« Blog Lunch To Go | Main | My Lips Are Moving but I'm Not Saying Anything... »
Jane Hamsher In WaPo Online Chat At 1PM
In response to the completely asinine way The Washington Post has handled the Deborah Howell vs. The Truth fiasco, Washington Post Executive Editor, Jim Brady, will be holding an online chat, billed as a "panel discussion".
This time, he will actually have a guest, the fabulous Jane Hamsher (of firedoglake blog) who knows what she is talking about. Jane will be representing the community of people who have a liberal blog that accept comments, as opposed to Brady's last blogging expert, Hugh Hewitt. It is nothing short of bizarre that Brady would turn to Hewitt for expert insight and online whinathon about mean old liberal blog commenters, since Hewitt is a conservative with a blog that does not accept comments.
It's about damn time that Brady sits down with at least one member of an online community about which he has been complaining for days, but actually knows very little about.
The online chat is TODAY at 1 PM.
Click here to submit your questions.
[The rest of the panel includes Jeff Jarvis of BuzzMachine, Jay Rosen of PressThink, and Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit.]
If you haven't been following the story of the WaPo's aggrieved Public Editor (ombudsman), Deborah Howell, who was harshly criticized both because she has yet to represent the public, as is her job, and is sloppy with factually challenged reporting, you could go to this link and start clicking to hear the Post's er, um, highly questionable version of the story. To hear something which would actually be true, go here, here, and here.
As Josh Marshall put it:
T]he whole blow-up has created this subdiscussion about whether honorable press types like Howell and others are being mauled and knocked around and generally abused by cyber-ruffians who have been on her case over the last few days.
This stuff isn't always pretty. But, really, thank God those folks are on her tail because shoddy reporting isn't pretty either.
Bloggers hold people who post to one standard - tell the truth and be prepared when we start asking for things like proof, or facts, to post links to your proof and facts. If you don't or can't, then you print retractions. Period.
Why is that such a bizarre concept for the traditional media and in this particular instance, the Washington Post, to understand?
Maybe that's the first question to submit.
Memo to Media: Get used to it.
The Fort Wayne, IN News Sentinel has the following headline:
Posted on Tue, Jan. 24, 2006
Some activists, politicians speaking openly about impeachment
BY JIM PUZZANGHERA
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - The word "impeachment" is popping up increasingly these days and not just off the lips of liberal activists spouting predictable bumper-sticker slogans.
After the unfounded claims about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and recent news of domestic spying without warrants, mainstream politicians and ordinary voters are talking openly about the possibility that President Bush could be impeached. So is at least one powerful Republican senator, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Read the rest here...
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/news/editorial/13701168.htm
It's trickling out bit by bit. Figures that it's a Knight-Ridder paper that published it.
Chuck in Doha for Oncall and Veritas:
Somebody, I think Veritas, posted about Diebold and Alaska and how the database structure was proprietary and therefore couldn't be released for auditing (basically) due to intellectual property issues. Well, I think this gives us the makings for some electoral reform: federal straight-out ban on proprietary software being used for critical public records. This out-sourcing the government crap has gone to far. Just like using private companies in Iraq instead of military personnel (including the Army Corps of Engineers). This simply has to stop. It is not right and it raises a lot of legal issues.
Also, and I think this was Oncall, was going for a bumper-sticker of "Time for a Change" -- well, just to kibbitz, how about "Time to Change" -- shorter and more imperative.
Chuck in Doha for Ira/Carol/Madame:
Now, I am not against filibistering Alito. However, I have a couple questions for you all. First, do you think a filibister will trigger the "Nuclear Option," and if so, do you think the "Nuclear Option" will succeed? I think yes and yes, with the net result being Alito is in and the filibuster gone.
Now, that is a result I am prepared to accept, but if and only if it produces positive results in the composition of the Legislative Branch -- i.e., that it strenghtens congress against the next Alito.
So, on what grounds, and I mean grounds that will get voters attention in 2006, should a filibuster be supported? I'd love to hear your ideas on that, because unless we have a disciplined and solid case taken to the airwaves in force, the 2006 message will be "they drove that poor women to tears."
Me, I like the unitary executive theme in conjunction with "we don't need no stinkin' delcarations of war."
We'v got to get them, folks; were are running out of "next-time's." We can't afford any more mistakes and we can't afford not to make some bold moves.
Chuck in Doha
PS: Sorry for re-posting these -- they were at the bottom of the last thread. My connectivity here sometimes does not allow for quick refreshes so I'm re-posting to take advantage of this new thread now that I see it.
Chuck in Doha again, sort of on topic (media and messages):
Somebody, I think Dwahzon, posted a link a few threads back to a Senator Reid speech at the Center for American Progress. Well, I couldn't get the link to work, but I read a story (very short) on it today on msnbc.
In that story was a bitter, partisan attack on Senator Reid, long on anger and short on substance, from a person completely ignoring problems in her own backyard. Here is that attack ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11008587 ):
"A spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee dismissed Reid's criticism. 'By launching bitter, partisan attacks that ignore problems in his own backyard, Sen. Reid is emblematic of a minority party that is long on anger and short on substance,' said spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt."
