4/28/2008 12:37:00 PM|||Sarah Michelle Spinosa|||


Today on the 'DPOC.com blog' Sean Mill attacked our fair blog for its occasionally sensational journalistic style. Despite the fact that I personally approve all comments of a non-personal, non-threatening nature that do not use profanity, and even go as far as editing out curse words in some comments in order to post them anyway, even when I do not agree, I am still banned from 'The LBC.' My rejected comment to that cavalcade of extremism was:


All this hate against me this weekend because I used one ill-chosen word and then later apologized and retracted. Wow. Isn't that how I got chased off this blog? Some things never change.

And we're just doing our jobs. Just because we're more into investigative journalism than the 'yellow politics' of hackdom that seems to go on here at the DPOC blog, doesn't mean you can attack us personally. Every time we have a political opinion you guys don't like you come after us as people and then attack us even harder when we are unable to reconcile with you because you'd rather fight it out in the trenches than debate legitimate, political points. What are you so afraid of?

Considering Sean Mill's history with this blog and with Art, it's no surprise to see him baselessly attack Art, but attacking me is a whole different story. Apparently, this time, after sooo many attempts to discredit me, their complaint (continued gang mentality forcing me to attribute Mr. Mill's comments to the LBC community at large) is that I'm an 'outsider.' While I'm relatively new to OC, having lived here a little over 2 years, this comment doesn't just imply, it outright states, that my political opinions in general are worthless despite my lifetime of political activism in New England. Such an open-minded approach to journalism, isn't it? You forgot to remind your readers that it was Democrats who first threatened lawsuits.

If it's supposedly so obvious that I'm 'unconnected' and 'unglued' and don't know what I'm talking about, why would you intentionally violate the truce or threaten to sue just to point it out? My guess is that the truce no longer serves the purpose of keeping your political skeletons in their closets. We didn't go after you, we went after your elected darlings. Remember to try to include protection for them as well the next time you propose a truce, or else blame your own damn self.

As usual, you and your fellow blind Dem followers have no defense, only offense. And again, you attempt to 'challenge the right wing noise machine' by not only trying to fight fire with fire, but labeling anyone who disagrees with you as right-wing and therefore fair game. I'm a registered Democrat dummy!

You can't argue the merits, so you once again stoop to personal attacks in order to discredit Art and myself for no other reason than to provide political cover for your cronies, this time Joe Dunn (who doesn't even need cover since no negative allegations have been made), Chief Walters, and Commie Girl, my battle with the last admittedly getting far too personal for either of us and probably close to an end.

Also check out how the first comment comes from none other than Paul Lucas. Wow Paul. You either can't shut your mouth to save your life, or you worked everything out with the old crew. Once again, Democratic hypocrisy (and conspiracy?) rears its ugly head when Paul accuses us of electronic bullying after what his favorite blog and his 'girlfriend' attempted to do to me.

Oh, and Sean accusing me of 'slander' on his blog as opposed to those who accused me of 'libel' on this one is priceless. I understand the legal difference Sean. It was big of you to admit that there was no cause for litigation. I really appreciate that, even if it came at so late a point.

Here's the icing on the cake:

In the case of Pedroza and others at the Orange Juice I must ask these questions: Is nothing out of bounds? Is there no level to which one should not stoop to try and make political points? Have you no decency? Have you no shame?

It's funny. I could have sworn it was yet another anonymous commenter (because they're all too chickens**t to comment under their own names) that brought my family into this by equating medical marijuana and adorable singing babies with drug addiction and child abuse. I thought these were Democrats! They remind me time and time again why I'm disappointed with my political party here in my new home; and for the record, their writing skills could use quite a bit of work as well!

In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism in which one attributes one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions to others. Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted subconscious impulses/desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them. The theory was developed by Sigmund Freud and further refined by his daughter Anna Freud, and for this reason, it is sometimes referred to as "Freudian Projection"

-Wikipedia

SMS

Labels: , , , , ,

|||7258154949387850725|||Have You No Perspective?4/16/2008 06:05:00 AM|||Sarah Michelle Spinosa|||

I've given The Centrist OC a face lift. Hey, I couldn't keep ripping off the LibOC's stylesheet forever! It was pretty funny for a little while, but then I got bored with it.

Keep an eye on OJ, too. A major upgrade for this site is being discussed as the next step in the OJ/Centrist OC plan to take take over the world (what are we going to do tomorrow night Brain?)!

