Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Thursday, March 30, 2006

Panel talk on Plame: Is that like aluminum siding on . . .?

In re Uniting the Netroots, YearlyKos

For those of you wondering about the missing post, I can't answer it.

But keep that missing post in mind when you consider who's on this panel.

This discusses both links. You need to read both of them to follow what's below.

The first link is very important to consider in light of the upcoming meeting, and comments below. If you don't have time to read it, then don't waste your time reading comments below -- they assume you've read it. I'm not asking you to agree: Rather, you're going to completely miss the basis for the comments below.

* * *

Unable to assist on the final section below: [ Click ] Have no information for you on what's wrong, why there's an error, or what the fix might be.

It could be a problem related to content. We'll see after this one is posted. The content here is of the same quality -- or lack thereof -- on the same subject. So we'll see if this gets taken off as have the other comments.

So much for the blogosphere being open: Can't get my own blog to "not get censored". What's up with that?

* * *

Back to the panel. I give up. The issue with Plame and Iraq is clear. We knew before the war started the arguments didn't add up.

The real solution is to figure out how these lessons -- that there existed an agenda of invasion, regardless facts -- is to be applied to Iran: Yes, Iran, not Iraq. How are we going to apply the lessons of Plame and the entire Iraq WMD fabrication to what we can influence: Something that has not happened yet. B0lton's "it's obvious what Iran is doing"-claims is the same non-sense about Iraq: Yet, where is the challenge -- where are we applying the revelations about Iraq to Iran?

Again, going back to Iraq -- we have the same non-sense with Iran -- many questions not getting answered: Why should we believe the allegations? No reason. Here's what we knew wasn't making sense in 2003, before the war: [ Click ] -- Do a screen find in your browser for the question marks: [ ? ] and you'll see all the unanswered questions -- those were rolled over; we knew this before the war started.

The list of endless "new information" -- that merely confirms what we already knew is a distraction. I support fact finding; but the way forward is to draw the line and say, "Enough." Impeach!

  • White House Memos: Merely confirming we knew there was an agreement.

  • Disinformation and rumors generating more questions, and delays.

  • NYT coverage of 2003 meetings isn't new: We already knew they were agreeing to commit war crimes. [ Click ]

    The issue with the Congress and public is: OK, we've had the Downing street Memo -- which confirms what we knew, that there was an agreement to violate the laws of war. The new information isn't telling us new; rather it's simply telling us more of what we already know. The issue is: What is to be learned about this initial failure of information -- so that when we have a bonafide issue show up, it gets the attention it needs, not swept under the rug, ignored. That's what needs to be discussed: What is to be done differently to surmount all the illegal obstacles and abuse; and what transformation is needed in the Federal Government as it is structured to ensure this abuse of power does not occur again. The FISA-NSA-Church Lessons of the 1970s didn't work; and the abuse continued in 2006. What are we going to do differently to compel the Congress to do it's job? More netroots isn't the answer: Rather, the solution is to compel Congress to do it's job with a New Constitution; one that will make the Congressional failure a felony, not simply something that gets an attitude of, "Well, I guess we'll just have to put up with that lying . . nothing we can do." That's unacceptable. It should be a felony for the Members of Congress to keep appropriating funds for an illegal war; and for them failing to assert US treaty obligations on a President who had not simply defied the law, but has actively used American combat power against American civilians with the NSA illegal activity. How much more brazen does this need to get?

    The issue with these memos is: Which memos and records -- as we have learned existed in 2003 -- are also supporting the Iranian-invasion effort. We don't have to wait for the memos to surface; we can say: "Enough" of this non-sense. You either impeach this man, or we're going to lawfully revoke your power with a New Constitution. Not after the election, but Now, in March 206. Here is what that New Constitution would entail. [ CLick ]

    The issue as we learn from Plame is -- now that we know they are capable of doing this stuff, what is to be done to ensure we do the right thing: Apply the lessons, only use power prudently, and prevent the abuse of power and violation of rights. The way forward is to figure out which solutions are needed in our Constitution to prevent this failed oversight from doing what it continues to do: Fail. The failure isn't going to be solved in November; the failure can be solved now with a New Constitution that will force Congress to do what they continue to not do: Ask the questions, and refuse to assent to the non-sense. The reason the non-sense continues is that people want to chase the ghosts from 2002-3, and not focus on the ghosts we have before us in 2006: They can be exorcised by simply compelling Congress to do what they freely refuse to do: Appropriate money, give permission, and fail to assert their oaths for non-sense reasons. We can change this. It is possible with a New Constitution. Hit my table of contents: [ CLick ]