Chuck in Doha
OK, Chuck in Doha here continuing a soliloquoy because I had one more thought I wanted to share, in the same vein.
The folks that own US politics today have a principle: get popular politics out of the business of governance. Why? Because it contrains the freedom of action of powerful private interests. How? Turn democracy into a circus for venting emotions. Make fun of the political process so people stop taking it seriously.
They also have a unifying organization: the Republican Party. It in turn has a multitude of front organizations. Together, they are organized, efficient, powerful, ruthless, smart, and motivated.
Against that are the simple notions of popular democracy and individual rights.
There used to be an old story, I think, about how you shouldn't wrestle a pig because the only sure result is that you both get muddy, which makes you mad and the pig happy.
To fight misdirection and provocations directly by giving into anger, I think, is wrestling the pig. I am searching for another approach, one based on hope and pride and self-sufficiency, and that can keep the pig in line.
I'm having trouble expressing this thought but there it is, it's the best I can do after another 12-hour work day.
Hang Tough Everybody and GOTV 2006!
Chuck in Doha
Against that are the simple notions of popular democracy and individual rights.
There used to be an old story, I think, about how you shouldn't wrestle a pig because the only sure result is that you both get muddy, which makes you mad and the pig happy.
Posted by: chuck at January 25, 2006 12:48 PM
Wise words, Chuck, and thanks for sharing them. You are absolutely correct!! We are in effect "in a war" in this country between the two major political parties. And while our notions of popular democracy and individual rights are simple, we cannot afford to be. We are in the process of our democracy and civil rights being eaten alive, and we have to regroup and get organized. Anger is a good catalyst for change, but depression isn't. And anger that is not directed toward a constructive action ends up being anger that is destructive - personally and collectively. Depression is anger turned inward out of a feeling of not having any power over a situation and circumstance.
I had a case of the woe-be gones over our plight yesterday. It is winter, and though I am not depressed, we run this risk when we feel disempowered.
More comments, peeps?
Truth:
Somewhere I heard that humor is anger turned sideways....
I need think on this a bit more.
Chuck in DOha
Chuck, TSP -
I posted somewhat on this topic yesterday:
Posted by: Veritas at January 24, 2006 10:14 PM
There's a Canadian book, American Backlash, which I haven't read yet but which details more of what I described. Someone at the DCP (DiAnne?) recommended it a while back.
Chuck in Doha for Veritas:
Yes, what you posted on that thread is a big part of what I am thinking, namely, that by being partisan and ugly, the GOP is trying to ellicit emotional responses -- just like a playground bully -- and I think that part of that is to turn political discourse into a farce, thereby turning more voters off, thereby handing the field to the organized and ruthless. That's what I mean by wrestling the pig. Like Martin Luther King Jr. -- I sense a righteous anger behind his words but they don't come across mean or spiteful. Hope that made sense.
Chuck in Doha
How Close Are We to the End of Democracy?:
No president in over 200 years of our history has ever before claimed the "unitary powers" that Bush claims are his. Not President Lincoln during the Civil War, not President Wilson during World War I, not President Roosevelt during World War II, not President Truman during Korea, and not Presidents Johnson and Nixon during Vietnam.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martin-garbus/how-close-are-we-to-the-e_b_14171.html
The Federal Government Has Damaged Our Country:
The irony is that the invasion of Iraq was simply part and parcel of what the federal government has been doing to people overseas for many, many years.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger71.html
Internet Users Thinking Twice Before a Search
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012506O.shtml
The government and the cooperating companies say the search queries cannot be traced to their source, and therefore no personal information about users is being given up. But the government's move is one of several recent episodes that have caused some people to think twice about the information they type into a search engine, or the opinions they express in an e-mail message.
{{{ The last paragraphs echo my own unease about the slippery slopes the thugs in *our* White House would shove us all down if they have access to what people search for on the internet.}}}
Posted by: chuck at January 25, 2006 12:03 PM
Chuck,
"Time to change" works too. I was responding to DiAnne's earlier post (with link to article in Guardinan) about an organization that is working for replacing our Republican government, and the slogan they were going to use. Last night, I heard a Repub "strategist" comparing Repub methods vs. Dem methods of campaiging. He highlighted that Repubs use bumper sticker slogans while Dems rely on essays to get their points across. I couldn't disagree with his observations. But, I have a nice short one as well. "Fire the Bastard."
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/uclickcomics/20060125/cx_crwiz_uc/crwiz20060125
Wizard of Id cartoon. In view of The Cretin's assumed monarchial powers, this isn't funny!
Oncall:
How about this:
"Truth for a Change"
and
"Time to Change"
Essays vs. Bumper Stickers....
Hmmmmm.....
Ideas vs. Identity Politics
Identifying with ideas, identyfing ideas....
I hope this does lead me to another futile attempt at Haiku.
Chuck in Doha
AG's Memo Raises Questions on Patriot Act
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012506J.shtml
A footnote in Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales's 42-page legal memo defending President Bush's domestic spying program appears to argue that the administration does not need Congress to extend the USA Patriot Act in order to keep using the law's investigative powers against terror suspects.
