In print: Kratovil’s misleading ad returns to the airwaves
Yesterday my letter happened to make it into the Daily Times. Glad they held it until Sunday.
**********
Well, it looks like Rep. Frank Kratovil is up to his old tricks again. Fresh off putting out a commercial that was termed “misleading” by factcheck.org, he puts out another one making the same claim — that Andy Harris wants a 23 percent sales tax increase.
But what Kratovil and his Washington insider friends cannily leave out is that working families would see their take-home pay dramatically increase, thanks to the return of money now confiscated by federal backup withholding. Frame the question instead as one of wanting a 20 to 30 percent raise, and people would be lined up around the block to shout “where do I sign up?”
I’m wondering if life inside the beltway has changed Kratovil to be that much less trustworthy, or whether he’s just a pawn in a desperate attempt by the party in power and their associated special interests to stay in control.
If Kratovil, Pelosi and their big-government friends are this willing to use deceit and parsing of terms in order to stay in office, it leads me to wonder what they’re so afraid of. Sending Harris to Congress would be a good, conservative reflection of our 1st District — a district which soundly rejected the policies of President Barack Obama even before he was put into office.
And since when is having more control over your own money a bad thing?
**********
It’s worth seeing the letter online because there’s some interesting reactions to it so far. I put in my two cents last evening.
Gazette article reasonably fair
Perhaps you didn’t know this – I know Julie Brewington picked up on it after I shared this among my Facebook friends – but I was quoted in yesterday’s Gazette regarding the Maryland GOP’s Rule 11 controversy which has been simmering since May. Reporter C. Benjamin Ford also spoke to fellow blogger Ann Corcoran of the Potomac Tea Party Report, who had the better quote, “What the tea party movement has opposed is this whole concept of sneaky politics, the backroom deals.”
That was my objection from the start. Why should three people make the decision best left to the voters of the First District (for Andy Harris) or the whole state (Bob Ehrlich)? Not saying they aren’t good candidates, but some may prefer the alternatives presented. It’s true that we may not to be able to “tip the scale” but we can send a message.
I just wish he’d quoted me right – I’m “barely left of militia” according to my Facebook page. I do say that tongue-in-cheek to an extent but I’m quite conservative in my outlook. So read the article and see whether you agree.
Bad news for bloggers
I thought this was an interesting poll done by Rasmussen.
A poll taken by the group late last month revealed that 78% of adults surveyed see reporting by local newspapers as being at least somewhat reliable, as opposed to 66% which say the same about blogs.
Given the controversy which arises from at least one local copy-and-paste blog which does its best to copy-and-paste as much as - if not more than – the local newspaper, the results don’t surprise me.
The advantage newspapers still have over most internet providers, particularly solo and small group operations like blogs generally are, is that they have the resources to pay people to gather information. When I go to County Council meetings and certain political events as part of my first-person reporting I’ll often find mainstream news organizations like the Daily Times or local TV stations covering the event as well. Their model of selling advertising interspersed with vital information is still working, and they use some of those proceeds to pay those who gather information.
While I’m aware that some bloggers are paid in a similar manner, it seems the majority of them make their money by selling ads directly instead of having a marketing department separate from news operations. I doubt Greg Latshaw or Steve Hammond is begging for advertisers as part of the reporting.
Certainly there are people and groups who pay people to put out their own spin on the issues as well, and that information is added to the mix. For some bloggers, simply regurgitating these talking points is a good way to provide content at little time, effort, or cost to them. Obviously I often use releases as starting points for my posts but I rarely take them at face value.
Perhaps it’s those who unquestioningly take people at their word without doing the required fact checking that puts bloggers at a disadvantage in the poll. Certainly I’d like to help drive that 66% figure up along with my readership.
At its root, though, is the fact that all journalists and editors come to their jobs with some sort of bias. Needless to say, I look at things from a conservative to libertarian point of view and it affects the way I write at times. Having been a student of history I know that certain groups of people have no compunction in making things up if it suits their needs. But I strive for accuracy in the end, and even political opponents concede I usually get it right in my reporting.
