This is Karoli's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Karoli's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Karoli
California
Mom of 2 responsible adults and 1 responsible almost-adult. Lifelong Democrat using my activist voice. Living hopeful and vocal.
Interests: Community, photography, art, music, and of course, progressive politics.
Recent Activity
Donna, they don't but assume the parents are True Believers. They'll get just enough of a taste of it to start the road toward becoming True Believers themselves.
Toggle Commented Jun 14, 2011 on Tea Party Summer Camp? Seriously? at MOMocrats™
As one who in better days was paid to manage health professionals who blogged for a large health website and who has been on the internet for a very long time, I see a very big difference between a person who is a health professional and a blogger/tweeter and a person who is a health professional online to dispense information to readers. As I see it, @mommy_doctor fell into the former category. Many professionals use social media anonymously in order to protect their patients and their families. It's not unheard of and certainly not unethical. Speaking as a mom and as a blogger who heavily utilizes Twitter, I regret shedding my pseudonym. It constrains me from speaking freely, not because I am afraid of what it will do to *me*, but what it will do to my colleagues and family, who do not share my political viewpoints. Particularly family. As I sit here today, I can tell you that they have not gone unscathed. There are people online who have researched their names, their friends' names, my unrelated business and clients to that business. They have published my home address, my business address, my home phone number, and encouraged harassment. This is all very real and unfair to those unfortunate enough to be related to me. Should I give up my voice because there are bullies out there? Is my information more reliable because I use my first name? (And yes, that really is my first name. I protect my last name though it's pretty easy to find when you search on my first name). Anonymity doesn't shield the person. It shields others that person cares about. The minute you say anything on the internet, you own it, regardless of what name one uses. So frankly, I find it rather disturbing that someone's voice has been silenced because they chose to protect their family. Very disturbing, actually.
Karoli is now following Donna
Jan 7, 2011
Hi Donna, Great roundup. Here's a link to a post on Shirley Sherrod, since I mentioned it in the show today...http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/what-did-breitbart-know-and-when-did-he-kno
Dear Concerned Citizen, Your threats do not frighten me. All information was taken from public documents. There is no evidence whatsoever that those donations were solicited by the schools in question, but even if they were, there is a meta decision that needed to be considered: If I give to one school, do I give to all schools? Or do I choose? Or what? None of those things happened that I can see. FEC records are available for anyone to see. A no-bid contract was awarded to one of Gallegly's highest contributors, via a Gallegly earmark. Quid pro quo? I don't know. I only know that a bit of my taxpayer money paid for devices that were not requested, were not subject to competitive bid, and went to a company whose CEO is a high-dollar Gallegly supporter. Further, other than taking a stand for animals, Gallegly has done nothing in 24 years. nothing. Zero.
Megaprops for this one. It is one I'm going to send around to some friends of mine. :)
Malignant narcissism defines it perfectly. Exactly right.
Thank you for this. It is exactly what we need to hear, and your list at the end is awesome.
Also...to Lawyer Mama -- I wouldn't say I'm running from the term, per se. I just tend to resist "isms" as a general rule. It's the contrarian in me.
Jill, I agree with you 100% It is an old, stale topic, and it's really a cynical effort to take aim at the moms out there who have been identified as a big, hot market. They're trying to tap into the mom instinct, not because they really care that much about moms, but because they see them as a 'political profit center'. To all who objected to my framing around patriarchy, please know it was in response to her remarks. It distracted from the focus of the post, so I removed it. I do not believe that women who set a goal to end patriarchy hate men. Dana does, though. It was clumsily framed on my part.
"The Apple-Google face-off in mobile might run out of steam should the carriers find it prohibitive to finance the buildout of broadband necessary to avoid prioritization." What prohibitive? Billions from the federal government to build it out are prohibitive? Really? The government freeing up a few more bands is somehow prohibitive how? The bullshit is Verizon and the rest of them holding the Internet hostage while Google gladhands 'em. I can almost see Google winking behind Verizon's back at the rabble, saying "Don't worry, I know what I'm doing..." but in the end, they'll do the deal because Verizon is their phone pimp. As is AT&T. And Sprint. And every other backbone out there.
Toggle Commented Aug 13, 2010 on Bait and Switch at The Cloud
Wow. Thank you for sharing that -- I would never have known. You're right...you do an excellent job of masking, but I'm glad you are pushing back and doing what you love. Thank you again.
Toggle Commented Jul 29, 2010 on Four Years at Twenty Four At Heart
The hay thing doesn't work...the hay gets too heavy with water and oil and sinks, keeping the oil in the ocean.
1 reply
yeah, the Governor vetoed 2 of them, but...they're only one vote shy in the state senate of overriding it. overrides are a slam-dunk in the House. Senate needs 36 for override, they passed 35-11. Suppose they won't work to recruit that one extra vote?
It's funny...I've also been considering withdrawing from their network for entirely different reasons. I hate having to live with the "we are the only graphical ad you can have above the fold" rule. For the $25 a month in a good month, I'm wondering if it's worth it. Dunno...still mulling. Oh, and you ARE a writer. It's why I started (and continue to) read your blog all the time!
1 reply
I removed the most recent comment by Pork Roll as spam. It's a common tactic to troll topics like this with redundant, repetitive assertions that are intended to shut down all other conversation. My suggestion to Pork Roll is that he/she blog it themselves on their own blog. Comment areas are for comments, not a treatise on one's magical interpretation of the Constitution.
Pork Roll, you're going to have to do better than stomping your feet and saying everyone's wrong and hard, solid evidence is a fabrication. That's just magical thinking that even unicorns run away from.
Glenn, See Patrick's discussion above. It clearly outlines the definitions and existing law.
While I respect your loyalty to the Nader Purity Corps, Im afraid the courts simply do not agree with you on this one, nor does the law square with the courts interpretations of it. Yes, theres an effort to poke at enough courts in the hope that one might find one willing to step outside the law and interpret the phrase natural-born as stepping back one generation, but for the most part, its really just an effort to de-legitimize and weaken the President. SCOTUS has already declined to hear arguments, so its a windmill-tilt, which is something Nader is exceptionally good at.
Shawn, some truly see health care as something you either deserve, or you don't. Trying to explain risk pooling to them is a little like shoving an elephant through a padlocked door. You might penetrate but it won't stick.
Good point on the accident coverage. I've got a whole passel of other complaints when I re-open tomorrow. I'll include that scenario in the answers.
Insurance companies are barring me, Kevin. They tell me I cant buy their product. Im not privileged enough to have undamaged children.
Kevin, are you suggesting that I should be barred from purchase of a product available on the open market? How...un-free-enterprise-y of you.
Kevin, I specifically said "the right to pay for health insurance". I did not say health care. I said health insurance. You have just illustrated the bankrupt hypocrisy which inspired this post.
Kevin, It really comes down to this: you believe its perfectly acceptable to restrict my right to pay for health insurance because my son, who I chose to have and committed to supporting while paying taxes and owning my own business, happens to have a condition which he was born with and insurers exclude him for. Theres some liberty for ya. True American values there, pal. Sent from my iPhone