Wanker of the Day

post from Eschaton on 27 January 2007 11:59:00 PM. © Eschaton

Fred Hiatt, for publishing this nonsense.

Read The Full Article:
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_01_21_atrios_archive.html#116996056865227560

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Americans Protest War Escalation in Washington
D.C.

post from Jutia Group on 27 January 2007 11:45:32 PM. © Jutia Group

WASHINGTON (AP) ? Protesters energized by fresh congressional skepticism about the Iraq war demanded a withdrawal of U.S. troops in a demonstration Saturday that drew tens of thousands back to the streets. (Source: CNN) Before jumping into today?s war protest I should first tell you that I am currently celebrating six years with my [...]

Read The Full Article:
http://jutiagroup.com/archive/2007/01/27/311/

Digg this

Americans Protest War Escalation in Washington

post from Jutia Group on 27 January 2007 11:45:32 PM. © Jutia Group

Digg this

Democrats Lead the Votes in Iraq

post from Gun Toting Liberal ? on 27 January 2007 11:44:00 PM. © Gun Toting Liberal ?

If the primary elections for president of the United States were held in Iraq then all the talk would be about who in the Democratic Party would be the best candidate to serve the fifty first state of Iraq. With all the politics over Iraq in the news all the damn time we [...]

Read The Full Article:
http://guntotingliberal.com/archives/662

Digg this

Has anyone been having site trouble

post from TalkLeft on 27 January 2007 11:30:00 PM. © TalkLeft

One reader has reported the site is not loading properly for him and that the sidebars are loading very slowly and the comments are skewed. I am not having the problem. Is anyone else experiencing this?

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/TalkleftThePoliticsOfCrime/~3/82747721/123

Digg this

A Tough Decision

post from The Omnipotent Poobah Speaks! on 27 January 2007 11:25:25 PM. © The Omnipotent Poobah Speaks!

Over the past two weeks, Team BIO has wrestled with a commenter whose responses to posts became increasingly personal and viscous. After receiving several complaints, the team discussed the best way to respond.Some supported banishment because her screeds were virulently personal and hate-filled. They argued that she contributed nothing to informed debate and was grossly unfair and hurtful to those she attacked. They had no problem with her content, only with the way she delivered it.The opposite opinion - one that I personally championed - was to let her rave. I strongly believe that censoring someone - no matter how vile their comments - isn't what free speech is about. For me, the true measure of a democracy is how it treats its most odious dissenters. Whether you're liberal, conservative, communist, or fascist, I believe you have a right to be heard.But that's a starkly black and white viewpoint - one where censorship is either wholly right or wholly wrong. It doesn't account for the very real damage hate speech has. Hate speech can lead to violent confrontation. It can wound a person so deeply that it can have far-reaching consequences. And, it's just plain wrong.In BIO's case, the damage was quite real. Two of our most valued diarists decided to leave because they could no longer tolerate her attacks. Others considered doing the same. We warned her to abide by our terms of use - and she did for a few days. But soon, the attacks resumed and became even more vehement. So we reluctantly banned her from BIO - something that has only happened three times before and only after repeated warnings each time.Though I finally supported banning her, I was uncomfortable about it. Maybe that's a good thing. If it becomes too easy, it's too easy to fall into the trap of doing it as a knee-jerk reaction to anything we don't want to hear. I'm confident that's not the case here, but it did make me think about the validity of my position.I still believe that total free speech is an admirable goal and I'll continue to fight for it as forcefully and often as I can. However, I also have to keep in mind that free speech comes with responsibilities. The Supreme Court describes this as the right to say anything you want, but not to yell fire in a crowded theatre. To put it in the context of this situation, it's the right to say anything you want, so long as your right to say it doesn't impinge on someone else's right not to be harassed. BIO never asked her to curtail her opinions, we only asked her to yell fire a little softer.Was this censorship?One of the definitions of censorship is to supervise the manners or morality of others. So in the strictest sense of the word, I suppose it is. However, part of that supervision requires an examination our own manners and morality.This was clearly a case of someone whose manners would throw Dear Abby into a fatal swoon. Those poor manners directly damaged the BIO family by depriving it of the open and thoughtful discourse of others. Although not easy for me, I think the most moral choice we could make is the one we did make. We acted to protect guests who fulfill their responsibilities under free speech - to be civil. We acted against the person who chose to ignore her responsibilities. She yelled fire - or more precisely, repeatedly yelled fire - so we asked her to leave. I can't say I like that decision, but I also believe she brought the problem on herself.And you know what? I'm OK with that.The Poobah is a featured contributor at Bring It On!And, sometimes dispenses wisdom at Less People Less Idiots Tech Tags: censorship free+speech bring+it+on omnipotent+poobah

