What? The Huffington Post? But I thought they were supposed to be the good guys. They're good as long as you cow tow to their Spanish Inquisition tactics when you have something to say about one of their articles. I suppose at this point you are wondering what the heck I'm talking about?
It all started this morning when I got up and checked the front page of the Huffington Post to see that Newt Gingrich may not have the money to actually run for President (Wow Newt- way to show you have fiscal management skills). In addition to this interesting headline was another one directly involving my congressional critter, Darrell Issa. Those of you who know me better know I have a plethora of pet names for him, including Darrell Issa-hole and Darrell the Douche. However, now the company he founded and is still on the board of directors apparently hasn't been paying the tariffs on the products they are having manufactured in China. Of course I, never at a loss for the written word, wrote the following comment:
"As one of Sir Douche-a-lot's constituents, I can't tell you how corrupt this guy is. In addition, he outsourced thousands of jobs in his district to China. Furthermore, if you go to the web page, it will claim that the products are made in the U.S.A!!! Why would anyone vote for this guy?"
Unfortunately, my comment never got published (which has become a daily occurrence for me- at least one or several of my comments will not be published with no explanation). However, with this one I pressed it up. I wrote them a note asking for the explanation why it was denied. I received a response from Stephanie H., User Support Specialist, Huffington Publications. This was Stephanie's reply:
"This particular comment is unacceptable because you use the pejorative nickname of 'Sir Douche-a-Lot' to refer to Rep. Issa. This name calling is unacceptable and does not contribute to the dialog. If you were to resubmit it with his name or anything other than insulting name calling, the comment would likely be approved."
Now I could understand if I used profanity and even if I name called another reader, but referring to a public figure in a satirical way? Really? What gets me most about this is that the Huffington Post makes money off of First Amendment rights and yet denies those same rights to other people!! In addition, if I were someone like Bill Maher or Jon Stewart and used this name, they would have printed it. This is selective censorship coming from a company that calls itself a "communications" company. In my book this makes them not very much different from Fox News.
And if you look at my comment I call Darrell Issa corrupt. But they aren't upset about that name, but rather the name Sir Douche-a-lot! That's like going to a movie and seeing a woman get killed and being upset because you saw her breast. Seriously? I was starting to think that the Huffington Post was a credible news organization after being fairly skeptical about it for a year or so now. Now I find this!
A credible news organization would realize that the point of the comment was very important- namely that this guy is no good and doesn't really give two hoots about his district, constituents or even the integrity of the position he holds. I hope that everyone will keep that in mind before linking to any of their stories. Arianna, is this what AOL has done to you?
Showing posts with label Darrell Issa. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Darrell Issa. Show all posts
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Monday, October 18, 2010
Meg Whitman is a Weak Quitter.
Meg Whitman tries to represent herself as a true leader with the stuff to get California out of its economic woes. She's going to stand up to those politicians and special interest groups that have brought us down and will bring California back to its heyday. I have a few problems with all this and serious doubts about her ability to get this done due to her work record and her ability to be a democratic leader.
While it's true that she's quit most of the jobs she's been at, what troubles me the most is when she was on the Board of Directors at Goldman Sachs. It was during the time when she was making money off of insider deals in a practice called "spinning." At the time this was not illegal (it is now), but did create a conflict of interest while she was also serving as CEO of Ebay. Soon after the SEC started investigating her involvement in this practice is when she resigned her position with Goldman Sachs. In her autobiography she stated that she resigned from the Board because Paulson, then the CEO of Goldman Sachs, wanted people on the board who were just going to "rubber stamp" his plans and she wasn't willing to do that. This is very interesting to me since I always thought that it was the Board's job to make sure that the CEO couldn't have his/her plans just "rubber stamped." I thought they were the people who protected the interests of the stockholders. Isn't that why the CEO can't fire these people?
What really bothers me about this is that Ms. Whitman wasn't even willing to TRY and stand up to Paulson. She just quit. If she is supposed to be the person we in California will be depending on to stand up to the legislature and special interest groups but she was too weak to stand up to one CEO, then what makes her think that she can take on the groups of people and stand up to them. Her own record shows that she will back down or quit, like she always has.