    The point is that this constant dribbling of "news" and "revelations" don't give us anything new: We already knew the entire Iraq thing was a sham, and that they agree to illegally invade. Whether they openly admit this or not is irrelevant. My concern is that we're going on four years [4] after 2002, and the same crew that got lied to -- and whined -- is now whining about the news dribbling out. Hay, wake up! You're not facing what we knew in 2002-3, before the wear started: It was based on non-sense, there was no legal foundation, and it was a war crime. The issue is: What are we doing to do not in 2006 to focus on how we solve this mess. The fact that the players want to rehash the "new news" that we already knew in 2002-3 isn't a solution: It's more whining and victimization.

    1. Direction. I do want to have a better sense of where you are going to go with this discussion. After reading the agenda, and the issues, I have no information on which questions or issues you're going to have.

    2. Solutions. Let's think about a basic issue: Now that we know what we know -- whatever that is -- what are we going to do to move forward, solve the situation. Rehashing it -- what's that going to do? I'm not for covering it up; I am for saying: "OK, what do we do?" I want to see solutions, not enablers or chicken scratching and whining over what is or isn't being done. Face it: We have a dictatorship: So what's to be done about this issue now, not "after the election." Give us something we can work with, and a vision and a plan, something like this. If you want to lead, then you need to start acting like leaders. Leaders transform the nation with solutions.

    3. Expertise. I'm not clear the panelists are going to focus on that. What makes those appearing on the panel qualified: It doesn't appear they're open to other views, much less their expertise in the issues. It sure would be nice to have someone like Ray McGovern blog. Key point: If you're an expert, let's see some expertise in the spectrum: On the issue and in blogging; and in showing you can transform the full spectrum of people, not simply a very narrow root. I don't see how they're going to focus on the "What do we do" -- the track record I've seen isn’t a "we" approach, it's a "this is what I want to whine about; put up with it, or leave."

    What's the truth: America is chasing the mirror; it's not transforming itself into something new to address the abuse of power and violation of rights. [ Click ]

    * * *

    Indicators of a Cult

    You'll notice the behavior below is very similar to what goes on in a concentration camp: Crazymaking, psychological warfare. This is how "leaders" who have no credible foundation will lead others to do non-sense things.


    Hidden rules

    Retribution for non-communicated stanards

    Unreasonable standards

    Asserting and illusory right to impose abuse


    Discussion prevented by some

    Others not permitted to discusss unreasonable behavior

    Challenges to unreasonable conduct used as a basis to target and harass

    Indirect communication

    Unwilling to dialog

    Self-appointed speak on behalf of "larger group", but have no actual position of authority

    Unwilling to be specific, clear, or take responsibility for communications

    Long-standing grievances, but saying silent


    Learned helplessness

    Unwilling to respond to information requested

    Responess to requests used as "pre-text" to exile


    Backup information ingnored; when not provided asked for; when provided used as a "pretext" to exile

    Calling questoins accusations

    Changing the focus

    Rallying others to target a scapegoat to distract attention, and prove loyality to non-sense

    Issues that need to be addressed:

    Lack of civility, and an unwillingness to listen to other views. [ Click ]

    What's the big fear with other views? [ Click ]

    If you want people to "be nice," why do you expose your views to others? The issue isn't whether there is or isn't constructive feedback -- there is very little; the issue is that the chorus of "we don’t' want to hear it" isn't based on substantive disagreements with the content, but a simple desire of "We don't want to be reminded of ourselves." That's your issue. [ Click ]

    If you expect people to pick up on things, then you need to be clear with your communication; and be "nuanced about your nuance-expectations" -- people are different. Don't take the request for information -- to understand your communication problem -- as an attack. But this is what people prefer. [ Click ]

    If you want to talk about netroots and civility in community, take a look at this sample feed from FDL [ Click ] Is that how you want to interact, and encourage others to interact: Not open to questions, complaining about problems, refusing to discuss substantive issues, rudely interacting, failing to listen. That' "your issue" and it's consistent across ConyersBlog, RawStory, and FDL. I'm not sitting here with a warm fuzzy that you really want to hear "other ideas" or "real solutions" -- rather, you want to whine, and then complain when others go out of their way to assist. That's not a community -- that's abusive and it needs to end.

