Friday, July 25, 2003
MICHAEL K. POWELL WON'T YOU DANCE WITH ME--400-21
MsRefusnik apologizes for not being here yesterday to celebrate with you all, but she was out partying her patooties off or whatever it is the kids say. I am thrilled by the 400-to-21 vote in the House of Representatives Wednesday that will keep the likes of Rupert Murdoch from owning enough television stations to reach 45 percent of American viewers. We watched this grassroots movement take place from the earliest telephone calls and e-mails, didn't we? I read in Mediareform.network that members of the FCC and Congress have received "an estimated 2.3 million communications from Americans," opposing the new rules on media ownership. Imagine what Bush got. I guess now I understand why he didn't answer my e-mail about this. Mediareform quotes Congressman Jay Inslee called it a "tsunami" of public pressure changing the course of Congress after years where the media companies' powerful lobbies just came in and took what they wanted with few objections.
So what now? Well, it really is too early to be celebrating I know, but I couldn't help it. Just thinking about all those Republicans crossing over to vote for what's right, regardless of what the boss wants, got me dancing in the street. I guess they're not as lockstep as I thought. Does this bode well for the election, or am I reading too much into it? I'm such a dreamer but it keeps me going.
But the realilty is the national TV cap was the least substantive rule change. We've got to change the rules on cross ownership and local TV consolidation. There is a "Resolution of Disapproval" that has strong support in the Senate, and then would come to the House. This would repeal all of the FCC rules.
We tried to do too much too fast perhaps. The Hinchey-Price-Inslee amendment asking for a full roll back lost. But it did receive a surprising 174 votes which included 34 Republicans, and this was more than people thought possible.
To see how your Representative voted on the Hinchley/Price/Inslee amendment, go to: http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2003&rollnumber=407
I'm in for the long haul, and I'm saying things are looking good for September. I also want to say, based on my gut feelings, the polls, and current events, that things are looking better for 2004. Now if the Dems would just get it together. I need someone to get behind and I just don't feel it. You know what I'm saying?
So What Do YOU Think? COMMENTS
MsRefusnik apologizes for not being here yesterday to celebrate with you all, but she was out partying her patooties off or whatever it is the kids say. I am thrilled by the 400-to-21 vote in the House of Representatives Wednesday that will keep the likes of Rupert Murdoch from owning enough television stations to reach 45 percent of American viewers. We watched this grassroots movement take place from the earliest telephone calls and e-mails, didn't we? I read in Mediareform.network that members of the FCC and Congress have received "an estimated 2.3 million communications from Americans," opposing the new rules on media ownership. Imagine what Bush got. I guess now I understand why he didn't answer my e-mail about this. Mediareform quotes Congressman Jay Inslee called it a "tsunami" of public pressure changing the course of Congress after years where the media companies' powerful lobbies just came in and took what they wanted with few objections.
So what now? Well, it really is too early to be celebrating I know, but I couldn't help it. Just thinking about all those Republicans crossing over to vote for what's right, regardless of what the boss wants, got me dancing in the street. I guess they're not as lockstep as I thought. Does this bode well for the election, or am I reading too much into it? I'm such a dreamer but it keeps me going.
But the realilty is the national TV cap was the least substantive rule change. We've got to change the rules on cross ownership and local TV consolidation. There is a "Resolution of Disapproval" that has strong support in the Senate, and then would come to the House. This would repeal all of the FCC rules.
We tried to do too much too fast perhaps. The Hinchey-Price-Inslee amendment asking for a full roll back lost. But it did receive a surprising 174 votes which included 34 Republicans, and this was more than people thought possible.
To see how your Representative voted on the Hinchley/Price/Inslee amendment, go to: http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2003&rollnumber=407
I'm in for the long haul, and I'm saying things are looking good for September. I also want to say, based on my gut feelings, the polls, and current events, that things are looking better for 2004. Now if the Dems would just get it together. I need someone to get behind and I just don't feel it. You know what I'm saying?
So What Do YOU Think? COMMENTS
Wednesday, July 23, 2003
STRANGE BEDFELLOWS INDEED
Things are getting back to normal now at the old blog now that the crowds have thinned. I've got on my old house slippers again, and I'm skipping the make-up. Whew, company's gone. What an odd group. Wouldn't any of them say why they were here but one.
I haven't gotten my e-mail reply from Bush, but then my question was about why would he want to veto any appropriations bill with FCC limitations--probably a sore spot right now. But good news for us. More on that in a minute.
