Archive for August, 2003
« Previous Entries Next Entries »First Amendment Rights My Ass!
Monday, August 18th, 2003Westchester County has been ordered to pay damages of $2,500 to a twice-convicted pedophile. Why? Because they refused to allow him to perform his clown and balloon animals act for children at an Amusement Park.
Excuse Me? What the hell is that?
WHITE PLAINS — A federal judge ordered Westchester County yesterday to pay a twice-convicted pedophile $2,500 for violating his rights by past refusals to allow him to perform his clown act for children at Rye Playland Amusement Park.
But Judge John S. Martin approved the county’s park regulation crafted earlier this year that bars convicted pedophiles from obtaining performance permits if their acts are designed to “entice a child to congregate around” them. The ruling allows the county to bar Richard Hobbs from performing his clown act at the county-owned park.
Figure this one out. The county is now able to prevent this pervert from performing in front of children; but awards him $2,500 dollars at the same time? It’s liberal judges like this that Democrats like Hillary Clinton would like to see nominated and appointed. Unbelievable.
County officials hailed the ruling as a victory, though they said they were perplexed by the judge’s decision to award Hobbs the money.
Perplexed? How about dumbfounded and pissed?
He sued the county in 2000, charging that Westchester had violated his First Amendment rights by refusing to allow him to perform his clown and balloon animals act at the 279-acre park.
This is a serious problem - the First Amendment is being used gratuitously to defend harmful behavior and people. This is a perversion of the Constitution.
The county said Hobbs’ panhandling act would compete with the county’s for-profit operation in the only government-owned amusement park in the country. The county also cited Hobbs’ criminal past as another factor in refusing him the right to perform.
No shit. You think?
Hobbs pleaded guilty in 1978 to second-degree sexual abuse after New Rochelle police charged him with luring an 11-year-old boy into his office and fondling him. Four years later, a Pennsylvania judge sentenced Hobbs to nine months in jail for molesting a 14-year-old boy while driving him to church, where Hobbs performed his clown show for children.
And now he’s getting $2,500 dollars for being denied the right to perform for children… does this make sense? Can liberals understand what’s wrong with their ideology when pedophiles are receiving damages because a group of people don’t want him to perform in front of their children? Is this sending the right message? Is this how we’re supposed to protect our children?
In December, Martin handed down a decision that the county had a right to ban Hobbs from performing in the park’s money-making venues, like the amusement rides, but not from the public areas, like the boardwalk.
Was he ordered to inform his audience of his status of a sex offender? His “profession” puts him in the presence of children for crying out loud!
In March, Spano issued an executive order that banned pedophiles from performing acts designed for children’s amusement.
At hearings in April to determine public and private areas of the park, Hobbs’ lawyers challenged Spano’s executive order.
Since when does a pedophiles right to perform for children have more bearing than a parent’s right to protect his or her child?
In yesterday’s 25-page decision, Martin said the county’s past wrongful efforts to keep Hobbs from performing at the park cost Hobbs $2,500 in income. But, he said, the provision against pedophile performance contained in the new order is allowable.
Past wrongful efforts? Give me a break. This worthless judge ought to have his head examined for making such a ridiculous ruling. I didn’t realize protecting children was a “wrongful effort.”
“It is unquestionable that the county would wish to protect children from exposure to potential harm by preventing convicted pedophiles from performing acts that would entice children to congregate around them in county parks,” Martin wrote.
Great. So why did you give the guy $2,500! This is insane. The left have taken over the courts which care more about the rights of criminals than protection of the people. The Left have made our legal system soft on crime, at the expense of law-abiding citizens. How are the children protected from pedophile perverts when a dumbass liberal judge awards damages to a two time convicted pedophile because he was “wronged” for being denied the right to perform for children?
First Amendment rights my ass!
Shades of Black … The Colors of Racism
Monday, August 18th, 2003There are some people out there who believe that black people can�t be racists. The sentiment is that racism is only racism when it is the majority discriminating against the minority.
Too many people believe this fallacy, enough people on the Supreme Court felt this way, and thus, discrimination remains legal with college admissions, employment, etc. etc. etc.
A dark-skinned Black waiter at an Applebee’s restaurant near Atlanta alleged that his light-skinned Black supervisor was discriminating against him. To settle the suit, the company paid him $40,000.
This is amazing to me. I don�t really hear about these stories often� they may be more common than I am aware, but nevertheless, this blows my mind.
