Critical Apprehensions & Intemperate Discourses

Kip Manley, proprietor

Ceci n’est pas une prom dress.

Yes, that’s a real prom dress. No, it’s not on backwards. Here’s a photo from its native environment:

It bubbled up into the froth of the Zeitgeist about a year ago; you can read more about it in this Wizbang! thread, or this thread over at Go Fug Yourself, and one might find a diverting yet instructive ten minutes or so in comparing the tones and tenors of the two. (One might also find a diverting yet distractive ten minutes or so in perusing the catalog, if only to appreciate the way the bridal models are each paired with a tastefully naked hunk.)

Now, the reason I posted the picture back then was bubbling next to it in the froth: the story of Kelli Davis, who wanted to wear a tuxedo top for her high school senior picture, and not the drape-and-pearls the girls were supposed to wear; “She said she was uncomfortable to have her chest exposed in the photo,” as one news report put it. (And those who find the juxtaposition of the two a tad hyperbolic—

—are invited to ponder the designer’s koan: “He openly admitted that he would die before he let his own daughter out of the house like that, but said that ‘prom styles are very sexy’ these days and ‘girls want to look sexy like their favorite celebrities.’”)

Anyway: tough, said the principal, who banned the photo. Tough, said Clay School Superintendent David Owens, who went on to say, “There’s a dress code to follow—a dress code expected for senior pictures in the yearbook, and she chose not to follow them. It’s just that simple.”

Apparently, the use of tasers in schools is also just that simple; corporal punishment, however, not so much, because “We’re living in a sue-happy society these days.” —Kelli Davis threatened to sue, by the way, and even if she didn’t get her senior picture, Clay County girls from here on out can wear the tux, and boys the drape; the settlement reached mandates the school board “change its senior portrait policy, add sexual orientation to its non-discrimination policy for both students and teachers, distribute a copy of the new non-discrimination policy to all secondary school students, provide annual non-discrimination training that includes sexual orientation to all faculty and staff, and provide diversity training that includes sexual orientation to all junior high and high school students in the district.” —Which is maybe why a Clay County high school subsequently banned a student editorial called “Homosexuality is Not a Choice.” (Aw, cut ’em some slack. Rome wasn’t unbuilt in a day.)

As to why I’m bringing this up a year later? Beyond the fleeting pleasures of follow-up (and schadenfreude)? —Go to Google, bring up the image search, enter “prom dress.” You’ll see something like this:

Which is maybe why since I restarted the stat counter hereabouts, I’ve discovered that searches for “prom dress” constitute forty freaking percent of my traffic.

Anybody know how to unjuice Google?

—Filed 7239 days ago to Squawkbox; Comments [1].

It takes a heap of licks to strike a nail in the dark.

From Michael Schwartz at Mother Jones to Body and Soul to me to you:

Here is the Times account of what happened in the small town of Baiji, 150 miles north of Baghdad, on January 3, based on interviews with various unidentified “American officials”:

A pilotless reconnaissance aircraft detected three men planting a roadside bomb about 9 p.m. The men “dug a hole following the common pattern of roadside bomb emplacement,” the military said in a statement. “The individuals were assessed as posing a threat to Iraqi civilians and coalition forces, and the location of the three men was relayed to close air support pilots.”

The men were tracked from the road site to a building nearby, which was then bombed with “precision guided munitions,” the military said. The statement did not say whether a roadside bomb was later found at the site. An additional military statement said Navy F-14’s had “strafed the target with 100 cannon rounds” and dropped one bomb.

Crucial to this report is the phrase “precision guided munitions,” an affirmation that US forces used technology less likely than older munitions to accidentally hit the wrong target. It is this precision that allows us to glimpse the callous brutality of American military strategy in Iraq.

The target was a “building nearby,” identified by a drone aircraft as an enemy hiding place. According to eyewitness reports given to the Washington Post, the attack effectively demolished the building, and damaged six surrounding buildings. While in a perfect world, the surrounding buildings would have been unharmed, the reported amount of human damage in them (two people injured) suggests that, in this case at least, the claims of “precision” were at least fairly accurate.