The things I do for this blog. I just came from wandering the White House halls. Yeecch. The place smells funny number one. Everything is a big secret there too. I noticed they just had a poll on "Who plays the president best on tv and the movies?" I clicked for results and it said the poll was no longer available. I checked for results of past polls, and they were there including recent July polls, but not that one. I guess too many creative suggestions led to a poll we'll never see. Damn. I would have been interested in that. While I was there I also signed up for e-mail updates on topics like homeland security, terrorism, and, get this, the compassion agenda. What in hell could that possibly mean to them? I do it all for you. We have to know the enemy to make fun of the enemy. And to wage war against the latest attempts to steal our freedoms we have to know what's going on, right? So I'll be reading more propaganda straight from the chimp's puppet masters' writers.
Okay, what do the National Organization of Women, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, organizations representing Hollywood writers and independent producers, and the National Rifle Association all have in common with one another? None of them want to see the media companies be as large and powerful as they would be under the new rules passed June 2nd . And, too, I didn't even give the Jeopardy answer of "What has bipartisan support?"
The president has promised to veto a large spending bill if media caps were returned to what they were prior to the vote June 2nd. The House begins debate today on the very appropriations the president promised to veto. It contains a provision that would overturn the new, June 2nd, media ownership rules. There is broad bipartisan support for this measure.
We may be in for a heck of a good fight, according to at least one source. Yeah, this is what I'm talking 'bout.
Not that we haven't seen some things already. The White House gave written veto threats Tuesday. But it's unlikely that Bush is going to get his wish here, and that that it will stand that a single company be allowed 45% of local stations rather than 35%.
Sen. Judd Gregg (R., N.H.) called this "a bill too big to veto." But the growing fight over media ownership rules and the desertion by some Republicans to join with Democratic committee members to approve the measure in the legislation on the floor of the House tonight could eventually wind up with a veto confrontation between President Bush and his Republican-controlled Congress. And wouldn't that be fun ? We'll see what happens tonight. Stay tuned. More to follow.
If only there would be a grassroots movement like this when it comes time to boot him the hell out of office.
So What Do YOU Think? COMMENTS?
Things are getting back to normal now at the old blog now that the crowds have thinned. I've got on my old house slippers again, and I'm skipping the make-up. Whew, company's gone. What an odd group. Wouldn't any of them say why they were here but one.
I haven't gotten my e-mail reply from Bush, but then my question was about why would he want to veto any appropriations bill with FCC limitations--probably a sore spot right now. But good news for us. More on that in a minute.
The things I do for this blog. I just came from wandering the White House halls. Yeecch. The place smells funny number one. Everything is a big secret there too. I noticed they just had a poll on "Who plays the president best on tv and the movies?" I clicked for results and it said the poll was no longer available. I checked for results of past polls, and they were there including recent July polls, but not that one. I guess too many creative suggestions led to a poll we'll never see. Damn. I would have been interested in that. While I was there I also signed up for e-mail updates on topics like homeland security, terrorism, and, get this, the compassion agenda. What in hell could that possibly mean to them? I do it all for you. We have to know the enemy to make fun of the enemy. And to wage war against the latest attempts to steal our freedoms we have to know what's going on, right? So I'll be reading more propaganda straight from the chimp's puppet masters' writers.
Okay, what do the National Organization of Women, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, organizations representing Hollywood writers and independent producers, and the National Rifle Association all have in common with one another? None of them want to see the media companies be as large and powerful as they would be under the new rules passed June 2nd . And, too, I didn't even give the Jeopardy answer of "What has bipartisan support?"
The president has promised to veto a large spending bill if media caps were returned to what they were prior to the vote June 2nd. The House begins debate today on the very appropriations the president promised to veto. It contains a provision that would overturn the new, June 2nd, media ownership rules. There is broad bipartisan support for this measure.
We may be in for a heck of a good fight, according to at least one source. Yeah, this is what I'm talking 'bout.
Not that we haven't seen some things already. The White House gave written veto threats Tuesday. But it's unlikely that Bush is going to get his wish here, and that that it will stand that a single company be allowed 45% of local stations rather than 35%.
Sen. Judd Gregg (R., N.H.) called this "a bill too big to veto." But the growing fight over media ownership rules and the desertion by some Republicans to join with Democratic committee members to approve the measure in the legislation on the floor of the House tonight could eventually wind up with a veto confrontation between President Bush and his Republican-controlled Congress. And wouldn't that be fun ? We'll see what happens tonight. Stay tuned. More to follow.