Read The Full Article:
http://omnipotentpoobah.blogspot.com/2007/01/tough-decision.html

Digg this

Whither Iowa, or Wither Iowa

post from Daily Kos on 27 January 2007 11:23:48 PM. © Daily Kos

Despite the statistics showing that Hillary Clinton's announcement moved her from the highest rated potential candidate with voters, to the highest rated actual candidate, national numbers at this stage mean about as much as Bush's state of the union promises. Even with more and more states jumping into a "national primary" in the first week of February, there is still a slice of frozen flat ground up there waiting to eat the ambitions of would-be presidents.

From what happened in 2004, folks might assume that Iowans tend to navigate their way toward the candidate who has that amorphous aura of "electablity." And you might be tempted to think such an option would correspond to the highest numbers in the national polls. However, for the moment at least, Iowa isn't following the national trend. Instead, Iowa is more in agreement with... DailyKos. The straw poll taken here earlier this month put neither Hillary nor Barack Obama at the top of the heap. Instead, honors went to the man who hasn't been getting as much attention in the press of late -- John Edwards. For the moment, Kossacks and Iowans are in agreement.

Of course, with just under a year to go, there is a lot of time left for Iowans to change their mind. They've yet to be hit by the blitz of media and mobilization that will come from some very well-funded campaigns. Even so, Iowans have demonstrated a streak of orneriness in the past, showing a reluctance to follow the lead of pundits and a lead-plated immunity to the glow from even the most enthusiastic out of state volunteers. Senators Obama and Clinton may be absorbing most of the national news, and may suck the air out of pundit conversations from now till the opening of the polls, but if the past is any evidence, that may only cause Iowans to look elsewhere. After all, it wasn't John Kerry making all the headlines in advance of 2004.

Even if Iowa voters retain their eclectic tradition, how much impact will they have? With the Nevada caucuses on the following week, voters will no longer have as much time to internalize the results from the cornfields. If the national media decides to pay attention to Nevada (which is not a sure thing) the cameras and lights could be packed up and on their way to Las Vegas before the polls close in Des Moines. With four states now shoved out ahead of the juggernaut that is February 5, there's a chance that the results in any of these states may be devalued in terms of its effect on following states.

Since no candidate knows for certain how the new schedule is going to affect the system, none of them can afford to be stingy anywhere. No amount of numeric prognostication and steely-eyed assurances are likely to make the campaigns feel safe enough to avoid the Iowa winter next year. Any campaign going light in Iowa is probably doing so not out of some alternate route to victory, but from a lack of funds to play on all courts. Iowans who developed a fear of orange stocking caps in 2004 are likely to be shocked at the number of volunteers and paid organizers trooping up their drives as the billion dollar campaign season kicks into gear.

But no matter what gets spent, and no matter how the new schedule affects the race, if Iowa ends up kicking out a winner who is running well down in the national polls, don't be surprised.

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/82747663/502

Digg this

Open Thread

E&P: Irate Reader Calls in to SF Chronicle, Sets New "Over The Top" Record.

Read The Full Article:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/01/27/open-thread-382/

Digg this

FDL Late Nite: Tee Shirt Fundraiser for
Firedoglake

Make love, not war.The creator of a tee shirt with the above design is a community member here, more of a lurker than a commenter, and he's been quite the generous Blue America contributor. Now he's helping us keep this site erect up and[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/01/27/fdl-late-nite-tee-shirt-fundraiser-for-fire
doglake/

Digg this