Dwight Burch, a former employee, accused his manager at the Jonesboro, Ga., restaurant of repeatedly referring to him as a “tar baby” and “Black monkey” during his three months at the restaurant. Burch also alleged in his suit that his manager told him to bleach his skin and that he was fired when he threatened to report the man to officials at Applebee’s headquarters.
This goes beyond mere name-calling. This guy actually lost his job as a result of this racism. I totally agree the guy deserved the settlement he got. I believe that people who have been discriminated against ought to be able to seek damages for it. As long as racism can be proven � which in this case it clearly can be.
This is what civil rights is supposed to be about � when equal opportunity has been denied, the wrong should be made right. I am glad that racism within the black community can be recognized as racism. The article does however paint the situation somewhat differently. Mention is made of the term �colorism� � a euphemism for racism within the black community.
I think we should move beyond the labeling game and the creation of new words and terms to hide the reality of what occurred here. It is racism. There�s no other way to define it. To offer a new �-ism� to make distinction between two different executions of racism is to suggest one is different or perhaps less severe than the other. It�s a made up term meant to diminish the seriousness of such ignorance. The mere creation of the word �colorism� to distinguish discrimination within the black community between discrimination between two different groups implies that some forms of racism are more equal than others.
�Colorism� is a euphemism for racism. Plain and simple. If people can�t recognize the fact that there is nothing different between racism against blacks by whites, whites by blacks, blacks by blacks, or any other combination of races, religions, ethnicities, etc. etc, than we�re forgetting the whole point of what the civil rights movement was all about.
I am not going to remind you, if you don�t know, then I can�t help you.
While I’m On The Subject of Race…
I was thinking about this particular situation vs. the �affirmative action� issue. Then I realized a parallel and a discrepancy with �equal opportunity� and the War in Iraq.
Some of the people who were against the United States for going into Iraq had problems with the �preemptive strike� doctrine of the Bush Administration. Democratic candidates for President have expressed their issues with the doctrine, as well as other Democrats and liberals whom you and I all have had conversations with.
I came to the realization that the same people who were against the �preemptive strike� against terrorism are for the �preemptive strike� against racism.
Let me clarify.
�Affirmative Action� is justified on the basis that opportunities are being given to minorities who might not achieve a particular goal, such as admission to college, or a job, because of his or her race.
For instance, companies are expected to hire a certain number or percentage of minorities, in order to give them the opportunity of having a job they may otherwise not have gotten because of the possibility they�d be denied a job due to racism.
So, while no racism has occurred. No discriminatory actions have been made against any individual, employers have been assumed that they may discriminate anyways, and in order to prevent that, quotas are enforced. So, while a minority applicant has never experienced actual discrimination, the company may just have to hire him or her, even if he or she is not the most qualified applicant, in the efforts of �equal opportunity.�
That is a �preemptive strike� against racism that has not yet occurred. However, liberals generally don�t take issue with this preemptive strike. They do however take issue with preemptive strikes against terrorism.
Why? How can the �preemptive doctrine� be rejected in one situation, but encouraged in another?
Hypocrisy, maybe? Yeah, I think so.
Now, to make my positions clear, I believe in the �preemptive strike� doctrine on terrorism, but not against racism (in the form of quotas). For one thing, a �preemptive strike� against racism merely begets more racism, and is inherently racist itself. It does not combat racism, or solve it. A �preemptive strike� against terrorism saves lives. It protects us from terrorism only at the expense of the lives and freedom of evil terrorists. Preemptive strikes against racism gives minorities admissions, jobs, etc. etc. at the expense of other people who may just be more qualified.
As seen in this case in Georgia, a man who experienced racism was able to obtain damages after being victimized. When you wait for terrorism to occur before you combat it, you�re dead. That�s it. There�s no way to rectify that. You�re dead. You can�t undo that. You can�t seek damages after you�re killed.
No government policy is going to change a person�s intolerance towards another person. However, Bush�s policy of preemptive strikes against terrorists will save lives. It protects America from evil people who wish to harm and kill us.
So why are liberals soft on terrorism? Why are they so against preventing terrorism from hitting us first, but are willing to fight racism by discriminating against the majority? Why are they willing to take a chance with terrorism but not with racism?
Why are liberals willing to risk their lives for political correctness? Excuse me for saying so, but I�m not willing to risk my life or the lives of others to keep liberals from being offended. Liberals have things backwards. They should be fighting terrorism before it happens and fight discrimination after it occurs. You can�t legislate morality, but you can save lives by hitting your enemies before they hit you.
