« Not to belabor the plagiarism point, but... | Main | The Weekly Post: from Dohiyi Mir »
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Tuesday Deadline Linkdump: The conservative edition
More Vermont linkage from a reporter with too much on her plate:
* Jeff Soyer of Alphecca chastises Massachusetts whiners who blame Vermont for their violent crime.
* Charity Tensel of She's Right would like to correct your misperceptions about conservatives.
* Frank LoPinto of Cool Blue says the peacekeepers rescued in Iraq last week are acting like "brats."
* View from Kirby Mountain offers a first-hand look at why wind turbines are destructive.
* The anonymous lass at Tirade Parade offers a pithy and amusing... um, tirade on her required hip hop lecture. To sum up, she didn't like it.
Here are some of the things we discussed in this intro to the hip-hop unit (this is not a joke):
1.
The symbolism surrounding the wearing of leisure suits paired with a
large clock on a chain around the neck. Followed by a discussion about
rappers donning big tasteless pieces of jewelery.
2. The
importance of changing one's name, construction of a hip-hop persona
(i.e. D.J. Jazzy Jeff, Grandmaster Flash, etc). (In my rap career, I'm
known as Master T. 'Rage - short for tirade and outrage).
3. The definition and use of "flow." Again, this is not a joke.
Tip to T. 'Rage: This would sound much more interesting if you were backed up by beats. If you're having trouble finding your flow, study flowmaster Leslie Hall (pictured right).
March 28, 2006 at 08:10 AM in VT Blogs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b91969e200d8347e6fc453ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Tuesday Deadline Linkdump: The conservative edition:
Comments
...for anyone who needs a break from all these conservative weblogs, I got the medicine right here.
Posted by: odum | Mar 28, 2006 9:26:23 AM
As I am not a regular reader of the GMD for various reasons, I appreciate the heads up concerning the petition odum. Thank you.
In fact I have blogged up a mention and link to it on my blog as well, here (via Norsehorse's Home Turf).
One thing that needs pointing out is that this has nothing to do with one being either liberal or conservative however or, at least it need not be.
Truth be told, I am neither and at the same time I am both. Yet this Independent-minded Yankee voter has no problem whatsoever signing onto the petition in question, especially with my having been a Nader voter in 2000 and 2004, etc. The exact same voter who may also end up casting my vote for Martha Rainville for U.S. Senate in the 2006 general election, should she survive the Republican primary (should she not, then I will most likely write her in).
Posted by: mwb | Mar 28, 2006 1:01:27 PM
Opps, had meant to write:
... casting my vote for Martha Rainville for U.S. House in the 2006 general election ...
Posted by: mwb | Mar 28, 2006 1:23:54 PM
Really, Rainville? May I ask why? She has no legislative experience, and as someone who is inclined to sign the impeachment petition, if she is elected then she'd be another Republican vote in the House (the Republicans are VERY good about having all their members vote the way they want). Just curious.
Posted by: evening | Mar 28, 2006 5:25:42 PM
Oh, don't you worry about me - I'm down with the GEMSWEATERS in a big way. Leslie Hall happens to be one of my personal heroes.
Posted by: Tirade25 | Mar 28, 2006 9:42:49 PM
evening wrote: Really, Rainville? May I ask why? She has no legislative experience, and as someone who is inclined to sign the impeachment petition, if she is elected then she'd be another Republican vote in the House (the Republicans are VERY good about having all their members vote the way they want). Just curious.
Hmmm, I don't know really, maybe I have seen many of the same good qualities as well as strong and solid characteristics in Martha Rainville that, if my memory serves me correctly, those within the Democratic Party and others saw in her when they wanted her to run on the Democratic ticket for the U.S. House seat so badly: i.e., until she declared herself a Republican and all of a sudden these same people had a selective memory and is now why they are so very frightened, since she makes for both a strong and formidable candidate and is why they wanted her to be theirs in the first place.
Except for having been mayor of Burlington before winning the U.S. House seat, Bernie Sanders had no legislative experience either, other than maybe having testified before legislative bodies of various sorts and also working with the city council, etc.
For her part, my guess is that Martha Rainville has had some experience interacting with certain legislative bodies and she definitely had to in order to get and keep her job, as the Vermont Legislature selects the AG of the VG.
However as far as what experience a person needs or should have to be qualified, if that is what you are getting at, for serving in the U.S. House or any other legislative body: I would hope one would not have to just have legislative experience or otherwise be a lawyer or whatever, heck that is what they get staff for anyway. No, I would hope that no matter how complex government has gotten or would become, that we make certain ordinary citizens of different stripes and backgrounds are able to serve in order to bring a better perspective to such bodies and so that people from various backgrounds can be well representative and not just certain types or classes of people with only certain experience or backgrounds. Congress is full enough of too many elitists and full time politicians, they are not in need of someone who is basically yet another full time politician, even if the job so far has been at least somewhat part-time at the state level (even though with the summer study committees or other committees that meet throughout the year even when the legislature is not in session, some Vermont legislators are busy nearly year round).
Another way to think of it is that if anyone had tried to make the same argument about Bernie, most of us would have known enough that it was nothing more than pure male-bovine fertilizer and, at least to my independent way of thinking, the same goes with trying to apply it to Martha Rainville or anyone else for that matter.
As far as the latter statement of yours goes, since I don't buy the argument just because you and others do, I won't bother taking the bait; except to say that in my opinion it is merely a convenient rationalization on your part, nothing more and certainly nothing worth my responding to. Enough said.
Posted by: mwb | Mar 29, 2006 12:10:03 AM
T. 'Rage! I'm so happy to hear you're a member of the gem sweater fan club. Do you have her CD, Gold Pants? It's brilliant. I highly recommend it.
Posted by: cresmer | Mar 29, 2006 8:24:53 AM
ok, thanks, mwb, again just wanted to know.
At least Bernie was mayor -- it is something. I actually am in favor of full-time politicians. If only because government is complex and it takes time to learn it and how to work it. And forget about the issues -- even more complex. I think it is good to get state experience before going to federal level (and I don't care what your party is). Just my opinion. But I hear you, and her lack of experience is not the biggest concern of mine.
If you don't believe that Republicans favor party loyalty, that's fine, we'll just have to disagree. From what I understand, those who don't vote the way the party wants them to don't get the committees they want, money for campaigns, etc. So she may vote independently of the party, but she may find it real hard to do anything she wants to do down the line. (My husband has a masters in political mgmt, has followed politics his whole life, and writes Carpetbagger Report. Yes, he is left, but he's also pretty rational.) Anyway, that's where I'm coming from so that is why I was surprised to see your comment.
Posted by: evening | Mar 29, 2006 7:53:08 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.