Not only have I redesigned the site, but I have changed it's approach. We will have political stories of course, but we will also focus on individual issues and even have experts in certain fields such as energy, wildfire control, and health care weigh in to help us find solutions to the problems facing America by way of OC. We've even added RSS Feeds to both the OJ and the LibOC, Red County, as well as the OC Register, LA Times, and CNN, and are taking suggestions for other feeds that you, our readers may enjoy. (And yes, we're hosting the blogger flame forum as long as it remains at least SEMI civilized!)

We're looking for writers both of the political and issues-based variety to join our team and I can be reached at editor@thecentristoc.com. Also, we will be adding all new features never seen on a blog in OC! Stay by your computers because it's going to be a fun summer!

SMS

Labels: , ,

|||1680802754646999327|||The Centrist OC Celebrates Grand Re-Opening!3/30/2008 07:12:00 PM|||Sarah Michelle Spinosa|||

Responsible Plan To End The War In Iraq

I just spent about an hour going though Vern Nelson's pet plan. I had originally dismissed it as a simple hippie-inspired plan of 'lollipops and flowers,' and I was completely wrong.

The truth is, I found the plan to be logical, concise, and articulate, which did come as a bit of a surprise. The problem with it isn't simplicity, it's that it's much too complicated and is dependent on too many disciplines to become a reality anytime in the near term, which I assume is why it's being targeted towards election challengers.

It takes about 15 pages to get into the meat of this document which is a collection of ideas cobbled together and supported by individual bills introduced last year which taken together do in fact constitute a logical course of action.

However, it also requires the cooperation of so many government officials and organizations in both the US and Iraq, corporations, militias, international bodies, and individual countries who resent us, that this plan will not be able to serve as guide a through a strategic withdrawal process until the current political paradigms are abandoned.

To wit:
There is no military solution to the problems faced in Iraq: the real progress that can be made requires diplomatic, political, and economic means. We must stop counter-productive military operations by U.S. occupation forces and end our military presence in Iraq...

The breakdown of checks and balances in our government led to bad decision-making which damaged America’s national security. Ending this war and preventing future situations like it requires that we restore these Constitutional checks and balances and fix the ways in which our governmental, military, and civil institutions have failed us...

We are aware that facts on the ground will change moving forward, and the legislation is included just to show that a responsible end to the war is possible given the political will.

I couldn't agree more. In fact, neither could most Americans. That's why we have a Democratic Congress; but it hasn't been enough. If something is going to be done about this, the time is quickly passing by us and there doesn't seem to be enough 'political will' to enact many of the proposals cited by the report. Maybe a Democratic POTUS will turn it around, but that can't happen for at least 8 more months.

Restoring our military:
Repairing the damage done to our military will require reforms in contracting procedures, restoring benefits for members of the military and veterans, and investment in repairing or replacing damaged military equipment.

The need for contracting reform is substantial. Private militias have direct incentives to prolong the conflict rather than resolve it; their use needs to be phased out. Contractors must be legally accountable for their actions. War profiteering must be stopped, and those who have engaged in it need to answer for their actions.

The safety of our men and women in uniform requires that we adhere to international standards with respect to treatment of prisoners. We must also make it clear that the United States does not torture, and that we do not send people to other places to be tortured, either.

The military is having substantial difficulty with recruiting and retention; we could begin to help by delivering on more of the promises the original Montgomery G.I. Bill made and by delivering on our promises regarding healthcare for veterans.

Again, these proposals depend on political will, or at the very least corporate will. I know there aren't many contractors that do what Halliburton does, but they were at the top of the short list for a reason. The torture issue is a no-brainer.

Also, we should dismantle the VA and provide our soldiers with private medical care. This will never be done however because the military would no longer be able to conceal the long-term side effects of war on our best and bravest. I bet opinions about 'Gulf War Syndrome' would be different if there were more doctors involved who were not on the government payroll.

The one clear war power of Congress—the power of the purse—has been neutered by the habit of paying for the war “off the books” in emergency supplemental bills. This prevents a transparent discussion of where the funding for this war has been taken from and how these costs will be covered in the future, and it encourages fraud and irresponsible decision-making. Transparency and accountability will only be possible when war funding is incorporated into the normal congressional budgeting process, forcing decision-makers to consider real trade-offs.

They're forgetting about war-declaration powers. War was never declared officially which is how the spending bills for Iraq got so opaque to begin with. Even still, I find it highly unlikely that Congress will just roll over and reform their own parliamentary procedures. It's sort of like the case of the Texas House in which members submit votes for their absent comrades. Indeed they say 'you can't fight city hall' because they make and break all the rules.