The Democrats Don’t See The Light
Saturday, August 16th, 2003It was only a matter of time. The “Bush Knew” campaign by the Left that surfaced shortly after 9/11 will now take the backseat to the new “Bush Blew It” campaign about 8/14.
Dick Gephardt said,
“The unfortunate events on the East Coast, parts of the Midwest and in Canada yesterday are further evidence that the Bush administration is inexorably tied to Persian Gulf oil and old energy, and is incapable of devising a comprehensive, forward-looking energy strategy.”
Blah, blah, blah… Yawnnn…
The [color=green][b]Irish John Kerry[/b][/color] and the [color=blue][b]Jewish John Kerry[/b][/color] didn’t have a comment, but the [color=yellow][b]French John Kerry[/b][/color] said “If it weren’t for this administration’s obsession with giveaways to their friends in the oil business, Congress likely would have passed an energy bill last year, parts of which were designed to strengthen and modernize the electric grid.”
No incarnation of Kerry is capable of understanding the real reason for the lack of a modern electric grid.
Nancy Pelosi also dribbled a few words, “The West Coast energy crisis was a wake-up call on energy modernization, the blackout is a blaring siren… President Bush should call on Republicans to work with House Democrats to modernize our transition system.”
Of course, it’s the Republicans who need to work the Democrats who are the ones to get things done. It’s always the Democrats who are looking out for us, while the Republicans are just in it for the buck. Please.
Bill Clinton’s former Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, tooting his own horn gave a mordant “I told you so,” in response to the blackouts. “We’ve been warning this for years. Regrettably, nobody listened, the Congress didn’t act,” Richardson said. “The problem is, we’re a superpower with a third world grid that is antiquated.”
Warning about this for years? You mean Bill Clinton warned us for eight years and didn’t do anything? Same grid today as it was during Clinton’s Administration. Gee, this kind of reminds me of the homeless problem that likes to resurface only when a Republican is in the White House.
Richardson went on to blame the Republican controlled congresses for not doing anything… Of course, it always comes down to either the Republican Congress or the Republican President.
However, it was Dick Cheney who remarked in June of 2001 about the need to improve our energy. Cheney, speaking on the results of a report by the National Energy Policy Development Group, noted that “[o]ne of the concerns, obviously, is the aging power grid and the growing problem that we have in getting electricity from the power plant to the light switch. It’s clear that we must upgrade and expand the power grid. If we put more connections in place, we’ll go a long way towards avoiding future blackouts. Another broad aim is to increase energy supplies from diverse sources; from oil and gas, renewables, coal, hydro and nuclear. This is the kind of balanced approach we think is essential if we’re going to meet the country’s energy needs down the road and take care of many of our other concerns, especially with respect to the environment.“
That was then… and here we are now. Cheney continued:
“Indeed, an energy shortage is bad for the environment, as we’ve seen in California, where dirtier plants are now running longer in order to keep the lights on and where competition and efforts to deal with some of the environmental problems have led to a refusal to build plants are now creating demands, for example, for using the water in the dams and reservoirs in the Northwest in a way that may, in fact, damage the salmon population.”
Sounds to me like it’s the left wing wacko-environmentalists who prevent the building of new plants, keep our infrastructure from being updated. I wonder which Senators and Congressman they have in their pockets… hmmm.
That’s the real issue here. We need more plants. Liberals can have wet dreams about conservation all they want, but we live an a electricity dependant society. There’s demand that has to be met. Non-polluting sources of energy can be built, but too many liberals have the NIMBY attitude, which keeps us relying on our current sources of energy more and more and never expanding or upgrading to meet the demand.
This is why California had their problems. Why can’t liberals and the nimrods in the EPA stop pretending that we don’t live in a society that enjoys air conditioning, refrigeration of food, hot showers, television, appliances, light, computers, etc. etc. etc.
Here we have a problem with and outdated energy system, which remained outdated during the eight years of President Clinton (don’t forget) and the Democrats are crying foul like Bush personally pulled the switch on our energy. Ultimately, who is really to blame? It’s the Democrats who prevent more plants from being built, the Democrats who laugh at George W. Bush anytime he talks about energy and the environment, the Democrats who have no other campaign strategy besides “Blame Bush.”
This will all come back to hurt the Democrats. They look pettier every time they open their mouths. The “Blame Bush” strategy may arouse their liberal base, but they can’t win in 2004 that way. The power will come back on in the Northeast, but the Democrats will never see the light, they’ll never see a Democrat President in 2004.
