1.
Norbizness is taking a long sabbatical.
2.
First Draft finds a
CityBusiness report which states:
"Bush has promised to veto a Gulf Coast [recovery] package, which totals $2.38 billion out of $121 billion in the Senate and includes the 10 percent waiver.
...
Bush also vows to veto any new funding or legislative attempt to waive the 10 percent match."
3. Iraqi blogger
Riverbend and her family have decided to leave Iraq. She writes:
We are choosing to leave because the other option is simply a continuation of what has been one long nightmare- stay and wait and try to survive.
...
It's difficult to decide which is more frightening- car bombs and militias, or having to leave everything you know and love, to some unspecified place for a future where nothing is certain.
Refugees like Riverbend's family
won't be welcomed into the U.S.. I guess the 2 million other Iraqi refugees like Riverbend are just "Cut and Run Surrendercrats". They don't understand that freedom isn't free. They don't understand that they must stay in their warzone hell or else the terrorists will
follow them to other countries.
Labels: Misc
4 Comments:
hey, oyster, off topic. thanks for the supportive comment on royal alexander. the trolls have me fuming, and i now do not know if i can stomach blogging today. i guess their tactics worked. and they invaed jindal is bad, effectively making that site inoperable.
regarding WST, i posted some comments there on DNR: do not read; do not respond; do not refer; do not repeat. i think you two should just leave each other alone. i am fond of you both for different reasons, and we should not waste time cannabilizing one another. besides, you two have very different territory to cover.
take care of yourself, and stop by dailykingfish and help me out with those nasty trolls. and do not take offense to what i wrote. i have had these fights before, and i know both you and WST can move past this, as both of you are rational human beings.
I think your heart is in the right place PCD, but some of your comments over recent days have annoyed me. They come off as condescending. This one is no exception.
First, I don't consider the WST post/response... etc as a "fight". I think we've already "moved on". But let's assume it is still a "fight" for arguments' sake. Why do you suggest the draconian DNR policy and then assert that you are confident WST and I can "move past this" fight, because we are both "rational human beings"?
Rational human beings should be able to express their differences, and engage in debates and "agree to disagree", right? How is your DNR solution a rational resolution, here?
Secondly, I DO have a DNR policy about "trolls". I think, nearly always, it is, AT BEST, a total waste to give them what they want and engage with them. Unless you enjoy that sort of thing. Why should I not read WST because of one argument but then go to the Daily Kingfish to "fight trolls"? I honestly don't understand those recommendations.
I responded to your suggestion at We Saw That, and will reprint my comment here, as well. (Some of this might be repetitive):
"thanks, oyster. maybe the only solution to all this is a blog truce, where both parties agree to leave each other alone. DNR: do not respond; do not reply; do not read. any takers?"
Truly, PCD, there is no "all this" for you to be alarmed about. I'm not the one who described my WST post in charged, alarmist terms like "witchhunt", or "cannibilization" or whatever. And I don't see how my WST post took away from my participation in the Sacred Project to Derail the Coronation of Our Next Guvnah, Bobby Jindal.
I agree and disagree with WST's various positions. Some of them I find particularly bizarre and stupid, and I published my view about that for public consumption. But, so what? WST might feel the same way about some of my stuff, as well. We're big boys, I'm sure, and can discuss and debate issues or agree to disagree without becoming (too) disagreeable.
There's no need for some blanket DNR policy.
Part of blogging, for me, is venting. I'm open to criticism and alternate views, but I keep getting instructions from you about how I need to help "shut down" the DP, and how I would be better served to blog about Jindal, and how I should consider a blogging "truce" when there isn't any "war" to begin with.
Over the past year, I've offered the most ferocious and devastating criticisms of the Dead Pelican-- bar none. You should visit my archives. However, I'm bemused by Chad. He's a quasi libertarian, and we exchange email and chat occasionally and argue and I send him tips and links. He has linked to some of my posts over the years, and that has brought exposure to some of my ideas.
On a much more limited basis, I've done the same thing with WST. We've exchanged emails and links, and I plan to continue to do so. If he has other plans, that's fine too.
It irks me a bit, though, when someone who is not very familiar with my blog tells me how I should use my blog, or suggests policies I should put in place for a problem that doesn't exist, or tells me what I should write about or not write about, or who I should link to or not link to, or what "freaks" I need to help "bring down". I'm rather certain I can handle those decisions and responsibilities on my own.
I am glad you could be honest. Yes, I have a tendency to meddle, and I also try to intervene if I sense an impending disaster. I took it personally, as I did not want to be placed in a crossfire. But everyone seems settled, and no one is terribly offended. And if they are, I apologize.
Regarding the trolls, I guess their aggressiveness is just too much for me to handle today. Maybe I need to build a thicker skin. Or perhaps I am used to engaging with rational human beings. I do not know if I was asking you to engage the creatures; I think I wanted an assessment. In other words, are they regulars? Is this a regular person? Is this someone who once harrassed you? I was seeking answers to those questions.
Yes, I am bombastic, and I love to dictate. I can only apologize for the articulation of those qualities, but I must admit that I cannot sincerely apologize for having those qualities, because I too use blogs to sometimes vent my frustrations on other people's blogs, as I too developed notions of what I believe is just.
But thank you for commenting at the blog. I visit you often, and I hope we can continue communicating with one another. I do not read your admonition as a serverance of communication, and I hope my response reads as a sincere acknowledgement of my transgression of certain boundaries you uphold.
Regarding my tone when it comes to Jindal, the man frightens me, and I tend to become very alarmist when I sense doom tumbling over the horizon.
Take care.
No worries, pcd.
