tvashtarkatena

The cops in Mexico practice that kind of free market.

They prefer things 'folksy'.

A party that books Pat Boone and Ted Nugent must find these two so hawt right now....

It's gotta be hard to dumb down Kevbone. Bravo, PP.

I hate that heavy handed, obvio-sarcasm librul sheeit.

Want

I think Arnold's move can only help the legalization initiative.

Interesting, pre-emptive strategy. The fed's response, or lack thereof, will be interesting to watch (or not). If the feds continue to lay down, I think we'll see a whole raft of states fall like dominoes to the evil loco weed. It's all a Mexican plot to sap our motivation.

Put that shit in a frozen yogurt machine and you can make your own fresh chicken strips at AM/PM.

I find it's pretty sound logic to assume what someone is thinking by what they're not saying. Kind of like magic, really.

It's kind of like the Impeach Bush movement. Should Bush have been impeached? Sure. Was there a chance in hell that was ever going to happen? Nope. Not worth spending a second or a dime on it. Reforming Fox seems to be in the same category, to me. I don't see a mechanism to make that happen. That, and that show is really popular.

A lot of shoulda, coulda in that piece with no specifics regarding actual campaigns of reform, or which policies or legislation needs to be reformed, how, who's pushing for it, and how that effort is going. One is not left with a real sense of how feasible/pie in sky any of the suggestions in the piece are. That's where the hard work is. Something more current than 1998 might help to reflect today's political realities - they're pretty different than they were 12 years ago.

Nope. You should have both at your disposal, to use as the situation calls for.

Regarding effectiveness...reform can take decades. Trashing Gitmo took some doing. Pot reform its 12th year here in WA...but progress is being made and I think that dam is about to break in the next very few years. It's more important that an organization have the machinery and resources to do long term campaigns right than if that particular campaign produces fast results. Still, its helpful to recognize what an organization's agenda is and how it seeks to enact it: Public education, lobbying, legal action, public protest....and recognize the strengths and weaknesses of each capability.

I'm not very well versed on these particular issues except in a general sense...hence, my questions. Don't get me wrong, No Free Press = No Free Society, for sure. We're heavily involved in the surveillance of journalists and other related press issues. I'd be interesting in hearing more FCC requirements for 'news' and whether or not that's a useful tool to beat back the propaganda. Fox probably puts out 10 times more right wing bullshit than its nearest 'competitor', that's pretty obvious, but its also a cable show, no? Doesn't that give them carte blanch to do fuck all newswise? What's the baseball bat available to whack them with? I'm pleading total ignorance, here. As for Rush n company, they're just doing the free speech/entertainment thing. Plus, we've defended Rush's privacy rights. If only O'Reilly would get busted for drugs...we could add him to the fold, and he'd probably come crawling just like Rush, despite his well known hatred towards us. I do maintain that good news sources are still out there. The NEW Yorker, Harpers, and the Atlantic, NYT, etc are still going strong and on the web now. And there's always Colbert and Stewart (you should have heard the Fox team whine about Colbert's congressional testimony two days ago LOL) I also maintain, for an effective advocacy organization, the press can be as much friend as foe. Despite it's limitations, it's been a very useful conduit for our message. Regarding campaign finance we've advocated reforms (min public money, full disclosure) along the lines you've suggested. We're still trying to decide how to move forward given the recent SC decision and, just as important, an inevitable future decision that will deal with the question of direct corporate campaign funding.

Agreed. I would discuss where my energy goes outside my professinal life over a beer - but, really, don't need to trail bread crumbs of my life over the interwebs. Bike park? Jesus, Jim, I already know enough about where your efforts go. We're good, trust me. My questions referred specifically to the free press thing, not Jim's life and times. I really wanted to know how you guys were trying to get from A to Z...you might have considered answering at least ONE of my questions to help me understand that.