The problem arises with what happened inside the targeted building, a house inhabited by a large Iraqi family. Piecing together the testimony of local residents, the Times reporter concluded that fourteen members of the family were in the house at the time of the attack and nine were killed. The Washington Post, which reported twelve killed, offered a chilling description of the scene:

“The dead included women and children whose bodies were recovered in the nightclothes and blankets in which they had apparently been sleeping. A Washington Post special correspondent watched as the corpses of three women and three boys who appeared to be younger than 10 were removed Tuesday from the house.”

Because in this case—unlike in so many others in which American air power utilizes “precisely guided munitions”—there was on-the-spot reporting for an American newspaper, the US military command was required to explain these casualties. Without conceding that the deaths actually occurred, Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, director of the Coalition Press Information Center in Baghdad, commented: “We continue to see terrorists and insurgents using civilians in an attempt to shield themselves.”

Notice that Lt. Col. Johnson (while not admitting that civilians had actually died) did assert US policy: If suspected guerrillas use any building as a refuge, a full-scale attack on that structure is justified, even if the insurgents attempt to use civilians to “shield themselves.” These are, in other words, essential US rules of engagement. The attack should be “precise” only in the sense that planes and/or helicopter gunships should seek as best they can to avoid demolishing surrounding structures. Put another way, it is more important to stop the insurgents than protect the innocent.

And notice that the military, single-mindedly determined to kill or capture the insurgents, cannot stop to allow for the evacuation of civilians either. Any delay might let the insurgents escape, either disguised as civilians or through windows, backdoors, cellars, or any of the other obvious escape routes urban guerrillas might take. Any attack must be quickly organized and—if possible—unexpected.

update— And then I wake up to this:

Pakistan on Saturday condemned a purported CIA airstrike on a border village that officials said unsuccessfully targeted al-Qaida’s second-in-command, and said it was protesting to the U.S. Embassy over the attack that killed at least 17 people.

Thousands of local tribesmen, chanting “God is Great,” demonstrated against the attack, claiming the victims were local villagers without terrorist links and had never hosted Ayman al-Zawahri.

Two senior Pakistani officials told The Associated Press that the CIA acted on incorrect information in launching the attack early Friday in the northwestern village of Damadola, near the Afghan border.

Citing unidentified American intelligence officials, U.S. news networks reported that CIA-operated Predator drone aircraft carried out the missile strike because al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden’s top lieutenant, was thought to be at a compound in the village or about to arrive.

“Their information was wrong, and our investigations conclude that they acted on a false information,” said a senior Pakistani intelligence official with direct knowledge of Pakistan’s investigations into the attack.

—Filed 7240 days ago to Squawkbox; Comments [4].

Yanking cranks.

Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, Part I, §223, “Obscene or harassing telephone calls in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communications,” used to read as follows:

• a) Prohibited acts generally
• Whoever—
  • (1) in interstate or foreign communications—
    • (A) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly—
      • (i) makes, creates, or solicits, and
      • (ii) initiates the transmission of,
    • any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person;
    • (B) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly—
      • (i) makes, creates, or solicits, and
      • (ii) initiates the transmission of,
    • any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene or indecent, knowing that the recipient of the communication is under 18 years of age, regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the call or initiated the communication;
    • (C) makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communications;
    • (D) makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly or continuously to ring, with intent to harass any person at the called number; or
    • (E) makes repeated telephone calls or repeatedly initiates communication with a telecommunications device, during which conversation or communication ensues, solely to harass any person at the called number or who receives the communication; or
  • (2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under his control to be used for any activity prohibited by paragraph (1) with the intent that it be used for such activity,
• shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Of course, you’ll want to know what a “telecommunications device” is.

• (h) Definitions
• For purposes of this section—
  • (1) The use of the term “telecommunications device” in this section—
    • (A) shall not impose new obligations on broadcasting station licensees and cable operators covered by obscenity and indecency provisions elsewhere in this chapter; and
    • (B) does not include an interactive computer service.

Clear enough?

Ah, but now, thanks to H.R.3402, the (otherwise estimable and indeed highly necessary) Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005, we get to take up our red pens and amend the above. Turn with me to Sec. 113 for the changes:

• (a) In General- Paragraph (1) of section 223(h) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223(h)(1)) is amended—
  • (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘and’ at the end;
  • (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘; and’; and
  • (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
    • ‘(C) in the case of subparagraph© of subsection (a)(1), includes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet (as such term is defined in section 1104 of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note)).’.

