Displaying 3,601 To 3,630 Of 3,698 Comments It’s what makes this site a great place! » Posted By nellie On November 11, 2009 @ 12:27 pm Maybe it’ll give more weight to your comment if you get a reply that agrees with you totally. It’s a great graphic. » Posted By nellie On November 11, 2009 @ 12:12 pm Hey, Mo. Interesting take on our Green Party. I don’t know if the Green Party is a set up, but it certainly is ineffectual. I was the chair of my Green Party local a few years back, and the party is plagued with angry, idealistic, inflexible types who genuinely don’t know a lot about politics — don’t know how our system works, don’t know how to get things done. The party is highly dysfunctional, with a lot of infighting and not much direction. Which is why I am no longer the chair of my local, or even a member of the party. The idea of a progressive party is very appealing, as long as it does not attract a leadership group like the one in the Green Party. From experience, I can see that the leadership component in the party is essential — not only in establishing a sustainable platform, but also in managing the growth and public image. It sounds basic, but the Green Party has never gotten those things under control, despite national recognition and years of growth. » Posted By nellie On November 11, 2009 @ 10:11 am My pleasure. 🙂 » Posted By nellie On November 10, 2009 @ 4:11 pm Yes, the links I posted will show you places that are using or considering IRV. It was an important item on the Green Party agenda a few years ago. Here is one of the information sties: And if you do a google, you’ll see a lot of information on the IRV electoral reform movement. » Posted By nellie On November 10, 2009 @ 12:06 pm I hadn’t considered that aspect of IRV, but it’s an important point. Marginal parties representing fringe ideologies would be screened out early in the process, whereas a strong Green Party candidate might actually have a chance at winning a seat. And I’m ok with that, too. Good thinking. » Posted By nellie On November 10, 2009 @ 10:33 am I always have the same answer to our two party system — Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). It ensures that any third party will not end up being a spoiler for any stronger party—giving people the freedom to vote their conscience and thus giving third or fourth parties a real chance at winning an election. It would have solved the problem in 2000. It would have solved the problem of the Franken election. And it serves the will of the people. With this type of voting system, the party in last place has its votes distributed to the other party candidates according to the wishes of each voter. Right now IRV is being used to a limited extent in local elections (http://www.instantrunoff.com/uses/us.php ). Not surprisingly, MN was one location where IRV was tried this year (http://www.fairvote.org/?page=19 ). And there is current legislation pending for larger elections around the country (http://www.instantrunoff.com/legislation.php ). IMO, the question is not how many parties, but how we give smaller political parties a fair chance at winning, and how we become more inclusive without obstructing the people’s will. IRV is one of several electoral reforms that would help our democracy become more representative of (and responsive to) our citizenry. » Posted By nellie On November 10, 2009 @ 6:00 am I have mixed feelings about the White House response as well, because it does seem to validate HP as a punditry platform. But on the other hand, I remember the painful lessons of Mike Dukakis — You have to respond to bs and to bssers, otherwise the screed starts to take hold. I’m glad to see them push back against Fox and HP. Right now, the two seem to be running neck and neck for nonsense. » Posted By nellie On November 4, 2009 @ 9:27 am CRS — I’m going to remember that one! That is, if I don’t have a CRS attack! » Posted By nellie On November 4, 2009 @ 9:24 am Or, for real, let’s start small w a HuffNo WEEK. We could probably pull that off. » Posted By nellie On November 3, 2009 @ 1:18 pm I heard it was focused grouped, and the purpose is to relate the word Democrat to the word “rat.” It’s very juvenile, whatever the goal. And the annoyance factor works for just that reason — it makes it clear that mature discourse is impossible. » Posted By nellie On November 3, 2009 @ 11:37 am I thought it was a Frank Luntz invention — started during Bush. It’s amazing to think that silliness is actually half a century old. » Posted By nellie On November 3, 2009 @ 11:35 am It can be really hard. I’ll do an HP boycott every once in a while — today’s main is another vacation call for me — but I do miss people. That’s why it’s nice to see so many familiar names here. Much better forum with the same great companions. » Posted By nellie On November 3, 2009 @ 11:11 am She really is trying to be another Drudge. But the only people who are willing to follow without thinking are concentrated in the right wing. Maybe she’s willing to go that route just to get the fan base. » Posted By nellie On November 3, 2009 @ 11:09 am Hey escribacat! Maybe we could run an ad: “Thinking citizens seeking true progressive, truth loving, progress loving entrepreneur with deep pockets to fill the void corporate-owned Huffington Post used to fill.” » Posted By nellie On November 3, 2009 @ 9:09 am I’ll remember that next time! » Posted By nellie On November 3, 2009 @ 9:07 am Night, Kalima. » Posted By nellie On November 3, 2009 @ 9:05 am Welcome! It’s good to see you here. » Posted By nellie On November 3, 2009 @ 9:05 am That was ridiculous. She lost all semblance of being a serious political commentator with tat one. Sometimes she is so immature in her strategies. What she really wants is to be Drudge – driving the media talking points. She’ll never make it. She doesn’t understand that the progressive community is not authoritarian. We don’t need someone to tell us what or how to think. » Posted By nellie On November 3, 2009 @ 6:54 am I tried to post the comment: “What would pre HP sale to corporate owners Arianna think of post HP sale to corporate owners Arianna” several times, but of course it did not take. It’s a shame what has happened to HP. It used to be a refuge for progressive thinkers and truth seekers. Now it’s just another corporate site. I still enjoy the community, but the Drudge-like effort to control the media message is working my last nerve. If I had the money, I’d finance a start-up that would do what HP used to do. » Posted By nellie On November 3, 2009 @ 6:50 am There are more out there. Seymour Hersh is another one. And there are less famous journalists (like Larisa Alexandrovna) who do excellent investigative work, other strong writers for Rolling Stone and Vanity Fair. The NYT has a lot of really good reporters. And so does the Post. But all these good people have editors. And their stories sometimes end up in the back pages. And sometimes don’t run. And more often than not, don’t make it to the tv circuit — which is where most people get their news. » Posted By nellie On November 4, 2009 @ 1:52 pm Thanks. It’s nice to have a fellow writer on PPOV. I think there are a few more of us here. » Posted By nellie On November 4, 2009 @ 1:15 pm I am very impressed. 