...from otherworldly fabric.
The Union reporter Josh Singer has an interesting story today
(since picked up by Talking Points Memo - Josh, you done good)
in which the Nevada County Republican Party Chairman and one other Party member defend John and Julie Doolittle's implementation of campaign finance.
(money quote, so to speak: "'As long as it's legal', it's ethical")
Perhaps even more interesting than the article is the headline The Union gave it: not "We located two active Nevada County Republicans (both Party apparachiks) who were willing to go on the record supporting Doolittle; neither holds public office"*
but rather
"County leaders rally around Doolittle."
It's like taking a "Climate in the Sierras is changing and boy are we screwed unless we change our ways now" story and titling it
"Mixed message on Sierra climate change".
Or like Tuesday's changing of a Washington Post article's title from
Donations for a Congressman, Profits for His Wife
to
Doolittle's wife sets up 'legal and ethical' fundraising firm.
Fascinating.
Whodunit, and why? Enquiring minds want to know.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Welcome, and thanks for caring enough to donate your time and thoughts toward greater collective wisdom...
Terms of engagement:
* Please be civil.
* * * * Please do not post anonymously * * * (I'd remove this choice if I could, and I may remove your comment if you do) - instead, do this:
Click on the 'Name/URL' radiobutton, then enter your real name (if you're brave) or a pseudonym (if you're not). (You can leave the "URL" field blank.)
Or go ahead and click "Anonymous", but put your name in your comment.
* The Management reserves the right to delete comments (Moderation Certificate can be found here). You can always post it on a blog of your own.
If you run into technical difficulties, please a) accept my apologies, then b) email your comment to aherror2011 at gmail.com with "Comment for [name of this blog]" in the Subject line.
New policy re climate contrarianism comments as of 11/11/2009:
Comments questioning the climate science community's understanding of climate change (97% of active climatologists now believe that the earth is currently warming and that it's human-caused - link) will be deleted unless the commenter:
a) is local
b) uses his real name
c) provides link(s) to substantiate his claim(s)/inference(s)
d) is willing to collaborate on constructing an argument tree, to get us past the usual sterile point-counterpoint-countercounterpoint.
(For people who can't read the above, a summary:
1) Be civil;
2) Don't post w/o giving at least a pseudonym;
3) Don't espouse climate-denial crankery unless you're local and willing to stand behind it.)
Caveats:
1. Comments could be delayed: they are being moderated, and I'm sometimes away from the computer for a day or more.
2. : Perfectly legitimate comments are sometimes miscategorized (by the blogging platform) as spam, & not published. If this happens to yours, please notify me, else I might not notice for a day or two.