Huge and breaking news for New Yorkers, and those who come visit. The Mayor's office has backed down from the ridiculously stringent rules proposed about filming and photographing around town.
The dissent was organized by PictureNY, and included on-the-street protests, videos, and an online petition that now stands at over 30,000 names.
The first amendment is alive and well here, and protest still works. At least, for today.
At the recent YouTube debate, Obama said he'd talk to other leaders, and Clinton called him "naive," stating that "I don’t want to be used for propaganda purposes" by being seen with bad people.
So, here's the thing. They have this software called "Photoshop," and it can be used, for example, to create al-Qaeda sponsored Internet ads that feature "a digitally altered photograph of President George Bush and Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf standing in front of a burning White House."
In a digital age, using the fear of being the object of a propaganda campaign as a reason to be wary of talking to people is ridiculous, and, yes, naive.
They don't have to wait for real-life photo-ops to create photo-ops anymore.
In which Dodd appears on O'Reilly, brazenly refuting the accusations against Daily Kos, endearing him to a large swath of the netroots, and propelling his Presidential candidacy into the top tier!!!
...Um, Dodd. He is the guy running for President, right?
White hair?
Anyway...AWESOME. Way to go, dude!
The NY Times has a piece about the dreaded "S" word Republicans like to use when talking about health care. I'd like to go on the record stating, I'm all for socialism.
Anyway, this is odd:
But the scale of government’s role remains a source of deep conflict for many Americans, including the millions who already have health insurance they are largely satisfied with and are wary of any new programs that might diminish it.
Really? Are there really millions in the country satisfied with the state of health care?
Perhaps there are people satisfied with the particular insurance they currently have, although, keep in mind, SiCKO is all about the people that have health care today, and don't realize how little it covers until they really need it.
But I can't believe that people are happy about the fact that, for example, millions of individuals in this country don't have even any coverage.
I don't know how health care in this country can be "diminished" any more than it already is?
Well, perhaps if Rudy gets elected...
If you live and dine in NYC, or any city with a big food scene, you've seen the trend: "Would you like sparking, or flat?"
Well, neither. I'll take the tap. Nothing wrong with it, and, in fact, New York City has some of the best.
More importantly, bottled water is wasteful, uses oil in the production of the containers, and is costly.
So, take the tap. Unless yours is nasty, I guess...
Today President Bush served the prime minister cheeseburgers and fries. Last night, by the way, they dined privately on a meal of roast tenderloin, mashed potatoes and green beans.
Mmm, sounds delicious.
I can't imagine why anyone would think bloggers are the only hope of saving this republic.
Public debate is just so last century:
A one-sentence provision buried in the Senate’s recently passed energy bill, inserted without debate at the urging of the nuclear power industry, could make builders of new nuclear plants eligible for tens of billions of dollars in government loan guarantees.
...the provision has the potential to considerably expand the nuclear industry, which plans to build 28 new reactors at an estimated cost of about $4 billion to $5 billion apiece.
Oh, I'm sure those Congress people know exactly what they're doing.
I mean, 28 new nuclear reactors. What could possibly go wrong?
This Times article describes the bind the Republican anti-abortion forces are in, as Giuliani, who's less-than-militant on the issue, continues to top the voter charts.
But, interestingly, I found a sort of kindred spirit in the pro-life movement:
“You change the constituency of the party,” Mr. Arkes said — either by showing that anti-abortion voters are not necessary to win, or by showing that anti-abortion voters are willing to subsume their cause to other issues.
This, of course, is the same argument we liberals make, when confronted with the suggestion we pull abortion rights from the Democratic Party platform.
Because, you know, abortion will always be legal. Sam Alito and John Roberts support judicial precedent, right?
Well, Republicans on the right are now faced with a similar, but opposite dilemma -- do they compromise on abortion, nominate pro-choice-Rudy, and win the election, or stand their ground and lose?
Anyway, what the Times article doesn't mention is what seems to me would be an even bigger quandary for the "Pro Life" Party -- a vote for anti-abortion candidate means a vote for a pro-war one.
Isn't that a problem for them?
Last time I checked, there was a lot of Life lost in war...