32 stories is a real accomplishment. I’m published — but only magazine and journal articles. Most of my writing has been for consulting, short scripts, marketing, and education. A lot of in house work and straight to video or straight to audio. I’m working on a screenplay now with a partner and at the same time working on a couple of novels. I’ve written a lot on my own time–like you have–but never tried to sell anything. I’m finally at the point now where I like what I do enough to peddle it, so we’ll see where that goes. The most important thing about getting published is perseverance. So don’t get discouraged. Send out those stories! You might hit an editor with your same sensibilities. It just takes time and persistence. » Posted By nellie On November 4, 2009 @ 12:39 pm Thanks, javaz. I think you give me too much credit, but I appreciate your very kind words. I am a writer, and I’ve been at it a long time. I try not to be too long-winded, but your post just set me off! It’s so important. » Posted By nellie On November 4, 2009 @ 12:16 pm Thanks, javaz, for writing this post. It’s discussed often, but never enough. Randi Rhodes is fond of saying “The news has been cancelled.” And I agree with her. What we get now is not news, but sensationalized bits of cherry picked irrelevance designed to generate ratings — or clicks if we’re talking about the web. The meme about “liberal press” is just another right wing talking point, adopted by the corporate media so they have an excuse for pushing the public discourse as far to the right as possible. It’s an ingenious talking point — one of the most clever the right wing has devised. It guilts reporters into overcompensating for their own sanity, while giving cover to the military industrial complex and corporate interests that now own many of our media outlets. There are relatively simple legislative fixes that would address our news woes, but there doesn’t seem to be much political will in congress — or much urgency from the White House for that matter — to tackle media reform. But here’s the list I keep hearing from those who care about this issue: (1) We need to detach the news departments from the other profit-generating operations. News should not be required to make a profit, and for decades was a protected aspect of commercial broadcasting. News is a public service. And should be provided as compensation for using the public airwaves. (2) We need some kind of standards put into law. If you’re going to call yourself “news,” then you ought to be held to guidelines that lets the public know you can be trusted to at least try to get the story right. Currently, we have so-called “news” organizations going to court for the privilege of lying to the public. We have erroneous stories that go uncorrected when the facts come to light. We have outright lies published on the front pages of our “paper of record” with no repercussions. People who pretend to deliver the news need to take their profession more seriously. And standards would go a ways to improving quality control. (3) News organizations should not be beholden to weapons manufacturers or insurance corporations. The vertical and horizontal integration that has taken place in the communications industry is a real threat to our democracy. We have our “news” in the hands of four or five corporate owners. This amounts to nothing less than control over our information. Which is why we have so much propaganda and opinion masquerading as newscasts. (4) We need more local ownership and reporting. That’s probably a separate issue, but it’s as important as diversified ownership. People living in different parts of the country have different concerns, different issues, and different things going on in their communities. The “one-think” brainwashing that goes on by having everyone fed the same news diet is also doing our democracy a lot of harm. Sorry to go on for so long, but this is probably the biggest of my pet peeves — or a close second to election reform. The main frustration is that so few people seem to care about this issue, or even think there’s a problem. » Posted By nellie On November 4, 2009 @ 11:35 am So, what do we do about it? What I liked about HuffPo when it first started was that it culled the best articles from the major newspapers, and also from think tanks like Think Progress and Media Matters, as well as the occasional original piece from sites like Raw Story, Truthout and TPM. Now it’s just a mess, IMHO. If I read the papers, there’s nothing new in Huffington Post, and there’s always a “theme” being pushed by the editorial staff. Pretty tiresome. I mainly go there now to debunk talking points that get posted by paid trollers, and to enjoy a pretty damed good community of thinking folks who hang out in the comments section. But the editorial aspect of the site has really sunk. So what’s an ernest progressive to do? Any ideas? » Posted By nellie On October 19, 2009 @ 8:46 pm Excellent. Fanned ! ooooops, I mean, EXCELLENT! » Posted By nellie On October 16, 2009 @ 9:23 pm President Obama Awarded Nobel Peace Prize I find it interesting that so much attention has been given to those who challenge the merits of this award — not to mention all the other efforts on the part of this president. It’s as if so much the country has lost its moral compass and has forgotten how to feel good about doing good. I am so grateful that we elected this man. He is giving the country a much needed attitude adjustment. » Posted By nellie On October 11, 2009 @ 10:52 am I disagree. Getting Russia to work with us on nuclear disarmament — that alone is enough to win this award. Add to that the president’s consistent message to this country and the world about cooperation, respect for others, the nobility of individual struggle, the need to talk with those who disagree, civil rights for all — and his consistency in walking this talk — has brought a paradigm shift in the diplomatic environment. This award is well deserved, the president’s own self-effacing acceptance speech notwithstanding. » Posted By nellie On October 11, 2009 @ 10:48 am The End of Democracy Will Be Televised Well said. » Posted By nellie On October 16, 2009 @ 9:29 pmComments Posted By nellie
LOL!
«« Back To Stats Page
Home Stats