Maybe if bloggers would do more to earn the respect of their journalistic peers and the general public by sticking to the facts and leaving aside rumors, innuendo, and personal attacks, they may just bring that number up to the level of support enjoyed by the traditional media.
Once upon a time in my youth I briefly worked in a retail setting, and one thing I was taught is that giving bad service to one customer will eventually drive another dozen away through the negative word-of-mouth. In this day and age of instant communication via Facebook, Twitter, and other social networking outlets getting the wrong person mad could backfire a thousandfold.
As a collection of media mavens it’s time we grow up and take more care in what we do. Very few of us make a living at this, but in order to do so we have to clean up our act and become worthy of support.
Friday night videos – episode 32
Another week, another edition of FNV for your enjoyment.
The first video may not be as enjoyable as it is tragic. Take a look at the devastation in the Nashville region from a simple rainstorm that wouldn’t move off the area. No hurricane, no tornado – just heavy rain wrought this damage.
On the other hand, we have people like General Motors who aren’t self-reliant and wait for government handouts. Perhaps a presidential candidate in 2012, Rep. Paul Ryan recently decried their ‘crony capitalism.’
We’re 1/3 of the way through President Obama’s term, and Renee Giachino of the Center for Individual Freedom points out 10 lessons of his era.
Best thing is that I disabled autoplay on that one – yay me! I like their videos but didn’t like their autoplay feature, so I fixed it. Self-reliant.
It’s not as confusing as HTML code, but Arizona’s new immigration law does have its share of controversy. Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies did his best to explain the ins and outs on Fox News.
Another bill explained here by Americans for Limited Government is the Dodd financial takeover bill.
Let’s take this full circle, sort of, by going from southern rain to southern rock. Recently I was at Pork in the Park and caught these guys playing some Lynard Skynard you don’t often hear.
And is Smokin’ Gunnz a politically incorrect name or what? It’s a great way to wrap up this edition of FNV.
Book review: What Sex Is A Republican?: Stories from the Front Lines in American Politics and How You Can Change The Way Things Are, by Terri McCormick, M.A.
Perhaps Terri McCormick didn’t have those who became politically attuned thanks to their local TEA Parties in mind when she started to write her book, but it comes at an opportune time for those who would like to expand their newly-minted political involvement into a bid for seeking elective office.
While TEA Parties weren’t being contemplated yet in the early 1990′s, Terri McCormick was leading a grassroots effort of her own. After becoming involved in her children’s school, Terri worked for change within the system but was stymied by the powerful teacher’s unions. She was forced to build a broad coalition and take her fight to the statewide level – through her leadership the state’s legislature finally adopted the necessary reforms and allowed the formation of charter schools.
At times, What Sex Is A Republican? does read like a how-to textbook for would-be politicians, including a short summary of bullet points after each chapter. It’s a method of giving some of the nuts-and-bolts of campaigning from a woman who has been there: after spearheading the drive leading to charter schools and educational reform in Wisconsin, Terri McCormick ran for and won a seat in Wisconsin’s state legislature in 2000.
But even more telling in the story is McCormick’s heavy emphasis on the political gamesmanship once a candidate wins office and arrives ready to serve constituents. Her book talks at length about the treatment she encountered while in the Wisconsin House, couching the dealing and backbiting she witnessed in Machiavellian terms.
And while she decries the “vertical silo” of radical partisanship exhibited by many in both parties, her most bitter venom comes at the expense of what Terri calls “front row politicians,” the party leadership which controls how the legislative game is played. Those who have that sort of political power determine which bills are moved, which amendments are added, and even select the staffers who work with their inferiors, who are relegated to the back benches.