Now are we clear?

—No: it’s not illegal now to post anonymously to the internet, on the grounds that someone somewhere might be annoyed. Then, Declan McCullagh never said it was. He was if somewhat alarmist nontheless pretty clear up front that the intent to annoy (or abuse, or threaten, or harass) was key. Those who pooh-pooh the idea this law would ever be used against the colorfully pseudonymous commenters at Eschaton or Daily Kos or TBogg (or Little Green Footballs, or the Free Republic, or the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler) underestimate, I think, what a target-rich environment comment threads have become for abuse and threats and harrassment, and sheer downright intentional annoyance; miss, in fact, the very raison d’etre of the internet troll. —The most recently celebrated eruptions of accusations of abuse (and annoyance) depended, it’s true, on mendacity, or at least a criminal inability to parse satire and provide context—but while that might get you acquitted, it won’t pay your legal bills.

Atrios—I mean, Duncan Black—has it pretty much right, I think. Unless His Imperial Presidency signed one of Strip-Search Sammy’s backsie specials, this law will either be interpreted in basic good faith, following the spirit of its context and intent (“Preventing Cyberstalking,” says the subsection’s title)—or it will be adjusted drastically, following a nasty and otherwise unnecessary legal battle. Or both. It (as ever) remains to be seen. —Meanwhile, here’s grounds for one of those perennial conversations we all ought to keep having, about moderation andd politesse and community, and speech, and the illusory freedoms thereof. Annoying, I know, we’ve been over it all before and will again, but chop the wood and carry the water, okay?

(Oh, who are we kidding. We’re all going to have to keep identity affidavits and political permits on file whenever we want to blog about anything more inflammatory than knitting. We’ll be like porn stars with those USC 2257 statements at the bottom of every page. Bots will ping us in IM: “Papers, please.” What a brave new world! If only those dam’ libertarians hadn’t made libertarianism so selfishly stupid…)

—Filed 7244 days ago to Squawkbox; Comments [1].

Where there’s soot-stained, coughing firefighters, there’s usually a fire...

Republicans! Conservatives! If yours is truly the best of all possible ways, closest to the American soul, favored by security moms and securities dads alike across our fruited plains, destined to eclipse us outmoded liberals and rule with a firm but benevolent hand all the rest of our days, then why on earth do you find yourselves lying and cheating and stealing whenever a ballot box is involved?

And then: cue the useful idiots. God, but it’s a wonder we can get anything done around here at all.

—Filed 7533 days ago to Squawkbox; .

Shame.

It’s one of the things we’re trying to get at, with our koans and our agitprop: to shame the ruling powers when we have no power of our own. Senator Tom Coburn (R-Ok.) has something he really ought to feel ashamed of. He is, after all, a doctor, and in July of 1998, he said this:

[In] an interview after [Coburn]’s panel appearance, he conceded the issue of caring for a terminally ill patient brings with it complex questions and is not always simple. For example, under certain circumstances when there is no hope of recovery, he said physicians should have the option of withholding nutrients and water from a dying patient. Coburn said he has done that in the past. “If somebody does not want a feeding tube, I won’t put a feeding tube down,” he said.

Perfectly in keeping with morality and ethics as we understood them in 1998, but at that point Michael Schiavo had only just given up his heart-breaking quest to rehabilitate Terri Schiavo. In 2005, in this ghastly season of the martyr, things are a wee bit different:

Among them was Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma and a family practice doctor, who said in an interview, “I don’t think you have to examine her. All you have to do is look at her on TV. Any doctor with any conscience can look at her and know that she does not have a terminal disease and know that she has some function.”

The other doctor in the Senate, Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), disagrees slightly with Coburn’s newfound understanding of the moral and ethical landscape. Terri Schiavo must be examined. (He has yet to wholly abandon his Hippocratic oath, it seems.) —Luckily, examining her is simplicity itself: all you have to do is look at her, on TV, as a doctor with any conscience:

In a speech last week on the Senate floor, Frist said that “speaking more as a physician than as a U.S. senator,” he believed there was “insufficient information to conclude that Terri Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state.”