I also have problems with Politicians who buy their own political seats. I didn't used to until I moved to the 49th Congressional district of California. My congressional representative, Darrell Issa, is the richest man in congress. When I call his office and say "Hi. My name is Rena Marrocco..." I get hung up on before I get a chance to say what I'm calling about. Now I pay taxes like everyone else in that district, and yet this is the representation I get. I think this is called "taxation without representation." Mr. Issa can do this because he doesn't need to answer to any of his constituents since he pays for his own seat each election cycle. This is exactly what I worry about from Meg Whitman. By buying their seats, these ultra rich people are able to practice a form of Oligarchical Imperialism, which leaves them free to ignore their constituents. This is exactly what Darrell Issa does (he votes with his party 95% of the time, abstains 2% which means that he only votes against his party 3% of the time- even though a full 55% of his constituents are NOT Republicans) and definitely what Meg Whitman will do too.
However, we the people still hold the ultimate key to democracy: the vote. If we just don't vote for the ultra rich, we can and will stop this trend. When someone touts themselves as a "business person," it doesn't always qualify them to be a good political leader. Sometimes it works out, but more often then not, in order to be a good business person, you have to be a good dictator. You have to do what's best for the business which isn't what's best for the employees and what's best for your customer base. Customer bases aren't everyone (unless you run a mortuary). They are a specific group of people that you have tailored your product and your image to. Which is why someone like Darrell Issa isn't able to "represent." He has tailored his representation to a few people- Republicans. As a business person you learn that you don't waste time and money trying to get someone who has no need for your product to buy your product. For example, insurance agents don't try to sell homeowners insurance to people who live in apartments. The problems is that democracy isn't and shouldn't be a commodity. The problem is that business leaders only know how to lead as if it is.
Meg Whitman has done nothing to prove to me that she will do anything more than put another nail in the coffin of democracy if she's elected. It is our job to stop her. On November 2, 2010, vote anyone but but Meg.
While it's true that she's quit most of the jobs she's been at, what troubles me the most is when she was on the Board of Directors at Goldman Sachs. It was during the time when she was making money off of insider deals in a practice called "spinning." At the time this was not illegal (it is now), but did create a conflict of interest while she was also serving as CEO of Ebay. Soon after the SEC started investigating her involvement in this practice is when she resigned her position with Goldman Sachs. In her autobiography she stated that she resigned from the Board because Paulson, then the CEO of Goldman Sachs, wanted people on the board who were just going to "rubber stamp" his plans and she wasn't willing to do that. This is very interesting to me since I always thought that it was the Board's job to make sure that the CEO couldn't have his/her plans just "rubber stamped." I thought they were the people who protected the interests of the stockholders. Isn't that why the CEO can't fire these people?
What really bothers me about this is that Ms. Whitman wasn't even willing to TRY and stand up to Paulson. She just quit. If she is supposed to be the person we in California will be depending on to stand up to the legislature and special interest groups but she was too weak to stand up to one CEO, then what makes her think that she can take on the groups of people and stand up to them. Her own record shows that she will back down or quit, like she always has.
I also have problems with Politicians who buy their own political seats. I didn't used to until I moved to the 49th Congressional district of California. My congressional representative, Darrell Issa, is the richest man in congress. When I call his office and say "Hi. My name is Rena Marrocco..." I get hung up on before I get a chance to say what I'm calling about. Now I pay taxes like everyone else in that district, and yet this is the representation I get. I think this is called "taxation without representation." Mr. Issa can do this because he doesn't need to answer to any of his constituents since he pays for his own seat each election cycle. This is exactly what I worry about from Meg Whitman. By buying their seats, these ultra rich people are able to practice a form of Oligarchical Imperialism, which leaves them free to ignore their constituents. This is exactly what Darrell Issa does (he votes with his party 95% of the time, abstains 2% which means that he only votes against his party 3% of the time- even though a full 55% of his constituents are NOT Republicans) and definitely what Meg Whitman will do too.
However, we the people still hold the ultimate key to democracy: the vote. If we just don't vote for the ultra rich, we can and will stop this trend. When someone touts themselves as a "business person," it doesn't always qualify them to be a good political leader. Sometimes it works out, but more often then not, in order to be a good business person, you have to be a good dictator. You have to do what's best for the business which isn't what's best for the employees and what's best for your customer base. Customer bases aren't everyone (unless you run a mortuary). They are a specific group of people that you have tailored your product and your image to. Which is why someone like Darrell Issa isn't able to "represent." He has tailored his representation to a few people- Republicans. As a business person you learn that you don't waste time and money trying to get someone who has no need for your product to buy your product. For example, insurance agents don't try to sell homeowners insurance to people who live in apartments. The problems is that democracy isn't and shouldn't be a commodity. The problem is that business leaders only know how to lead as if it is.
Meg Whitman has done nothing to prove to me that she will do anything more than put another nail in the coffin of democracy if she's elected. It is our job to stop her. On November 2, 2010, vote anyone but but Meg.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)