Yet the political shenanigans didn’t stop there. In 2006 McCormick opted to leave the Wisconsin legislature to make a bid for Congress, only to find out after she’d made the decision that she was not the “chosen” candidate in the race and that Beltway Republicans had already decided to back her opponent. Terri noted during a campaign appearance afterward that, “I am running for the Eighth Congressional District against George W. Bush.”
In writing What Sex Is A Republican?, Terri McCormick manages to reinforce practically every stereotype of the person we’ve come to expect as a career politician: arrogant, vainglorious among his peers, and exhibiting an insatiable lust for power. Sadly, she also correctly points out that most regular folks are drummed out of the political business because they just have too many morals to get along in such a system.
Still, McCormick obviously believes that, despite its faults, there is a place for good people in our political system. Moreover, she feels that, with the assistance of a populist campaign built upward from the grassroots, it is possible for people who want to be there for the right reasons to run and win despite today’s political climate. While her book could have been tightened up a little bit, Terri McCormick’s case for convincing a would-be candidate he or she can make a difference is strong and those who aspire to political office, particularly women, may well find this a helpful guide to read and follow.
Perhaps Terri McCormick didn’t have those who became politically attuned thanks to their local TEA Parties in mind when she started to write her book, but it comes at an opportune time for those who would like to expand their newly-minted political involvement into a bid for seeking elective office.
*****
Disclosure: I was asked by The Cadence Group to review the book and they sent it along to me to do so.
It’s all in how you ask the question
One news item making the rounds today comes from a polling question. The ABC News/Washington Post poll asked Americans about a number of subjects, but the headline comes from a statement that 80% of Americans disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case.
Perhaps they do, but I think some of the disagreement comes in the way the question was asked. Here’s how the poll asked the respondents on the 35th of a grueling 40-question list:
Changing topics, do you support or oppose the recent ruling by the Supreme Court that says corporations and unions can spend as much money as they want to help political candidates win elections? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?
Well, shoot, when you ask it that way, I might even be inclined to oppose the decision. I wonder if the responses would’ve been different had the question been asked:
Do you support or oppose the Supreme Court decision which held that corporations have the same free speech rights as individuals when it comes to political contributions?
But by couching in both political and monetary terms, the pollsters led people to what they considered the “proper” answer. It also shows that Americans are woefully deficient at understanding the Constitution because they agreed with the next question:
Would you support or oppose an effort by Congress to reinstate limits on corporate and union spending on election campaigns? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?
Obviously they don’t recall the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” The Supreme Court held money equalled speech in Buckley v. Valeo:
The Court concurred in part with the appellants’ claim, finding that the restrictions on political contributions and expenditures “necessarily reduce[d] the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of the exploration, and the size of the audience reached. This is because virtually every means of communicating ideas in today’s mass society requires the expenditure of money.”
Understanding that is the key to supporting the Citizens United decision. There are still laws on the books regarding disclosure of who contributes, and those are advisable.
What Democrats in Congress would like to do is put the genie back in the bottle for corporations, yet leave unions free to do whatever they wish. Obviously they’re a little angry that their key special interest now has to play on a more level field than they did before the Citizens United decision.
Every time someone tries to take the money out of politics, smart people figure out ways around it. When McCain-Feingold passed, millions of dollars just shifted to 527 groups who did the dirty work for politicans. At least with the Citizens United case we’ll have more accountability to just who gave money to whom, then try to figure out the quid quo pro.
If the press wasn’t worried about losing influence, perhaps they wouldn’t need to create an artificial issue by asking loaded questions on a poll. The SCOTUS may not have made the popular decision, but it made the correct one.
Supremes level the playing field
This happened late last week, but it’s interesting to collect various takes on the issue. So I have one from the left, one from the right, and then my own.
We’ll begin with Mitch Stewart of Organizing For Against America. I did a little bit of paring to get rid of the links.
(Last Thursday) morning, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations can spend freely in federal elections.
It’s a green light for a new stampede of special interest money in our politics, giving their lobbyists even more power in Washington. Now, every candidate who fights for change could face limitless attacks from corporate special interests like health insurance companies and Wall Street banks.
