Comments on: I DON’T LIKE REPUBLICAN SENATORS JUST AS MUCH AS THE NEXT GUY… http://www.clareified.com/2006/01/31/i-dont-like-republican-senators-just-as-much-as-the-next-guy/ More oddly. Less riveting. Sat, 22 Nov 2008 10:02:11 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: iocaste http://www.clareified.com/2006/01/31/i-dont-like-republican-senators-just-as-much-as-the-next-guy/#comment-1482 iocaste Wed, 01 Feb 2006 06:47:08 +0000 http://www.clareified.com/wp/?p=2616#comment-1482 Gib: In my book, if you disclose things that are in the public interest and that the public has a right to know and that bear on public affairs, you're serving that function. I'm certainly not going to say "well, it would be okay if he had a column in a newspaper" but "no, it's not okay because he has a blog." And god knows political motivation can't be the deciding factor; we'd have to eliminate god knows how many columnists, commentators, and politically-oriented publications if we did that. Gib: In my book, if you disclose things that are in the public interest and that the public has a right to know and that bear on public affairs, you’re serving that function. I’m certainly not going to say “well, it would be okay if he had a column in a newspaper” but “no, it’s not okay because he has a blog.” And god knows political motivation can’t be the deciding factor; we’d have to eliminate god knows how many columnists, commentators, and politically-oriented publications if we did that.

]]> By: iocaste http://www.clareified.com/2006/01/31/i-dont-like-republican-senators-just-as-much-as-the-next-guy/#comment-3481 iocaste Wed, 01 Feb 2006 06:47:08 +0000 http://www.clareified.com/wp/?p=2616#comment-3481 Gib: In my book, if you disclose things that are in the public interest and that the public has a right to know and that bear on public affairs, you're serving that function. I'm certainly not going to say "well, it would be okay if he had a column in a newspaper" but "no, it's not okay because he has a blog." And god knows political motivation can't be the deciding factor; we'd have to eliminate god knows how many columnists, commentators, and politically-oriented publications if we did that. Gib: In my book, if you disclose things that are in the public interest and that the public has a right to know and that bear on public affairs, you’re serving that function. I’m certainly not going to say “well, it would be okay if he had a column in a newspaper” but “no, it’s not okay because he has a blog.” And god knows political motivation can’t be the deciding factor; we’d have to eliminate god knows how many columnists, commentators, and politically-oriented publications if we did that.

]]> By: iocaste http://www.clareified.com/2006/01/31/i-dont-like-republican-senators-just-as-much-as-the-next-guy/#comment-5480 iocaste Wed, 01 Feb 2006 06:47:08 +0000 http://www.clareified.com/wp/?p=2616#comment-5480 Gib: In my book, if you disclose things that are in the public interest and that the public has a right to know and that bear on public affairs, you're serving that function. I'm certainly not going to say "well, it would be okay if he had a column in a newspaper" but "no, it's not okay because he has a blog." And god knows political motivation can't be the deciding factor; we'd have to eliminate god knows how many columnists, commentators, and politically-oriented publications if we did that. Gib: In my book, if you disclose things that are in the public interest and that the public has a right to know and that bear on public affairs, you’re serving that function. I’m certainly not going to say “well, it would be okay if he had a column in a newspaper” but “no, it’s not okay because he has a blog.” And god knows political motivation can’t be the deciding factor; we’d have to eliminate god knows how many columnists, commentators, and politically-oriented publications if we did that.

]]> By: Gib http://www.clareified.com/2006/01/31/i-dont-like-republican-senators-just-as-much-as-the-next-guy/#comment-1481 Gib Wed, 01 Feb 2006 06:22:58 +0000 http://www.clareified.com/wp/?p=2616#comment-1481 We're not talking about a journalist committing journalism - we're talking about an activist explicitly threatening people who don't vote according to whatever this cretin defines as "pro-gay." He's not a reporter - he's not seeking a story, or the truth. He already has the truth, or at least he either believes he does or is willing to pretend - but he's not going to "report the story" if you will provided he gets a result. Deciding something's newsworthy only if the subject doesn't agree with the "reporter" is just a flimsy rationalization. We’re not talking about a journalist committing journalism - we’re talking about an activist explicitly threatening people who don’t vote according to whatever this cretin defines as “pro-gay.”

