Men in Black
16/2/12 09:28![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
paft.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsHere is a picture from today's House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing about the Obama administration's birth control mandate:
The first row are the allowed witnesses.
All those people a couple rows behind them? Well... those witnesses just don't fit in.
That's why most of the Democratic women on the committee walked out of the room.
Just now, Oklahoma GOP representative Jim Lankford implied that these men in black were being "berated" by the committee. In fact, they've mostly been getting strokes just short of full-body massages from most of the remaining committee members. This hearing is such a transparent and over-the-top, right wing extremist attack on the administration (one Representative invoked those dastardly laws against smoking in public buildings as a sign of the slippery slope the administration has set up) that clips from it should be used by Democrats in the upcoming election.
I cannot imagine any reasonable and honest person watching this hearing and not being appalled.
Partially crossposted from Thoughtcrimes
*
The first row are the allowed witnesses.
All those people a couple rows behind them? Well... those witnesses just don't fit in.
That's why most of the Democratic women on the committee walked out of the room.
Just now, Oklahoma GOP representative Jim Lankford implied that these men in black were being "berated" by the committee. In fact, they've mostly been getting strokes just short of full-body massages from most of the remaining committee members. This hearing is such a transparent and over-the-top, right wing extremist attack on the administration (one Representative invoked those dastardly laws against smoking in public buildings as a sign of the slippery slope the administration has set up) that clips from it should be used by Democrats in the upcoming election.
I cannot imagine any reasonable and honest person watching this hearing and not being appalled.
Partially crossposted from Thoughtcrimes
*
(no subject)
Date: 16/2/12 21:05 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/2/12 21:20 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/2/12 21:24 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/2/12 21:29 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/2/12 21:38 (UTC)You're over moderating this, I'm afraid. It's killing the spontaneity of frank and earnest discussion.
(no subject)
Date: 16/2/12 21:42 (UTC)Proceed at will...
(no subject)
Date: 16/2/12 21:47 (UTC)Dude, you rock. But I got it off my chest.
(no subject)
Date: 17/2/12 07:43 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/2/12 14:17 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/2/12 15:33 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/2/12 15:36 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/2/12 15:40 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/2/12 15:41 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/2/12 15:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/2/12 15:55 (UTC)Just so we can be clear, I'm was talking about MY conversation with Mangoes. It was calm and rational but honest and frank.
The irony is too, this specific initial conversation was over hours ago. Finished. Finito. This is what happens typically: I stated my piece, and everyone was calm and level headed. Kol asked the conversation to end, and while I voiced my concerns it essentially ended with and no further commenting for hours. htcpl comes along two hours later with a "oh yeah!?? tapping his toes" type of comment where he points out I missed something in a over 200 comment post. Now you come along nearly a half day later, and wanted to "make a point." You claim you want it less strife-filled, so I don't get the rationale of coming back to either vent your frustration with me publicly, and or crack my knuckles with a ruler. I know it's a hard balancing act, and you're not going to make everyone happy, but Kol asked me for my opinion in that thead, and I gave it to him. If you disagree with that? Fine. But please my friend, don't browbeat a user when he's asked his opinion or take him to task for doing so.
(no subject)
Date: 17/2/12 16:57 (UTC)Time stamps are not as important as the things that have been said. Time difference means that chances are I'd read something many hours after it has been said. That still doesn't mean I can't share my own observations on what's being said. Particularly when I deem it something important. Yes you're right - things can be missed to be seen immediately in a 200+ post. I respond to things as soon as they see them.
I believe I made a valid point which I thought was important, and could have been discussed. It's up to you whether you'd respond to it or not. If it came across as venting or trying to humiliate you publicly in some way, I deeply regret it and I sincerely apologize for my improper wording. It was never my intention. I thought I was voicing a concern that could've been addressed and some ideas could have come out. You took it as a personal attack, where it truly wasn't. That's unfortunate.
(no subject)
Date: 17/2/12 17:36 (UTC)I appreciate Kol's way of handling this, and think the world of him for it. He didn't feel a need to have a come back later on, showing me where I was wrong. Or why I was wrong. Sure-- he may have been busy, or he may have been out with the kids. Who knows? But I know him well enough to know he's not into making someone feel small. That's why Kol is so loved. I just like a lighter touch. In a month where the monthly topic is "police state" the pressure of mods sometimes here is just a wee bit too tight. I know you guys are in between a rock and a hard place: people complain if you don't moderate more heavily, or complain too much. But earnest and passionate dialogue doesn't need a baby sitter. Or wondering if Big Brother Mod is going to jump in. And this community was started primarily because you were sassy in another community and consequently got on the moderator's shit list. He wouldn't stop harassing you because of it, and then banned you. And talk_politics was born. The irony is the byline for the community is "A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods." We now have ten moderators, all who are needed I presume because of the time zones around the world. And in the earlier days it was hardly the wild-wild-west around here with drama, but there was a lighter touch and the avowed policies were a hands-off approach to moderation. You said you wondered how many good people would leave because of a hands off policy. I can tell you I have a list of people who've left because of the too heavy moderation (and don't think it's from RAC, because they don't participate there). Just a lighter touch, and not being so obsessed with preventing drama, at the risk of killing a good, calm and perhaps a passionate conversation? You guys are great and are doing a fantastic job. I'm just asking for a wee lighter touch? And others have too in a very public way. Thanks ;)
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 16/2/12 22:50 (UTC)"Run along".
"Scritch, scritch, scritch".
"There ya go. Your tummy's been rubbed".
(no subject)
Date: 16/2/12 22:56 (UTC)1. I didn't see them at the time. I have no idea when those were made either
2. I don't read every comment (this post has 200 plus comments now) like you do (for whatever reasons, e.g. you're a mod, you are looking for quote of the day material, needing to moderate things, etc).
(no subject)
Date: 16/2/12 23:11 (UTC)I try to put aside the temptation for selective reading - for whatever reasons.
(no subject)
Date: 16/2/12 23:17 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/2/12 23:18 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/2/12 23:24 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/2/12 23:29 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/2/12 23:58 (UTC)