While the GOP is celebrating a victory for its special interest allies, President Obama is working with leaders in Congress to craft a forceful response that protects the voices of ordinary citizens.
Please add your name right away to help show that the American people support strong, urgent action to prevent a corporate takeover of our democracy.
(snip)
The Supreme Court decision overturned a 20-year precedent saying that corporations could not pay for campaign ads from their general treasuries. And it struck down a law saying corporations couldn’t buy “issue ads” — which only thinly veil support for or opposition to specific candidates — in the closing days of campaigns.
The result? Corporations can unleash multi-million-dollar ad barrages against candidates who try to curb special interest power, or devote millions to propping up elected officials who back their schemes.
With no limits on their spending, big oil, Wall Street banks, and health insurance companies will try to drown out the voices of everyday Americans — and Republicans seem ecstatic.
While opponents of change in Congress are praising this victory for special interests, President Obama has tasked his administration and Congress with identifying a fix to preserve our democracy — and we need to show that the American people stand with him. (All emphasis in original.)
On the other hand, Bill Wilson and the folks at Americans for Limited Government were much more pleased:
Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson (Thursday) praised the Supreme Court for overturning key aspects of the McCain-Feingold campaign restrictions, calling the decision “a decisive victory for the First Amendment, free speech, and open and fair elections.”
“The Roberts Court will go down as the greatest defender of the First Amendment since James Madison wrote it,” Wilson declared, calling the overturned restrictions “censorship.”
(snip)
According to the majority ruling written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, “Limits on independent expenditures, such as §441b, have a chilling effect extending well beyond the Government’s interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption. The anticorruption interest is not sufficient to displace the speech here in question.”
“Under this ruling, corporate entity restrictions on political campaigning have thankfully been overturned, as they have a chilling effect on legitimate political speech protected by the First Amendment,” said Wilson.
Wilson also condemned Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) for calling the decision “un-American.”
“Chuck Schumer needs to have his head examined,” Wilson said, adding, “the First Amendment was upheld in this case. It doesn’t get any more American than that.”
In Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission, the court ruled against provisions that restricted Citizens United from broadcasting a movie it developed, Hillary: The Movie, that was supposed to air during the 2008 Democratic Primary. In particular, the court ruled that federal restrictions on independent political expenditures by a corporation is a violation of the First Amendment.
The court ruled 5-4 in favor of Citizens United.
(snip)
Wilson said that the ruling “could set a template for groups to unhinge unconstitutional restrictions in the future through pre-enforcement challenges.”
Their release was actually much longer and featured commentary by their legal counsel, but you get the picture.
The aspect of McCain-Feingold which most gave it the perception as an “incumbent protection plan” was the artificial restriction on certain political advertisements 30 days before a primary election or 60 days before a general election, which is generally the timeframe people begin to pay attention to the campaigns. (A 60 day period in a normal general election cycle begins roughly around Labor Day, the time conventional wisdom holds that the campaign begins in earnest.)
But the Supreme Court decision seems to indicate that the Citizens United case couldn’t be properly resolved without sweeping away other related precedent the majority found incompatible with the First Amendment guarantee on free speech. I tend to agree with that approach because when a decision is made, it’s far better to err on the side of freedom than it is to be overly restrictive. Could corporations abuse their newfound power? Perhaps, but it bears repeating that the final arbiter of their success will be the people who vote and elect leaders.
It’s also worth pointing out that unions, who typically side with Democrats on political issues, also had their ban lifted as well. Those special interests as well as trial lawyers, environmental groups, and other pro-statist advocates simply get competition from the corporate world now – and there’s no guarantee corporate interests will automatically favor Republicans. Democrats who assist in corporate rentseeking efforts won’t be the target of negative ads from corporations, and the states which do allow direct corporate contributions to campaigns don’t seem to have any greater number of problems because of that.