He’s not a reporter - he’s not seeking a story, or the truth. He already has the truth, or at least he either believes he does or is willing to pretend - but he’s not going to “report the story” if you will provided he gets a result.

Deciding something’s newsworthy only if the subject doesn’t agree with the “reporter” is just a flimsy rationalization.

]]> By: Gib http://www.clareified.com/2006/01/31/i-dont-like-republican-senators-just-as-much-as-the-next-guy/#comment-3480 Gib Wed, 01 Feb 2006 06:22:58 +0000 http://www.clareified.com/wp/?p=2616#comment-3480 We're not talking about a journalist committing journalism - we're talking about an activist explicitly threatening people who don't vote according to whatever this cretin defines as "pro-gay." He's not a reporter - he's not seeking a story, or the truth. He already has the truth, or at least he either believes he does or is willing to pretend - but he's not going to "report the story" if you will provided he gets a result. Deciding something's newsworthy only if the subject doesn't agree with the "reporter" is just a flimsy rationalization. We’re not talking about a journalist committing journalism - we’re talking about an activist explicitly threatening people who don’t vote according to whatever this cretin defines as “pro-gay.”

He’s not a reporter - he’s not seeking a story, or the truth. He already has the truth, or at least he either believes he does or is willing to pretend - but he’s not going to “report the story” if you will provided he gets a result.

Deciding something’s newsworthy only if the subject doesn’t agree with the “reporter” is just a flimsy rationalization.

]]> By: Gib http://www.clareified.com/2006/01/31/i-dont-like-republican-senators-just-as-much-as-the-next-guy/#comment-5479 Gib Wed, 01 Feb 2006 06:22:58 +0000 http://www.clareified.com/wp/?p=2616#comment-5479 We're not talking about a journalist committing journalism - we're talking about an activist explicitly threatening people who don't vote according to whatever this cretin defines as "pro-gay." He's not a reporter - he's not seeking a story, or the truth. He already has the truth, or at least he either believes he does or is willing to pretend - but he's not going to "report the story" if you will provided he gets a result. Deciding something's newsworthy only if the subject doesn't agree with the "reporter" is just a flimsy rationalization. We’re not talking about a journalist committing journalism - we’re talking about an activist explicitly threatening people who don’t vote according to whatever this cretin defines as “pro-gay.”

He’s not a reporter - he’s not seeking a story, or the truth. He already has the truth, or at least he either believes he does or is willing to pretend - but he’s not going to “report the story” if you will provided he gets a result.

Deciding something’s newsworthy only if the subject doesn’t agree with the “reporter” is just a flimsy rationalization.

]]> By: K http://www.clareified.com/2006/01/31/i-dont-like-republican-senators-just-as-much-as-the-next-guy/#comment-1480 K Wed, 01 Feb 2006 05:05:34 +0000 http://www.clareified.com/wp/?p=2616#comment-1480 Personally, I'd destroy the blogger's life. I'd go after his family, etc. and he'd never forget it. Personally, I’d destroy the blogger’s life. I’d go after his family, etc. and he’d never forget it.

]]> By: K http://www.clareified.com/2006/01/31/i-dont-like-republican-senators-just-as-much-as-the-next-guy/#comment-3479 K Wed, 01 Feb 2006 05:05:34 +0000 http://www.clareified.com/wp/?p=2616#comment-3479 Personally, I'd destroy the blogger's life. I'd go after his family, etc. and he'd never forget it. Personally, I’d destroy the blogger’s life. I’d go after his family, etc. and he’d never forget it.

]]> By: K http://www.clareified.com/2006/01/31/i-dont-like-republican-senators-just-as-much-as-the-next-guy/#comment-5478 K Wed, 01 Feb 2006 05:05:34 +0000 http://www.clareified.com/wp/?p=2616#comment-5478 Personally, I'd destroy the blogger's life. I'd go after his family, etc. and he'd never forget it. Personally, I’d destroy the blogger’s life. I’d go after his family, etc. and he’d never forget it.

