Archive forPolitics and Government

Who said “buttslol!!!!”?

This is a response to a post on The Annalog.

What I meant by “buttsloL!!!!” (Which was not an anonymous comment, so i’m safe!) was, that this is an important issue, and there are multiple sides to consider. First off, yes it is the public sphere, and by blogging in the first place and also by allowing comments, a blogger is inviting criticism of their words.

However, consider someone you don’t know who anonymously posts a few harassing comments on a blog. First off, find them (since so few people are behind static IPs now, this’ll be tough to find for sure… are you going to try to ask SBC who was using some IP at such and such time? and if they’re on AOL, good luck.) That activation barrier crossed, you gotta take it to court!

Point being, this law is only going to be applied to cases where it needs to be—like the anonymous poster who posts until you cry—just like it is meant for the callers. (See: Scream).

As long as this law is enforced fairly, people will still be able to post anonymously, and even flame anonymously, within reason. So, we can continue leaving anonymous buttsloL!!!!s, within reason. Also, if its not anonymous, (and not intentionally libelious), flaming is still accepted with open arms.

That said, I see your point, Anna. A slippery slope may be tough to argue, but it certainly can develop. That is why I don’t forsee myself prosecuting Heywood or Pat anytime soon.

Comments

Wait, what do I wear this under?

/. pointed me to an article about the Army testing cooling vests that go under body armor, currently being field tested in Iraq and Kuwait. Now comfort is important, but, probably all our soldiers should have armor first, before we start giving them things to put under the armor. (As recently as June of this year, there were still problems with soldiers not having body armor, although I am not sure of the current situation).

Comments

Bush doubles down.

Huffpo has an interesting thought from instapundit.

When you think about it, it was a decent move, but also the only move. Bush is too tied to Iraq now to ever push it off on anyone else. If Iraq goes bad over the next year, the GOP’s midterm prospects go way down, and anyone Bush endorses will be in big trouble. Now, if Iraq goes well he (and the GOP) gets the better part of his double or nothing: the reward he would have gotten, plus the “sorry we doubted you” remorse vote from the middle.

Now, from a purely game of politics standpoint, when you think about it, the only response the Democrats have to these recent speeches from Bush is to present a clear platform on Iraq, about withdrawl, and whatnot. It needs to be so convincing, that they can share in the credit if Iraq goes well. If Iraq doesn’t go well, they can still say, “well we could do better if we got to be in charge.” That way, the Dems can benefit slightly from the GOP’s successes, and still seem like a viable alternative, even in the “war on terror”.

Right?

Comments

The man’s humor does not get old.

Comments

Born to be Appointed?

You may have heard about the GOP’s latest victory, in which they did not allow a resolution honoring the Boss to even be considered by the Senate.

Bruce Springsteen may have a chance to strike back, from inside the senate. With John Corzine on his way to Govern New Jersey with a year left on the lease for his office on Capitol Hill, he needs to find a New Jerseyan subletter in the next couple months. Who better than he who was scorned? US News (& World Report) is telling us that Springsteen is a popular choice among New Jersey Dems. If appointed, Springsteen’s career comes full circle, 30 years after his (and the E Street Band’s) album Born to be Appointed.

Comments

Next entries » · « Previous entries