Vigilance is the price we pay for freedom. Instead of having legislation arbitrarily decide who gets to express their point of view and who doesn’t, it is now up to us to be more informed about who is backing candidates and why. Any journalist worth his or her salt is certain to point out that the favorable ads from corporation X are backing candidate A, and undoubtedly once word of that gets out environmentalist group Y will respond by bashing both the corporation and the candidate, throwing their support behind their favored candidate B.
With the $1 billion-plus spent on the Presidential campaign in 2008 it’s obvious that the stated McCain-Feingold goal of getting money out of politics has failed miserably. So why not try the novel approach of getting money out of government and lessening the incentive for special interests to interfere?
America’s next great (liberal) pundit
A few weeks ago, the Washington Post decided to sponsor a contest to find “America’s Next Great Pundit.” Being one who likes to compare himself with others in his field and who likes to write anyway, I submitted an entry like about 4,800 other people did.
After reading the winning entries though, I’m not sure if the judging was based solely on writing ability or if there wasn’t a heaping helping of political slant involved. Obviously the Post has a pretty liberal editorial viewpoint but it’s hard for me to believe that many portside writers are that much better than those of us who toil on the conservative side. Besides, with twice as many Americans identifying themselves as conservative as liberal, the numerical superiority should be on our side, even in this case.
But I’ll let you judge for yourself. You can read the ten finalists’ entries here and compare them to what I wrote. Honestly, I found some fairly witty and well-written but others made me wonder what the judges were thinking. The entry bounced off a post I did about earmarks last month.
*****
Earmarks: tip of the iceberg
The other day I received an e-mail from the campaign of Dr. Eric Wargotz, one of several Republicans aiming at a chance to unseat Maryland’s longtime Senator Barb Mikulski next fall. Citing a news report, Wargotz chastises Mikulski for steering $10.5 million in earmarks to three of her largest campaign contributors as part of $42 million in pork spending she slipped into the upcoming defense appropriations bill.
This implied quid pro quo often infuriates supporters of campaign finance reform and advocates of good government, and similar practices were even a minor issue in last year’s Presidential campaign as both John McCain – a longtime foe of earmarks – and Barack Obama vowed to cut back on the practice, promising to veto earmark-laden bills placed before them.
We’ve seen the result of President Obama’s nod to fiscal conservatism, but there’s much more afoot at the people’s house than a few million dollars’ worth of what are essentially no-bid contracts.
To complain about a proverbial drop in the federal bucket when Congress is considering provisions which would balloon the deficit and enrich some favored corporations and industries at the expense of others misses a larger point. Nor can we discount that much of the new bureaucracy being conceived will take the decisions of everyday life out of the hands of individuals in the private sector and place it safely within the Beltway, empowering wannabe experts who may not have even been vetted to make economic decisions affecting all of us.
Simply put, it is not the place of government at any level to create law picking winners or losers. Naturally some adroitly adapt to changing regulations and prosper, but too many corporate entities look to government as their salvation and far too many public servants, both in Washington and state capitals, are only too happy to help because it also gives them a reason for being.
Perhaps the true intention behind the complaint about Senator Mikulski is to make a clarion call for returning to a more principled government. To Americans who are simply fed up with “politics as usual”, the only steps which may be satisfactory to them would be those taken to reduce the size and scope of government. Earmarks are the low-hanging fruit, but the tree is ripe for the picking.
*****
So what do you think? The worst offense may have been mixing metaphors, but that’s nothing I’ve not seen other columnists do.
So what will cap-and-trade cost?
Reading my online update of the Washington Times this morning, they had a story by Amanda DeBard about a new group using the new media to get their word out. Happy to oblige.
The piece details the Cost of Energy Information Project, whose website features a calculator which will predict how much your energy costs will rise should the cap-and-tax bill pass. (Hint: it’s probably more than the cost of a postage stamp per day. Mine was $853 a year!)
Much of the effort goes to posting updates on Twitter, the social networking site which boasts millions of users. For example, my Tweet this afternoon went to my 76 followers – if 10% follow through and have the math done they could reach hundreds or thousands of followers themselves, perpetuating the cycle.
