actions this week. there is news and there is p.r. and they might be able to argue with me of how news worthy a news story was, but i was trained in public relations and i know p.r. when i see it. that's basically what we got, p.r., in this week's new york times.
and they still haven't told readers that the government has lied repeatedly. that the government did use a sneak & peak aspect of the patriot act to search brandon mayfield's home.
and that they lied when they repeatedly stated that they hadn't done that.
they did do it. and gonzales admitted it or bragged about it tuesday on the senate floor. why didn't the new york times cover that?
4/06/2005
the ugly: patriot act & the beautiful: jude and c.i.& the irritating bigbadbrianlousyreader
let's start by noting something c.i. sent me. jude of iddybud has written a very nice post on peter jennings and his illness:
I am very sorry to hear that Peter Jennings has lung cancer. I sensed that he was feeling very ill last Friday as he delivered the evening news and my heart goes out to him and his family. My own mother has been struggling with cancer for the past two years and I know the toll it takes upon the patient and caring supporters around him or her. In the case of serious illness, even as we take mental count of our losses, it is also a time to fully realize all the blessings we have in this life and to appreciate what it means to be fully alive, despite hardships. Times of life transition can be portals to deeper connections with our own inner wisdom and with those we love. My prayers are with Peter and his family.
as readers here know, i've really grown fond of jennings and started watching world news tonight after human & journalist imposter brian williams took over nightly news.
jude sums up exactly what world news tonight viewers (and hopefully others as well) are feeling.
thanks to c.i. who found it and e-mailed it to me knowing that i was frazzled after yesterday's house parties and probably would be after today's.
i got some e-mails about c.i.'s post monday. i agree it was a strong post and needed to be said.
but 1 person named bigbadbrian e-mailed me about the 'undisclosed conflict of interest' in c.i. handing me the scoop on the dlc and on unfiltered.
first off, the bigbadbrian needs to add 'lousyreader' to his name. this was not something we kept hidden. regarding the dlc thing, c.i. passed that off to me and i posted on it and as soon as i did, c.i. mentioned it over at common ills noting that it was passed off to me and why. (c.i. had a friend in the know and didn't want to risk quoting the friend and revealing something, a phrase or word, that would clue any 1 in to the source's identity.) that wasn't a conflict of interest. it was noted here and it was noted at the common ills. (this was covered as well but to repeat, c.i. summarized the friend, i summarized c.i. and we were two steps removed from the source's actual words so the source should have been protected.)
as for unfiltered, bigbradbrianlousyreader doesn't read too well. c.i. was not my only source. i do have a few contacts thanks to my former job (p.r. - which is why i found the way it was handled so appalling - it was a p.r. nightmare on top of being so ugly and no 1 involved seemed to realize that you do not go into silence mode in a nightmare).
c.i. noted it over at the common ills and i noted it here. and again, we both noted that c.i. was not the only source. c.i. was the 1 who broke the news to me. the thursday before the non-announcement was made on friday. that's when i started working old contacts. if you know the common ills, you know c.i. avoids the sensationalism and does 'in fairness' but the other sources didn't do that.
but that was noted here and it was noted at the common ills.
c.i. had an inside source and, as c.i. repeatedly says, 'the common ills is not a breaking news site.'
but bigbadbradlousyreader, if c.i. hadn't disclosed the dlc or unfiltered and i hadn't, guess what?
that's not a conflict of interest. you are allowed to protect your sources.
i think that besides working on reading more closely, you might want to work on definitions.
instead we were upfront it because c.i. wanted it that way. and the thanks is some dope named bigbadbrad wants to say 'undisclosed conflict of interest!'
my other sources on that story spoke to me with the understanding that they would remain confidential (and they will). that's not a conflict of interest.
thanks for playing though. sadly, no parting gifts for you.
c.i. also raised an issue last night about ___ and ____'s failure to address skewed reporting on npr. (yes, i know who ___ is.) i couldn't agree with that post more. if you haven't read it, i suggest you do.
if some 1 is making it their role/job to inform you of what the media is getting wrong, that includes npr. and i agree that when you have a staff and you have people e-mailing you about npr and including links to the npr stories that you can use to listen to the story online, there's no excuse not to be addressing npr on a regular basis.
failing to do so sends the impression that npr is not spinning, that it's solid information.
npr is already painted as 'liberal' by the right wingers. it's not liberal. (i'd love it if it were, but it's not.)
it has millions of listeners and a huge reach. the failure to address spinning or distortions when they are broadcast on npr is a huge 1.
in the post, c.i. included a link to 'when npr fails you, who you gonna call? not the ombudsman.'
i've noted that 1 before here. but i'll note it again.
with mere weeks to go before the election, juan williams angered listeners with his 'analysis' of john kerry's remarks. npr had to address it because listeners were outraged.
so they brought on robert kagan and listed the 'peace' organization he belonged to before he spoke. it was hilarious as kagan pretended to really 'hope' that he was misunderstanding kerry.
marvelous performance.
why performance?
as c.i. tells you in that post, but npr didn't, robert kagan was married to a woman working for dick cheney.
juan williams's 'analysis' of kerry's remarks upset listeners who felt it was lacking. to clarify, they bring on robert kagan.
