Netroots Alliance

BlogTalkRadio

Add to iTunes





anotherunemployeddncstaffer's User Page

I don't always check my spelling and I don't know how to change my name. I am employed again working hard on the 2006 elections. Since Matt wants to know something about me, I was a staffer for both Dean for America and the DNC.

IndTV Check it out

I'm sorry if this is old news, but until recently I hadn't heard any updates about Al Gore's IndTV, the cable station that's going to attempt to be news for a younger generation.  

Apparently a lot of the channel's content is going to be user submited and they're accepting submissions until March 1st for the initial programming.  So, if you have something to say, send it in by then.  The station will go on air this summer, I can't wait.

Iraq election coverage lacks substance

Am I the only one who's been incredibly annoyed with the coverage of the election in Iraq?  It seems the MSM knows how to cover elections whether in the US or Iraq in only one way, horseraces and polls. Why are policies and policy implications never discussed?  The only mention anywhere I've seen of the platform of the winning United Iraqi Alliance is in this piece by Naomi Klein in The Nation:
A decisive majority voted for the United Iraqi Alliance; the second plank in the UIA platform calls for "a timetable for the withdrawal of the multinational forces from Iraq."

There are more single-digit messages embedded in the winning coalition's platform. Some highlights: "Adopting a social security system under which the state guarantees a job for every fit Iraqi...and offers facilities to citizens to build homes." The UIA also pledges "to write off Iraq's debts, cancel reparations and use the oil wealth for economic development projects." In short, Iraqis voted to repudiate the radical free-market policies imposed by former chief US envoy Paul Bremer and locked in by a recent agreement with the International Monetary Fund.

Does the MSM really think people don't expect them to explain what a politician's policies are and what the implications of their policies will be?

Intelligent Design IS Creationism

I can't believe the Op-Ed pages of the New York Times will allow this misinformation about intelligent design:
First, what it isn't: the theory of intelligent design is not a religiously based idea, even though devout people opposed to the teaching of evolution cite it in their arguments. For example, a critic recently caricatured intelligent design as the belief that if evolution occurred at all it could never be explained by Darwinian natural selection and could only have been directed at every stage by an omniscient creator. That's misleading. Intelligent design proponents do question whether random mutation and natural selection completely explain the deep structure of life. But they do not doubt that evolution occurred. And intelligent design itself says nothing about the religious concept of a creator.
The author then goes on to explain various weak arguments about their personal view of what intelligent design is.

While the author's personal belief in intelligent design may be quite rational, for the masses all it really is, is a repackaging of creationism.  You won't find many people who promote intelligent design that don't deny evolution. It's just word play.  What's next after this, an op-ed saying social security personalization isn't privatization or an article saying climate change isn't global warming?

The Height of Hypocrisy

In today's The Note:
And how's this for hardball? The RNC is asking television stations to stop airing the MoveOn.org ads, incidentally. This morning, the party sent out the letter from deputy counsel Michael Bayes that said the spot "falsely and maliciously" claims that the President's Social Security plan cuts benefits up to 46 percent to pay for private accounts, and reminded stations that as FCC license holders, they have a responsibility "to avoid broadcasting deliberate misrepresentations of the facts."
Well if that's the case, I think everyone who broadcasted the SOTU needs to lose their FCC license as well.

Ethics Committee No More

While the house ethics committee is a fairly toothless organization issuing nothing more than slaps on the wrist to cronies like DeLay, this is ridiculous.
House Republican leaders tightened their control over the ethics committee yesterday by ousting its independent-minded chairman, appointing a replacement who is close to them and adding two new members who donated to the legal defense fund of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.).

Republican officials have spent months taking steps to ensure DeLay's political survival in case he is indicted by a Texas grand jury investigating political fundraising, and House leadership aides said they needed to have the ethics committee controlled by lawmakers they can trust.


Read the article, I have nothing to say, I just can't believe the MSM let's them get away with this.

Privatization... Private Accounts... Personal Accounts.. PERSONALIZATION?

Well according to yesterday's Washington Post the Republicans have finally settled on the language to sell Social Security privatization.  And the winner is.....

PERSONALIZATION

The Republicans left an annual retreat in the Allegheny Mountains with a 104-page playbook titled "Saving Social Security," a deliberate echo of the language President Bill Clinton used to argue that the retirement system's trust fund should be built up in anticipation of the baby boomers' retirement.

