Nine short stories

by: Chris Bowers

Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 21:00


Link dump:

  1. Harry Reid confirms personally that Lieberman backstabbed him on the Medicare buy-in compromise.  Senior Senate aides have been saying this for quite some time, even to me.

  2. Reid also declares that Olympia Snowe was negotiating in bad faith, that she was never going to support a health care bill, and that talking to her was a waste of time.

  3. Given that both Lieberman and Snowe were negotiating in bad faith, we should have been pushing for reconciliation as hard as we were pushing for the public option.

  4. Polling from PPP indicates that freshman Rep. Larry Kissell helped his general election chances by voting against the health care bill, and did not hurt himself among Democrats too badly.

    Then again, Kissell only leads a potential primary challenger 49-15, and only 28% of Democrats know he voted against the bill. For an incumbent, those are pretty weak primary numbers-someone could actually knock him off. However, the North Carolina primary is on May 4th, so it is unlikely that a strong primary campaign would be able to gear up in such a short time.

  5. Ned Lamont's main opponent in the Democratic primary for Governor in Connecticut has dropped out.  Current polling on the campaign indicates that Ned is now the strong favorite in both the primary and the general election.  Get ready for Governor Lamont!

  6. Given how easy it is to pressure Arlen Specter from the left during a Democratic primary, isn't it extremely likely that Specter will move to the right in the general election when Toomey is pressuring him instead of Sestak?

  7. It turns out that if I delete content from a website that I--quite literally--own, then I am engaging in censorship.  I don't remember the part of the first amendment that declares everyone is allowed to use everyone else's printing press.

  8. This is the last day to submit your comments to the FCC in support of Net Neutrality. Go do it, now.

  9. The FDIC is trying to limit risky bank behavior by linking it to limits on executive pay.  The good news not just the ruling, but that the ruling is causing blowback from the conservative members of the FDIC.  This is a perfect example of the type of fights Democrats have to pick with financial institutions in 2010.  As I wrote yesterday, banks must be portrayed as the culprit, and Democrats have to come across as fighting the banks father than colluding with them.

    Keep picking fights like these, and pick them as publicly as possible.

What are you reading and thinking tonight?
Chris Bowers :: Nine short stories

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Nine short stories | 34 comments
Timing of NYT Article (4.00 / 2)

What do you think ... ?

Will Lieberman vote No on the final 60-vote threshhold needed for HCR out of spite or retaliation against Reid? Knowing the snake Lieberman is, it seems to me he like could. And if so, why did Reid let this article go out at this time before the vote? Doesn't make sense to me.

net neutrality link? (0.00 / 0)
did you mean that to be something like this?

not everything worth doing is profitable. not everything profitable is worth doing.
Thanks for the correct link to Net Neutrality (0.00 / 0)
Inspired by this short story, I went to add my name to this very important cause. Net Neutrality refers to equal access - no traffic cops or gatekeepers like main stream media censoring what gets out to users. Down With Censorship too -- on the internet and everywhere.

I don't know anything about the quick hit that was censored, but I remember JeffRoby who was censored from this site for promoting an idea that is anti-Democratic Party, apparently perceived as competition to this web site.  Give me a break! That was wrong. That censorship was akin to how main stream media outlets regularly give short shrift to Progressives in the news.

Web sites - privately owned or not - should conform to journalistic ethics, which is not the same as main stream media ethics.

[ Parent ]
wrong (0.00 / 0)
This isnt "our" site, or "your site" or a general site made by a school, or a newspaper site.

This is a site, that while it hasnt said anyoine thing has a purpose that the site authors/owners have in their minds. They built it, bought it, designed it, discussed it so that it would do several things. "I" just me alone, and I am just a frequent guest, a hanger -on, think that site is for getting sh17 done. Making progressive change happen, making organizing happen, inspiring, poking and informing.

But...

This is their house, their cookies, their well, it is for their purposes. So my thoughts are just that. What they decide helps them do with their efforts, they keep, what they think distracts from their efforts, they scrape away.

Like whittling.

If you sat down next to a lady whittling a stick, you wouldn't think of telling her how to whittle, but she might discuss it with you. Capice?