Democrats: We Should Be Attacked First
Thursday, August 14th, 2003Just whose side are the Democrats on? Everyday I wonder if Saddam Hussein will be the running mate of whoever wins the Democratic Presidential nomination. The Democrats have continually advocated the weakening of our military and impotence of homeland security.
Democrats are having some problems with the preemptive strike doctrine (when a Republican is in office) and are now criticizing Bush yet again.
Barbara Lee-nient-On-Terrorism, Congresswoman from California said “I am confident that, when we have that debate and investigation, more people will realize that the use of military force as a first-strike option is a dangerous precedent that can be used by other countries, including nuclear powers.”
What wonderful lip service to the anti-Republican-war liberals out there. Of course, there is no logic behind that statement. She clearly make no effort to suggest that other world nuclear powers out there won’t use nuclear weapons… so what she’s saying is better they strike us first than vice-versa. Apparently she’s introduced a bill with 24 cosponsors, which, if passed, would “disavow the preemptive doctrine.”
And they wonder why they lost so badly in November of 2002. What they are saying to other countries is “Hey, we won’t attack you even when you’re asking for it, so why don’t you launch a few nukes our way…”
“That is not a world we want to live in and not an example we want to set,” Lee told Foxnews.com in an e-mail.
Excuse me, but I don’t want to live in a world were rogue nations get the go ahead to attack us first because they’ll be comfortable knowing we won’t go after them until they’ve hit us. Great plan Barbara!
Lee said the current controversy over whether the White House provided faulty evidence to go to war with Iraq is just one reason why a first-strike doctrine often can backfire.
Oh give me a break! Is that all she can say? I’m sorry, but I’d take the word of questionable intelligence over waiting around for us to be attacked before we do anything.
But experts say first-strike is a good policy to have on hand, especially in the war on terror.
“I think that if you have enemies in this world and they believe you’d never pre-empt them, that could be a bad thing,” said Mark Burgess, a research analyst with the Center for Defense Information. “I think it’s a good tool to have. I think it’s not a good tool to have if it’s the only tool in your chest.”
Exactly! But Barbara Lee-nient-On-Terrorism thinks she’s smarter than the experts on this one. She clearly understands nothing about fighting the War on Terror. She wants our enemies to be able to fully mobilize and strike us before we take action, rather than letting us dismantle them before they become a threat…
As Bush said a year ago, “We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge.”
Liberals can argue in all directions about whether or not there are/were WMDs in Iraq – and they can live under the liberal utopian idea that there were no WMDs, but this kind of policy only promotes the idea that we should trust people like Saddam Hussein on their word.
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz probably said it best:
“These are people who operate in the shadows, with a great deal of secrecy, and a great deal of false information planted all over the place… I think the lesson of 9/11 is that, if you’re not prepared to act on the basis of murky intelligence, then you’re going to have to act after the fact. And after the fact now means after horrendous things have happened to this country.”
Perhaps Barbara Lee-nient-On-Terrorism thinks we should we trust Al Qaeda not to hit us again just because it’s been almost two years since September 11, 2001 and they haven’t hit us since?
This is really irritating. Liberals are doing whatever they can to weaken this country. This bill that wants to abandon the preemptive strike doctrine is never going to pass. Thank God. I don’t want liberal politics to put millions of lives in jeopardy.
He’s Bad Enough, He’s Dumb Enough, and Doggone It, He’s A Liberal Idiot.
Monday, August 11th, 2003When did the memo go out that said that Al Franken actually had something to say? Not only that, but since when has anyone considered him worth listening to?
Apparently this moron who sees the world only through cloudy leftist eyeglasses has managed to spew out yet another book that is already got space reserved in the Bargain Books section of your favorite bookstore.
Al Franken has an upcoming book titled “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right.”
All joking and politics aside, does any thinking person expect to believe with a titled like that Franken is going to present a �fair and balanced look� at anything?
Not only is his attempt to present his �book� as an objective piece completely absurd, but also his blatant attempt to imitate the slogan of Fox News Channel is even worse.
Now of course, Al Franken is the type to think Fox News is a one-sided, right wing biased station. All the power to him. I have yet to see him criticize CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS for being one-sided, left wing biased stations, but then again he is the �fair and balanced� one right?
Al Franken, and any other moron who wants to call Fox News biased clearly ignores the fact that CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS are all owned, hosted, and run by liberals. To suggest that these stations can run in such a manner, but Fox News can�t, for being allegedly conservative.