weeks before the election, they allow kagan to weigh in on kerry.
without telling you that his wife works for dick cheney.
that, bigbadbradlousyreader, is a conflict of interest.
and it's a damn shame that if you didn't read the common ills (or buzzflash who linked to the story) you didn't hear about it. you still haven't heard about it.
why is that?
why is npr given such a fucking pass?
juan williams distorted john kerry's remarks and pissed off listeners. npr 'corrects' that by bringing on robert kagan who distorts it as well (in a wonderful acting bit of pauses and i-hope-i'm-wrongs). and this clarification, this correction is being done by someone married to victoria nuland who works for dick cheney.
and no listener was told that. (nor any reader of the npr ombudsman's online column -- ombudsman took a pass as well.)
you want to tell me that back in october john kerry supporters had no right to be told what npr had just done?
where were the big brave truth tellers then?
that's story has still only been told at the common ills.
(and you've got links in c.i.'s post to the new york press, christian science monitor and alternet on the marriage and nuland's employment so this wasn't a marriage the press had never covered.)
this was a huge of conflict of interest. a man married to a woman who works for dick cheney, who's running for vice-president, who therefore works for the administration is allowed to go on npr and weigh in on the opponent. that's bad.
not telling listeners about it is beyond bad.
and why the net wasn't alive with this story then or since is a question you might be better off putting to those who knew about it. and ____ knew about it. the ombudsman at npr knew about it. both chose to ignore it.
as for why the blog world never dealt with the story, i'll assume they missed it. but nothing's stopping them from writing about it now.
it's an important story and it goes to problems with the press. you'd think people would be interested in it. you'd think bloggers would want their readers to know all about it. third estate sunday review has noted it. i've noted it.
i don't know why others don't.
i do know that npr gets away with this sort of shit because they are not called on it.
there seem to be two sets of standards: (1) npr and (2) the rest of the media.
if you're going to take a pass on npr then maybe you should note that on your site?
and all the people talking about how it was a 'nicer' election in 2004 than in 2000 might want to grow up a little and realize that there are millions of stories like the robert kagan 1 that they didn't catch and they didn't pay attention to.
that's why i read the common ills and am a member of the common ills community. if you're the mainstream media, you're not above criticism. just because the right thinks npr is 'liberal' doesn't grant them a pass. because the right wing has put that perception out there, it's all the more important to hold them accountable.
i think if you run the two posts together, you've got a very distrubing portrait of some problems with the blog world. and i think we need to be looking at that.
i also think that bloggers on the left who quote and praise the 'bull moose' need to be held accountable for that. but i'll go into that another time.
wally is my hero. he stood up tuesday in his class and gave a speech on the patriot act. my question for other readers is what are you doing?
sherry's calling her Congress people. lola's e-mailing. a number of you are talking about the issue in your circle and getting the word out.
pope this, pope that. tom delay, tom delay, john corny out of texas, john corny out of texas.
who's telling you about the patriot act right now?
that's an important issue and 1 that effects you if you live in the united states. it may not be sexy. it may not allow for funnies. but it does matter. and we can't count on the mainstream media to get the word out.
democracy now is covering it. thank god for democracy now. today you got to hear senator dick durbin's remarks on the patriot act on democracy now. did you catch those on good morning america? did you get to hear him on nightly news?
here's an excerpt from democracy now's report today on senator richard durbin's remarks
in the senate yesterday:
The point I would like to make is this: If the goal here was, as you say, to enhance federal government sharing intelligence, we could have stayed away from the PATRIOT Act altogether and really focused on the agencies working with one another and sharing information so that the Phoenix memo wouldn't be buried in the depths of the FBI, and so that the CIA and all of the other agencies would communicate. So, before we go to challenge in any respect the Bill of Rights, I think we had a lot of homework to do when it came to the management of information at the federal government. Maybe this new intelligence reform will move us in a more positive direction.
The second thing I’d like you to address, if you would consider, is the Section 215. Section 215, which has caused great pain for people in many communities, such as the American Library Association, not historically a politically active group, has become very active, because they believe the PATRIOT Act went too far. They believe, for example, if an FBI field office believed that an unidentified terrorist checked out a book entitled, "How to Build a Dirty Bomb," from the Chicago Public Library, that Section 215 gives the government the authority to search the library records of hundreds of ordinary citizens in an attempt to identify the terrorist, catching in this net and sweeping in innocent people who have checked out books in the library never knowing that they were to be swept up in the potential of finding a terrorist. Similarly, if an FBI field office came up with information that the wife of a suspected terrorist had an abortion, and therefore, they would go out, they would set out through Section 215 to search the records of a hospital or clinic for all the women who had received an abortion whether or not they might have been associated with any terrorist activities. Section 215 allows all of that information to be gathered in secret through the FISA court and many innocent people to have their privacy compromised in the process.
