News Stories I Don’t Give a Shit About

Regarding Hunter Thompson. It has now been reported that he blew his brains out while on the phone with his wife. His son, daughter-in-law and six year old granson were in the house at the time. What a thoughtful husband and father, that Hunter Thompson.

Regarding the snow. Every year we have to witness the NY media go into shock at the fact that we occaisonally get snow during the winter. I guess we should be thankful for their cold weather dress tips though.

Well Patrick, Helen Thomas gets a pass too, so I guess it would be a wash then.:roll:

Vinny- no it does not make the news anymore newsworthy. I agree with you!

Vinny-

He got a press pass using an alias. What do you have to say about the obvious favoritism employed in giving him a job at the White House? Do you realize that the required CIA security check would have immediately caught this. Can tell me why he made an ppearance at the White House Christmas ball?

Why do you have such a problem answering all of the problems I posed?

It couldn’t just be a fuckup on the CIA’s part. Nope. Not at all. It had to be the biggest attempt to manipulate the press ever, symptomaic of a larger issue.

As for being called by his pseudonym, so what?

And Patrick, the reason I didn’t answer your questions is that they just don’t matter. You still didn’t answer mine, either…

Did you know who this massive manipulator and distorter of press conferences was before this “scandal?”

Sorry guys, I see a major case of trying to make something out of nothing. Patrick’s biggest problem is that he was invited to the Christmas ball.

Yawn….

After all of the other examples of paying off reporters…

Oh, you mean the one example, Armstrong Williams?

You may have a point with Karen Ryuan, but the Maggie Gallagher non-scandal is just ludicrous.

How about a Kerry campaign strategist being on the active payroll of a major news network?

Oh wait, there’s an excuse for that and I’m sure you’ll offer it…

There’s no comparison between a cousin and an actual campaign manager.

Sorry man. I know you want to paint Bush as an evil manipulator of all things, but that’s one comparison you just flat out can’t make.

Vinny — personally I wouldn’t suggest the Bush is an “evil manipulator of all things,” but certainly you have to at least recognize that this administration has set a new standard for the amount of control it exerts over the press. Just a handful of examples: Bush has given the fewest press conferences of any modern president; before, during, and after the campaign, Bush’s public appearances consist of guaranteed friendly crowds; going all the way back to the “Mission Accomplished” speech on the Lincoln, it’s important to remember the many ways in which that was stage-managed (including careful camera angles to make sure the coastline wasn’t visible in the background); also remember when Bush flew to Iraq for Thanksgiving, and proudly displayed a fake turkey; the creation of designated “protest zones” far away from the president during his public appearances; and the last time I checked, Bush doesn’t give live interviews — his public appearances are invariably scripted to the most seemingly trivial detail (when does he wear a tie, when does he roll up his sleeves, when does he clear brush from his ranch, etc.).

Over and over, this administration has always done an excellent job of sticking to their talking points, and carefully controlling external variables. They are excellent at choreographing and staging.

Frankly, I prefer a much more open, available government. Regardless of which political party is in The White House, I think that the president — as a civil servant, given his job by the people of the United States — should be required to answer tough questions. Once a month at least, but maybe even once a week. I’ve had too much experience in the business world (including very recently, unfortunately) with people who avoid tough questions.

I have a sickening disdain for leaders who would choose to surround themselves with “yes” men or women. Over the years, I’ve built an increasing amount of distrust for authority figures who deal with potentially bad news by “going dark.”

You are a better and stronger leader for putting yourself in a position where you might not have all of the answers, where your beliefs might be challenged. It’s a risk.

But leadership isn’t about playing it safe, or being comfortable, or managing the situation so you never get push back. Adversity makes you stronger. What comedian worth his salt doesn’t know how to deal with a heckler now and then? What professional athlete isn’t that much better for doing his best while facing a hostile crowd?

A much longer response than I’d originally planned, and I’m sure that my convictions about leadership don’t play well to focus groups, nor do they make for good politics, but such is life. Some of the most painfully difficult conversations I’ve had over the years have invariably helped me to become a better person. I can’t imagine where I’d be if I’d insulated myself from some of those criticisms, well-deserved or otherwise.

Pte,

Of course leaders take risks, and Bush, to his credit, has launched a number of different activities that don’t “play it safe.”

What I’m talking about is communication and leadership and being open to opposing points of view. When you undertake those risky ventures, you need to be prepared to TALK about them, to deal with the fallout of people wondering if the risks are worth it, or if the venture is even going to succeed.

Part of the reason you do that is to learn about a point-of-view that maybe you hadn’t though about yet, because it’s not one you already agree with.

But Bush doesn’t do that. Some leaders feel that because they’re in a position of power, they do not need to solicit the opinions of others. In fact, I think Bush said it himself, something along the lines about “the best thing about being president is that you don’t need to explain yourself.”

That’s not communication, in my book. I’d much rather disagree with someone, then to live in ignorance of their opinions. To each their own, I guess.

Heh,

Except there are current attempts by Republicans to strip the minority party of some of the very rights you just noted.