To address the �conservative bias� of Fox News, one must take an objective look at the programming� from all angles. Bill O�Reilly, for example, may be a conservative, but he�s never kept liberal guests from coming on his show. People like Al Franken look at Fox News and only see Bill O�Reilly. People like Al Franken look at Fox News and see Sean Hannity. I look at Fox News and see Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes. A right wing host, and a left wing host � with both left and right wing guests.
Moving on�
Now that we�ve established why anyone who suggests Fox News isn�t �fair and balanced� is a moron, and why someone like Al Franken who thinks he is �fair and balance� is an idiot, lets get to the real news here.
I say great! Franken is ridiculing the concept of being �fair and balanced� by putting it next to his name, By attaching his name to the phrase �fair and balanced� (which is trademarked by Fox News Channel) he�s blemishing the reputation of Fox News.
Al Franken has a lot of nerve. He�s a slimy liberal nitwit. He�s bad enough, he�s dumb enough, and doggone it, he�s the latest addition to the MattMargolis.com Liberal Idiots List.
Think I’ll Buy Me a Football Team
Thursday, August 7th, 2003The economy is showing signs of improvement and this is a good thing for America. Productivity is up, jobless claims are down. Things may not be wonderful yet, but all the signs are pointing to good economic times in the near future.
Productivity — the amount that an employee produces per hour of work — grew at an annual rate of 5.7 percent in the April to June quarter, the best showing since the third quarter of 2002, the Labor Department reported Thursday. That marked an improvement from the 2.1 percent growth rate in productivity posted in the first three months of this year.
Increased productivity is good. Improvements are good.
[N]ew applications for jobless benefits fell by a seasonally adjusted 3,000 to a six-month low of 390,000 for the work week ending Aug. 2. It marked the third week in a row that claims were below 400,000, a level associated with a weak job market. This suggest[s] the pace of layoffs is stabilizing. Claims hit a high this year of 459,000 during the work week that ended April 19.
This is good to hear too.
Both the productivity and jobless claims figures were better than economists were expecting. They were forecasting productivity to grow at a 4 percent pace in the second quarter and for jobless claims to rise.
…
For the economy’s long-term health and rising living standards, solid productivity gains are crucial. They allow the economy to grow faster without triggering inflation. Companies can pay workers more without raising prices, which would eat up those wage gains. And, productivity gains also can bolster a company’s profitability.
This is very optimistic stuff. All these little things working together show great promise for our countries economy. The tax cut checks going out and being spent will also help speed this process along.
Another story I found today said that even though the news on the economy is good, this didn’t boost the stock market much today. This will be the theme of the liberal spin on the improving economy. They can interpret that however they want to. I’m honestly looking forward to the sure to be laughable liberal response to the news of the improving economy.
[B][color=blue]Joe Liberal:[/B][/color] “The economy isn’t improving.”
[B][color=red]Me:[/B][/color] “Economists say it is.”
[B][color=blue]Joe Liberal:[/B][/color] “Well, yeah, but this is not because of George W. Bush.”
[B][color=red]Me:[/B][/color] “But you said the bad economy was his fault.”
[B][color=blue]Joe Liberal:[/B][/color] “Right. It was.”
[B][color=red]Me:[/B][/color] “Because the economy got really bad on his watch?”
[B][color=blue]Joe Liberal:[/B][/color] “That’s right!”
[B][color=red]Me:[/B][/color] “So when the economy improves under George W. Bush’s watch, he’s not responsible for that – even though it happened on his watch.”
[B][color=blue]Joe Liberal:[/B][/color] “Oh, um…um… Bush is a Nazi?”
[B][color=red]Me:[/B][/color] “Tell me, what if the economy improves?”
[B][color=blue]Joe Liberal:[/B][/color] “Well, the President doesn’t really have anything to do with the economy anyway.”
[B][color=red]Me:[/B][/color] “But, when the economy was bad, he did – according to you.”
[B][color=blue]Joe Liberal:[/B][/color] “Well, umm… yeah, you see… Bush is a Nazi? No blood for oil?”
It’s all fairly standard. Economists say one things, some nobody-liberal on an ego trip decides that it is not, and we’re suppose to take the latter’s word for it? Joe Liberal will scan through all the articles on the signs of the improving economy, look for a sentence that begins with “But…” or “However…” and make that the central theme as to why the economy isn’t improving.