I am very sorry to hear that Peter Jennings has lung cancer. I sensed that he was feeling very ill last Friday as he delivered the evening news and my heart goes out to him and his family. My own mother has been struggling with cancer for the past two years and I know the toll it takes upon the patient and caring supporters around him or her. In the case of serious illness, even as we take mental count of our losses, it is also a time to fully realize all the blessings we have in this life and to appreciate what it means to be fully alive, despite hardships. Times of life transition can be portals to deeper connections with our own inner wisdom and with those we love. My prayers are with Peter and his family.
as readers here know, i've really grown fond of jennings and started watching world news tonight after human & journalist imposter brian williams took over nightly news.
jude sums up exactly what world news tonight viewers (and hopefully others as well) are feeling.
thanks to c.i. who found it and e-mailed it to me knowing that i was frazzled after yesterday's house parties and probably would be after today's.
i got some e-mails about c.i.'s post monday. i agree it was a strong post and needed to be said.
but 1 person named bigbadbrian e-mailed me about the 'undisclosed conflict of interest' in c.i. handing me the scoop on the dlc and on unfiltered.
first off, the bigbadbrian needs to add 'lousyreader' to his name. this was not something we kept hidden. regarding the dlc thing, c.i. passed that off to me and i posted on it and as soon as i did, c.i. mentioned it over at common ills noting that it was passed off to me and why. (c.i. had a friend in the know and didn't want to risk quoting the friend and revealing something, a phrase or word, that would clue any 1 in to the source's identity.) that wasn't a conflict of interest. it was noted here and it was noted at the common ills. (this was covered as well but to repeat, c.i. summarized the friend, i summarized c.i. and we were two steps removed from the source's actual words so the source should have been protected.)
as for unfiltered, bigbradbrianlousyreader doesn't read too well. c.i. was not my only source. i do have a few contacts thanks to my former job (p.r. - which is why i found the way it was handled so appalling - it was a p.r. nightmare on top of being so ugly and no 1 involved seemed to realize that you do not go into silence mode in a nightmare).
c.i. noted it over at the common ills and i noted it here. and again, we both noted that c.i. was not the only source. c.i. was the 1 who broke the news to me. the thursday before the non-announcement was made on friday. that's when i started working old contacts. if you know the common ills, you know c.i. avoids the sensationalism and does 'in fairness' but the other sources didn't do that.
but that was noted here and it was noted at the common ills.
c.i. had an inside source and, as c.i. repeatedly says, 'the common ills is not a breaking news site.'
but bigbadbradlousyreader, if c.i. hadn't disclosed the dlc or unfiltered and i hadn't, guess what?
that's not a conflict of interest. you are allowed to protect your sources.
i think that besides working on reading more closely, you might want to work on definitions.
instead we were upfront it because c.i. wanted it that way. and the thanks is some dope named bigbadbrad wants to say 'undisclosed conflict of interest!'
my other sources on that story spoke to me with the understanding that they would remain confidential (and they will). that's not a conflict of interest.
thanks for playing though. sadly, no parting gifts for you.
c.i. also raised an issue last night about ___ and ____'s failure to address skewed reporting on npr. (yes, i know who ___ is.) i couldn't agree with that post more. if you haven't read it, i suggest you do.
if some 1 is making it their role/job to inform you of what the media is getting wrong, that includes npr. and i agree that when you have a staff and you have people e-mailing you about npr and including links to the npr stories that you can use to listen to the story online, there's no excuse not to be addressing npr on a regular basis.
failing to do so sends the impression that npr is not spinning, that it's solid information.
npr is already painted as 'liberal' by the right wingers. it's not liberal. (i'd love it if it were, but it's not.)
it has millions of listeners and a huge reach. the failure to address spinning or distortions when they are broadcast on npr is a huge 1.
in the post, c.i. included a link to 'when npr fails you, who you gonna call? not the ombudsman.'
i've noted that 1 before here. but i'll note it again.
with mere weeks to go before the election, juan williams angered listeners with his 'analysis' of john kerry's remarks. npr had to address it because listeners were outraged.
so they brought on robert kagan and listed the 'peace' organization he belonged to before he spoke. it was hilarious as kagan pretended to really 'hope' that he was misunderstanding kerry.
marvelous performance.
why performance?
as c.i. tells you in that post, but npr didn't, robert kagan was married to a woman working for dick cheney.
juan williams's 'analysis' of kerry's remarks upset listeners who felt it was lacking. to clarify, they bring on robert kagan.
weeks before the election, they allow kagan to weigh in on kerry.
without telling you that his wife works for dick cheney.
that, bigbadbradlousyreader, is a conflict of interest.
and it's a damn shame that if you didn't read the common ills (or buzzflash who linked to the story) you didn't hear about it. you still haven't heard about it.
why is that?
why is npr given such a fucking pass?
juan williams distorted john kerry's remarks and pissed off listeners. npr 'corrects' that by bringing on robert kagan who distorts it as well (in a wonderful acting bit of pauses and i-hope-i'm-wrongs). and this clarification, this correction is being done by someone married to victoria nuland who works for dick cheney.
and no listener was told that. (nor any reader of the npr ombudsman's online column -- ombudsman took a pass as well.)
you want to tell me that back in october john kerry supporters had no right to be told what npr had just done?
where were the big brave truth tellers then?
that's story has still only been told at the common ills.
