When you can't win the debate you change the rules.
Every Congressperson can send free mailing to their constituents on current issues. Historically there has been no censorship of positions - until now. Nancy Pelosi is acting more and more like the political boss her father was during her childhood in Baltimore.
Bad Blood Over Health-Care Reform Spills Into Mailroom - washingtonpost.com:
The partisan debate over health-care reform has trickled down into one of the more arcane corners of the House -- the committee on free mail, otherwise known as the Franking Commission.The article mentions no inaccuracy in the chart.One of the perks of being a member of Congress is being able to send "franked" -- or free -- mail, as long as it relates to official business. Lawmakers use that ability to send newsletters and legislative updates to constituents. To ensure that the privilege is not used inappropriately, a majority of the bipartisan, six-member Franking Commission must approve each piece. Mail is blocked only on rare occasions.
But now the commission has gotten involved in the health-care fight, prohibiting several Republicans from mailing out a colorful, labyrinthine chart that purports to diagram Democrats' reform plan. The controversy was first reported by Roll Call.
The chart was produced by Republicans on the Joint Economic Committee and has become a popular visual aid on the minority side of the aisle as it attempts to convince the public that the Democrats' plan will be a confusing disaster. But Democrats have argued that the chart is an inaccurate representation of their health-care efforts, and for that reason, the three Democrats on the Franking Commission say the GOP cannot use it in official mail.
House guidelines say that in franked mail, "comments critical of policy or legislation should not be partisan, politicized or personalized." But what about information that is inaccurate, or -- arguably -- just misleading?
"We have never before censored anybody's presentation of facts this way," Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.) complained Friday in an interview.
Lungren, the top Republican on both the Franking Commission and the House Administration Committee, said the commission has never traditionally played a fact-checking role. He said that Democrats this year have sent out numerous pieces of franked mail touting the number of jobs created by the economic stimulus package, and that while Republicans might disagree with those numbers, they have not moved to block the mail.
See the chart at the House Republican Leadership's web site.
Posted by Ron Hebron at July 27, 2009 06:34 AM | Email ThisIf they truly agreed to this rule, we could save millions in franking expenses.
It does seem odd that the minority party must have the permission of the majority party to communicate with their constituents.
Only in Ameri---- Cuba, Soviet Union, China, Venezuela, North Korea......
Posted by: SouthernRoots on July 27, 2009 07:55 AM/demo kid - I have no original ideas so I'll ad hominem ya all to death!
Posted by: Crusader on July 27, 2009 09:15 AMUnless the Republicans come up with a solutions, 2010 will Not be a resurgence or "The Year We Make Contact" either.
Posted by: Green Lake Mark on July 27, 2009 09:32 AMWhy won't the left consider tort reform in their packaging of healthcare?
8 years of those roadblocks only point one way.
Why is it the countries with government run systems are warning against this but lefties are ignoring it?
Why do the lefties get upset about their phone records being monitored yet are willing to submit their medical records to the government?
Oh wait, Bill Clinton never surrendered his medical records. Maybe we'll get the same choice. Posted by: PC on July 27, 2009 10:05 AM
Remember the THREE attempts at health care reform by the GOP and the Bush Administration, starting with tort reform?
Each time it was blocked by the Slavery Party with a threatened filibuster.
Just like a lying liberal - stop the other Party from accomplishing something good for the nation, then accuse them of not even trying.
Lying bastards the lot of ya!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 27, 2009 12:31 PMPerhaps, . . . but are they really "not the same?"
#1, wrote that "This is what happens when socialist/progressives/communists attain power. Restrict the free flow of information. Like all good "rats", these people cannot stand the light of truth . . .""
This attitude of covering up truth is right here in our midst as well. Yesterday Pudge barred Alphabet Soup from posting merely because Soup pointed out correctly that Pudge was acting like a petty tyrant. If Pudge banned Soup because he didn't like his comments, that would be at least honest. As it is Pudge flatly lied.