Frist—who as a surgeon performed more than 150 heart and lung transplants—said his conclusion was based on a review of footage of the brain-damaged Florida woman whose parents are seeking to reconnect her feeding tube.

Now, I realize it may seem silly to speak about shame in an age when pundits have no qualms about accusing a sitting judge of plotting murder solely because they disagree with his interpretation of the law and a notedly lousy con artist is called with a straight face to give his own shameless diagnosis, but darn it, we’ve got to try. Let’s follow Michael Bassik’s suggestion and help Dr. Frist launch his post-Senate career as the world’s only video-consulting physician!

Are you sick? Injured? Worried about a medical problem, but can’t afford a physician? Well, worry no longer! Because Former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, MD, doesn’t even need to see you to make a diagnosis and prescribe care.

Bassik says, “Take a digital picture or video of your medical problem—tennis elbow, acne, runny nose, hemorrhoids, or whatever ails you—and send it to the doctor in charge of the US Senate and your health care.”

And here’s the Flickr archive thus far. Upload and tag your own. —Hell, it’s cheaper than universal health care.

—Filed 7534 days ago to Squawkbox; Comments [2].

Bumrush the MSM.

Sic, of course. —Digby says:

By now most people who read liberal blogs are aware that George W. Bush signed a law in Texas that expressly gave hospitals the right to remove life support if the patient could not pay and there was no hope of revival, regardless of the patient’s family’s wishes. It is called the Texas Futile Care Law. Under this law, a baby was removed from life support against his mother’s wishes in Texas just this week. A 68 year old man was given a temporary reprieve by the Texas courts just yesterday.

Those of us who read liberal blogs are also aware that Republicans have voted en masse to pull the plug (no pun intended) on medicaid funding that pays for the kind of care that someone like Terry Schiavo and many others who are not so severely brain damaged need all across this country.

Those of us who read liberal blogs also understand that that the tort reform that is being contemplated by the Republican congress would preclude malpractice claims like that which has paid for Terry Schiavo’s care thus far.

Those of us who read liberal blogs are aware that the bankruptcy bill will make it even more difficult for families who suffer a catastrophic illness like Terry Schiavo’s because they will not be able to declare chapter 7 bankruptcy and get a fresh start when the gargantuan medical bills become overwhelming.

And those of us who read liberal blogs also know that this grandstanding by the congress is a purely political move designed to appease the religious right and that the legal maneuverings being employed would be anathema to any true small government conservative.

Those who don’t read liberal blogs, on the other hand, are seeing a spectacle on television in which the news anchors repeatedly say that the congress is “stepping in to save Terry Schiavo” mimicking the unctuous words of Tom Delay as they grovel and leer at the family and nod sympathetically at the sanctimonious phonies who are using this issue for their political gain.

Do what you can about it. Copy this and paste it into the TO field of an email message:

360@cnn.com, 48hours@cbsnews.com, am@cnn.com, Colmes@foxnews.com, comments@foxnews.com, crossfire@cnn.com, dateline@nbc.com, daybreak@cnn.com, earlyshow@cbs.com, evening@cbsnews.com, Foxreport@foxnews.com, insidepolitics@cnn.com, inthemoney@cnn.com, live@cnn.com, livefrom@cnn.com, newsnight@cnn.com, nightline@abcnews.com, nightly@nbc.com, rrhodes@airamericaradio.com, today@nbc.com, wam@cnn.com, wolf@cnn.com, world@msnbc.com, wsj.ltrs@wsj.com, letters@nytimes.com, public@nytimes.com, netaudr@abc.com

Add what you can to the list. Show them the pieces of the story they aren’t telling the rest of the country. Ask them to do their jobs.

—Filed 7539 days ago to Squawkbox; Comments [1].

You are getting agitated again.

Some questions:

Why did you let Sun Hudson die? Why are you drastically cutting Medicaid even though it insures that more families must face the horrific consequences of George W. Bush’s Texas Futile Care Law? Why are you encouraging others to threaten the lives of Michael Schiavo and Judge George Greer? Why do you persist in this hideous farce, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of the country wants you to sit down, shut up, and stop showboating on the back of someone else’s pain?