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

[ Parent ]
Does your logic apply to the corporations that own the M$M? (4.00 / 1)
They own those news outlets - like FOX News - so they can determine who is allowed to speak through those outlets, no?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
Write me a law that says that I can put chapters in your upcoming book, (0.00 / 0)
write it so Fox news has to let me write every other hour of their news, and every other hour of their "views" programming, and we will all judge how well you understand the first amendment.

Write it so I can wlak into a candle shop and start putting my candles on the shelves, with my price stickers, write so I can stop construction sites and redraw blueprints.

I know what I want, and I can call everyone names that I learned in history class until I get it.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

[ Parent ]
OK (0.00 / 0)
Now answer the question.

If ownership provides the right to censor content, then why does it not follow that Murdoch's ownership of FOX allow him to skew his network's content in anyway he sees fit?

Chris no more owns the "internet" than Murdoch owns the airwaves. Both own an organization that connects to and utilizes the public airwaves/innertoobs to distribute the content associated with the respective organization. Each owns the content, to the extent that others creating content for them agree to such ownership/control. FOX owns its content in a different sense than OpenLeft owns the content here, but that's not really the point.

For the record, I agree with CB's decision to delete content and I give him credit for re-raising the issue on his own, thus not sweeping it under the rug. That is one thing that sets this site apart from M$M in my opinion - accountability. Rarely, if ever, have I seen any diarist dodge questions related to their posts. This is especially true with regard to issues of deleting content and banning users. Not to mention that the QHs deleted often reappear, in one form or another. And many banned users seem to be able to get back in. No vendettas are apparent and "punishment" (is that a better word than the inappropriate, "censor"?) is case by case. That's a rather just system, IMHO.

Even so, I think the argument based on ownership is very dangerous frame within which to defend his actions. Primarily because some dude (is that word OK? [!]) like Rupert M. or the misanthropes (is that word OK? [!]) that run outfits like the Swift Boaters and Teabaggers (is that word OK? [!]) will take that precedent and run circles around what passes as the progressive media.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
spit (0.00 / 0)
quite disappointed about snowe because i foolishly believed what the WH believed (maybe caught up in their spin) that she would come thru in the end.

but in terms of the lying, cheating, double-crossing, lowlife, blood sucking scum senator from conn. i spit on him.

I am glad you didnt spit on snow..... (4.00 / 1)
spit disappears on snow, its very hard to tell where anyone spat. Frank Zappa was very clear about this:


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
"After Lieberman's bombshell interview, an incensed Reid fumed to unnamed associates." (4.00 / 5)
Harry Reid also admitted that Lieberman stole his lunch and dunked his head in the toilet in front of Snowe. But Reid claims he can still work with Lieberman to get a bipartisan bill.
Survivor: Home gardening edition (4.00 / 1)
The Southern Poverty Law Center's Hatewatch blog has a report on the latest craze in profiteering on fear and paranoia: Magical seeds for survivalists when the apocalypse is nigh.

For $297 a company will sell you "super seeds" that are "grown by small, fiercely independent, farmers." Grrrrr.

"You don't have to be an Old Testament prophet to see what's going on all around us," the seed peddlers say on their website. "A belligerent lower class demanding handouts. A rapidly diminishing middle class crippled by police state bureaucracy. An aloof, ruling elite that has introduced us to an emerging totalitarianism which seeks control over every aspect of our lives."

The solution: 22 varieties of high-quality seeds to grow a variety of beans, corn, peppers, squash, and other vegetables and melons on remote plots "far from the prying eyes of the big hybrid seed companies." The seed package is enough to plant an acre, the company says. If you live in a Philadelphia row house or a San Francisco penthouse, apparently you're out of luck.

Bwahahaha. Big hybrid seeds companies may be prying into your backyard garden at this very moment...

On a more serious note, they're to be commended for their willingness to broach the subject of class in American society.

Big hybrid seed companies actually do spy on people (4.00 / 7)
Monsanto, for example, hires private detectives to sample crops in the field without the knowledge or permission of the landowner to see if there are any patented genes in the crop. If what they find doesn't tally up with sales records at the local seed store, Monsanto will sue. You could watch "Food, Inc." to see how it's done.

This is more a genetically modified seed patent issue than a hybrid seed issue - hybrid seeds are unreliable past the first generation, not much point to police their use beyond first sale - but it's the same companies. And agriculture companies in general, from the seed industry to the meat packers, are merciless towards the farmers who supply them. On these issues, the parties are barely distinguishable.