]]> By: iocaste http://www.clareified.com/2006/01/31/i-dont-like-republican-senators-just-as-much-as-the-next-guy/#comment-1479 iocaste Wed, 01 Feb 2006 02:57:07 +0000 http://www.clareified.com/wp/?p=2616#comment-1479 Gib - I don't believe that's true. You might as well say that the general threat that a reporter might dig up something embarassing about you if you vote inconsistently amounts to blackmail. If you take public actions while knowing that there are aspects of your life that will cast those public actions in a different light to voters, that's just the risk of being a politician. In other words, no one should feel bad reporting relevant information about a public official because it might pressure the public official. It's different if there's a direct quid pro quo "I have information on you specifically and I will use it unless you vote the way I want you to." That may seem like a slippery slope distinction, but it's the necessary kind we always make in politics where we recognize that people must have the right to donate to candidates and speak on behalf of candidates, but we can't allow bribery either. Gib - I don’t believe that’s true. You might as well say that the general threat that a reporter might dig up something embarassing about you if you vote inconsistently amounts to blackmail. If you take public actions while knowing that there are aspects of your life that will cast those public actions in a different light to voters, that’s just the risk of being a politician.

In other words, no one should feel bad reporting relevant information about a public official because it might pressure the public official. It’s different if there’s a direct quid pro quo “I have information on you specifically and I will use it unless you vote the way I want you to.”

That may seem like a slippery slope distinction, but it’s the necessary kind we always make in politics where we recognize that people must have the right to donate to candidates and speak on behalf of candidates, but we can’t allow bribery either.

]]> By: iocaste http://www.clareified.com/2006/01/31/i-dont-like-republican-senators-just-as-much-as-the-next-guy/#comment-3478 iocaste Wed, 01 Feb 2006 02:57:07 +0000 http://www.clareified.com/wp/?p=2616#comment-3478 Gib - I don't believe that's true. You might as well say that the general threat that a reporter might dig up something embarassing about you if you vote inconsistently amounts to blackmail. If you take public actions while knowing that there are aspects of your life that will cast those public actions in a different light to voters, that's just the risk of being a politician. In other words, no one should feel bad reporting relevant information about a public official because it might pressure the public official. It's different if there's a direct quid pro quo "I have information on you specifically and I will use it unless you vote the way I want you to." That may seem like a slippery slope distinction, but it's the necessary kind we always make in politics where we recognize that people must have the right to donate to candidates and speak on behalf of candidates, but we can't allow bribery either. Gib - I don’t believe that’s true. You might as well say that the general threat that a reporter might dig up something embarassing about you if you vote inconsistently amounts to blackmail. If you take public actions while knowing that there are aspects of your life that will cast those public actions in a different light to voters, that’s just the risk of being a politician.

In other words, no one should feel bad reporting relevant information about a public official because it might pressure the public official. It’s different if there’s a direct quid pro quo “I have information on you specifically and I will use it unless you vote the way I want you to.”

That may seem like a slippery slope distinction, but it’s the necessary kind we always make in politics where we recognize that people must have the right to donate to candidates and speak on behalf of candidates, but we can’t allow bribery either.

]]> By: iocaste http://www.clareified.com/2006/01/31/i-dont-like-republican-senators-just-as-much-as-the-next-guy/#comment-5477 iocaste Wed, 01 Feb 2006 02:57:07 +0000 http://www.clareified.com/wp/?p=2616#comment-5477 Gib - I don't believe that's true. You might as well say that the general threat that a reporter might dig up something embarassing about you if you vote inconsistently amounts to blackmail. If you take public actions while knowing that there are aspects of your life that will cast those public actions in a different light to voters, that's just the risk of being a politician. In other words, no one should feel bad reporting relevant information about a public official because it might pressure the public official. It's different if there's a direct quid pro quo "I have information on you specifically and I will use it unless you vote the way I want you to." That may seem like a slippery slope distinction, but it's the necessary kind we always make in politics where we recognize that people must have the right to donate to candidates and speak on behalf of candidates, but we can't allow bribery either. Gib - I don’t believe that’s true. You might as well say that the general threat that a reporter might dig up something embarassing about you if you vote inconsistently amounts to blackmail. If you take public actions while knowing that there are aspects of your life that will cast those public actions in a different light to voters, that’s just the risk of being a politician.