The congressional Republicans' confidential plan was developed with the advice of pollsters, marketing experts and communication consultants, and was provided to The Washington Post by a Republican official. The blueprint urges lawmakers to promote the "personalization" of Social Security, suggesting ownership and control, rather than "privatization," which "connotes the total corporate takeover of Social Security." Democratic strategists said they intend to continue fighting the Republican plan by branding it privatization, and assert that depiction is already set in people's minds.

I thought it would be fun to look up just what personalization means according to dictionary.com:

  1. To take (a general remark or characterization) in a personal manner.
  2. To attribute human or personal qualities to; personify.
  3. To have printed, engraved, or monogrammed with one's name or initials: personalized the stationery; personalized the bath towels.

So which of these are we getting with Social Security?  I'm hoping for 2, "Social Security is a 90 year old man on his death bed."  Or maybe even 3, "You won't have to worry about retirement with your GOP benefits check."

Frost makes private attacks on Dean, but can't take public criticism

From yesterday's The Note
With the Democratic party chair's election less than three weeks away, former Texas Rep. Martin Frost has begun to forthrightly challenge his biggest rival, Howard Dean, in private conversations with DNC members.

According to several people who have participated in the discussions, Frost argues that Dean would be a poor choice because he could hurt Democratic efforts to compete in less liberal areas of the country. And Frost asks those he is courting to join him now because he fears Dean will soon acquire enough momentum to be virtually unstoppable.

And several Democrats and labor officials say Frost told them that electing Dean party chair would discourage Democrats who don't like Dean from running for office.

On that I just have to say that no one is going to choose not to run for office because they don't like the DNC chair.  The DNC chair does not have the power to set the Democratic agenda, they have to take all their cues from currently elected officials.  Besides, the DNC currently does little to support down ticket races, the DSCC and DCCC provide almost all the support.

Well, in response to these unwarranted private attacks some Dean supporters have been emailing DNC Members this ad which has been around the blogosphere for awhile now, where Frost tries to distance himself from Democrats.

And it gets even better in today's The Note

On behalf of Rep. Martin Frost, Texas DNC chair Charles Soechting sent DNC members a defending an ad that Frost ran in his 2004 race against Rep. Pete Sessions.

Soechting says he is disappointed in Dean.

..."Here in Texas, we're used to Republicans like Karl Rove and Tom DeLay using damned lies and dirty tricks to launch character attacks against tough, effective Democrats like Martin Frost. Whoever made this attack clearly has no idea what it takes to win in tough districts -- in "Red States" like Texas or anywhere else in the country."

"In fact, Martin's 2004 campaign could serve as a model for Democrats who are running in equally tough territory around the country. The campaign involved hundreds, if not thousands, of volunteers, including Democrats of all races, union members, and many of the most ardent progressives in a tough, aggressive grassroots campaign. Martin refused to back down against enormous odds - standing up to DeLay and Rove by refusing to retire when their illegal redistricting scheme forced him into a 65% GOP district."

So apparently Frost can make dubious claims about Dean in private when there's no one there to refute them, but Dean is to blame when bloggers point out Frost's own questionable ads.

Banner ads with hidden agendas

Recently, the last few times I've checked my Yahoo! mail account I've noticed a banner ad on the top of the page saying "Vote: Condi or Hillary" clicking on the link takes you to newsmax.com.  Any of you who have been to Drudge have probably seen this ad before.

What disgusts me about it being on Yahoo! though, is that NewsMax.com hardly qualifies as news.  I know that not every person who uses the internet, especially those with Yahoo! mail, are informed enough to be able to tell that NewsMax is highly partisan with little regard for the actual truth.

What worries me is someone who's just trying to answer the survey may wind up on the site and start reading and then the misinformation starts.  I wrote Yahoo telling them they were only helping to serve a disinformation campaign, but never got a reply.  

Is this just the beginning?  Are banner ads now going to hide more and more the true content of what they're advertising?  

Am I going to see one in the near future saying "Learn how to save for your children's future" only to be taken to a site about Social Security privatization, errr... personal savings accounts?  

Do lefty news sites and 527s know that they should be putting up their own banner ads on sites like Yahoo?  Any thoughts?



Embed on your site
Feed & Extra

» Recent blog linkage