Republicans are now trying to strip Democrats of their filibuster right which, coincidentally, was a favorite tool of Republicans when Democrat’s held the majority in the early 90′s.

Vinny,

I hope you realize that the fillibuster is a tool that extends beyond judicial nominees
in use, as well as in a matter of importance.

Here is a rather lengthy list of Republican filibusters that extend to and beyond Judicial nominees. -You can see that similar to the way Democrats are so vehemently opposed to Bush’s proposed legislation and appointments, Republicans were not particularly kind to the Clinton Administration in the early 90′s. Sound like Hypocrisy?

1968 Abe Fortas, Supreme Court 1*
1980 William Lubbers, NLRB 3
1980 Don Zimmerman, NLRB 3
1980 Stephen Breyer, 1st Circuit 2
1987 Melissa Wells, Ambassador 1
1987 William Verity, Commerce 1
1993 Walter Dellinger, Justice 2
1993 Five State Department Nominees 2
1993 Janet Napolitano, Justice 1
1994 Larry Lawrence, Ambassador 1
1994 Rosemary Barkett, 11th Circuit 1
1994 Sam Brown, Ambassador 3*
1994 Derek Shearer, Ambassador 2
1994 Ricki Tigert, FDIC 2
1994 H. Lee Sarokin, 3rd Circuit 1
1995 Henry Foster, Surgeon General 2*
1998 David Satcher, Surgeon General 1
2000 Marsha Berzon, 9th Circuit 1
2000 Richard Paez, 9th Circuit 1

-The Clinton Administration’s 1993 economic stimulus package

-Campaign finance reform

-lobbying reform

-health care reform

…and that’s just a fragment of the list.

Patrick,
First.

I don’t believe that the filibuster is a constitutional right; rather it’s a Senate rule, which can be changed or amended by the rules committee.

Second.
According to your list:

1987 Melissa Wells, Ambassador 1
1987 William Verity, Commerce 1

In 1987 Ronald Regan was the president so there would be no reason for republicans to filibuster his nominations for Ambassador & Commerce.

RBK,
If that’s what Patrick is trying to say, I would tend to agree. However, the minority party should (for their own sake) not just oppose, but set forth ideas of their own. Remember the contract with America. Like the contract or not, the republicans who were in the minority for forty years at the time gave people something to vote for. The democrats, at this time are not doing that.

Patrick,

Robert Byrd stating, “majorities can sometimes be wrong”. I guess he knows from experience being a leader in the KKK!
How does Sen. Byrd know that Jesus was crucified with the approval of the majority? Was there a poll done that we missed?

Regarding Hunter Thompson. It has now been reported that he blew his brains out while on the phone with his wife. His son, daughter-in-law and six year old granson were in the house at the time. What a thoughtful husband and father, that Hunter Thompson.

Regarding the snow. Every year we have to witness the NY media go into shock at the fact that we occaisonally get snow during the winter. I guess we should be thankful for their cold weather dress tips though.

Well Patrick, Helen Thomas gets a pass too, so I guess it would be a wash then.:roll:

Vinny- no it does not make the news anymore newsworthy. I agree with you!

Vinny-

He got a press pass using an alias. What do you have to say about the obvious favoritism employed in giving him a job at the White House? Do you realize that the required CIA security check would have immediately caught this. Can tell me why he made an ppearance at the White House Christmas ball?

Why do you have such a problem answering all of the problems I posed?

It couldn’t just be a fuckup on the CIA’s part. Nope. Not at all. It had to be the biggest attempt to manipulate the press ever, symptomaic of a larger issue.

As for being called by his pseudonym, so what?

And Patrick, the reason I didn’t answer your questions is that they just don’t matter. You still didn’t answer mine, either…

Did you know who this massive manipulator and distorter of press conferences was before this “scandal?”

Sorry guys, I see a major case of trying to make something out of nothing. Patrick’s biggest problem is that he was invited to the Christmas ball.

Yawn….

After all of the other examples of paying off reporters…

Oh, you mean the one example, Armstrong Williams?

You may have a point with Karen Ryuan, but the Maggie Gallagher non-scandal is just ludicrous.

How about a Kerry campaign strategist being on the active payroll of a major news network?

Oh wait, there’s an excuse for that and I’m sure you’ll offer it…

There’s no comparison between a cousin and an actual campaign manager.

Sorry man. I know you want to paint Bush as an evil manipulator of all things, but that’s one comparison you just flat out can’t make.

Vinny — personally I wouldn’t suggest the Bush is an “evil manipulator of all things,” but certainly you have to at least recognize that this administration has set a new standard for the amount of control it exerts over the press. Just a handful of examples: Bush has given the fewest press conferences of any modern president; before, during, and after the campaign, Bush’s public appearances consist of guaranteed friendly crowds; going all the way back to the “Mission Accomplished” speech on the Lincoln, it’s important to remember the many ways in which that was stage-managed (including careful camera angles to make sure the coastline wasn’t visible in the background); also remember when Bush flew to Iraq for Thanksgiving, and proudly displayed a fake turkey; the creation of designated “protest zones” far away from the president during his public appearances; and the last time I checked, Bush doesn’t give live interviews — his public appearances are invariably scripted to the most seemingly trivial detail (when does he wear a tie, when does he roll up his sleeves, when does he clear brush from his ranch, etc.).