In other words, no one should feel bad reporting relevant information about a public official because it might pressure the public official. It’s different if there’s a direct quid pro quo “I have information on you specifically and I will use it unless you vote the way I want you to.”

That may seem like a slippery slope distinction, but it’s the necessary kind we always make in politics where we recognize that people must have the right to donate to candidates and speak on behalf of candidates, but we can’t allow bribery either.

]]> By: Gib http://www.clareified.com/2006/01/31/i-dont-like-republican-senators-just-as-much-as-the-next-guy/#comment-1478 Gib Wed, 01 Feb 2006 02:09:59 +0000 http://www.clareified.com/wp/?p=2616#comment-1478 There is no difference between "outing anti-gay politicians because their hypocrisy is newsworthy" and flat-out blackmailing them. Everyone gets that if Senator X voted a certain way, his sex life would instantaneously become less "newsworthy" - unless the Christian Coalition felt betrayed and got ahold of the info, I suppose. (Sauce for the goose, right?) There is no difference between “outing anti-gay politicians because their hypocrisy is newsworthy” and flat-out blackmailing them. Everyone gets that if Senator X voted a certain way, his sex life would instantaneously become less “newsworthy” - unless the Christian Coalition felt betrayed and got ahold of the info, I suppose. (Sauce for the goose, right?)

]]> By: Gib http://www.clareified.com/2006/01/31/i-dont-like-republican-senators-just-as-much-as-the-next-guy/#comment-3477 Gib Wed, 01 Feb 2006 02:09:59 +0000 http://www.clareified.com/wp/?p=2616#comment-3477 There is no difference between "outing anti-gay politicians because their hypocrisy is newsworthy" and flat-out blackmailing them. Everyone gets that if Senator X voted a certain way, his sex life would instantaneously become less "newsworthy" - unless the Christian Coalition felt betrayed and got ahold of the info, I suppose. (Sauce for the goose, right?) There is no difference between “outing anti-gay politicians because their hypocrisy is newsworthy” and flat-out blackmailing them. Everyone gets that if Senator X voted a certain way, his sex life would instantaneously become less “newsworthy” - unless the Christian Coalition felt betrayed and got ahold of the info, I suppose. (Sauce for the goose, right?)

]]> By: Gib http://www.clareified.com/2006/01/31/i-dont-like-republican-senators-just-as-much-as-the-next-guy/#comment-5476 Gib Wed, 01 Feb 2006 02:09:59 +0000 http://www.clareified.com/wp/?p=2616#comment-5476 There is no difference between "outing anti-gay politicians because their hypocrisy is newsworthy" and flat-out blackmailing them. Everyone gets that if Senator X voted a certain way, his sex life would instantaneously become less "newsworthy" - unless the Christian Coalition felt betrayed and got ahold of the info, I suppose. (Sauce for the goose, right?) There is no difference between “outing anti-gay politicians because their hypocrisy is newsworthy” and flat-out blackmailing them. Everyone gets that if Senator X voted a certain way, his sex life would instantaneously become less “newsworthy” - unless the Christian Coalition felt betrayed and got ahold of the info, I suppose. (Sauce for the goose, right?)

]]> By: Karol http://www.clareified.com/2006/01/31/i-dont-like-republican-senators-just-as-much-as-the-next-guy/#comment-1477 Karol Wed, 01 Feb 2006 00:26:29 +0000 http://www.clareified.com/wp/?p=2616#comment-1477 It makes Democrats look desperate, which, I suppose they are. I think that's your problem with this, Dawn. It makes Democrats look desperate, which, I suppose they are. I think that’s your problem with this, Dawn.

]]> By: Karol http://www.clareified.com/2006/01/31/i-dont-like-republican-senators-just-as-much-as-the-next-guy/#comment-3476 Karol Wed, 01 Feb 2006 00:26:29 +0000 http://www.clareified.com/wp/?p=2616#comment-3476 It makes Democrats look desperate, which, I suppose they are. I think that's your problem with this, Dawn. It makes Democrats look desperate, which, I suppose they are. I think that’s your problem with this, Dawn.

