Stats

Comments Posted By nellie

Displaying 601 To 630 Of 3,698 Comments

A Rose Is a Rose Is a Rose … Cognitive Dissonance, Much?

The key is to listen to what people say and do rather than evaluate them on looks or manner. It takes some practice — we’re encouraged to do just the opposite — but it changes everything.

» Posted By nellie On April 4, 2010 @ 4:11 pm

Did I ever!

It lasted — felt like it lasted 90 seconds. The hanging lamp swung for three minutes afterward. The cat has been running around all morning like a wackadoodle. Now I know why.

Did you feel it, too?

» Posted By nellie On April 4, 2010 @ 4:09 pm

Marion, I think you know how much I agree with you on this.

I have a lot to say about it, but for now I’ll sum it up this way — both the right and left saw this in Candidate Obama:

» Posted By nellie On April 4, 2010 @ 4:07 pm

Planet Music Night Dedicated to Fools

We had the same thought, javaz!

» Posted By nellie On April 2, 2010 @ 3:03 pm

I pity the fool

» Posted By nellie On April 2, 2010 @ 3:02 pm

Did You Hear the One About Global Warming?

😉

» Posted By nellie On April 2, 2010 @ 11:47 am

Teabonics: A Perfect Day for Fools

At least you found a solucian!

» Posted By nellie On April 1, 2010 @ 2:59 pm

It puts a whole new spin on “Is are children learning?”

» Posted By nellie On April 1, 2010 @ 2:58 pm

omg, it’s contagious. I was staring at the word POLITITION and trying to figure out, how is that word spelled, anyway?

Teabonics — that’s wonderful.

» Posted By nellie On April 1, 2010 @ 2:53 pm

GOP Vows to Work With Obama

😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆

» Posted By nellie On April 1, 2010 @ 12:17 pm

Pelosi, “Knock it off, or the next time I bring down this gavel…”

» Posted By nellie On April 1, 2010 @ 12:13 pm

You know, AdLib — this is a pretty good commentary on the state of things. This “report” is so reasonable and within the bounds of sensible expectation — it’s easy to believe. Ironic, isn’t it, that it works so well as a really good April Fools gotcha.

» Posted By nellie On April 1, 2010 @ 12:11 pm

Not until after I posted my response.

Integrity prevented me from deleting the evidence of my dupedom! (I thought AdLib would appreciate the gotcha 🙂 )

» Posted By nellie On April 1, 2010 @ 12:08 pm

As they say, “The proof is in the pudding.”

I’m waiting for the next vote in congress before I give this any credence.

Thanks for the post, AdLib. If nothing else, it’s an interesting turn in rhetoric.

EDIT: HA! I just read the last line. Good one!

» Posted By nellie On April 1, 2010 @ 12:01 pm

Progressive media’s wrong turn: adversaries vs. advocates

You make such important points in this post, e.

First of all, I have to 😆 at your magazine article XYZ story. This is so true for so many magazines! The ones I worked for were business publications — and I really had to use my ec degree to run the editorial. But a lot of magazines are exactly in the XYZ mold.

The point you make that I think is so important is about reporting. Real reporting — digging out the facts — is a very specialized profession. It requires a lot of training, networking, and grunt work. It’s hard to do. What we’re seeing on tv and in blogs is really news aggregation and opinion. None of it is reporting. It’s repeating the stories that reporters have generated — or going to gov websites and reading the press releases — and putting some spin on those stories. And depending on the personalities involved, you can get anything from hard core analysis to blathering.

What I liked about progressive media pre 2004 was that it dug out stories I might have missed, and in the best of worlds, pointed to a direction where advocates could take action. Electronic voting is the best example I can think of right now. Progressive media played a really important role in making that a political issue.

» Posted By nellie On April 2, 2010 @ 2:05 pm

To keep being advocates. Exactly. 🙂

» Posted By nellie On April 2, 2010 @ 1:37 pm

Thanks, Sue. Now, I have a couple of ways to check it out.

» Posted By nellie On April 2, 2010 @ 12:18 pm

Thanks, Tiger!

» Posted By nellie On April 2, 2010 @ 12:02 pm

I haven’t see that — I’ll look for it online. Thanks, Sue!

» Posted By nellie On April 2, 2010 @ 11:43 am

I don’t think we disagree.

I think the corporate business model for progressive media is to be confrontational, and that worked when Bush was in office and so many people were upset by his policies. My opinion is that it this model is not the best one to use for a progressive audience in the long run. I wish the big dollars had gone to marketing and promoting the advocacy model — which seems to be returning, thank goodness.

So much of what the Obama campaign did during the election cycle reflects the kind of positive engagement that I would love to see from progressive media.

» Posted By nellie On April 2, 2010 @ 11:34 am

I don’t think the changes relate to the Bush years because sites like Truthout. Brad’s Blog, even Daily Kos, were well established during Bush’s first term. The online change came after HP.