Yeah, yeah, we’ve all been there and dealt with that crap before. I can quote article after article, and it still doesn’t matter. Reason after reason is not going to stop Joe Liberal from saying the economy is not improving. Joe Liberal can’t separate partisan ideology from the truth. It’s not about whether or not the economy is in fact improving – it’s about whether or not they want it to improve so come election time they can have something to use as ammo against Bush. In their minds, his tax cuts aren’t supposed to help the economy… however, with checks going out, increases in sales and a potential boost in manufacturing, it’s all going to play out nicely for Bush. The Back To School season is just around the corner – empty shelves from summer sales have to be filled… People have to buy these things… With a bit more money back peoples pockets, it’s all going to come out in the green.
I honestly don’t care to hear someone’s lame ass excuse to explain whether or not the economy is in fact improving. I want to hear what people have to say about what they’ll think when the economy has undeniably rebounded. What will your average Bush hater say? Will they credit him for the burgeoning economy they had previously blamed him for “ruining”? Will they give Bush credit? Will they spout the “Well the President doesn’t have anything to do the economy anyway,” line?
I eagerly await the liberal excuses.
Rush Lim-Blogger
Thursday, August 7th, 2003I never thought much about the whole “blogging” thing when I first learned about it. However, as time passed, and as I ultimately got involved in it, I see its potential.
I came across as story yesterday titled, “Bloggers won’t match Limbaugh” and became intrigued. An interesting article comparing the impact of Rush Limbaugh and the potential of internet bloggers.
The article concluded, based on various criteria he found to be relevant, that bloggers don’t have nearly as much power as someone like Rush in the world of politics.
Perhaps, he is right. There’s thousands and thousands of political bloggers, and one Rush Limbaugh. People surf the internet at their discretion, Rush is on at a set time of the day 5 days a week. You can listen to Rush in your car, or go about your business and listen to Rush at the same time. You really can’t do many things simultaneously while reading blogs.
I don’t think the author of this piece has a real justification for his opinion. Comparing bloggers to Rush Limbaugh is like comparing a drama miniseries to a sitcom. They’re different forms of media, which attract different demographics, and require different types of devotion to maintain their readership or listenership.
Rush is also in a position where he had to earn his way to his fame and prestige. Just about anyone (and it seems like almost everyone) out there can have their own blog. It’s not highly exclusive or selective position you have to earn your way up to achieving. I have seen some pretty lousy blogs out there. There’s no filtering process to weed out the idiots who don’t know left from right and can’t make an intelligible argument for their life.
There are some of us, who take time and effort into making their blog something worth returning to. Something people choose to visit and post comments on. Unlike the assumption made by the author of that piece, I do research on the topics I discuss. I, and other bloggers out there may not have a staff of researchers doing the work for us, but nevertheless, we don’t necessarily have less resources available to us as Rush Limbaugh has. We may not have equal manpower contributing to it, but that doesn’t make our content less valid.
By comparison, many bloggers’ preparations for their stream-of-consciousness commentaries seem limited to reading the ruminations of other bloggers and scanning Internet news. Because some bloggers, even prominent ones, spend so much time writing throughout the entire day, they don’t research their own ideas well enough to be persuasive.
Perhaps, generally speaking, he is right. However, that is not the rule. I have found on my blog especially that the content that results from research, views, and opinions that I post on here often entices others to do their own research to either support my own statements with alternative evidence to back it up, or to try and counter it with something else.
Is this not a good thing? The one thing that blogs have that Rush or other talk radio personalities don’t have is regular collective debate. You go through any blog, you see comments made by plenty of people. Comments made in response to others, and back again… It becomes a group dialogue. Talk radio is most often one-on-one. Granted, the rate of conversation can be quick on radio, than on the Internet, but when I’m driving and listening to the radio, I can’t always “get into the conversation” occurring on the air. On a blog, I can jump right in. I can throw my two cents in. I don’t have to call repeatedly until I miraculously make it through, and then talk a call screener in the hopes that I may get the opportunity to go on the air before the segment ends.
So there’s nothing wrong with either form of media. Both stand to make their own valid contributions to the political battlefield.
Links of the Moment
Thursday, August 7th, 2003Productivity Soars, Jobless Claims Drop
You can expect I shall discuss this further after I get home from work.
In Seattle, prospect of espresso tax is grounds for anger
Can someone explain to me why espresso drinks are being targeted for a new tax?
Schwarzenegger to Run in California Recall Race
I really don’t know much about Arnold stands for. So I’m undecided on how I feel about his candidacy at this point. However, I think California needs more than a popular celebrity to be governor with all their problems.
I shall write more in depth later.
« Previous Entries Next Entries »