If only there would be a grassroots movement like this when it comes time to boot him the hell out of office.
So What Do YOU Think? COMMENTS?
Monday, July 21, 2003
WHY YOU DON'T SLEEP
AMONG THE ODD SEARCHES THAT BRING PEOPLE HERE, LIKE TONIGHT'S 'KAZOO XP DRIVERS PROBLEMS,' THERE ARE USUALLY SOME DESPERATE PEOPLE LOOKING FOR TIPS ON HOW TO SLEEP THEMSELVES OR PUTTING THE KIDS TO BED. ALTHOUGH I HAVE EXPLAINED THAT MY NOT SLEEPING AT NIGHT IS A PREFERENCE, AND THIS BLOG REALLY ISN'T ABOUT SLEEPING AT ALL, I DO FEEL I SHOULD HAVE SOMETHING WAITING FOR THE PEOPLE THE SEARCH ENGINES SEND HERE. AND SO I AM BRINGING ENOUGH INFORMATION TO KEEP THEM READING, TAKING QUIZZES, WATCHING TUTORIALS AND LOOKING AT SLIDE SHOWS ABOUT SLEEP DISORDERS ALL THE SLEEPLESS NIGHT. BUT HOPEFULLY THEY'LL FIND SOME ANSWERS, AND WON'T GET TO IT ALL. THERE ARE ALTERNATIVE THERAPIES, INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE NATIONAL SLEEP FOUNDATION, A GUIDE TO FINDING SLEEP SERVICES IN YOUR COMMUNITY, INFORMATION ON SLEEP DISORDERS IN CHILDREN, TEENS, WOMEN AND SENIORS; AND MORE LINKS TO MORE RESOURCES. THERE'S A LOT HERE.
I FOUND ALL THIS WONDERFUL INFORMATION IN ONE PLACE THANKS TO THE RESOURCE SHELF, WHICH DOES HAVE AN EXCELLENT SEARCH FEATURE AS IT TURNS OUT. SO GET READY TO LEARN ABOUT WHY YOU CAN'T SLEEP.
So What Do YOU Think? COMMENTS?
Don't think I haven't notice the paintball ads above. For two days now it's been mostly paintball ads. I'm not laughing.
I'm still trying to figure out why you're all here. And I'm still going crazy trying to get comments that work. This morning I told Jonathan from Enetation that I would gladly donate, if he could just come and fix the comments. He did come--all the way from the UK--and I forgot that I had ripped most of it out. There wasn't enough to work with. He'll need to make the trip again, and without the Concord too. I went and donated $14 to Paypal-- after just telling Yariv at BackBlog that there was no way I was paying anything for comments when there are so many free comment services. But he was trying to scam me.
So I will have comments maybe by tomorrow. I hope Jonathan will not just send the code but put it in. I gave him the password to my blog. I am tired of code. If I could figure out code I would put MP3 links on my website to play songs on winamp when you clicked on a word. That's what I would like to do. I had a beautiful surprise in one of my favorite blogs, Semi Compos Mentis the other day. When you click go to the first link--Rainbow--in Thursday, July 17th. I love it! I always wanted that. She is my hero. What a blog that is. She has everything for everybody.
Get this. All this pandering for comments has netted me two comments. It was all worth it because of one of them. More on that in a minute. But get this: I have had this, my first computer, for approximately three months. I don't know how to put a link on the quick launch or find the clipboard, no less use it. Here is the e-mail I received. I didn't laugh at the poor lady. But if you check out her web site, and rabid Republican writing, you can see why she might be paranoid:
Subj: hacked?
Date: 7/20/2003 6:22:56 PM Central Standard Time
From: joanne@joannejacobs.com
To: MsRefusnik@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
When I call up my site -- JoanneJacobs.com -- I get "I Don't Sleep at
Night" instead.
???????
-- Joanne Jacobs
www.joannejacobs.com
I was very nice and wrote her back about the impossibility of my hijacking her site or anyone's site. She wrote me back that she used to think "computers were science. I now know they are witchcraft."
So that was one of the two interesting comments I got out of all the hundreds of commentless people who passed through the website.
The other comment, from a man named Dale, made it all worthwhile--including the nights I've been here till 4:00 a.m. researching and writing, and the next day only had three readers.