If you’re curious how CEIP comes up with the numbers, so was I:
The energy cost calculator uses results from a study commissioned by the American Council for Capital Formation and the National Association of Manufacturers. The ACCF/NAM study of the House-passed cap and trade bill was performed by the non-partisan Science Applications International Corporation, using the same economic modeling system used by the Department of Energy’s highly respected statistical branch, the Energy Information Administration. The study was further refined to include results on a state-by-state level. The state-by-state data is applied to your specific current energy costs to calculate your projected future energy costs under a cap and trade system.
The trick with this, though, is to continually prime the pump and give people a reason to come back. Sure, a calculator is a nice initial draw but the 24/7 news cycle demands additional content for both the old and new media (like me.)
Besides, most people have probably figured out that cap-and-tax is going to cost more money – well, perhaps that’s an incorrect statement because 8 of the 9 Congressmen from Maryland and Delaware voted for this monstrosity in the House. The lone holdout was Rep. Roscoe Bartlett from the 6th District over in western Maryland. Frank Kratovil was in the tank, of course, but Mike Castle of Delaware was one of the GOP’s disappointing “cap-and-tax 8″ which provided the margin of victory. Just thought I’d remind you. It’s also all but certain the four Senators who misrepresent our states will favor this legislation because they’re good liberals too.
Since this is a time of year utility bills are at their lowest, take a few moments to pull out your electric and gas bills and take a guess on your gasoline tab for the month ($100 is a pretty good guess since the average driver uses about 40 gallons a month to drive 1,000 miles) and see just how much more you’ll be paying to “combat” so-called manmade climate change.
Oh, by the way, this is just the monetary cost. As I described yesterday, the cost in freedom from this measure can’t be as easily calculated but it will be a cost just the same.
In print no. 9
Been awhile since I did one of these, the last was in November of 2007. I’ve been in print since but I didn’t feel the need to reprise a letter to the Daily Times. Maybe I should have, but anyway…
Yesterday I was quoted in a front-page New York Times story about Bill Wilson, head of Americans for Limited Government. My comment was in reference to ALG’s outreach to the blogosphere, which includes the Daily Grind and NetRightNation e-mail updates. It was the 23rd paragraph of the 28-paragraph story.
“They’ve done quite a bit to reach out to the blogger community,” said Michael Swartz, a writer and out-of-work architect in Salisbury, Md., who runs the conservative Monoblogue.us site. “Sometimes I use their stuff straight up. Sometimes I use it for my own writing.”
After reading the quote I decided to do a little bit of research into my site and found that I had used an ALG press release as a basis for about 20 posts and something from NetRightNation in a dozen more (although some overlap.) So I wouldn’t say I was a frequent user of their stuff but I am regularly inspired by their items as I am by many other sources for commentary.
In general what I do with their stuff (and other similar sources) is take their press release, reprint it, and then add my commentary on the intentions. That way the organization gets its message out but I reserve the right to put my own imprint on it – obviously I’m either in agreement or disagreement with their item and since they’re getting the plug on MY website I’m going to have my say.
But it was interesting that I spoke to Scott Shane, the reporter who wrote the story, on the phone for about 12 minutes last Thursday and he distilled the conversation into that short paragraph. I was told by sources at ALG that the Times may be contacting me regarding the story but was frankly surprised to be the only blogger quoted. (Given the left-leaning readership of the NYT it’s not all that surprising my numbers over the weekend didn’t jump a whole lot over a normal weekend.)
It was nice of them to think of me, though, and it’s not every day an average citizen makes the front page of the “newspaper of record.” Just thought I’d share, so check it out!
Radio days volume 15
This is my first “radio days” post since June 2008 so it’s been a long dry spell.
But I just got off the phone with Melody Scalley, who as some of you know is running for the House of Delegates representing the Eastern Shore of Virginia (District 100).