Also, we are being governed by an aloof and uncaring corporate elite.

This is what Democrats open the door to when they don't fight corporate abuses of power against ordinary citizens, and when they provide no reason for people to think that they understand the anger they feel towards being haplessly screwed over by large, impersonal, aristocratic institutions that never face accountability.

[ Parent ]
Big hybrid seed companies spy on farmers, not gardeners (4.00 / 2)
This is more a genetically modified seed patent issue than a hybrid seed issue

Exactly.

The aggressive conduct toward farmers and the fair compensation issue for farmers who grow seed for corporate seed companies are all perfectly legitimate and important progressive issues, absolutely. Damn right we are being governed by an aloof and uncaring corporate elite.

I haven't seen 'Food Inc' but from other sources I'm familiar with the case of Percy Schmiser in Canada who had to forfeit the genetic heritage of his own saved seed stock after some corporate pollen blew into his canola fields and cross-pollinated - a story I'd be surprised if 'Food Inc' didn't touch on.

And you're correct about Monsanto et al policing - or more accurately, threatening to police - the seed that farmers are using (another progressive issue), but farmers are less than one percent of the population and it's misleading to conflate that small group with all 'citizens' to create the fear that every American garden patch is at risk of being surveilled by corporate police.

Though I do appreciate that fear has as much utility for purposes of progressive political motivation as it does for selling magic seeds. Fear is like the ring in 'Lord of the Rings' and we Progressives are tempted to use its power for good...

Elsewise, I'm completely with you on the criticism of Democrats who don't do enough to fight corporate power abuses...

[ Parent ]
Monsanto is an evil company, one of the worst. (4.00 / 1)
They are attempting to gain increased control of world agriculture. They patent seeds, they make it illegal to plant seeds from your crop this year, next year. They are bringing the entire weight of the government to protect their attempts to monopolize food and agriculture.

This is a comp[any working to put food agriculture  under the control of a single company like Enron tried to take control of energy.

This isnt scare mongering, this another of the many stories that never get past the editor.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

[ Parent ]
Fora, blogging, and ownership (0.00 / 0)
I haven't read the imbroglio that (7) links to, but the notion of "censorship" as it applies to internet forums and blogs is a lot more complicated than "it's not censorship if I own the website."  Arguments often devolve to the definition of the word "censorship," but that can miss the varying and substantive meanings people have in mind in arguing about these issues.  

For instance, as liberals, we agree that privately owned fora should in some cases be regulated in what they can do: if you run an organization of a largish size, for instance, you can't ban blacks or women just because you own the place.  Speech is a little harder: on the one hand, many people are probably okay with the idea of organizations which say, feel free to join, but if the leader doesn't like what you say, he'll eject you.  On the other hand, if an organization presents itself as accepting of all reasonable speech, and builds itself into a difficult-to-replace pillar of some community, and then later ejects members at the whim of the leader/owner, many would feel that that is unjust.  We may hate Little Green Footballs, but at least we all know that if you join, you will be summarily ejected if you cross party lines; on the other hand, expectations appear to be quite different on the liberal blogosphere, particularly when it comes to critiques from the left.

Similarly, you may own the servers, but it is quite unclear if you own the contents posted by the participants -- again, I'm not talking about the law, but about what we as liberals believe ought to be the case.  Many would be okay with you summarily erasing all content, but would object to you selling it all off to some third party -- even if you "own the website."  Conversely, many bloggers and forum owners want a) to have the protections granted to journalists, and b) not be liable for illegal or libelous material posted on their property.  In both these cases, you are distancing yourself from the simple notion that the website is merely your property that you decorate at will.  

I could go on with further examples, but the main point is that, questions of definition or law or "the first amendment" apart, the notion of what a web site "owner" should or should not do with what he "owns" is complex and contested within the liberal community, and justifications for speech control and erasure need to be based on a much more nuanced framework than just asserting "it's mine and I can do what I want with it."  I gather Daily Kos has somewhat explicit policies on this; perhaps, as openleft.com grows, it should sketch out a few of its own.

This is all very nice and abstract (4.00 / 4)
But a guy uses the term "Ass clown" in the title of the Quick Hit. I delete that. People cry censorship. I say that's stupid.

That's the story.

