One of the issues that's big in Silicon Valley is the 49ers planned move to Santa Clara (they would be about 15 minutes from my house). Sen. Dianne Feinstein has been negotiating to keep them in San Francisco. Many people, including myself, wondered why a senator who represents the ENTIRE state would intervene on behalf of one city over another. I wrote her an email to that effect (which unfortunately I didn't save) basically asking her why she's spending her time on this when in fact the move would benefit many of her constituents (including myself) and shouldn't she be spending her time working on behalf of all the citizens and not favoring one group over another?
So here is her response:
Thank you for writing to me about my involvement in the matter of the 49ers leaving San Francisco. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.
I have read your letter and first would like you to know that I spend virtually all of my time on matters concerning California and our nation. However, I am also a 49ers fan and was Mayor of San Francisco for nine years, during which I negotiated with the organization on several matters. I would very much like to see them remain in the City of San Francisco.
Again, thank you for writing. Should you have any additional concerns or comments, I hope that you will contact me again. You can always reach my Washington, DC staff at (202) 224-3841.
So you're in the audience at the President's State of the Union Address. At what point do you heckle him? Here's mine:
Bush: "...we must remember that the best healthcare decisions are made not by government and insurance companies, but by patients and their doctors." ME: UNLESS SOMEONE WANTS AN ABORTION YOU F*CKING HYPOCRITE!
Bush: "...Five years ago, we rose above partisan differences to pass the No Child Left Behind Act – preserving local control, raising standards in public schools, and holding those schools accountable for results. And because we acted, students are performing better in reading and math, and minority students are closing the achievement gap." ME: YOU SON OF A B*TCH. YOU UNDERFUNDED THE CRAPPY PROGRAM.. DEMOCRATS WHO WORKED WITH YOU TO PASS THIS PIECE OF CRAP LEGISLATION NOW SAY YOU LIED TO THEM. DROP DEAD! (wait, does that get me a visit from the Secret Service?)
From AP: There were furious denunciations in the General Assembly after a Virginia legislator stated that black people "should get over" slavery.
Hanover Delegate Frank Hargrove made the comment about slavery in an interview published Tuesday in The Daily Progress of Charlottesville.
In the same interview about whether the state should apologize to the descendants of slaves, Hargrove wondered aloud whether Jews should "apologize for killing Christ."
Of course that's old news. Anyway, apparently Tucker took umbrage with a blogger who blogged about his encounter with him at a video store. Tucker went back to the store and this exchange took place:
Tucker: If you keep this shit up, I will fucking destroy you. Blogger: Whoah, perhaps you would like to take this outside where you can continue threatening me without disturbing the other customers. Tucker: *Looks out the window, then back at me* I am not threatening you. Blogger: You just said you would fucking destroy me. Tucker: No, I didn't.
MOST AMERICANS understand that legal representation for the accused is one of the core principles of the American way. Not, it seems, Cully Stimson, deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs. In a repellent interview yesterday with Federal News Radio, Mr. Stimson brought up, unprompted, the number of major U.S. law firms that have helped represent detainees at Guantanamo Bay.
"Actually you know I think the news story that you're really going to start seeing in the next couple of weeks is this: As a result of a FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] request through a major news organization, somebody asked, 'Who are the lawyers around this country representing detainees down there,' and you know what, it's shocking," he said.
Mr. Stimson proceeded to reel off the names of these firms, adding, "I think, quite honestly, when corporate CEOs see that those firms are representing the very terrorists who hit their bottom line back in 2001, those CEOs are going to make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms, and I think that is going to have major play in the next few weeks. And we want to watch that play out."
Asked who was paying the firms, Mr. Stimson hinted of dark doings. "It's not clear, is it?" he said. "Some will maintain that they are doing it out of the goodness of their heart, that they're doing it pro bono, and I suspect they are; others are receiving monies from who knows where, and I'd be curious to have them explain that."
It might be only laughable that Mr. Stimson, during the interview, called Guantanamo "certainly, probably, the most transparent and open location in the world."
But it's offensive -- shocking, to use his word -- that Mr. Stimson, a lawyer, would argue that law firms are doing anything other than upholding the highest ethical traditions of the bar by taking on the most unpopular of defendants. It's shocking that he would seemingly encourage the firms' corporate clients to pressure them to drop this work. And it's shocking -- though perhaps not surprising -- that this is the person the administration has chosen to oversee detainee policy at Guantanamo.
KSFO radio did a "special" 3-hour show yesterday with a couple of goals:
1. Tell everyone why left-wing bloggers are *ssholes 2. Try to save their advertising base
Regarding #2, they seem to be failing. If you look at their advertisers' page, you'll see it is now their advertiser's page. They had 10 - 15, they now have one.
This all started because a blogger who calls himself "Spocko" started sending audio clips of some of the KSFO personalities greatest hits (you can get some of those from the youtube clip posted previously) to KSFO advertisers asking them if they really wanted their brand associated with hate speech. Apparently this was effective because ABC/Disney sent Spocko's hosting service a cease and desist letter, claiming the audio snippets were a "clear violation" of copyright laws. Apparently they've never heard of "fair use".
There are many many reviews of the show, I'll link to some of those below. What really struck me in listening to it is:
1. They don't see the hypocrisy in slamming left wing bloggers for allegedly trying to censor them while their parent company threatens to sue a blogger over protected speech
2. They believe that the Constitution gives them first amendment protection to receive advertising dollars, because no one is actually trying to force them to stop talking, just pointing out to KSFO's advertisers that their ad dollars might be better spent elsewhere.