Creating a new, U.S.-centered energy policy:
Finally, we are clearly tied to Iraq through our dependence on oil, which makes us vulnerable. Moving away from that dependence is necessary for strategic, economic, and environmental reasons.

I just made this statement yesterday on The Centrist OC and it's been a major issue for a while. It's not exactly groundbreaking.

S. 139 Foreign Surveillance Expedited Review Act
This legislation would provide standing for civil actions for declaratory and injunctive relief to persons who refrain from electronic communications through fear of being subject to warrantless electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes.

Injunctive relief for people who are AFRAID of being victimized by this but haven't been? How about stopping the surveillance or improving it in a way that better respects privacy? What this suggests is a potential burden to our judicial system.

Eliminate signing statements
The U.S. Constitution is very clear about the process by which legislation is passed: the House and the Senate must each pass the legislation and it must then be signed by the President. The President has no power to make law unilaterally. Our current president, however, has made unprecedented use of “signing statements”38 in which he attempts to substantially alter the meaning of laws and their interpretation by the courts. These signing statements are a dangerous device that undermines Congress’ constitutional powers and ability to act as a check on the executive...

H.R. 3045: Presidential Signing Statements Act of 2007
This legislation would prohibit any state or federal court from relying on or deferring to a presidential signing statement as a source of authority when determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, and provide mechanisms for Congress to clarify their intent with respect to legislation being interpreted by the courts.

The damage is already done because now there is precedent. It's probably going to take a whole lot of integrity on future executives' parts to repeal the damage to checks and balances initiated by Bush. Earliest time frame? Again 2009 assuming McCain doesn't get elected. This is probably going to end up in the courts before it can get passed by the legislature since I doubt that Republicans in Congress will help provide a 2/3 vote for a veto override against their own leader.

SMS

Part 2 on The Centrist OC!

Labels: , , , , ,

|||6901174802094461987|||Review of Responsible Plan To End The War In Iraq Part One3/29/2008 04:58:00 PM|||Sarah Michelle Spinosa|||
FINALLY! After what may have been the longest development phase of a website the world has ever known, Ed Chau, candidate for the Democratic nomination for Congress in District 42, has unleashed said website for public viewing.

I've always thought that a great website is a better marketing tool than, well... pretty much anything. A website is non-intrusive, complete, easily and quickly updated, capable of handling multiple media, and truly a window into the world. Computer technology is the greatest political tool in the history of man, and on this I'm not exaggerating.

So why is Ed Chau wasting his opportunity? His original website, while it looked terrible, contained an inspiring story about how he came to this country as a child. His new website (which uses the same terrible-looking photo) does not. I guess Aaruni Thakur and Ken Christensen, only caring to cater to the minority of blue voters in the 42nd, don't care about things like the big picture of the general election - they only care that Ed's new site makes him look like the blue-blooded, establishment, de-facto nominee he's trying to represent himself to be.

I can't (thankfully) take credit for the blue-blood or establishment parts (all Ken), but I can take credit for Chau's strategy to hold himself to look like the front-runner before the race really even begins. That's right, it was my idea. Ed's opponent Ron Shepston has no political experience, although he is a veteran and an activist which gives him some credibility points. However, in making my suggestion to campaign in this manner I gave Chau more brownie points for not only having been an elected official, but also for a lifetime of volunteerism and his inspiring backstory.

But alas my perspective was always ignored despite Ed's praise to the contrary. Now he hardly has a presence on the internet aside from his website and the abandoned MySpace and Partybuilder pages I created for him. His opponent is a blogger. Oh yeah, they didn't want me to do that either. Advantage Shepston. Neither candidate currently has enough cash-on-hand to mount a traditional media campaign.

Look at the website for yourself, the first story is about the DCCC's statement on Gary Miller, not his own. Sure, I advised Ed not to go after Gary until the timing was appropriate, but I'd say that when your primary opponent is doing it while also challenging you, you don't have to be negative about it, you simply need to make a statement. Oh wait, you can't. You lost your Communications Director.

My post on The Centrist OC says it all. In fact, it's likely the website was rushed to publishing by my blog's leaking of the details of Ed's labor union ATM withdrawal. Ed might win the primary now, but he is screwed in the general. Thanks for handing Dirty Gary another term.