(and you've got links in c.i.'s post to the new york press, christian science monitor and alternet on the marriage and nuland's employment so this wasn't a marriage the press had never covered.)
this was a huge of conflict of interest. a man married to a woman who works for dick cheney, who's running for vice-president, who therefore works for the administration is allowed to go on npr and weigh in on the opponent. that's bad.
not telling listeners about it is beyond bad.
and why the net wasn't alive with this story then or since is a question you might be better off putting to those who knew about it. and ____ knew about it. the ombudsman at npr knew about it. both chose to ignore it.
as for why the blog world never dealt with the story, i'll assume they missed it. but nothing's stopping them from writing about it now.
it's an important story and it goes to problems with the press. you'd think people would be interested in it. you'd think bloggers would want their readers to know all about it. third estate sunday review has noted it. i've noted it.
i don't know why others don't.
i do know that npr gets away with this sort of shit because they are not called on it.
there seem to be two sets of standards: (1) npr and (2) the rest of the media.
if you're going to take a pass on npr then maybe you should note that on your site?
and all the people talking about how it was a 'nicer' election in 2004 than in 2000 might want to grow up a little and realize that there are millions of stories like the robert kagan 1 that they didn't catch and they didn't pay attention to.
that's why i read the common ills and am a member of the common ills community. if you're the mainstream media, you're not above criticism. just because the right thinks npr is 'liberal' doesn't grant them a pass. because the right wing has put that perception out there, it's all the more important to hold them accountable.
i think if you run the two posts together, you've got a very distrubing portrait of some problems with the blog world. and i think we need to be looking at that.
i also think that bloggers on the left who quote and praise the 'bull moose' need to be held accountable for that. but i'll go into that another time.
wally is my hero. he stood up tuesday in his class and gave a speech on the patriot act. my question for other readers is what are you doing?
sherry's calling her Congress people. lola's e-mailing. a number of you are talking about the issue in your circle and getting the word out.
pope this, pope that. tom delay, tom delay, john corny out of texas, john corny out of texas.
who's telling you about the patriot act right now?
that's an important issue and 1 that effects you if you live in the united states. it may not be sexy. it may not allow for funnies. but it does matter. and we can't count on the mainstream media to get the word out.
democracy now is covering it. thank god for democracy now. today you got to hear senator dick durbin's remarks on the patriot act on democracy now. did you catch those on good morning america? did you get to hear him on nightly news?
here's an excerpt from democracy now's report today on senator richard durbin's remarks
in the senate yesterday:
The point I would like to make is this: If the goal here was, as you say, to enhance federal government sharing intelligence, we could have stayed away from the PATRIOT Act altogether and really focused on the agencies working with one another and sharing information so that the Phoenix memo wouldn't be buried in the depths of the FBI, and so that the CIA and all of the other agencies would communicate. So, before we go to challenge in any respect the Bill of Rights, I think we had a lot of homework to do when it came to the management of information at the federal government. Maybe this new intelligence reform will move us in a more positive direction.
The second thing I’d like you to address, if you would consider, is the Section 215. Section 215, which has caused great pain for people in many communities, such as the American Library Association, not historically a politically active group, has become very active, because they believe the PATRIOT Act went too far. They believe, for example, if an FBI field office believed that an unidentified terrorist checked out a book entitled, "How to Build a Dirty Bomb," from the Chicago Public Library, that Section 215 gives the government the authority to search the library records of hundreds of ordinary citizens in an attempt to identify the terrorist, catching in this net and sweeping in innocent people who have checked out books in the library never knowing that they were to be swept up in the potential of finding a terrorist. Similarly, if an FBI field office came up with information that the wife of a suspected terrorist had an abortion, and therefore, they would go out, they would set out through Section 215 to search the records of a hospital or clinic for all the women who had received an abortion whether or not they might have been associated with any terrorist activities. Section 215 allows all of that information to be gathered in secret through the FISA court and many innocent people to have their privacy compromised in the process.
4/05/2005
what c.i. said
i finally get a moment before the next group comes through the house and get on to write about the patriot act but stop off at the common ills and all i'm left with is 'what c.i. said.'
because it's covered over there. here are the posts to read:
'Three stories from this morning's New York Times'
'Try to dig a little deeper today and work towards getting the word out on the Patriot Act'
'Resources for information regarding the Patriot Act'
i'll try to write tonight but if i do it will be late. i'm doing everything on my end to 'tell somebody' and i hope you are as well.
because it's covered over there. here are the posts to read:
'Three stories from this morning's New York Times'
'Try to dig a little deeper today and work towards getting the word out on the Patriot Act'
'Resources for information regarding the Patriot Act'
i'll try to write tonight but if i do it will be late. i'm doing everything on my end to 'tell somebody' and i hope you are as well.