Over and over, this administration has always done an excellent job of sticking to their talking points, and carefully controlling external variables. They are excellent at choreographing and staging.

Frankly, I prefer a much more open, available government. Regardless of which political party is in The White House, I think that the president — as a civil servant, given his job by the people of the United States — should be required to answer tough questions. Once a month at least, but maybe even once a week. I’ve had too much experience in the business world (including very recently, unfortunately) with people who avoid tough questions.

I have a sickening disdain for leaders who would choose to surround themselves with “yes” men or women. Over the years, I’ve built an increasing amount of distrust for authority figures who deal with potentially bad news by “going dark.”

You are a better and stronger leader for putting yourself in a position where you might not have all of the answers, where your beliefs might be challenged. It’s a risk.

But leadership isn’t about playing it safe, or being comfortable, or managing the situation so you never get push back. Adversity makes you stronger. What comedian worth his salt doesn’t know how to deal with a heckler now and then? What professional athlete isn’t that much better for doing his best while facing a hostile crowd?

A much longer response than I’d originally planned, and I’m sure that my convictions about leadership don’t play well to focus groups, nor do they make for good politics, but such is life. Some of the most painfully difficult conversations I’ve had over the years have invariably helped me to become a better person. I can’t imagine where I’d be if I’d insulated myself from some of those criticisms, well-deserved or otherwise.

Pte,

Of course leaders take risks, and Bush, to his credit, has launched a number of different activities that don’t “play it safe.”

What I’m talking about is communication and leadership and being open to opposing points of view. When you undertake those risky ventures, you need to be prepared to TALK about them, to deal with the fallout of people wondering if the risks are worth it, or if the venture is even going to succeed.

Part of the reason you do that is to learn about a point-of-view that maybe you hadn’t though about yet, because it’s not one you already agree with.

But Bush doesn’t do that. Some leaders feel that because they’re in a position of power, they do not need to solicit the opinions of others. In fact, I think Bush said it himself, something along the lines about “the best thing about being president is that you don’t need to explain yourself.”

That’s not communication, in my book. I’d much rather disagree with someone, then to live in ignorance of their opinions. To each their own, I guess.

Heh,

Except there are current attempts by Republicans to strip the minority party of some of the very rights you just noted.

Republicans are now trying to strip Democrats of their filibuster right which, coincidentally, was a favorite tool of Republicans when Democrat’s held the majority in the early 90′s.

Vinny,

I hope you realize that the fillibuster is a tool that extends beyond judicial nominees
in use, as well as in a matter of importance.

Here is a rather lengthy list of Republican filibusters that extend to and beyond Judicial nominees. -You can see that similar to the way Democrats are so vehemently opposed to Bush’s proposed legislation and appointments, Republicans were not particularly kind to the Clinton Administration in the early 90′s. Sound like Hypocrisy?

1968 Abe Fortas, Supreme Court 1*
1980 William Lubbers, NLRB 3
1980 Don Zimmerman, NLRB 3
1980 Stephen Breyer, 1st Circuit 2
1987 Melissa Wells, Ambassador 1
1987 William Verity, Commerce 1
1993 Walter Dellinger, Justice 2
1993 Five State Department Nominees 2
1993 Janet Napolitano, Justice 1
1994 Larry Lawrence, Ambassador 1
1994 Rosemary Barkett, 11th Circuit 1
1994 Sam Brown, Ambassador 3*
1994 Derek Shearer, Ambassador 2
1994 Ricki Tigert, FDIC 2
1994 H. Lee Sarokin, 3rd Circuit 1
1995 Henry Foster, Surgeon General 2*
1998 David Satcher, Surgeon General 1
2000 Marsha Berzon, 9th Circuit 1
2000 Richard Paez, 9th Circuit 1

-The Clinton Administration’s 1993 economic stimulus package

-Campaign finance reform

-lobbying reform

-health care reform

…and that’s just a fragment of the list.

Patrick,
First.

I don’t believe that the filibuster is a constitutional right; rather it’s a Senate rule, which can be changed or amended by the rules committee.

Second.
According to your list:

1987 Melissa Wells, Ambassador 1
1987 William Verity, Commerce 1

In 1987 Ronald Regan was the president so there would be no reason for republicans to filibuster his nominations for Ambassador & Commerce.

RBK,
If that’s what Patrick is trying to say, I would tend to agree. However, the minority party should (for their own sake) not just oppose, but set forth ideas of their own. Remember the contract with America. Like the contract or not, the republicans who were in the minority for forty years at the time gave people something to vote for. The democrats, at this time are not doing that.

Patrick,

Robert Byrd stating, “majorities can sometimes be wrong”. I guess he knows from experience being a leader in the KKK!
How does Sen. Byrd know that Jesus was crucified with the approval of the majority? Was there a poll done that we missed?

wow, i read the first one and was shocked instantly. if this was your intention, nice work. i know this post is a little old, i was just browsing and had to let you know I was shocked. In a good way