Again, nobody on the blogosphere has suggested any way to beat Gary Miller, not even poor Ron Shepston who has so little to say on issues that the only thing his campaign has done is make demands for more investigations on Miller, which will likely never be conducted. The release itself was likely prompted by my observation on The Centrist OC that this race is barely a blip on the radar. Didn't anyone realize the primary is just over 2 months away?

I really thought I had found a winner in Ed. All he needed was a platform somewhat compatible with a red district, strategic exposure of Gary Miller's corruption, and a targeting of Republican women with education and health care issues (admittedly Ken Christensen's idea - boooo!), and it would have been game, set, match with even a few little extras; Ed's very articulate and I love to write inspirational speeches and debate; we could have had incredibly easy and fun debates.

Considering Democrats didn't even field a candidate in 2006, don't they want to seize on the anti-Republican backlash? Seriously, does anyone have a plan in this race?

SMS

PS: I tried to comment on Liberal OC this morning. I'm still banned. ROFL! Cowards!

Today on The Centrist OC: Truth about global warming irrelevant

Labels: , , , , , ,

|||6754709282662520249|||Ed Chau finally unveils new website; I reveal the truth.3/28/2008 10:32:00 PM|||Sarah Michelle Spinosa|||
Rolllng, rolling, rolling on nothing but propaganda.

One of the regrettable side-effects of being independent is that, well, you're usually alone. Unfortunately for me, that means calling out people that I like personally and I don't like to do that, but in the end I do what I must.

Andrew Davey is a real sweetheart as everyone knows, but he, like Dan C, is currently having a Big-Hack attack for Hillary. A while back, I may have even joined them. I have praised her many times and defended her in the past when I thought she deserved it, but I don't play that game. I'm about fairness. If my candidate screws up, I'm going to admit it.

That doesn't mean that I won't still be voting for her again since the other candidates seem to lack a vision for our future, but I also have no plans to contribute money or join her campaign. Ok, you caught me, maybe I'll get a bumper sticker, but that's about the most I can do when I've been presented with two very lame options and one that's merely questionable. So much for being the most exciting race of our lifetimes.

There is a second strike against Andrew: his post of a letter to all CYD by the San Francisco and Sonoma chapters begging for solidarity in making sure the 'endorsed' candidate in SD-3 receives his 'prize':

Mark Leno has received our endorsements because he has been a champion of Young Democrats for years, including a major effort to make the 2005 YDA by the Bay National Convention a reality, and earning CYDs 2006 Mentor of the Year Award. He has consistently reached out to Young Democrats and has been there for us any time that we have called on him.

In contrast, Senator Migden and her campaign have used their connections to implicitly threaten the jobs of numerous Young Democrats who supported Mark Leno. She and her staff have spoken ill of Young Democrats to numerous elected officials and other politically-involved people, including members of our own clubs. Rather than take the high road and accept the decisions of our clubs to endorse her opponent, she has instead gone out of her way to undermine the legitimacy of our organizations and, by extension, all Young Democrats.

So you kids want to herd your own members like sheep, but you accuse Senator Migden of attempting to control the CYD? This release states that Migden has in this way "undermine(d) the legitimacy of... all Young Democrats." News flash Andrew, the YDA embarrasses itself perpetually simply by being the kindergarten of Democratic politics with announcements like this. It essentially says that a majority should not rule. Tsk, tsk.

Like fashion shows to clothing and concept cars to the auto industry, the YDA are the experimental wing of the Democratic Party. They are nothing more than a collection of young idealists being used by the party big-wigs for wacko socialist ideas to be later refined into more mainstream policy. They often don't even receive credit where it's due. Their energy is also harnessed by campaigns for their so-called 'grunt work' (read: grassroots). Their members are zombies content to do the overlord's bidding. This year, that's overlord Dean to you!

They're essentially a PAC and PACs have agendas. So do blogs. 'Two great tastes that go great together.' Liberal OC should really just change it's name to Ocydblog.com for some truth in advertising because 'truthiness' isn't going to cut it as long as the OJ is around!

SMS


PS: In the 'Big-Hack attack' story, check out the comments in which Sean Mill goes after my arch enemy 'Commie Girl' Rebecca. Classic stuff! I'm pretty sure he hates my guts and yet his comments eerily reflect mine from about a month ago! Sa-weet!

On The Centrist OC: Democrats MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction)... and Sinbad?

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

|||2936143537297869897|||Hack wheel keep on turnin', Liberal OC keep on burning!