4/04/2005
al franken is dlc
readers who've been with me from the start know that i can laugh with al franken at times and even have a fantasy where i treat him like the little cupcake he seems to think it's okay to treat women like. readers from the start also know i have serious problems with al franken's views when they seem to be republican lite.
there are times when i've seriously thought some 1 should ask al, 'did you vote for ronald reagan in 1980? how about 1984?'
tamara, a common ills community member, e-mails me about how al is dlc and that is something i've suspected as well. but as i read through her e-mail, she's saying that janeane garofalo said it on air at air america last week.
so i e-mail c.i. and say, 'what's the deal? did janeane say this?'
c.i. responds janeane said that on thursday while she and sam seder were interviewing hendrick hertzberg on thursday and janeane says it then.
well it's not that surprising, is it?
now we get why he thinks it's 'cute' to continue to tear apart arafat. now we get why he embarrasses himself by spit cleaning the jock strap of any g.i. that comes on the show as he turns into a nervous, horny virgin saying 'thank you for your service! thank you for your service!'
as many have noted, al never says that to any 1 else. librarains, teachers, peace activists, many people give service. but in a dlc brain, you do whatever's easiest. you do whatever isn't controversial.
and that's al franken.
i am officially releasing my sexual fantasy of treating al franken like a cupcake.
and i'll be bringing the big guns out after the fat fuck in the future.
this is why weeping boy does those ads hawking the new republic. he's the poster boy for the new republic. don't mistake him for a brave voice. he narrows the debate and he destroys the progressive movement.
there are times when i've seriously thought some 1 should ask al, 'did you vote for ronald reagan in 1980? how about 1984?'
tamara, a common ills community member, e-mails me about how al is dlc and that is something i've suspected as well. but as i read through her e-mail, she's saying that janeane garofalo said it on air at air america last week.
so i e-mail c.i. and say, 'what's the deal? did janeane say this?'
c.i. responds janeane said that on thursday while she and sam seder were interviewing hendrick hertzberg on thursday and janeane says it then.
well it's not that surprising, is it?
now we get why he thinks it's 'cute' to continue to tear apart arafat. now we get why he embarrasses himself by spit cleaning the jock strap of any g.i. that comes on the show as he turns into a nervous, horny virgin saying 'thank you for your service! thank you for your service!'
as many have noted, al never says that to any 1 else. librarains, teachers, peace activists, many people give service. but in a dlc brain, you do whatever's easiest. you do whatever isn't controversial.
and that's al franken.
i am officially releasing my sexual fantasy of treating al franken like a cupcake.
and i'll be bringing the big guns out after the fat fuck in the future.
this is why weeping boy does those ads hawking the new republic. he's the poster boy for the new republic. don't mistake him for a brave voice. he narrows the debate and he destroys the progressive movement.
4/03/2005
keepin' it faux at the new york timid
well i have a heads up for you. if you want chuckles read nicholas confessore's "here's why the centrist deomcrat is feeling unloved." it's a perfect example of bad writing and filled with howlers. you'll find it on the back page of the week in review section of the new york times.
the patron saint of the centrist is the toad looking daniel patrick moynihan. infamous for his own war on social security at an earlier time and aided by the new york times.
does the timid, to use c.i.'s phrase, have a thing for bad hair? possibly. have you seen gail collins's hair -- super cuts would be a step up for the editorial page editor! but between the buck teeth and the bushy eyebrows, possibly her lack of hair 'style' is the least of her problems.
but the real reason the new york timid supported moynihan is because that's what they all do, attempt to snuff out the progressive spirit in this country. c.i. pointed out in an earlier post that while struggling to make it, they received a bail out from wall street with the apparent understanding that they would snuff out the progressive spirit sweeping the country in the early part of the 20th century. they did their damndest to do that. and they're still doing it.
keepin' it faux at the new york timid.
which explains father confessor's valentine to the likes of professional bad hair sporters
no-joe lieberman and 'let me have it both ways' ellen tauscher -- how you going to explain that anti-immigrant vote to the constituents, ellie?
the faux objective paper assigns faux reporter confessore to hum the praises of faux democrats and it's like a symphony of kazoos buzzing around in your head.
but when it comes to bad hair, tausher and liberman are mere pikers compared to their buddies at centrists.org.
poor little scotty payne thinks that comb-over is working. hint, scotty, it's not. no, it isn't. you're shedding hair faster than nbc's joey sheds viewers. might wanna rethink that comb-over.
then we go to jeffy lemieux. little jeffy's a big boy. looks exactly like you'd expect a man named lemieux to look. jeffy, you also get the vote for worst dresser. who but little big boy jeffy would think to mix a garrish, eye sore tie with a blue shirt and brown jacket. and little jeffy can't even fix his collar which is why you can't help but notice the shirt collars bulging out from the buttens. who dressed you, jeffy?
then we have maya macguineas who thinks 'power hair' means stealing from ann archer's limp look circa fatal attraction. not working out for you, is it maya? has anyone ever thought to suggest you consider a veronica lake, peak-a-boo hair style to cover that one eye that's so much smaller than the other? just asking. and the heavily padded shoulders of that jacket, honey, you are stuck in the eighties. no wonder your org cant get it's head out of its ass. though possibly working for mccain might explain it as well?
which brings us to eddie lorenzen who might want to be called 'big ed' but would have to first give up that peter pan, bowl cut hair do. does mommy still cut your hair in the kitchen, eddie? are you a big enough boy now that you don't need to sit on a phone book while mommy cuts your hair? horizontal striped tie, blue shirt with vertical white stripes and what appears to a dark shade of pea green jacket (maybe it just needs dry cleaning?) you're look is all you ... because no one else would have it.
folks, these are the fashion disasters who want to steer our party to the right. they'd be kicked out of applebeas but somehow they think they can be power players in d.c. it's sad. looking at them. real sad.
but while they plot their revenge of the nerds style comeback, be sure the new york timid will be along for the ride to cheer them on.