[ Parent ]
Sounds reasonable. (0.00 / 0)
But as I said, I was responding to the rationale posted in point number 7, not the substance of the particular squabble.  

It turns out that if I delete content from a website that I--quite literally--own, then I am engaging in censorship.  I don't remember the part of the first amendment that declares everyone is allowed to use everyone else's printing press.

I didn't think my various examples were any more abstract that what you wrote there.  Does that mean you don't think one should bother hashing out some general policies for post deletion and so forth?  I'm not saying it need be done now now now, just that it seemed worth considering.  But then, I admit, I'm somewhat interested in the politics of web communities in and of itself, particularly as their real-world importance grows.

[ Parent ]
And what would be the working assumption? (4.00 / 2)
Barring the "general policies for post deletion and so forth" being hashed out, what is a reasonable assumption that the public at large (you, me) should have regarding post deletion?

How about: it's Chris' site and he can delete stuff that he thinks breaks the rules.

Maybe that doesn't work for you (or maybe it does), but it works for me. I think it's also congruent with many other opinion sites on the left blogosphere.

Frankly, I don't need more guidance than that. Apparently some people do. That's fine, I can understand why. But to me it seems like common sense that the site owner gets carte blanche to keep things tidy however he wants. Those who find that burdensome are welcome to go create their own site. That's been true on the net for about 15 years and I don't see any reason for that not to be the default still.


Karl in Drexel Hill, PA

[ Parent ]
Well, this thread is over, but... (4.00 / 1)
I think most people prefer a bit more transparency.  Even parents, who have carte blanche to impose whatever rules they like on their children, are encouraged to make those rules explicit whenever the child is old enough to understand them.  I think most people prefer a less arbitrary system, even if they believe the owner does have the right to be opaque and arbitrary if he chooses.

And as I said before, in many important ways, it's not simply "Chris's site" -- most agree he doesn't have the right to sell our posts, or to ban black participants, and he himself (presumably) wants protection from liability for what we write.  So apart from the question of who pays the server costs and performs administrative duties, blogs/forums like this one are already quasi-public entities.

Furthermore, what reason is there not to make the policies explicit?  It is so difficult to set out somewhere that profanity in titles is prohibited, or that one-sentence attacks aren't acceptable?  (Though do these rules hold equally for posts directed against the right...)  Either way, it seems worth discussing.  Some other time...

[ Parent ]
Harry Reid whines and passes the buck now that there's nothing we can do about it. (4.00 / 6)
It's his fucking job to make sure these things don't happen.  That's his job!  And he couldn't see this coming?  Every lefty blogger in existence was screaming the obvious, but Harry was blind to it?  We're supposed to believe that?  If he's telling the truth, how the fuck can we not be calling Reid an incompetent idiot?  And if he's lying, why are we not calling him a corrupt corporatist?

We get these idiots complaining about how hard it is to pass bills.  How hard it is to write legislation.  How hard it is to do their jobs.  And now Harry Fucking Reid is saying he can't do his job.  And we, as a group, keep giving these clowns a pass.

What the fuck is wrong with us?  Why are we not calling for Reid's (political) head on a pike?

Yeah, maybe the next guy will be just as incompetent and weak as Reid (or as corrupt, depending on which theory you hold to).  But we won't know until we get rid of Reid.  And if we keep getting rid of the incompetent people, one after another (like Lincoln kept changing generals during the Civil War), eventually, we'll get someone competent in there, if for no other reason than we'll have rid ourselves of all the incompetent ones.

No more excuses.

Health insurance is not health care.
If you don't fight, you can't win.
Never give up. Never Surrender.
Watch out for flying kabuki.

Harry Reid was doing what the president wanted (4.00 / 6)
Hindsight's 20-20, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid now thinks he and leading Democrats, at the behest of the White House, flushed months down the toilet courting Sen. Olympia Snowe's (R-ME) support for health care reform.

So you want to call for Obama's head ..on that primitive medieval weapon?

The WH wanted a bipartisan bill...so they cut it too close.  They should have gone for reconcilation in the summer.  They should have said to Max Baucus in Finance, vote now or we'll do a bill without you.  But the WHITE HOUSE aka Presidient Obama wanted the fiance bill.

And one of the reasons that Martha Caokley might lose is tied very much into the kind of bill the president is pushing and who he decided to make deals with. The elderly, usually a very Demcoratic bloc seem to be polling against Caokley.  And it is all too damn predicitable...actually I predicted it back in the spring.