I expected so much women-bashing from missing links and neanderthals, and instead I got this beautiful e-mail complimenting my blog and my prose. So now I'm drunk on flattery. I think Jonathan better come quick with the comments. If I got a letter like this with jerry-rigged comments, think what I might catch with a professional comment service just like downtown. I'm mad with power. Thank you Dale. I will work longer, harder, now. I have a positive reader.
That's about it for tonight. I'm too busy checking my stats over at Blogpatrol to see how many people are coming in every hour. It's amazing. But that doesn't mean my number one search draw isn't still packing them in every day. Old faithful--the perennial eplpdx02--is still a favorite. And, by the way, I am still not receiving any errors about mine. It's there and it's working quietly. I just checked it. These days most of what my event log gives me is information instead of errors.
If people wrote me comments I'd know if I helped some of them fix their eplpdx02 driver, but I'm left to wonder. I should guess used to it I guess. I'm Irish and we Irish like to fantasize about our wakes. When I was younger I, of course, imagined the hysterical sobbing and gnashing of teeth befitting a loss like myself. Now as I age into an old curmudgeon, I have to hope my family skips the whole ordeal. Because if they don't, people will just SIT there. I would hate for them to just sit there. Then maybe one or two would get up and say to one of my sisters, "She was sure a character." What a noble obituary. Not fair. I want a do-over. I want nice comment sheets filled out at that wake, and I want them mailed to me wherever I might be. There must be something nice they could say. I didn't torture animals, and I never killed anyone. Come on.
So What Do YOU Think? COMMENTS?
I'm still trying to figure out why you're all here. And I'm still going crazy trying to get comments that work. This morning I told Jonathan from Enetation that I would gladly donate, if he could just come and fix the comments. He did come--all the way from the UK--and I forgot that I had ripped most of it out. There wasn't enough to work with. He'll need to make the trip again, and without the Concord too. I went and donated $14 to Paypal-- after just telling Yariv at BackBlog that there was no way I was paying anything for comments when there are so many free comment services. But he was trying to scam me.
So I will have comments maybe by tomorrow. I hope Jonathan will not just send the code but put it in. I gave him the password to my blog. I am tired of code. If I could figure out code I would put MP3 links on my website to play songs on winamp when you clicked on a word. That's what I would like to do. I had a beautiful surprise in one of my favorite blogs, Semi Compos Mentis the other day. When you click go to the first link--Rainbow--in Thursday, July 17th. I love it! I always wanted that. She is my hero. What a blog that is. She has everything for everybody.
Get this. All this pandering for comments has netted me two comments. It was all worth it because of one of them. More on that in a minute. But get this: I have had this, my first computer, for approximately three months. I don't know how to put a link on the quick launch or find the clipboard, no less use it. Here is the e-mail I received. I didn't laugh at the poor lady. But if you check out her web site, and rabid Republican writing, you can see why she might be paranoid:
Subj: hacked?
Date: 7/20/2003 6:22:56 PM Central Standard Time
From: joanne@joannejacobs.com
To: MsRefusnik@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
When I call up my site -- JoanneJacobs.com -- I get "I Don't Sleep at
Night" instead.
???????
-- Joanne Jacobs
www.joannejacobs.com
I was very nice and wrote her back about the impossibility of my hijacking her site or anyone's site. She wrote me back that she used to think "computers were science. I now know they are witchcraft."
So that was one of the two interesting comments I got out of all the hundreds of commentless people who passed through the website.
The other comment, from a man named Dale, made it all worthwhile--including the nights I've been here till 4:00 a.m. researching and writing, and the next day only had three readers.
I expected so much women-bashing from missing links and neanderthals, and instead I got this beautiful e-mail complimenting my blog and my prose. So now I'm drunk on flattery. I think Jonathan better come quick with the comments. If I got a letter like this with jerry-rigged comments, think what I might catch with a professional comment service just like downtown. I'm mad with power. Thank you Dale. I will work longer, harder, now. I have a positive reader.
That's about it for tonight. I'm too busy checking my stats over at Blogpatrol to see how many people are coming in every hour. It's amazing. But that doesn't mean my number one search draw isn't still packing them in every day. Old faithful--the perennial eplpdx02--is still a favorite. And, by the way, I am still not receiving any errors about mine. It's there and it's working quietly. I just checked it. These days most of what my event log gives me is information instead of errors.