that's why nicky 'kiss ass' confessore quotes eddie on democrats and mentions eddie worked for loser-boy charlie stenholm (billie was once represented by charlie and boy she can write a blistering e-mail -- billie i love your spirit!) before stenholm lost his seat due to tom delay's great fiber purge of 2003. sort of gives you the idea that these 'centrists democrats' of the title and little eddie are working for the democratic party, huh?
here's what it says on the web site i've linked to, please note it carefully:
Centrists.Org is a non-partisan, non-profit, organization formed under section 501(c)(3) of the tax code, and dedicated to public education on vital public policy matters. Contributions to Centrists.Org are tax deductible.
non-partisan org, well you are who you play with. it's not enough that you all share bad hair and bad fashion sense, now you're all in the sandbox together. who knows what you're plotting now?
let's talk little ed a minute more cause he worked with 1 of the groups pushing privatization in the late 90s. what? you thought the bully boy got that idea all on his own?
no, you had corporate servents on the public dole selling out your interests long before the bully boy sleazed his way into the oval office. same org that little eddie's online bio claims also speaks proudly of their hard work to pass nafta.
are you feeling the love yet?
me neither.
by the way little edsie, care to explain to me why the group you have worked with thinks it okay to post online a statement to the president in 2001, a report (final report) but warns against quoting from it without permission? just wondering, edsie?
your buds made it public and it certainly effects the tax payers so i'm curious as to why your little 'circle jerk' (see bill keller, i can use the term too!) thinks it okay to post 'social security reform lelegislation developed by the national commission on retirement policy' but seems to think you can play the riaa clamping down on napster?
right there on the title page it announces that it's a report from the president's commission and gives the date 12-11-2001.
i would urge everyone to read the report that they retain quote rights to. it's good for a hoot. and you'll realize that lieberman, this is his crowd after all, didn't suddenly decide that maybe hanging with the bully boy on privatized accounts was the right thing to do, he and his kind have leaned that way all along.
back in the early days of the common ills, you could post comments to entries. members hated that because these centrists jack asses would come by and post things along the lines of 'there's nothing more than beautiful than a centrist democrat.' yeah, like leaves changing colors in autumn, nothing soothes the heart more than watching so-called dems morph into repubes-lite.
common ills community member keesha had a snapping comeback to that idiot and i wish could remember it but i'll just note that keesha told it like it was.
and i'll note for all these other fence sitters, the only thing you get from sitting on a fence is a pair of pants riding up your crack. not a pretty sight, is it? no.
but the timid and their nicholas confessore rush in, where wise men and women rightly refuse to tread, to let you know that the whole shutting out of these fashion and hair challenged repube-lites with a twise is just beyond cruel.
silly nicky closes his article with this howler:
as the ascendant republican establishment deepens its beltway roots, an old species, the self-consciously bipartisan centrist, searches for a niche. but the partisan centerist has already found one.
nicky's blowing smoke out of his ass but how else can you write a valentine to repube-lites?
nicky gets 1 thing right. powerbrokers did move the democratic party to the center (and sell out the soul of the party) in the 90s. and that did lead to the republicans moving further right.
for those who just don't get, when we move to the center to accommodate, the right moves further right. it's like a game of tag and the repubes keep getting away and moving the country increasingly right. which is why so many of us are arguing for a hard left from the democratic party. in this round of tag, let them be 'it' and chase us.
let me note that betty has another post up. it's excellent and it's the start of you understanding "bettina." i think you'll enjoy it:
And at the bottom of the second page, I read that he has a new book coming out and my first thought is, "I have not finished Thomas Friedman's last book! After I finish washing out his silk boxers, I still have to take all the ketchups he brought home from McDonald's and squeeze them from the packets into the large empty bottle because he says fine eating places like McDonald's have a better quality of ketchup than anything you can buy in a store." That may be true but my fingers ache from doing the same with mayonaise packets and from the hot sauce packets he picked up at Taco Bell.
I say to him, "Thomas Friedman, when your friends took us to Elaine's Friday, there were no ketchup packets to be seen."
Thomas Friedman explained that his friends cannot afford the finer places that he takes me too. And that since they insist upon picking up the check to have the honor of bragging that they dined with Thomas Friedman, he cannot very well suggest that they take him to McDonald's or Sonic or Taco Bell or any of the other high class places he takes me. I am sorry that his friends do not have the money he has.
But I have asked for a food processor forever now because Thomas Friedman is on a hummus kick and he has told me that food processors are "declasse" and that we do not waste his money on "crap." So I use this mortar and pestle to ground the sesame seeds whenever the hummus mood strikes Thomas Friedman with him urging me to be "faster" and "faster" the whole time.
also worth noting is c.i.'s hysterical 'clubbing with the new york times:'
Moving on. You realize you've hit the frou-frou, chi-chi, upscale club scene as you hear Somini Sengupta work in the word "ennui" while doing a poor job of concealing a self-satisfied smirk. (The headline writer merely apes her lead with "Fear, Ennui and Doubt Underlie Calm in Nepal's Capital").