If you balance the health care reform bill's book on the ack of Medicare by 400 billion dollars because you can't get the money from the big industry players like Pharma and AHIP because you made back room deals with them, then you are going to lose the elderly vote.  And the elderly didn't like Obama that much to begin with.

And these are all of a piece, you pursue Republicans like Olympia Snowe and you lose time, momentum and respect.

To once more quote myself from June 19th

Soooo typical...there is no need to compromise....there are 50 votes but the longer this little minuet goes on about trying to get a bipartisan solution to health care, the worse the outcome will be.  Instead of building support for the public option in Congress it;s helping to wear away at the support, giving the insurance companies and their allies time to undermine the plan.
As I wrote two days ago....the summer strategy of working on compromise is a tactical mistake.  they are hoping for Obama's popularity to lessen and for his commitment to the public option to be diverted.
50 votes now...we have them now, who the hell knows if we'll have them later.

Reconciliation now not later.



"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
I'm not quite sure if you're arguing or agreeing with me. (0.00 / 0)
For the most part, we seem to be in agreement.  It's just this question that has me scratching my head:
So you want to call for Obama's head ..on that primitive medieval weapon?

A) This is really more of a side question, but what's wrong with the word "pike"?  Are you offended by it or something?  Do you have similar problems with the names of other weapons, like sword, knife, bow, gun, etc.?

B) On the substantive point, you seem to be implying that I'm being hypocritical by not going after Obama.  I do not think that is true.  I think Obama has been doing his job.  I don't agree with many of his decisions, certainly.  But he's done his job.  It's not his job to pass legislation through congress, and it's not his job to run the Senate.  He can try to get certain legislation passed, certainly, and I really wish that he would push congress to pass the type of legislation that we want passed, but in the end, that simply isn't his job.

Reid's job is to figure out how to pass bills through the Senate.  It's his job to know who in the Senate he can count on to do what so he knows how to get the bills passed.  And it's his job to stand up to Obama when Obama's trying to get something that just isn't possible in the Senate.  It's not his job to kowtow to the President, whoever that may be.

One is competent to perform the duties of his position, even if we disagree with some (or many) of the decisions he's made.  The other has finally openly admitted to being incapable of performing the duties of his position after years of proving the point.  I'm tired of politicians admitting to being incompetent and somehow being allowed to use that to excuse their fuck-ups.  In any other job, they'd get fired.

Additional points to consider:

If we get rid of Obama, is there going to be someone else even nominally on our side who can immediately take his place?  I don't think so.  So, assuming we want to continue to advance our own agenda, we're somewhat restricted in how we go after Obama, right?  Would I like to take down Obama and put someone better in place?  Damn skippy!  But the reality is, that's about as likely to happen any time soon as me ever becoming President.  It frustrates the piss out of me, but there's no point in going after him, at least in the same manner at this time.  I'll still criticize him and his actions, but I don't see how our agenda is served by trying to vote him out of office.  We have to use a different method of influencing Obama.

The same cannot be said of Reid.  Even if we lose 9 Senators (10, if we continue to assume Lieberman will caucus with the Dems, which I doubt would happen if he thinks he'll have more clout joining the Reps; 4 if we're pessimistic and assume Nelson, Liandreu, Baucus, and Specter (should he manage to be reelected) join Lieberman in the switch, along with Brown winning the MA special election, but I don't think that will happen), the Senate will remain in Dem hands, and so the leader will be a Dem.  Reid has proven time and time again that he is an impediment to accomplishing our agenda, and that he simply can't perform the job of Senate Majority Leader, even with a supposed supermajority.  His position can be immediately and easily filled by someone else.  We simply don't need him.  By letting him hang (again, politically), we can send an additional message to Obama and the rest of the Dems that we're fed up with incompetency and this spineless bipartisan bullshit.  They're going to have to fight for us if they want our continued support.

Health insurance is not health care.
If you don't fight, you can't win.
Never give up. Never Surrender.
Watch out for flying kabuki.