While he generally acts fairly with liberals, if Pudge feeeels that his opinion is not given primacy on his own threads, he resorts to the use of his own outright lies to ban those he disagrees with in retaliation. Pudge's habits are (to say the least) erratic sometimes silly, and often plain stupid and you never know when he will decide to take exception to you for his own arbitrary reasons. (See line number 94 at @ http://blog.usefulwork.com/cgi-bin/mt-comments.cgi).
Yesterday I read the comments that prompted Pudge to ban Alphabet Soup from his thread. Soup told no lies, and his post was directly on topic but Pudge banned him for supposedly a "lying and off-topic and fallacious comment," anyway. Pudge removed Soup's comment so that no one would know that Pudge is a flat out liar and coward for banning him. Soup's comments (while unflattering about Pudge) were a true and accurate description of Pudge and Pudge's ridiculous ill-tempered outbursts. While it matters very little what a putz like Pudge writes or believes, it is a sign of the very censorship for partisan reasons discussed here.
"We have never before censored anybody's presentation of facts this way," Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.) While Pudge's arguments are amusing and sometimes interesting to read, he proves that no one is required to admit to being liberal in order to act out liberal style censorship based on lies.
Posted by: Amused by Liberals on July 27, 2009 12:41 PMPudge can say anything he wants. Make any proclamaitons he wants. I can agree with him.
If I disagree with or totally ignore him or his edicts, no gun carrying law enforcement officers will show up at my door - ever.
Government officials, especially the ones of which we speak here, are elected representatives of the people - they (supposedly) work for us.
Pudge is neither.
That's what makes him "not the same".
Posted by: SouthernRoots on July 27, 2009 01:24 PMTo the extent that they have different potential powers, I agree with you, but dishonest censorship emerges from an attitude of arrogance and desire to control opinions based on lies and it is deplorable in either case.
In terms of censorship what Pudge is doing is basically the same as what Congress is doing. If you agree with Pudge and wish to defend his right to censor and play dishonest games, that is your privilege. Either way, both are censoring for the same basic reason . . to stifle opinion they disagree with and control outcomes.
Posted by: Amused by Liberals on July 27, 2009 01:42 PMGenerate a post in the public blog detailing your grievance and carry on with the respondents. See if you get censored.
Where does it say anywhere on this thread that Congress was considering sending gun carrying law enforcement officers to show up at your door?
Where in the original post does it mention Pudge?
My example was a bit overkill, but the point is, what government says and does has a direct, everyday impact on all of us. What Pudge does, doesn't - at least not to me. Government should be held to a higher standard than private individuals.
What Pudge does, or doesn't do, will have zero impact on whether the minority party can communicate with their constiuents using franking funds without the permission of the majority party.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on July 27, 2009 02:02 PMI never claimed that they were. But I did correctly claim that they both engage in censorship. On this thread pudgie removed a comment for no other reason than to scratch dirt over his embarrassing conduct.
Websters Dictionary defines Censorship as:
1 a: the institution, system, or practice of censoring b: the actions or practices of censors ; especially : censorial control exercised repressively
And Censor as:
1: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable
It says nothing about it being the exclusive province of governments.
Generate a post in the public blog detailing your grievance and carry on with the respondents. See if you get censored.
I don't need to - I've already been censored at this site. And not to belabor the point but if you post commentary that pudgie disagrees with you will either have to suffer his bombastic blather in silence or risk being censored yourself.
I get irritated when I see the offices of Congress play stupid partisan games - by either side, and I have that same sense of outrage when a petty tyrant runs roughshod over a website that I like and deserves better. Apparently you are OK with that measure of control over your opinions...
So, what is your expanded opinion about what is happening with the franking in Congress?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on July 27, 2009 03:52 PMSouthernRoots, you brought up "gun carrying law enforcement officers," not me. This Post is about censorship, and I compared Pudge's censorship against blog contributors to censorship by Congress. I already agreed that the two have different powers and opined that this is about covering up truth.
You are focusing on the source as though that is all that matters, and I am pointing out the immediacy of the phenomenon. If you don't care, why bother to respond?
What are you arguing for or against?? Censorship is O.K. so long as you perceive that it doesn't directly affect you?
SouthernRoots I took your point, but I think you are making a fundamental error of judgment. More than anything else, this is about the discourse and our freedom on all levels to participate in the ongoing debate about issues, and respect by everyone of the necessity for vigorous exposure of ideas to the light of day.