    * * *

    Is the point that you throw out a topic, and then by June you'll "figure out" the topic; or is there something that you've got floating around in your minds of what you want to do. At this point, I'm inclined to be interested, not because the topic isn't interesting, but you're note sending me new information about what will be novel. Rather, from where I am it's just a rehash.

    Give me something that says, "This is novel." And I'm not talking new gimmicks, but something that is going to say, "Yes, we're going to discuss something new, and then move forward through the discussion with the goal of having a more compelling way to interact with those we disagree with." That's your job; how to be open to the RNC and those you despise. You're wrong t say there's no common ground. I've spoken to the full spectrum on the NSA and the 9-11 issues. Here's a sample of what I'm talking about: [ This think progress discussion. ]

    The point is simply this: The issue here isn't what's right or wrong: The issue is what's going to send a clear signal to America that things have changed, we need to work on both sides of the aisle. I've really done my best. I've gone out of my way, taken time, listened to those in the opposing party, even dared to present my views and backup.

    For the most part I've been very warmly received. My major problem is that there's a major communication issue here: For some reason people take it as a "personal insult" when others show up with ideas. You're not happy when there are short comments because they don't deal with the issue; you're not happy when the issue gets summarized, with a link, you call that "trolling"; and you're not happy with a long discussion. I think there's a pattern here: You're not happy. Deal with it.

    If you don’t have time to read the full information, then what's going to happen when you "don't have the time" to deal with a complicated issue like war crimes, declaration of war, or choosing between good and bad information? These are real decisions. My goal has simply been to provide you with information in advance so that when you do get hit with the non-sense -- that is on the way == you've already had the chance to consider it. But your approach is, "We don't want to hear it." Fine: I've done my job, gave you ample warning, outlined the plan, and let you now what's proceeding. Whether you want to pay attention or not is another matter.

    But think about the problem the intelligence community has: The current leadership "doesn't listen." I don't see a "better" or "more responsive" approach and response from those in any spectrum. Rather, I see isolated gems of people who are willing to spend time. Great. But to the masses who want to skip over things and want it in sound bites, I can't help you deal with the real issues unless you're willing to sit down and consider the full spectrum of issues you're going to have to deal with when you're a commander, as a SAC, or whether you're on the Joint Staff, or a civilian advisor. You can't get it in sound bites. But if you want a sound bite, you're going to get it wrong. The way forward isn't either or; rather, there are new, transformative solutions all the way around. Reagan was like that. He'd listen to all the options, and then he'd come up with an idea that was completely novel, and addressed more than we had imagined.

    I can't help you with your attitude of "we don't want to listen." All I can say is that I've done my best to provide you the information; there problem with "not listening" that this panel is talking about -- as it appears to be discussing on the issues of Iraq, WMD, and issues of war and peace -- they're not an issue of, "We can do it better." Rather, what I see are the troubling signs for the Senior Executive Service [SES] that we are simply dealing with the same poorly trained captains who want the world presented to them in "their way" not as it is: Complicated, organized, dynamic, and something that can be transformed. The issue is trust. If you're not willing to listen, and if you take a link as an objective of tolling to get hits then you've missed the point. If I really carted "about this blog" and "whether I was or was not getting hits" -- I'd tell you more to sway you. But I want the words to speak or not speak on their own. But the blogosphere doesn't want that: IT wants to know whether to reject or admit the information based on a single cue, not having considered the full point.

    If you miss anything out of this -- the real issue is that "changing America in November" isn't the way forward; rather, we have to change the way it operates today. The election isn't going to change people's attitudes; the same "attitude of I'm not going to listen" that's in this White House is in the DNC leadership. They call it something else, but it's the same. The problem is the DNC and RNC are more alike that the parties and blogosphere will admit: Both parties are very arrogant, their memberships very hostile, and their way of interacting one of "we know best." That’s the same crap that's gotten this country in trouble in Iraq. We have to fix the system and make sure that abusive power is addressed; not simply change one flavor of abuse for another -- all the while denying that the abuse and intolerance is limited to one party.