The on-air change happened after AAR. I used to listen to Peter B. Collins, Thom Hartmann, and Peter Werbe regularly before 2004. After AAR began broadcasting, the calm, measured style was no longer popular — or at least no longer the progressive “brand.” Collins and Werbe have disappeared, and Hartmann has become more of a firebrand — to the point where I can’t listen to him now.

This is driven by money and ratings. Unfortunately, what’s popular is not always what’s best.

» Posted By nellie On April 2, 2010 @ 7:18 am

Thank you, K, for that article. Eisenhower was a very strong president by all accounts. I think Obama is in this mold more than any other model.

Your article illustrates my point. When we are stuck in an adversarial framework, all we can do is be on one side or another. When we take an advocacy role, we’re working toward a goal. This is where I was with health care. I wanted a bill to pass — and I wanted the best possible bill to pass. So I worked for what I wanted, but I always tried to help the bill’s momentum go forward. No “kill the bill” nonsense.

This is the difference between having an adversarial vs an advocacy mindset.

» Posted By nellie On April 2, 2010 @ 7:11 am

The sad thing, javaz, is that you are exactly the kind of customer that progressive media used to go after. They didn’t want only to preach to the choir — they wanted to move independents and people in the middle into a more advocacy position.

I believe most people feel like you do, no matter what their political stripe. I have a very left wing friend who will not patronize any progressive media because she doesn’t want all the negativity and emotion.

But the sad truth is, progressive media highlight important information we should all know about. Without sites like Brad Friedman’s blog or BlackBoxVoting, for example, the problems w electronic voting machines might never have achieved the level of publicity they deserved. Even PFAW and Common Cause didn’t think they were a problem. These were advocacy-oriented sites that played a very important role in highlighting serious problems with our elections.

» Posted By nellie On April 2, 2010 @ 6:57 am

Thanks, Cher. There’s no higher praise than praise from a good writer.

I’m still editing this post. When I’m happy with it, I may send it around. This, as you know, is one of my “issues.”

» Posted By nellie On April 1, 2010 @ 12:15 pm

Media in all arenas is very low on fact checking these days. When I was an editor, more time could be spent fact checking an article than writing one. It’s the hard work — that’s what people don’t want to do. Much easier to express an opinion. Unfortunately, that kind of writing is finding its way into the sphere of “reporting” — where it has no place.

And I don’t mean to put down magazines. I was thinking mostly about news sources — which are daily kinds of media. Magazines are wonderful — I worked in magazines. But as news providers, they are less immediate. Although when it comes to investigation and analysis, they are top notch.

» Posted By nellie On April 1, 2010 @ 9:33 am

I agree that fourth estate investigative reporting is essential, and the most important media we have. Finding the facts is difficult, and it takes trained professionals to uncover them and present them to an audience.

But I also like advocacy. I don’t look to progressive media for politics. I look to it for issues. That’s where it was before AAR, and that’s where I wish it would return. What progressive media does that straight reporting does not do is provide direction for action. And I value that added bonus when it comes to information sources.

I also like the idea that there are organizations that will read everything — which I can’t do — and find information I would be interested in based on my political philosophy. That’s another added value — publicizing certain issues in a way that straight reporting should not.

» Posted By nellie On March 31, 2010 @ 10:28 pm

Thanks for the comment, choicelady. I didn’t even touch the magazines. Publications like The Nation, Mother Jones, or In These Times are a mixed bag for me. Sometimes they are the source of the most incisive commentary, and sometimes they are just irrelevant. Having worked in magazines, I think they are less influential in shaping public opinion than newspapers or certainly television. Radio is surprisingly powerful, considering its humility as a media format. It is my favorite of all formats. Magazines strike me as more of a hobby — something we read when we have the time and want to indulge in our own point of view.

» Posted By nellie On March 31, 2010 @ 9:15 pm

Why Open Offshore Drilling is Not the Optimum Choice but the Only Choice

You know, K, I think Obama’s past attempts at bipartisanship might not really have been attempts at bipartisanship. I think he did what he needed to do to get health care passed with the highest public approval rating possible.

» Posted By nellie On March 31, 2010 @ 2:21 pm

A very reasonable argument, K.

As I posted on TO/OT, I’m not going to get excised over this because there are too many political and practical reasons for this decision. Financing our green infrastructure is one of the better reasons. Also, increasing energy independence — which is also the reason for nuclear and clean coal (which I despise) — is another rationale I can live with, even though we probably won’t get a lot of oil from these leases. The political strategy is quintessential Obama.

I can’t blame this president for starting a process that should have started 30 years ago in the best way he can, given the current circumstances. And, for the record, I felt the same way about the GOP “Drill baby drill” campaign, except, of course, for ANWR. We can’t convert overnight to a green economy. I’m looking at this as one of the steps, stinky though it may be, to get there.

» Posted By nellie On March 31, 2010 @ 2:13 pm

Knowledge is Power, Ignorance is ____

Dildenusa, does the book discuss why there is anything at all? It makes sense to me that the universe would cycle, replicate, mirror. But I have to wonder, because I think things come from something. And perhaps that is my human limitation.

» Posted By nellie On March 29, 2010 @ 9:38 pm