Sengupta, baby, stick to the art galleries when trying to score with impressive vocab, okay? Striving for tome poem, but coming off like fourth rate Cole Porter ["Come to the Supermarket (In Old Peking)"], Sengupta offers such passages as:
On a recent Sunday afternoon,
as the market women sat on their haunches hawking cabbages,
and the riot police milled about with eyes darting this way and that,
Nepalis revolting against their king's emergency rule decree
straggled up the narrow alleys in ones and twos.
Walk on. Walk on.org. Note the poster art as you're dragged to the next club while you give it up to Angela Jimenez and whomever decided her photo was just the thing to accompany Andrew Jacobs' "AIDS Fighters Face a Resistant Form of Apathy." Apathy. AIDS. Even more deadly new strain.
Does it bring to mind two bodies pressed tightly against one another? Does your mind conjure a framed crotch shot in some sort of hommage to the Rolling Stones album cover Sticky Fingers? Well in the minds of "Girls Just Want To Have Fun" Angela Jimenez and the editor/s it conjures up exactly that. Like drunken revelers at karaoke night doing the stiff-neck-head-jerk while singing/slurring "She like to par-tay all the time," I doubt either Jiminez or the editor/s realize how much they've embarrassed themselves. Flee the club quickly before you're tainted by association.
check out betty and c.i. we need more laughter, especially when there's a point to it.
the patron saint of the centrist is the toad looking daniel patrick moynihan. infamous for his own war on social security at an earlier time and aided by the new york times.
does the timid, to use c.i.'s phrase, have a thing for bad hair? possibly. have you seen gail collins's hair -- super cuts would be a step up for the editorial page editor! but between the buck teeth and the bushy eyebrows, possibly her lack of hair 'style' is the least of her problems.
but the real reason the new york timid supported moynihan is because that's what they all do, attempt to snuff out the progressive spirit in this country. c.i. pointed out in an earlier post that while struggling to make it, they received a bail out from wall street with the apparent understanding that they would snuff out the progressive spirit sweeping the country in the early part of the 20th century. they did their damndest to do that. and they're still doing it.
keepin' it faux at the new york timid.
which explains father confessor's valentine to the likes of professional bad hair sporters
no-joe lieberman and 'let me have it both ways' ellen tauscher -- how you going to explain that anti-immigrant vote to the constituents, ellie?
the faux objective paper assigns faux reporter confessore to hum the praises of faux democrats and it's like a symphony of kazoos buzzing around in your head.
but when it comes to bad hair, tausher and liberman are mere pikers compared to their buddies at centrists.org.
poor little scotty payne thinks that comb-over is working. hint, scotty, it's not. no, it isn't. you're shedding hair faster than nbc's joey sheds viewers. might wanna rethink that comb-over.
then we go to jeffy lemieux. little jeffy's a big boy. looks exactly like you'd expect a man named lemieux to look. jeffy, you also get the vote for worst dresser. who but little big boy jeffy would think to mix a garrish, eye sore tie with a blue shirt and brown jacket. and little jeffy can't even fix his collar which is why you can't help but notice the shirt collars bulging out from the buttens. who dressed you, jeffy?
then we have maya macguineas who thinks 'power hair' means stealing from ann archer's limp look circa fatal attraction. not working out for you, is it maya? has anyone ever thought to suggest you consider a veronica lake, peak-a-boo hair style to cover that one eye that's so much smaller than the other? just asking. and the heavily padded shoulders of that jacket, honey, you are stuck in the eighties. no wonder your org cant get it's head out of its ass. though possibly working for mccain might explain it as well?
which brings us to eddie lorenzen who might want to be called 'big ed' but would have to first give up that peter pan, bowl cut hair do. does mommy still cut your hair in the kitchen, eddie? are you a big enough boy now that you don't need to sit on a phone book while mommy cuts your hair? horizontal striped tie, blue shirt with vertical white stripes and what appears to a dark shade of pea green jacket (maybe it just needs dry cleaning?) you're look is all you ... because no one else would have it.
folks, these are the fashion disasters who want to steer our party to the right. they'd be kicked out of applebeas but somehow they think they can be power players in d.c. it's sad. looking at them. real sad.
but while they plot their revenge of the nerds style comeback, be sure the new york timid will be along for the ride to cheer them on.
that's why nicky 'kiss ass' confessore quotes eddie on democrats and mentions eddie worked for loser-boy charlie stenholm (billie was once represented by charlie and boy she can write a blistering e-mail -- billie i love your spirit!) before stenholm lost his seat due to tom delay's great fiber purge of 2003. sort of gives you the idea that these 'centrists democrats' of the title and little eddie are working for the democratic party, huh?
here's what it says on the web site i've linked to, please note it carefully:
Centrists.Org is a non-partisan, non-profit, organization formed under section 501(c)(3) of the tax code, and dedicated to public education on vital public policy matters. Contributions to Centrists.Org are tax deductible.
non-partisan org, well you are who you play with. it's not enough that you all share bad hair and bad fashion sense, now you're all in the sandbox together. who knows what you're plotting now?
let's talk little ed a minute more cause he worked with 1 of the groups pushing privatization in the late 90s. what? you thought the bully boy got that idea all on his own?
no, you had corporate servents on the public dole selling out your interests long before the bully boy sleazed his way into the oval office. same org that little eddie's online bio claims also speaks proudly of their hard work to pass nafta.
are you feeling the love yet?
me neither.