]]> By: Karol http://www.clareified.com/2006/01/31/i-dont-like-republican-senators-just-as-much-as-the-next-guy/#comment-5475 Karol Wed, 01 Feb 2006 00:26:29 +0000 http://www.clareified.com/wp/?p=2616#comment-5475 It makes Democrats look desperate, which, I suppose they are. I think that's your problem with this, Dawn. It makes Democrats look desperate, which, I suppose they are. I think that’s your problem with this, Dawn.

]]> By: iocaste http://www.clareified.com/2006/01/31/i-dont-like-republican-senators-just-as-much-as-the-next-guy/#comment-1476 iocaste Tue, 31 Jan 2006 23:48:41 +0000 http://www.clareified.com/wp/?p=2616#comment-1476 I disagree. I don't approve of the blackmailing thing -- he crossed the line when he started specifically making threats about votes -- but his more general mission is to out politicians who are privately gay (usually they're out to select people) but who adopt hostile-gay policies. And that to me is newsworthy. It's newsworthy if a gay person votes for DOMA for the same reason that it is newsworthy when Lieberman crosses the aisle to make another slam at Democrats or when Ward Connerly or Shelby Steele try to get affirmative action banned or when Phyllis Schafly advocates against the ERA. I disagree. I don’t approve of the blackmailing thing — he crossed the line when he started specifically making threats about votes — but his more general mission is to out politicians who are privately gay (usually they’re out to select people) but who adopt hostile-gay policies. And that to me is newsworthy. It’s newsworthy if a gay person votes for DOMA for the same reason that it is newsworthy when Lieberman crosses the aisle to make another slam at Democrats or when Ward Connerly or Shelby Steele try to get affirmative action banned or when Phyllis Schafly advocates against the ERA.

]]> By: iocaste http://www.clareified.com/2006/01/31/i-dont-like-republican-senators-just-as-much-as-the-next-guy/#comment-3475 iocaste Tue, 31 Jan 2006 23:48:41 +0000 http://www.clareified.com/wp/?p=2616#comment-3475 I disagree. I don't approve of the blackmailing thing -- he crossed the line when he started specifically making threats about votes -- but his more general mission is to out politicians who are privately gay (usually they're out to select people) but who adopt hostile-gay policies. And that to me is newsworthy. It's newsworthy if a gay person votes for DOMA for the same reason that it is newsworthy when Lieberman crosses the aisle to make another slam at Democrats or when Ward Connerly or Shelby Steele try to get affirmative action banned or when Phyllis Schafly advocates against the ERA. I disagree. I don’t approve of the blackmailing thing — he crossed the line when he started specifically making threats about votes — but his more general mission is to out politicians who are privately gay (usually they’re out to select people) but who adopt hostile-gay policies. And that to me is newsworthy. It’s newsworthy if a gay person votes for DOMA for the same reason that it is newsworthy when Lieberman crosses the aisle to make another slam at Democrats or when Ward Connerly or Shelby Steele try to get affirmative action banned or when Phyllis Schafly advocates against the ERA.

]]> By: iocaste http://www.clareified.com/2006/01/31/i-dont-like-republican-senators-just-as-much-as-the-next-guy/#comment-5474 iocaste Tue, 31 Jan 2006 23:48:41 +0000 http://www.clareified.com/wp/?p=2616#comment-5474 I disagree. I don't approve of the blackmailing thing -- he crossed the line when he started specifically making threats about votes -- but his more general mission is to out politicians who are privately gay (usually they're out to select people) but who adopt hostile-gay policies. And that to me is newsworthy. It's newsworthy if a gay person votes for DOMA for the same reason that it is newsworthy when Lieberman crosses the aisle to make another slam at Democrats or when Ward Connerly or Shelby Steele try to get affirmative action banned or when Phyllis Schafly advocates against the ERA. I disagree. I don’t approve of the blackmailing thing — he crossed the line when he started specifically making threats about votes — but his more general mission is to out politicians who are privately gay (usually they’re out to select people) but who adopt hostile-gay policies. And that to me is newsworthy. It’s newsworthy if a gay person votes for DOMA for the same reason that it is newsworthy when Lieberman crosses the aisle to make another slam at Democrats or when Ward Connerly or Shelby Steele try to get affirmative action banned or when Phyllis Schafly advocates against the ERA.

]]>