More importantly, she also hosts an internet radio show and invited me to be a guest on her show this evening – the time slot will be either 8:00 or 8:30 and I won’t know myself until later on. So just listen for the full hour, or jump right in at 7 when she starts!
Her 2-hour show, “Politics on the Edge”, airs from 7 to 9 p.m. every Monday on RFC Radio. I’ll let you know what I thought of my performance in an update afterward.
**********
I had fun chatting with Melody. I did find it odd how she chopped up our conversation at the break. In actuality we recorded this earlier today and it was one long 25 minute (or so) conversation so I was a bit surprised to hear my part coming on about 8:20. Perhaps it could have been done better if the producer had put Mark Morano of Climate Depot in the slot after Francis Rice (the lady from NBRA) and just let me roll through uninterrupted.
There were a couple points I think I could have made a little better but on the whole I think I did all right. I do talk a little bit slowly when I’m trying to formulate thoughts and arguments which explains why I much prefer this blogging medium to the broadcasting one. And quite honestly not having done this for awhile I was out of practice.
Who knows, though – this could be a regular guest appearance sort of thing and perhaps it brings a larger national readership my way. I have no idea how many people listen to RFC Radio but even if it’s just 1,000 listeners having all of them read my site daily would vastly grow my audience and give it a more national scale.
I ponder one thing as I think about the future, though. Having heard Melody and how she does her show, I wonder if things get different once she wins and gets inside the belly of the beast. Those special interests aren’t going to go down easily and they’re certainly not going to fight fairly.
I noted in the interview that I’ve become quite a bit more jaded over the time I’ve done my site. Perhaps it’s because I see a lot of good people harmed and ruined by the political process and lust for power, much as it occurs from those lusting for more wealth and/or fame. Like Melody, I used to think practically all politicians were good people and that’s still fairly true on a local level. But the higher up you go the less likely you are to find a humble public servant and the the more probable it is you find the ones who expect to be served by us.
That’s what needs to change in this country. The arrogance shown by our politicians could serve as yet another of many tipping points we see as America enters a new age. In the end, the question becomes whether that age sees morning in America rise once again as it did 25 years ago or if our sun is setting.
Random thoughts on the passing local blogging scene
(With apologies to Thomas Sowell.)
Many local residents, particularly those with children under his care (this group includes my significant other) were shocked and horrified to hear about the auto accident last Wednesday involving local pediatrician Dr. Jose Alvarado; sadly, late last night he succumbed to his injuries.
I don’t believe I had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Alvarado but by all accounts his shoes will be difficult to fill and he will be missed by a wide circle of family, friends, a host of hospital associates and staff, and most particularly patients – some of whom eventually brought their children to the kind doctor they grew up seeing.
But his passing brought up a lot of thoughts and questions I have about the local blogging scene.
First, let’s go back to the day it happened. One local blogger (I’ll call him Blogger A) jumped the gun and said Dr. Alvarado had died. Obviously that created confusion for family and friends and when the truth came out Alvarado was still alive but in grave condition Blogger A had a LOT of egg on his face to wipe off (plus a retraction to make). In days of old spreading that sort of misinformation could get you run out of town on a rail.
His archnemesis, who I’ll call Blogger G, correctly pointed out that Blogger A had jumped to a conclusion before hearing the full story, gleefully bashing Blogger A. But aside from that, what contribution to the public knowledge was made?
Apparently none, because the next day the Alvarado family released a statement saying “members of our local media and local blog owners please respect their privacy”. (Emphasis mine.)
Blogger A blamed Blogger G for creating the negative perception by pointing out the mistake Blogger A had retracted, while Blogger G continued to blame Blogger A for making the erroneous statement in the first place. Again, what was learned?