    There was no reason for anyone to have spoken to me or to treat the comments and effort to assist the way it was done. I'm glad it happened. It was a good wakeup: The RNC and DNC aren't much different. Thank you for the reminder.

    * * *

    Last time she was on the Ethics Panel with the Washington Post, there was a question about the alleged Amazon campaign. Someone said she organized an effort against a book she never read. I can't believe that. I can believe an effort against something she doesn't understand, but that's not the same. [ Click ]

    This will see whether the visitors edit the content as they did with the European Torture blogs. They're still missing in the archive, but still available.

    * * *

    Let's consider the Panel introduction, with my comments:

    Joe Wilson: American Hero

    YearlyKos Convention Announces Panel Including Former U.S. Ambassador Joe Wilson to Discuss the Bush Administration and the Disclosure of CIA Officer Valerie Plame's Identity

    Yeah, Joe Wilson. My hero. Fine American you are. Hats off to you. Wish we had more of you in the blogosphere, sharing your wisdom. It sure would be nice to simply listen to people like you, not the non-sense we have from people who have no experience in the matters that you are talking about.

    There you are, right in the middle of it, yet we have a chorus of people -- one from Hollywood?!? -- talking about legal issues and foreign affairs? Let's see their academic qualifications relate to what they're discussing. Not a thing. Zip.

    Being enrolled in a film program is far different than having been in a discussion with Saddam Hussein or being inside the White House or DC. It's one thing to be a lawyer; quite another to transform the political landscape to raise our standards. America's legal community doesn't offer leadership; it offers excuses.

    Some may hate America and the military, but it's sure fine to walk through an Embassy check point and see a smart, professional Marine who speaks English. When you're far away from home with the latest information: What's threatening America, and what needs to be done immediately to protect the head of State. Makes having slogged through that mess worth it, and it's sure nice to see the American Flag waving over the Embassy, you know where you're supposed to be.

    Bloggers Talking About Journalists

    From the Blogosphere: Former Ambassador Joe Wilson will join a panel discussion of the Bush Administration's alleged role in the disclosure of the identity of his wife, the former Valerie Plame, as a covert CIA officer. The panel, which includes Dan Froomkin, Jane Hamsher, Larry Johnson, Christy Smith and Marcy Wheeler, will also discuss the subsequent investigation by Patrick Fitzgerald, the indictment of Scooter Libby and the role that journalists have played.

    What about bloggers talking about bloggers?

    Evil Bush

    On July 14, 2003, Robert Novak wrote that "Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction."

    Revealing secrets as retaliation: Evil, evil, evil!


    So began the public awareness of a slowly evolving story that led to the jailing of NY Times reporter Judy Miller and the October 2005 indictment of Senior White House official I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby on obstruction of justice, false statement and perjury charges. It is possible that more individuals at the highest levels of government could still be charged in the case.

    What about the blogger's knowledge of the data that Libby's lawyer’s looked at?

    Ask Libby's lawyers about their concerns from July 2005 -- they learned something that triggered a search of some documents, then questions to Libby.

    Bush is a weasel

    With his family's life changed forever by this caustic combination of political and media interests, Ambassador Wilson will describe the case from his unique perspective.

    Those Republican fascists!

    Net roots, net nonsense

    Because bloggers and the netroots are gaining more traction every day, both in the political arena and in the timely distribution of information, cases like this one illustrate the information gap being filled by bloggers, and the levels to which some elements of traditional journalism have fallen. As a result, many millions of Americans now rely on the blogosphere and other elements of the Internet for the bulk of their news.

    This is the heart of my disagreement. I doubt the "netroots" concept: Rather, I see the opposite -- bloggers raise issues, but then shut out things that they don't want to hear. That's fine. But it's curious when they whine, "We're so frustrated" and "What can we do" -- only to turn around and say, "We don't want to hear it." What's up with that? Here's the sample comment feed from FDL, she's on the panel: CLick Why the rudeness; why the arrogance; why the whining about no hope -- but then ignoring the very discussion-topics you're supposedly advocating. That makes absolutely no sense: If you want to call this a "community" and "netroots" then you need to act like leaders and listen, not simply appeal to confusion and stupidity to justify "whatever you do". Your community is toxic.

