Letters to the Editor
casual_observer
Published Letters: 1249 Editor's Choice: 1
-
From what I saw
[Read the article: Mike Allen and Hugh Hewitt on the politicization of the military]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I got to see little of what Greenwald actually said, unfortunately. The stream kept breaking. However, one thing of interest was what both the Politico and Time journalists mentioned--that their management was particularly interested in cultivating, tapping into, the loyalty and passion exhibited by blog followers/commentors. Hell yes they are. Loyalty and passion of course means money, for one thing. And maybe it would stop people from calling them bad names. Those bloggers, they're just so rude.
I hope that the management of Time and Politico realize that it will take more than adoption of the technical form of blogging to develop such loyalty. Yes, the ability of blog readers to comment, and be part of a culture of commenting is very important. The symbiotic nature of it. But much more important is the content, independence, and the authenticity exhibited by blog authors themselves. News consumers are starving for authenticity. Americans generally are starving for authenticity. These things are much more important than the medium itself.
So it will not be enough for Time or CBS to start their little blogs so they can be part of the scene. Yeah, we're cool. We blog too. That won't cut it. Taking a traditional model of journalism and moving it to the blogosphere simply creates another crappy blog. A top-down blog. A corporate blog.
It will be interesting to witness the evolution.
-
The FISA Debate tonight
[Read the article: Mike Allen and Hugh Hewitt on the politicization of the military]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am awestruck by the sheer majesty being shown on the Senate floor right now, regarding these last minute FISA changes. The majesty of a great ship, its back broken, sinking.
The sheer majesty being shown by senators of both parties to sell our 4th amendment rights down the damn river. The majesty of supreme cowardice. The majesty of
ah crap. I'm too bummed to type any more.
-
@Sysprog
[Read the article: Mike Allen and Hugh Hewitt on the politicization of the military]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Pelosi stated yesterday that the concept of having no (or greatly reduced) judicial check for 6 months, and having the Attorney General audit the program were "unacceptable".
One can only hope she meant what she said, they do not rubber stamp the republican bill, and the thing winds up in conference.
In the senate last night, it is of interest that a number of senators voted for both bills. Meaning that their primary interest was to get one bill out, regardless. In other words, it was more important to produce even a horrible bill than it was to take a precious week off their recess.
This simply cannot all be laid at the President's feet. The Senate--both parties--clearly announced last night that the constitution and civil liberties are secondary priorities, if they can be called priorities at all. Feinstein last night announced from the floor that she had not even read, nor did she understand, one of the bills. This is how fast this thing got pushed through. Yet, if I remember correctly, she voted aye on the republican bill, handing even more power to Gonzales. That is how decisions are being made in the Senate.
-
Feinstein vs. Dodd
[Read the article: Democrats' responsibility for Bush radicalism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]GG: So this wasn't a Patriot Act case where people can claim ignorance because there was a rushed vote? There was a careful assessment of what the terms in this statute were?
CD: Absolutely. In fact, even during the vote, Carl Levin was sitting there, and Carl said: "look, I want everyone to read this"
This is directly contrary to what Feinstein said from the Senate Floor. She said she had tried to get information on the bill and couldn't. She said she did not understand the bill--the democratic bill. So where is the truth.
-
Howard Dean at the Daily Kos Convention
[Read the article: Democrats' responsibility for Bush radicalism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]We're the party that believes there is something more important than party, and that is country
Howard, you may want to double check this assertion with your party's lawmakers currently in office.
-
re: filibustering
[Read the article: Democrats' responsibility for Bush radicalism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I also asked him why, when they were in the minority, the Democrats were so afraid to filibuster anything, even something as drastic as the Military Commissions Act or the Alito nomination, whereas the Republicans run around filibustering everything they can find and don't care at all about being called "obstructionist."
Isn't it even worse than that. The republicans, if I understand correctly, are not "filibustering everything". In some, perhaps most cases, aren't they simply *threatening* filibuster? Are not Democrats folding under the mere *threat* of filibuster.
-
Dodd's Shrug. Gee, I just don't have a clue.
[Read the article: Democrats' responsibility for Bush radicalism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Dodd, by his own candid admission, has no good explanation for the Democrats' behavior, which repeats itself endlessly.
I find this hard to believe. Dodd is a career politician, a senior member of the senate, and a leader of the Democratic party. I suspect that Dodd must have a pretty solid opinion on this question. But there is no upside to Dodd to expose the dirty laundry, and lots of potential downside.
I suggest a much better answer might be available from Dean. Might.