CNN.com - House approves Patriot Act renewal - Mar 7, 2006
Ok, it's not as bad as it could be. And, some of its original provisions WERE necessary. Hopefully, as the War on Terror winds down, we can keep watering down this monstrosity and gradually win back our inalienable rights.
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Monday, March 06, 2006
Joby Fortson & Texas Redistricing
The New Yorker: Fact
Once again, a private email that Joby Fortson sent to a small group of his friends has made it into print in a story regarding the Texas 2002 redistricting. The original article, as well as this one, is unfair to Joby for a number of reasons:
(1) The original email was a personal message sent to a small number of friends, it was chock full of inside jokes that the general public, not being part of that social circle, didn't get; Because it was an email sent to friends, and not intended for outside distribution, comments on its grammar etc. really should be ignored.
(2) Joby is not, nor has he been, a political operative; rather, he is a very well educated person working in politics who took the time to do a quick and dirty analysis of the potential Texas redistricing results. Joby's analysis cannnot be taken to imply any work or assistance by him on the redistricting process;
(3) Any inferred malice on Joby's part was nothing more than good natured ribbing of his many Democratic friends. In fact, as a result of the email's inside jokes, Joby personally apologized to U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee in writing after the email became public.
(4) Politics is a contact sport, and as Joby points out, the Democrats in 2002 reaped what they has sown in the 1990 re-districting.
How do I know all of this? I am a professional colleague of his.
The fact that institutions like the New Yorker continue to use Joby's analysis as proof of Republican malfeasance, simply shows how far the liberal media has to stretch to malign the Republican Party and its members.
Once again, a private email that Joby Fortson sent to a small group of his friends has made it into print in a story regarding the Texas 2002 redistricting. The original article, as well as this one, is unfair to Joby for a number of reasons:
(1) The original email was a personal message sent to a small number of friends, it was chock full of inside jokes that the general public, not being part of that social circle, didn't get; Because it was an email sent to friends, and not intended for outside distribution, comments on its grammar etc. really should be ignored.
(2) Joby is not, nor has he been, a political operative; rather, he is a very well educated person working in politics who took the time to do a quick and dirty analysis of the potential Texas redistricing results. Joby's analysis cannnot be taken to imply any work or assistance by him on the redistricting process;
(3) Any inferred malice on Joby's part was nothing more than good natured ribbing of his many Democratic friends. In fact, as a result of the email's inside jokes, Joby personally apologized to U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee in writing after the email became public.
(4) Politics is a contact sport, and as Joby points out, the Democrats in 2002 reaped what they has sown in the 1990 re-districting.
How do I know all of this? I am a professional colleague of his.
The fact that institutions like the New Yorker continue to use Joby's analysis as proof of Republican malfeasance, simply shows how far the liberal media has to stretch to malign the Republican Party and its members.
Good news for small "r" republicanism
Rise in Online Fundraising Changed Face of Campaign Donors
Excellent quotes from today's Thomas B. Edsell article at the Washington Post (Page A03)
Excellent quotes from today's Thomas B. Edsell article at the Washington Post (Page A03)
" . . . The surging number of campaign contributors in 2004, especially the small donors who gave online, changed the character of one of the most important constituencies in U.S. politics, the people who finance presidential elections.
This key group has become more reflective of the middle class, has a higher percentage of women and is far more willing to contribute without being directly solicited. . ." . . .More than half of Democrats gave online, more than double the percentage of Republicans. More than 80 percent of the contributions by people ages 18 to 34 were made online. Almost half of all small, online donors gave without being asked first by the campaigns. . . "
This is very good news for our Republic. It shows the beginning stages of movement away from television-centered, one-way mass communications, and back to a more grassroots involvement in the political process. After all, elections and politics belong to the citizen voters, not the politicians we elect.
Sunday, March 05, 2006
Brownie is the new Jewel
I'm so happy these tapes surfaced to vindicate Mr. Brown. Like others, I had found fault with him; however after reading about and viewing the tapes on the news, and watching his interview, I have changed my mind. He was a scapegoat for the highest powers; they rewarded his loyalty by throwing him to the wolves. Much like Richard Jewel, he was simply a man trying to help others, and was then crucified by the media, and others (including me).
He deserves credit, and an apology, from all of us.
He deserves credit, and an apology, from all of us.
Friday, March 03, 2006
The Subtle Pessimism of Earl
My Name is Earl is supposedly a show based around a (flawed)conception of Karma; or as the show puts it "Do good things and good things happen; do bad things and bad things happen." Therefore the show seems appropriately upbeat. But this is only a superficial reading of the television program.
Despite the nobleness of Earl's mission to right the wrongs he has committed, it is never easy for him, and usually costs him more trouble than he caused in that particular instance. Therefore, in essence, My Name is Earl is really a show about a different concept: that no good deed goes unpunished. A proper lesson for our cynical/realist age.
Despite the nobleness of Earl's mission to right the wrongs he has committed, it is never easy for him, and usually costs him more trouble than he caused in that particular instance. Therefore, in essence, My Name is Earl is really a show about a different concept: that no good deed goes unpunished. A proper lesson for our cynical/realist age.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