No worries, I've already done your homework for you, and decided not to donate to FreePress.net due to its lack of serious lobbying or legal capability. I can get more bang for the buck elsewhere on those the very same issues it's focused on. That decision had nothing to do with a few wallflowers whining on the innernutz, either. Maybe, just maybe folks don't feel the need to list their resume on the web as you do. You can take that as a non-answer - who cares. Just keep telling us how much your work matters - though no one ever asked nor did anyone disparage your efforts. We can agree to disagree on this, like good libruls. The idea of bragging to the Spray audience is...laughable, to say the least. Half you guys I know, the other half of the all 12 or so of you out there I couldn't give a shit one way or the other. One person's 'keep it real' discussion is another person's 'chest beating'. I prefer to deal in the tangible world. Sorry. The bike park is looking good, BTW (NOT to be taken as a snide remark).

No worries, I've already done your homework for you, and decided not to donate to FreePress.net due to its lack of serious lobbying or legal capability. I can get more bang for the buck elsewhere on those the very same issues it's focused on. That decision had nothing to do with a few wallflowers whining on the innernutz, either.

And you won't find that attitude here. Now, the 'Show me how my hard earned money's gonna make a real difference'. That's an attitude you WILL find here. Your donors deserve at least that much respect. In contrast, you're response to such legitimate questions seems to be "if you have to ask, YOU'RE AN ASSHOLE!" You guys have been about as open and helpful as the RNC regarding my simple questions so far. Not impressive.

Ineffective dweeb. Sadly...yup. I should know...I did all the same shit. Got tired of 'no results'...and the progressives who produce them.

Well, gay marriage may not be big deal unless you're one of the 20-30 million Americans who can't get married to the person they want to. Similarly, marijuana policy reform is probably not a big deal if you're not one of the more than 800,000 Americans arrested for it every year, or you're not black, and so have a 3 to 1 bias working against you in the criminal justice system. No, not really big deals at all. As small as these issues, are, however, there are organizations out there who have nothing better to do than to pass a domestic partnership law in WA, overturn prop 8 in CA, reduce marijuana enforcement to the lowest priority in Seattle, and coordinate a legalization initiative in CA. And win 4 major SC victories against Gitmo and eventually get it shut down, win a major court case against illegal surveillance and harassment of peace protesters, be legal observers for the WTO and anti-Iraq protests.... Nope, nothing to see here.

No. But the size of something else is obvious. Now don't even think about answering Rob's questions. No, you wouldn't ever want to do that.... OK, I'll do it for you guys... From it's website, FreePress.net seems to be an umbrella organization that primarily does public education and a letter writing email network. It's main campaigns are focused on Net Neutrality, supporting non-commercial public media, improving the quality of news by watchdogging FCC licensing requirements, and working against media consolidation. Big actions include a holding an activist's summit last year and filing a complaint with the FCC regarding highly editorialized news. It has an email based letter writing network, but no permanent lobbying capability to direct and focus those efforts. It does not seem to do any legal action. It's annual budget is just over 3 million.

Actually, no. No one in the post asked for your extensive resume. You insinuated what others were doing needed your assessment of their effectiveness. Great - you're working for the ACLU, we're estatic for you. Wish others were doing the same. I don't feel the need to get into a "mine is bigger than yours discussion". But here. I found an extra chair for your ego. I asked for what you guys did...nothing. I asked for what your causes agenda was. Nothing. I asked about your pet organizations track record. Nothing. If you really think this is a comparison of dick size, you're dreaming. I'm just trying to figure out, with all your complaints, all your bluster, if there's anything real under there. So far, I got nothing. You had an opportunity to introduce your efforts and organizations to a broader audience here, but instead you choose to talk about 'puffing' and 'zero sum'. Shit, someone else asks the same thing, and you whining cuntz still can't come up with a single answer. Think you can't get donations via Spray? I've done it several times. But then, I use a slightly different approach. Is there any wonder why you and yours lose battle after battle? Cuz it's pretty clear to me.

Yes, I'm at a loss to think of how the media will be reformed; self professed ignorance on the topic. For an effective advocate, that represents an opportunity. Apparently not for you guys, however. Is there any reason I should not write you guys off as a whining, ineffectual peanut gallery? So far, I've seen none here.

I was asked for my personal contribution, I gave a measurable answer. So did Rob. If that's 'puffing'...it might be because you're weighing it against your non-answer to the same question. In fact, out of the three of you, none of you answered any of my legitimate questions. To the audience: We report, you decide.