by the way little edsie, care to explain to me why the group you have worked with thinks it okay to post online a statement to the president in 2001, a report (final report) but warns against quoting from it without permission? just wondering, edsie?
your buds made it public and it certainly effects the tax payers so i'm curious as to why your little 'circle jerk' (see bill keller, i can use the term too!) thinks it okay to post 'social security reform lelegislation developed by the national commission on retirement policy' but seems to think you can play the riaa clamping down on napster?
right there on the title page it announces that it's a report from the president's commission and gives the date 12-11-2001.
i would urge everyone to read the report that they retain quote rights to. it's good for a hoot. and you'll realize that lieberman, this is his crowd after all, didn't suddenly decide that maybe hanging with the bully boy on privatized accounts was the right thing to do, he and his kind have leaned that way all along.
back in the early days of the common ills, you could post comments to entries. members hated that because these centrists jack asses would come by and post things along the lines of 'there's nothing more than beautiful than a centrist democrat.' yeah, like leaves changing colors in autumn, nothing soothes the heart more than watching so-called dems morph into repubes-lite.
common ills community member keesha had a snapping comeback to that idiot and i wish could remember it but i'll just note that keesha told it like it was.
and i'll note for all these other fence sitters, the only thing you get from sitting on a fence is a pair of pants riding up your crack. not a pretty sight, is it? no.
but the timid and their nicholas confessore rush in, where wise men and women rightly refuse to tread, to let you know that the whole shutting out of these fashion and hair challenged repube-lites with a twise is just beyond cruel.
silly nicky closes his article with this howler:
as the ascendant republican establishment deepens its beltway roots, an old species, the self-consciously bipartisan centrist, searches for a niche. but the partisan centerist has already found one.
nicky's blowing smoke out of his ass but how else can you write a valentine to repube-lites?
nicky gets 1 thing right. powerbrokers did move the democratic party to the center (and sell out the soul of the party) in the 90s. and that did lead to the republicans moving further right.
for those who just don't get, when we move to the center to accommodate, the right moves further right. it's like a game of tag and the repubes keep getting away and moving the country increasingly right. which is why so many of us are arguing for a hard left from the democratic party. in this round of tag, let them be 'it' and chase us.
let me note that betty has another post up. it's excellent and it's the start of you understanding "bettina." i think you'll enjoy it:
And at the bottom of the second page, I read that he has a new book coming out and my first thought is, "I have not finished Thomas Friedman's last book! After I finish washing out his silk boxers, I still have to take all the ketchups he brought home from McDonald's and squeeze them from the packets into the large empty bottle because he says fine eating places like McDonald's have a better quality of ketchup than anything you can buy in a store." That may be true but my fingers ache from doing the same with mayonaise packets and from the hot sauce packets he picked up at Taco Bell.
I say to him, "Thomas Friedman, when your friends took us to Elaine's Friday, there were no ketchup packets to be seen."
Thomas Friedman explained that his friends cannot afford the finer places that he takes me too. And that since they insist upon picking up the check to have the honor of bragging that they dined with Thomas Friedman, he cannot very well suggest that they take him to McDonald's or Sonic or Taco Bell or any of the other high class places he takes me. I am sorry that his friends do not have the money he has.
But I have asked for a food processor forever now because Thomas Friedman is on a hummus kick and he has told me that food processors are "declasse" and that we do not waste his money on "crap." So I use this mortar and pestle to ground the sesame seeds whenever the hummus mood strikes Thomas Friedman with him urging me to be "faster" and "faster" the whole time.
also worth noting is c.i.'s hysterical 'clubbing with the new york times:'
Moving on. You realize you've hit the frou-frou, chi-chi, upscale club scene as you hear Somini Sengupta work in the word "ennui" while doing a poor job of concealing a self-satisfied smirk. (The headline writer merely apes her lead with "Fear, Ennui and Doubt Underlie Calm in Nepal's Capital").
Sengupta, baby, stick to the art galleries when trying to score with impressive vocab, okay? Striving for tome poem, but coming off like fourth rate Cole Porter ["Come to the Supermarket (In Old Peking)"], Sengupta offers such passages as:
On a recent Sunday afternoon,
as the market women sat on their haunches hawking cabbages,
and the riot police milled about with eyes darting this way and that,
Nepalis revolting against their king's emergency rule decree
straggled up the narrow alleys in ones and twos.
Walk on. Walk on.org. Note the poster art as you're dragged to the next club while you give it up to Angela Jimenez and whomever decided her photo was just the thing to accompany Andrew Jacobs' "AIDS Fighters Face a Resistant Form of Apathy." Apathy. AIDS. Even more deadly new strain.
Does it bring to mind two bodies pressed tightly against one another? Does your mind conjure a framed crotch shot in some sort of hommage to the Rolling Stones album cover Sticky Fingers? Well in the minds of "Girls Just Want To Have Fun" Angela Jimenez and the editor/s it conjures up exactly that. Like drunken revelers at karaoke night doing the stiff-neck-head-jerk while singing/slurring "She like to par-tay all the time," I doubt either Jiminez or the editor/s realize how much they've embarrassed themselves. Flee the club quickly before you're tainted by association.
check out betty and c.i. we need more laughter, especially when there's a point to it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)