Blog-IT-o ergo sum

	9/2/2004

Blog Fever

David Nivens called today for a story he is doing on political blogging for the HPE. Here are what I think my main points were:

1) Political blogs for now are the domain of activists and not yet a factor in the mindset of the voting public.

2) Polical blogs are a powerful tool for getting third party candidates off the porch an onto the street with the big dogs; item 1 not withstanding. (On a related note: I always liked the old New Yorker cartoon with two dogs sitting in front of the computer which pointed out , "On the internet, nobody knows you are a dog")

3) I relish the opportunity to post on my opponent's blogs should they ever get real ones. Will candidates take unedited question and answers from their challengers though for all the world to see?

My apologies to Ed Cone. I forget to mention him as the blogfather of poltical blogging in Guilford County. Are you checking this David?

Sidebar: Tapping her foot while standing next to our dusty Black and Decker electric trimmer hanging in the garage, my wife informs me that my blog may be a powerful tool but that it cannot trim the hedge.

8:11:28 PM

comment []

Amendment One (A non-issue big issue)

Add Amendment One alongside the FTAA on my list of big stories not making the news.

A quick check of people I consider in the know indicates that perhaps most voters do not know about Amendment One a.k.a. the "Local Option Project Development Financing" amendment to our State Constitution that will be staring us in the face on our ballot (again) this November.

This is a concept that the voters of North Carolina have turned down twice already but won't stay dead. It's in a new confusingly worded package this time around but it is still the same bad idea: Allow County, city and town governments to spend money they don't have (via taking on debt) without having to go to the voting public to get a bond approved. All these entities would have to do under this scheme is project future tax revenues coming from the project being considered for development with public money. Think of this as a version of pro forma accounting for government. No need to check with the taxpayers who are ultimately on the hook if projections don't pan out.

Please get yourself informed on this issue and consider all the good reasons for voting this proposal down hopefully for the last time...or at least another 11 years.

Note: The vast majority of our state representative in Raleigh were more than happy to place the knife in the hands of the poorly informed electorate to yet again hope we use it to cut our throats with. The votes to put this message on the ballot passed last summer 86-23 in the house and 40-2 in the Senate. With the exception of fiscally responsible Steve Wood who Republicans eliminated as an option, all representatives from our area felt it was best to, "let the voters decide." --- thus behaving just like our county commissioners in shirking their fiduciary obligations to safeguard the public trust of we the presumably less informed. If you think I am being harsh here, read the text of the amendment that voters will be asked to consider (many of them for the first time) when they get in the voting booth. For additional kicks, try typing in Amendment One, Tax Increment Financing or Local Option Project Development Financing into any of the website searches of our State's major newspapers.

Bottom line: Never vote for an amendment to a constitution unless you are absolutely sure you understand what all the ramifications are.

10:25:26 AM

comment []

Déjà vu, all over again?

From the CounterPunch political newsletter:

"Listeners to National Public Radio are increasingly apt to criticize the "rightward shift" in the station's news coverage. The August 30 "Morning Edition" program, however, reached a new low for slanted journalism and for making the Bush Administration's case for war with Iran."

8:19:56 AM

comment []