[ Parent ]
The Gentleman's Club effect (0.00 / 0)
I asign some blame to Obama and the senators' code of not disciplining a member like Lieberman who campaigned for the opposition. I believe he should be replaced as the Chair of the Homeland Security committee. Just read the text of Michael Leiter's testimony as head of the National Counterterrorism Center before the committee - what a synchophant he seems! Lieberman loves the limelight: he's made three statements already this week! Maybe he senses he's on thin ice, and is flexing his Chairman's muscle for all it's worth, for as long as it lasts.

There were a couple of seats that Obama might have campaigned for instead of sticking so close to his own schedule and his repetitious Town Hall format and Q&A. For example, he never appeared in Minnesota to help Franken (and Durbin made his appeal only at the very last moments) so it was only by dint of a long recount process that the candidate achieved his prize.

No one here likes Harold Ford, but I supported him and certainly preferred him to Bob Corker. I obviously prefer him to Lieberman. Clinton and Obama both showed up briefly at one rally, but there was just not enough oomph for Ford to prevail.

[ Parent ]
Man Made Vs. Natural Disasters (4.00 / 1)
I'm watching the news reporting from Haiti, and it is obviously, a tragic disaster.  Current reports are possibly tens of thousands dead, hundreds of thousands homeless, and millions needing aid.

And now - I'm going to shamelessly whine:

There are more families going homeless in the US this year.
There are an estimated 40,000 dying in the US this year due to lack of HCR.
There are tens of millions on food stamps and going hungry.

I know the problems in the U.S. are man made - not a natural disaster.

Can we treat it like a natural disaster?  Please?

During the Depression (4.00 / 5)
the New Deal was justified through a natural disaster metaphor - which helped people to see that this was something that required government action rather than being about individual initiative.  

It would be nice to revive that narrative.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
If only al-Qaeda was responsible... (4.00 / 3)
Sixteen maniacs kill 3,000 people and we spent $1 trillion (and that's just DOD $) to make sure it doesn't happen again. Tens of thousands die every year from lack of health care, hunger, poverty etc. and the scolds say we have no money or national interest for this.

If only we could lie our way into a war on poverty and disease. "Obama lied, people survived..."

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans

[ Parent ]
Another day of stonewalling by Woolsey (4.00 / 2)
I'd like to be reading Lynn Woolsey's response to progressive communities regarding the Harman fundraiser, but today was just another day of stonewalling silence. Clearly, grass roots and Internet-based progressive communities don't matter to the Co-Chair of the House Progressive Caucus.  

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans
Just to clarify (0.00 / 0)
I don't expect Woolsey to back out or otherwise backtrack on the Harman fundraiser, nor do I believe she must accede to every last demand of progressive communities. However, stonewalling any response whatsoever, as if progressive communities don't even exist, should simply be unacceptable behavior for a high officer of the Progressive Caucus.

Sadly, our apparent acceptance of this stonewalling serves only to politically neuter ourselves...

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans

[ Parent ]
Deleting anything is censorship (0.00 / 0)
But censorship is good in some cases.
no it isnt (0.00 / 0)
you dont have the 'right' to attach messages to my emails. I canb attach words you suggest to my messages, but they are still suggestions. You can't just start telling people that a message from is a message from me.

I reserve the right, duh, to not include your message in my email. That isnt censorship.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

[ Parent ]
Well my point is that I completely agree with you, except on your definition of censorshiop. (0.00 / 0)
The way I see it, if you delete that, it's censorship, but it's good censorship.
[ Parent ]
That distorts the very real crime of censorship. (0.00 / 0)
It makes censorship seem ok. Its not ok. Its how we got here, it s why we are still here.


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
Sorry, censorship doesn't mean what you want it to. (0.00 / 0)
"Censorship" is value neutral. Anytime you delete something because of its content, that's censorship. It can be done in good and bad ways just like most things.
[ Parent ]
Nore it seems do you know anything about consistency. (0.00 / 0)
You lecture others for violating rules you routinely break.  Yes, they're your rules, but you apparently don't care that when you provide one set of rules that everyone must follow, and another that allows you to break those rules with impunity, you demonstrate the very same inclination for self-privilege expressed by Bush, Cheney, Obama, Nixon, etc.  Worse, the excuse given for deleting one person's opinion appears to have been made up to justify a decision that was highly questionable in the first place.  Do you even care that you're hurting your own credibility as a progressive leader by acting so childishly?

"Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time." -- Harry S. Truman
Nine short stories | 34 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox