If it was off the record, it is incredibly irresponsible - if not completely unethical - for that reporter to broadcast it in any capacity.
Yes, yes it was.
@gedavids: Kanye interrupted Taylor Swift's VMA acceptance speech to tell the whole world that Beyonce's video was better. It was ridiculous. You can find clips of it on Youtube, but you have to keep digging. It has given birth to perhaps one of the funniest memes to come around in a while. A word of warning: I'm sure a lot of what's on that site is NSFW, so it's best viewed at home.
Just like with lawyers and doctors, their are certain codes of ethics that professionals adhere to without being required to by law. While I hate to use Wikipedia as a source, off the record does exist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_sourcing -I am having trouble making a link for some reason) :
"Off-the-record": the information is provided to inform a decision or provide a confidential explanation, not for publication. However, confusion over the precise meaning of "unattributable" and "off-the-record" has led to more detailed formulations:
"Chatham House Rule(s)": so called after Chatham House (the Royal Institute of International Affairs) which first introduced the rule in 1927, now in widespread use: "When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed." "Lobby Terms"[4]: in the UK accredited journalists are allowed in to the otherwise restricted Members' Lobby on the basis that information received there is never attributed and events there are not reported. "Lobby terms" are agreed to extend this arrangement to cover discussions that take place elsewhere. "Not for attribution" (as described by the Canadian Association of Journalists). The comments may be quoted directly, but the source may only be identified in general terms (e.g., "a government insider"). In practice such general descriptions may be agreed with the interviewee. "On background" (Canadian Association of Journalists). The thrust of the briefing may be reported (and the source characterized in general terms as above) but direct quotes may not be used. "Deep background" This term is used in the U.S., though not consistently. Most journalists would understand "deep background" to mean that the information may not be included in the article but is used by the journalist to enhance his or her view of the subject matter, or to act as a guide to other leads or sources. Most deep background information is confirmed elsewhere before being reported.
Since you are vouching for the article (at least to some extent) I will look it over when I am home.
I wouldn't go quite that far. OpenLeft is normally way too left for me, and this case was no exception. I paid way more attention to the AP article just because of that. As Pete said earlier, though, it's going to have an official hearing before going anywhere, so hopefully my concerns will be quelled as that happens.
Except that a lot of those people amount to more than should be owing to advantages in socio-economic standings or beauty. Sarah Palin is a perfect examples of a "nothing" achieving more than she had any logical right to achieve.
A U.S. District Court Judge dismissed the most recent birther nonsense. Here is the Order. It's worth a read-through because it's very snarky, speaks to the burden of proof, and warns the lawyer that, if she tries to pull this type of crap in this particular court again, she will likely be hit with sanctions.
A U.S. District Court Judgedismissedthe most recent birther nonsense.Here is the Order.It's worth a read-through because it's very snarky, speaks to the burden of proof, and warns the lawyer that, if she tries to pull this type of crap in this particular court again, she will likely be hit with sanctions.
From the Order:
Unlike in Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so.
Please provide a reasonable resize for larger images. I think Orly (I always think of the owl when I see her name) is either really dumb or is purposefully filing lawsuits intended to fail. She is also the poster girl for forcing lawyers to pay all costs associated with their case when they fail.
I enjoy the part where the judge slams her for the conclusory allegations, followed by:
Any middle school civics student would readily recognize the irony of abandoning fundamental principles upon which our Country was founded in order to purportedly “protect preserve” those very principles.
followed later by:
Unlike in Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so.
Additionally, I wonder what the wargarbling masses of tea-baggers would have said about someone pulling a similar maneuver as this under the last president.
She is also the poster girl for forcing lawyers to pay all costs associated with their case when they fail.
...I hope you mean when they fail from being retarded. Losing a case in court is not the same thing as failing to understand basic requirements for a cause of action.
She is also the poster girl for forcing lawyers to pay all costs associated with their case when they fail.
...I hope you mean when they fail from being retarded. Losing a case in court is not the same thing as failing to understand basic requirements for a cause of action.
Indeed. If anything, she's the poster girl for absolutely ruining the credibility of your cause. Granted, the birther movement really has no credibility in the first place, but this woman seems hellbent on wrecking whatever scraps of credibility they may have had.
Yeah, let's just point out how Obama is just like Bush... Oh, wait a minute, Bush did have 47 czars but they were over the course of 8 years and many of them served in a position that was vacated by a previous czar. Contrast this with Obama who currently has 28 (29 if you count Van Jones) czars of which only 9 were confirmed by Congress (21 for Bush).
Wikipedia has a nice article on US Executive Branch Czars from which we can see that though Bush had 46 czars over the course of 8 years filling 31 jobs Obama already has 35 czars filling 32 jobs.
So, seeing the ad above I can't help but wonder who is the target audience? Does the DNC really want to draw a comparison that Obama is Bush's third term? Are they saying Bush ain't so bad? Are they trying to justify Obama's czars by pointing to the hated GWB?
Note: The Politico article and wikipedia do not agree on their numbers exactly but they are pretty close.I used politico numbers in the first paragraph and wikipedia numbers in the second. If there is a more accurate source please post it.
I don't understand what this is trying to prove. Your argument assumes Czars are bad, which is not necessarily the case (although I think the name is dumb.). You're responding to a poor quality attack ad by attempting to attack the president for having Czars while saying Bush took longer to appoint his? There are way too many assumptions going on here with too much spin.
The argument you seem to be positing is that because Obama appointed more Czars in less time and has less of them confirmed, that this is a bad thing. This is a senseless conclusion. Should more of them be confirmed? I think so. But the other branches of government seem to be tied up at the moment with that little healthcare issue, mostly being held up by republicans who I'm also sure wouldn't mind delaying confirmations either. In order to attempt the apples to apples both you and Glenn Beck are attempting, you'd have to weight eight years. Oh, and don't forget what a stand up guy Rove was.
Additionally, you can say that Obama has many in a short time, but Bush still had more. Besides the fact that the ad is attempting to prove that Glenn Beck is batshitfuckingloco and a lying sack of shit and a hypocrite, all accurate mind you, it isn't wrong about the facts.
You're attempt to spin has failed.
Glenn Beck is a perfect representation for what the Republican party is now and will be until someone on the right grows a set and shuts them up.
Comments
@gedavids: Kanye interrupted Taylor Swift's VMA acceptance speech to tell the whole world that Beyonce's video was better. It was ridiculous. You can find clips of it on Youtube, but you have to keep digging. It has given birth to perhaps one of the funniest memes to come around in a while. A word of warning: I'm sure a lot of what's on that site is NSFW, so it's best viewed at home.
While I hate to use Wikipedia as a source, off the record does exist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_sourcing -I am having trouble making a link for some reason) :
But back to Obama, I've recently seen bumper stickers that say "NObama 2012, Palin 2012", and it makes me shudder.
I like the phrase "evidentiary support."
Please provide a reasonable resize for larger images.
I think Orly (I always think of the owl when I see her name) is either really dumb or is purposefully filing lawsuits intended to fail. She is also the poster girl for forcing lawyers to pay all costs associated with their case when they fail.
Yeah, let's just point out how Obama is just like Bush... Oh, wait a minute, Bush did have 47 czars but they were over the course of 8 years and many of them served in a position that was vacated by a previous czar. Contrast this with Obama who currently has 28 (29 if you count Van Jones) czars of which only 9 were confirmed by Congress (21 for Bush).
Wikipedia has a nice article on US Executive Branch Czars from which we can see that though Bush had 46 czars over the course of 8 years filling 31 jobs Obama already has 35 czars filling 32 jobs.
So, seeing the ad above I can't help but wonder who is the target audience? Does the DNC really want to draw a comparison that Obama is Bush's third term? Are they saying Bush ain't so bad? Are they trying to justify Obama's czars by pointing to the hated GWB?
Note: The Politico article and wikipedia do not agree on their numbers exactly but they are pretty close.I used politico numbers in the first paragraph and wikipedia numbers in the second. If there is a more accurate source please post it.
The argument you seem to be positing is that because Obama appointed more Czars in less time and has less of them confirmed, that this is a bad thing. This is a senseless conclusion. Should more of them be confirmed? I think so. But the other branches of government seem to be tied up at the moment with that little healthcare issue, mostly being held up by republicans who I'm also sure wouldn't mind delaying confirmations either. In order to attempt the apples to apples both you and Glenn Beck are attempting, you'd have to weight eight years. Oh, and don't forget what a stand up guy Rove was.
Additionally, you can say that Obama has many in a short time, but Bush still had more. Besides the fact that the ad is attempting to prove that Glenn Beck is batshitfuckingloco and a lying sack of shit and a hypocrite, all accurate mind you, it isn't wrong about the facts.
You're attempt to spin has failed.
Glenn Beck is a perfect representation for what the Republican party is now and will be until someone on the right grows a set and shuts them up.