The only answer that makes any sense at all:

Because Terry Schiavo’s case lets us weaken states’ rights and spit on the constitution.

—Filed 7539 days ago to Squawkbox; Comments [1].

Babykillers.

Oh, do let’s ignore nuance on this one. —Go here, to Tom DeLay’s “Majority Leader” webpage—since folks who don’t live in the 22nd can’t email him from his own page without some chicanery.

Fill out the contact information as you like.

In the comments box, write this:

Why did you let Sun Hudson die?

Pass it on.

The baby wore a cute blue outfit with a teddy bear covering his bottom. The 17-pound, nearly 6-month-old boy wiggled with eyes open, his mother said, and smacked his lips. Then at 2 p.m. Tuesday, a medical staffer at Texas Children’s Hospital gently removed the breathing tube that had kept Sun Hudson alive since his birth Sept. 25. Cradled by his mother, he took a few breaths, and died . . . Sun’s death marks the first time a US judge has allowed a hospital to discontinue an infant’s life-sustaining care against a parent’s wishes, according to bioethical experts.

—“Baby dies after hospital removes breathing tube,”
Houston Chronicle, 16 March 2005

It is now one o’clock on the East Coast, the time preordained by a Florida state judge to allow for denial of food and water to Terri Schiavo. This act of barbarism can be, and must be, prevented. The Senate has before it the Protection of Incapacitated Persons Act of 2005. This bill is the right thing to do. Unfortunately, they have chosen to adjourn rather than pass it.

Those senators responsible for blocking the bill yesterday afternoon, Senators Boxer, Wyden, and Levin, have put Mrs. Schiavo’s life at risk to prove a point—an unprecedented profile in cowardice. The American people are not interested in squabbles between Republicans and Democrats, or between the House and Senate. They care, and we care, about saving Terri Schiavo’s life.

—“Terri Schiavo is Alive—This Fight Is Not Over;
House Continues to Work to Save Terri Schiavo,”
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Sugarland), 18 March 2005

ABC News obtained talking points circulated among Senate Republicans explaining why they should vote to intervene in the Schiavo case. Among them, that it is an important moral issue and the “pro-life base will be excited,” and that it is a “great political issue—this is a tough issue for Democrats.”

—“Republicans Seek to Take Schiavo Battle to Supreme Court;
Husband Calls It a ‘Mockery’,” ABC News, 19 March 2005

—Filed 7540 days ago to Squawkbox; Comments [1].

Pretty good.

Roy posted a link to a searching analysis of the Cedar Revolution in pictures, by Michael Totten and his Swaggering Commenteers:

What you see is the difference b between pure hearts and evil ones. The smile on an evil face can never be as refreshing ad one one a good face. Evil betrays itself for all to see.

...coercive people are almost always mean, angry, repressive, and they think it’s all for the greater good…

Look at the faces in each group…A picture tells a thousand stories.
One group looks happy and free,
*******while the other,*********
with their faces covered, looks dark and violent, (why?)...

It almost looks like Men and Elves vs. Orcs from the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy, doesn’t it? Too bad that in many ways it is. Let’s hope the outcome is the same, albeit with a lot less bloodshed.

...I’ll go out on a limb and say the Syrian thugs look a heckuva lot like the anarchist punks who riot in the streets of San Francisco, Seattle, and Portland, all the way down to the flag-burning and masks.

And I’ll allow as how we can get a wee bit pissed-off up here in Little Beirut when cops pepper-spray infants—a patch, perhaps, on the complex political dynamics currently being played out in Lebanon, but a wise if intemperate person once said something to the effect that unhappiness is relative, and depends solely on one’s circumstances. But that aside, there’s a wee bit of a problem with this pretty-good, ugly-evil analysis that’s au courant. Think a moment, I’m sure you’ll get it…

What a refreshing smile. So happy and free. Beatific, even. No anarchist punk, he.

A former Nazi who fled to South America and became the charismatic leader of a religious sect has been arrested in Argentina on charges of child abuse and torture.

Paul Schaefer, 83, was seized in the town of Tortuguitas, 18 miles west of Buenos Aires, along with six people described as his security team, Argentine police said.

He has been hiding for eight years, ever since a warrant for his arrest on paedophile charges was issued in Chile in August 1996.