Pudge lacks that respect of the views of others and he needs to be exposed for it. If you don't care, fine but it is the same dishonest censorship as Congress is doing. You write, "Pudge can say anything he wants. Make any proclamations[sic] he wants. I can agree with him. If I disagree with or totally ignore him or his edicts, no gun carrying law enforcement officers will show up at my door - ever."
True. And by the exact same token, if the government institutes the fairness doctrine and systematically eliminates all sources of conservative commentary (Fox News, Limbaugh etc), no gun carrying law enforcement officers will show up at anyone's door for that reason either. They may well show up at your door, but you'll never have a clue as to when or why.
Southern Roots, I posted at Sound Politics as much as you in the old days and argued many of the same views as you. What if Sound Politics became like HorsesAss with all of the cynical games (including censorship) they play there? SP is certainly not what it was then, and part of it is because people like Pudge have come here and are ruining it. I don't go to HorsesAss to argue with Goldy either so it shouldn't matter to me that they regularly censor people's views, but I am aware of it and point it out to show that Pudge like Goldy do exactly that.
I hope someone will do something more about the Congressional censorship just as I hope that Pudge gets yanked up short before he ruins his share of SP. To the extent that any conservative contributors care about SP you would do well to be likewise concerned.
Posted by: Amused by Liberals on July 27, 2009 04:21 PMIf the Republicans did this when they were in power, they should have been called on it also.
Posted by: KDS on July 28, 2009 09:26 PMNo.
Posted by: Alphabet Soup on July 29, 2009 08:48 AMHere's the beauty rolled out by dole.
http://www.tnr.com/yourhealthcaresystem.html
At least it was readable.
The current one is intentionally awful. Someone needs to read some tufte. Or at least go back to kindergarten to learn how to diagram.
this doesn't reflect poorly on the system, it reflects poorly on the person who prepared it (or rather, who didn't, since it's a piece of sh*t diagram)
here's his energy tax diagram from last month
http://therealbarackobama.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/boehner-cap-and-trade-chart-06-26-09.jpg
as you can see, if you can't even put togethor a legible diagram, running a congressional district (or understanding facts) may be extremely difficult.
suntanning, not so much.
This is a case of the majority acting like a**holes and shutting down LEGALLY REQUIRED ACCESS to their constituents. We PAY those taxes to give this franking privilege, right-or-wrong. The fact that the Slavery Party rulers want to stifle legal actions by the GOP is shameful.
So unless you pay taxes to support pudge, or pay taxes to support SoundPolitics.com, suck it up and shut up. It's their house, their rules. You don't like it? Leave. But it's not anywhere NEAR the same.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 29, 2009 01:32 PMDan,
Thanks for your interesting response.
I didn't say that Pudge doesn't have the right to censor, lie, or defame people in his sandbox, and I support his "right" to act like an overbearing asshole if he likes. I always support open debate. Its that "Freedom" thing, you know, use it or lose it. While all of the the important similarities and dissimilarities between "congressional franking" and "individual blogging" have already been well clarified, I thank you for registering your opinion. If I didn't like your opinion and I had the power to simply remove your comment, AND THEN I DID SO, I would be acting just like Pudge and then you could either point it out, or . . . SUCK IT up.
Thanks all the same Dan, but I will let you do the SUCKING IT up, while I point out that censorship used by anyone including Pudge for pure partisan advantage is rank dishonest partisan cowardliness.
Thanks
Posted by: Amused by Liberals on July 29, 2009 04:32 PMHealthcare
"
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
"
You
Wow! Much simpler!
Posted by: Alphabet Soup on July 30, 2009 03:43 PMTyranny starts with the censorship of ideas.
Thanks for your continued vigilance.
Posted by: Amused by Liberals on July 31, 2009 03:09 PMHowever, if the government, in the interest of seeing that only "truth " is diseminated, decides to control the internet, you would not be able to start tour own blog -- unless, of course, your views are acceptable to the government.
Anyone who confuses the two is an idiot.
Posted by: Matt on July 31, 2009 09:02 PM