If people wrote me comments I'd know if I helped some of them fix their eplpdx02 driver, but I'm left to wonder. I should guess used to it I guess. I'm Irish and we Irish like to fantasize about our wakes. When I was younger I, of course, imagined the hysterical sobbing and gnashing of teeth befitting a loss like myself. Now as I age into an old curmudgeon, I have to hope my family skips the whole ordeal. Because if they don't, people will just SIT there. I would hate for them to just sit there. Then maybe one or two would get up and say to one of my sisters, "She was sure a character." What a noble obituary. Not fair. I want a do-over. I want nice comment sheets filled out at that wake, and I want them mailed to me wherever I might be. There must be something nice they could say. I didn't torture animals, and I never killed anyone. Come on.
So What Do YOU Think? COMMENTS?
Sunday, July 20, 2003
I AM TRYING TO GET MY COMMENTS TO WORK BECAUSE NO ONE IS USING THE ONES UP IN THE RIGHT-HAND CORNER, AND I VERY MUCH WANT TO KNOW WHAT THIS SUDDEN INTEREST IN MY HUMBLE BLOG IS ALL ABOUT. I VERY MUCH WANT TO BELIEVE, AND THIS IS BASED ON HOW THIS BLOG'S LISTINGS ARE WRITTEN IN THE SEARCH ENGINES, THAT PEOPLE WANT THE E-MAIL ADDRESSES OF THE SOULLESS PERVERTS RESPONSIBLE FOR HUNTING FOR BAMBI, AS WELL AS THOSE FOR THE GOVERNOR OF NEVADA AND THE MAYOR OF LAS VEGAS ALONG WITH VARIOUS OTHER LAS VEGAS POLITICIANS. I WROTE QUITE A FEW MYSELF. THE ONE I WROTE TO MICHAEL BURDICK, THE HEAD SICKO BEHIND THIS VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN, CAME BACK. I ADDRESSED IT TO BAMBI@HUNTINGFORBAMBI.COM. PERHAPS HE HAS TURNED HIS E-MAIL OFF BECAUSE HE IS GETTING OVERLOADED. THAT THOUGHT CHEERS ME.
BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN KNOWN TO BE SOMETHING OF A CYNIC ABOUT HUMAN NATURE, I HAVE HAD THE AWFUL THOUGHT THAT PERHAPS THE SUDDEN BOOST IN READERS WAS DUE TO PEOPLE LOOKING FOR SLEAZY TIDBITS. IF THEY'RE LOOKING FOR THAT VIDEO THAT WAS AROUND, PRESSURE FROM HEALTHY, NORMAL PEOPLE HAS ALREADY MADE THEM TAKE THAT OUT OF CIRCULATION AND IT'S NOT HERE EITHER.
BUT I DO THINK IT WAS QUITE CLEAR FROM THE LISTINGS IN YAHOO, AOL, AND GOOGLE WHERE I STOOD ON THIS ISSUE, AND I AM NOW GOING TO RIG UP SOME E-MAIL COMMENTS SO I CAN HEAR FROM OTHER LIKE-MINDED PEOPLE WHO ARE AS DISGUSTED AND OUTRAGED BY THIS WHOLE THING AS I AM. I BELIEVE WE CAN PUT A QUICK STOP TO HUNTING FOR BAMBI.
So What Do YOU Think? COMMENTS?
BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN KNOWN TO BE SOMETHING OF A CYNIC ABOUT HUMAN NATURE, I HAVE HAD THE AWFUL THOUGHT THAT PERHAPS THE SUDDEN BOOST IN READERS WAS DUE TO PEOPLE LOOKING FOR SLEAZY TIDBITS. IF THEY'RE LOOKING FOR THAT VIDEO THAT WAS AROUND, PRESSURE FROM HEALTHY, NORMAL PEOPLE HAS ALREADY MADE THEM TAKE THAT OUT OF CIRCULATION AND IT'S NOT HERE EITHER.
BUT I DO THINK IT WAS QUITE CLEAR FROM THE LISTINGS IN YAHOO, AOL, AND GOOGLE WHERE I STOOD ON THIS ISSUE, AND I AM NOW GOING TO RIG UP SOME E-MAIL COMMENTS SO I CAN HEAR FROM OTHER LIKE-MINDED PEOPLE WHO ARE AS DISGUSTED AND OUTRAGED BY THIS WHOLE THING AS I AM. I BELIEVE WE CAN PUT A QUICK STOP TO HUNTING FOR BAMBI.
So What Do YOU Think? COMMENTS?