Fish in a barrel, but what are you gonna do? And it’s not like Totten really believes that pretty is good, good pretty, and that’s all on earth ye need to know. Right? It’s just, y’know, he’s saying whatever pops into his pretty little head that he thinks might help his cause. One of the strengths of the blogosphere, that soapbox extemporizing. Along with the, the whaddayacallit. Self-correcting thingummy. That.

Oh, and conspiracy-mongering. That, too. An easy thing to fall into, you gaze for long enough into a pretty, pretty smile like Schaefer’s.

—Filed 7543 days ago to Squawkbox; Comments [2].

Your spasm of activism.

By way of the Hellcat, here’s Patridiot Watch on the Democratic Party’s usurious credit card:

Just a week after handing the Republicans and credit card companies a big win by restricting people’s rights to enter into bankruptcy, the Democrats’ web site continues to offer a credit card with rates that rise to 29.99 percent.

Annual percentage rate (APR) for purchases: 0% for the first 3 monthly billing periods that your account is open (“Introductory Period”). After that, 9.99% to 23.99% [snip]

Default APR: Up to the Prime Rate** plus 24.74% or up to 29.99%, whichever is greater, and may vary (see explanation below***)

The Hellcat has an excellent rant on just how soul-destroying the bankruptcy bill is. Read that and then try to keep your temper in check as you go give the Party whatfor. Everybody inside the Beltway thinks nobody outside the Beltway is paying any attention at all to something so dry as bankruptcy deformation, so it’s safe for them to whore it up for some extra cash, but they’ve gone far too far with this one: if it passes the House (which it probably will) and Bush signs it (which he will, he will), then Capital One will be coming after your kneecaps as well as your wallet. Remind the Democrats that the outrage they’re hearing right now over a pissant-stupid offer is nothing compared to what they’re gonna be hearing in a couple of years; remind them that Senator Joe Biden (D-MBNA) will never be president, now; let them know that we are paying attention, and more of us every day.

And then: the Decembrist has the graduate-level coursework. Let him lay out what PAYGO is, and why it’s so important, and why once again those inside think us outside don’t care, and then pick up the phone and call your Senators and tell them that you do. Bonus round: you can score a point against Bolton, too, if you like. Again, Mark Schmitt explains.

—Filed 7544 days ago to Squawkbox; Comments [1].

Up is down; black is white; y’all is fucked.

Two grandpas and their granddaughters joined President Bush on Thursday in making his case that Social Security was on wobbly footing and private investment accounts would help provide a safety net for future retirees.

From the AP by way of Joshua Micah Marshall. —I’d say something about how easy it is for the emperor to hide his flop sweat when he isn’t wearing clothes in the first place, but what does it matter? Win or lose, we’ll all be paying it out to MBNA anyway.

—Filed 7549 days ago to Squawkbox; .

And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day, I said fifty people a day—

Patrick Nielsen Hayden’s right about that threat to poliblogging that might not even really be a threat: Nathan Newman has the best take:

The FEC is making noises to limit the speech of blogs in the name of campaign finance reform. Josh worries that this “would mean the end of what this site and so many others on the right and left do.”

Only if we follow the rules. I won’t. Free speech is worth fighting for and the best way to do it is to refuse to be silent. There are a lot of bloggers out there and that’s a lot of people to throw in jail if they all pledge to defy the rules.

I think most campaign finance rules restricting contributions are worthless and lead to idiotic proposals like this one. This is a good place for the insanity to stop. The more bloggers who pledge to defy the FEC, the less likely they are to move forward.

I’m down with that. If we take this sort of naked moonshit lying down, then the Medium Lobster will have won:

Certainly the excesses of the blogosphere will now be held in place, but how can there be true campaign reform when the spoken word goes unchecked? Every day, millions of Americans make unchecked and unregulated political contributions by making political endorsements on sophisticated verbal logs—or “verblogs,” if you will—comprised of billions of currently untracked sound waves transmitted through the atmosphere. Until these words are properly tracked, counted, and restricted by the FEC according to the arbitrary limits of McCain-Feingold, American democracy will forever remain a prisoner of Big Speech.

—Filed 7556 days ago to Squawkbox; Comments [2].

• Previous
• Next