Excerpt:
Dennis Hutchinson, a University of Chicago law professor, and Bruce Fein, a former Justice Department lawyer in the Reagan administration, also said the administration's footnote indicates that Bush would not need Congress to renew the Patriot Act to keep using its investigative powers in the war on terrorism.
{{{WHEN are our legislators going to STOP Bu$h's incessant and dictatorial ABUSE OF POWER?!?!?!? WHEN are our legislators going to REPEAL the authorization to use military force that they gave Bu$h after 9/11 - an egregious error of judgement on the part of all people in Congress who voted in favor of it under the delusion they were dealing with a man who has a conscience and wouldn't abuse the authorization - they should have known better; if they had listened to the 2000 presidential debates, his desire to be a dictator and illegally invade other countries was all laid out.... (Congress does know that they are the only branch of our government who can vote whether or not to take this country to war, do they not? If not, they must resign for the good of this country. What ever possessed them to give war powers to the likes of a power-hungry IDIOT like The Cretin?!?!?!?}}}
Posted by: Veritas at January 25, 2006 01:40 PM
Posted by: chuck at January 25, 2006 01:51 PM
I think it is kind of like the sport of boxing. We may wear ourselves out bouncing around the ring deciding if we want to go left, moderate, or conservative, who should run, asking why our reps aren't doing more to protect/defend/represent us, talking about what the pig is doing (besides wearing lipstick), getting angry, mad, and depressed because the pig is still a pig and is still acting like a pig, and in the meantime the pig in the ring achieves his objective: he tires us out and deflates us and while we are scrambling to hold on he gives his knockout punch.
The answer has got to be that we need to get organized, and be PRO-ACTIVE. We can't afford to be passive, and we can't afford to be on the ropes reacting to everything the pig throws at us. They are very good at their mind games.
We have got to be PRO-ACTIVE and on the offensive. ALWAYS. We only had them on the ropes for a couple week period back when George's poll numbers went way down and John Murtha spoke up. They weren't used to us speaking from beyond our self-induced grave.
We need more leaders to be vocal and to tell it like it is....more Murtha's, more Kennedy's, more Gore's..............
We have GOT to come up with some ideas on how to get people off their butts, off the couches, out of their fear induced immobilization, and on the air, and in the streets.
The DCP is dedicated to that endeavor, that's why we are all here. When Rove comes out swinging I think we feel overwhelmed. We need to obliviate the Rovinator by dishing it out on the offensive, and refuse to react defensively.
One slogan of the DCP is: Educate, motivate, activate!!!!
Oncall,
Fire the bastard works for me!
I don't know if Jane will read our blog for comments, but either way, I'd like to say that other than our magnificent Casey they couldn't have found a tougher and more articulate cookie to handle them.
Even though it's Jane against the rest, I suspect that Jane will thoroughly have them whimpering by the end of the day.
Good work Jane. And thanks Casey for posting it here.
the following are short excerpts of an article by Bruce Fein which I have used quotations markings and fully acknowledge his authorship of and which I urge all to read the complete text. I direct you to carefully read Bruce Fein's complete article entitled If men Were Angels for context and meaning.
snip
"If Men Were Angels by Bruce Fein January 4, 2006 edition of The Washingtn Times The Founding Fathers would be alarmed by President George W. Bush's "trust me" defense for collecting foreign intelligence in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the Constitution's separation of powers."
snip
"The eavesdropping continued for 4 years, long after fears of imminent September 11 repetitions had lapsed, before the disclosure by the New York Times this month. Mr. Bush has continued the NSA spying without congressional authorization or ratification of the earlier interceptions. (In sharp contrast, Abraham Lincoln obtaned congressionl ratification for the emergency measures taken in the wake of Ft Sumter, including suspending the writ of habeas corpus). Mr. Bush has adamantly refused to acknowledge any constitutional limitations on his power to wage war indefinitely..."
snip
"...Volumes of war powers nonsense have been assembled to defend Mr. Bush's defiance of the legislative branch and claim of wartime omnipotence so long as terrorism persists, i.e., in perpetuity. Congress should undertake a national inquest into his conduct and claims to determine whether impeachable usurpations are at hand."
snip
"Congress should insist the president cease the spying unless or until a proper statute is enacted or face possible impeachment. The Constitution's separation of powers is too important to be discarded in the name of expediency. …unlimited?"
author: Bruce Fein This article appeared in the December 20, 2005 edition of The Washington Times"
this well known and respected lawyer is far from a progressive, he generally sides with very conservative voices.
Truth:
Well, I definitely agree that organization and grass roots is the answer. Face time, small groups, one voter at a time. For me, that would be in a low-key mode. Once I get back stateside and decompress a bit I hope to finally be able to focus on that to the extent I can.
But for now, sack time in Doha!
Chuck in Doha
Posted by: Ira at January 25, 2006 02:52 PM
Ira,
Can you post the link?
yea oncall I was inspired by this thoughtful examination by a conservative.
house.gov/judiciary_democrats/nsabriefing/brucefeinarticles12006.pdf