The same person who told Blogger A last night that Dr. Alvarado died simultaneously (I presume based on his post time) sent me a text message regarding that fact. However, I didn’t notice this until later because I was otherwise engaged watching a Shorebirds game with Kim (my s.o.) last night. I’m not saying this as an excuse for why I didn’t post it, I’m saying this because this ongoing war of words between Blogger A and Blogger G escalated further during the accident aftermath with the family of Dr. Jose Alvarado being not just innocent victims of a tragic accident snuffing out the life of a dedicated and caring physician but also becoming collateral damage in a juvenile war that’s gone too far for too long.
In the interest of full disclosure, on at least three different occasions I have been asked by Blogger A or Blogger G to affiliate with their websites and crosspost, and on all those occasions I declined. While there would be an obvious readership increase because my writing would be placed on a different (and perhaps larger) stage I’ve politely refused because I thought the remainder of the subject matter therein wasn’t a particularly good platform for my work. I have chosen instead to crosspost with four other blogs: two are almost strictly political (one Maryland-based and the other of national scope), one is mainly political but delves into other life issues (it’s based in Delaware so many of my Delaware-based items crosspost there), and the fourth agreement mainly exists as payback to Blogger A for slighting a friend of mine – but I haven’t contributed there in over a year.
Personally I think Salisbury is growing weary of the childish games being played by both supposedly grown men. If you believe Blogger G and those who support him, the sole reason Blogger A gets readers is the same reason some watch NASCAR and root for the 14-car pileup. But if you believe Blogger A and his followers, Blogger G (and those others in this area who aren’t currently affiliated with Blogger A) has too puny of a readership to matter anyway.
I’ve also found it irksome that on numerous occasions both men have vowed to turn over a new leaf then days later returned to form. Each seems to need some bogeyman on whom to blame the issues we all face as Salisbury-area residents and they conveniently turn to assailing one or more when things go wrong. (Admittedly, the list of Blogger A targets is much, much longer.)
That’s not to say either Blogger A or Blogger G aren’t doing some good for the community, particularly in plugging local charitable events and causes. But the additional readership comes at a cost because followers on one blog may see the other’s involvement as a reason not to support the event. Is that petty? Certainly. But it’s real and detrimental to the improvement of the community they claim to love.
Another victim of this blowback could be all the great new blogs (those are a few examples) which have surfaced locally in the last several months. These two are sucking all of the oxygen out of the room with their petty battles.
It reminds me again of an incident from 2006. Three years after the fact I’m still incensed that a candidate – from my side, no less – called local blogs a “cancer” on the community because one brought up his past work on the zoo commission. That was essentially the work of one blogger but the statement tarred all of us with a broad brush. At the time, many weren’t familiar with the local blogging scene and it gave us a reputation which we are still trying to clean off that goo today. (Others seem to wallow in it – cases in point, Blogger A and Blogger G.)
I’m not naive enough to deny that most blogs have an agenda of some sort; even those which claim to be “news” will slant the stories at least a little to suit them as they see fit. (It’s why I say “news and views”.)
But readers need to consider the track record and, more importantly, the motivation of those who put out the “news” as well, particularly in this important time. Who are they trying to make look good, and how are they making the opponents look bad?
I honestly hope that the latest incident forces readers to reevaluate their local news reading habits. I’m not saying all this to toot my own horn - you don’t have to come here for breaking news because that’s not my strength. (If you want a more in-depth analysis of local political items though feel free to stop back.)
I know that sooner or later either Blogger A or Blogger G is going to win their little war. With all the other issues we have, though, the fewer people who involve themselves in that fight, the better off we will all be.
Eastern Shore Political Buzz Examiner
Syndicate
Subscribe to this site's RSS feed.
-
-
-
Advertise with monoblogue and you’ll reach a lot of people!
Click on the photo for details.
Link to Maryland Democratic Party
In the interest of being fair and balanced, I provide this service to readers. But before you click on the picture below, just remember their message:
Locals flock to monoblogue
Click on the photo for details on advertising opportunities.
Please note that the opinions expressed on monoblogue are not necessarily those of the Wicomico County Republican Party Central Committee, of which I'm a member. (But they probably should be.)