    Also to the claim that the internet "timely" distributes information. I've seen the opposite: Can take weeks to get information through. The fact that you're persistent in trying to share information is looked at as, "We don't want to hear it." What's up with that? Actually the internet quickly disseminates what you are looking for, not what may answer the question you're not directly asking -- but really want to know.

    "information gap being filled by bloggers, and the levels to which some elements of traditional journalism have fallen." I disagree with this notion. I've seen the opposite: That bloggers can create crap, wander down a complete diversion, and completely miss an issue. Also, to suggest that "some elements of traditional journalism have fallen" incorrectly implies that journalism has a standard from which to fall.

    Rather, I look at the internet as simply a hog-pog of people that may or may not listen. That bloggers are en masse discussing an issue doesn't make it true; moreover, that there's attention on an issue today doesn't mean that it wasn't brought up before.

    As with all media and advertising, if the audience "isn't ready to hear it" -- whatever that means -- it doesn't matter if you're spot on; rather, when the blogosphere "finally gets it" it’s likely that the pre-planning and discussion on the matter will get drowned out by the mud throwing.

    This claim is going to have to be better established and supported: "As a result, many millions of Americans now rely on the blogosphere and other elements of the Internet for the bulk of their news." From what I gather, many bloggers watch the news and actively comment on it. So the conclusion -- implied assertion -- that bloggers are the "source of news" is backwards; bloggers are simply the source of narrow reaction and commentary on the news that everyone else is talking about.

    Otherwise, if you bring up something novel, new, or is a solution -- the blogosphere doesn't want to hear it.

    To suggest that a "bulk of the news" comes from the internet misses something: Someone has to originally create that news. I'm not seeing bloggers actively doing what has been well done for centuries: Actually go out and get raw news that is novel; rather, they're putting pieces together. Moreover, bloggers are putting together news for their blog -- that's not a wide audience, but an audience of one that may or may not appeal too many.

    I think this is drivel

    "Online communities provide a sort of virtual town square, so that citizens from all over the nation -- and the world -- can have an extended conversation about the direction of their communities, their government and their future," says Christy Hardin Smith. "Democracy is back in the hands of the people where it belongs and I am so proud to be a daily participant."

    The above is pure non-sense. The notion of "communities" implies that people will get along, and share. Not this blogosphere.

    Let's consider the full "community" on FDL: Here's a sample comment feed: [ Click ]

    Notice the following very abusive standards of conduct on the FDL "community":

  • Rudeness

  • Unwillingness to talk about issues

  • Making statements, then unwilling to discuss the details/points they've raised

  • Failure to interact in a reasonable manner

  • Absurd accusations against others for simply being there

  • Asserting that a desire to assist is "something else"

  • Not responding to simple requests for clarification

    If that's the "community" that Christy Hardin Smith likes, and referenced above, wow: Stunning. Notice how the words she uses above "sound really good," but contrast to that what's permitted to occur on the FDL.

    What's FDL's response: That's right -- ban those who are simply there -- the one's who are attempting to assist; the ones who are trying to seek clarification. That's screwed up. Upside down. And complete nonsense.

    If you solve problems, they don't want to hear it;

    If you have an answer, they don’t want to hear it;

    If you have "more than a sentence to say" then you get targeted as being "showing off" or "trolling."

    That's not a community: It's toxic waste heap.

    "extended conversations" my ass -- if you talk too much, they don't want to hear it.

    This comment by Christy Hardin Smith is bullshit:

    "Online communities provide a sort of virtual town square, so that citizens from all over the nation -- and the world -- can have an extended conversation about the direction of their communities, their government and their future," says Christy Hardin Smith. "Democracy is back in the hands of the people where it belongs and I am so proud to be a daily participant."

    Let's consider Smith's assertions: [ CLick ] "I'm now writing for a progressive political blog"

    * * *

    Hardin's Timeline

    02-Oct-95: Admitted to WVa Attorney Bar

    FY01: Funds Transferred from WVa local government to Law firm

    2001, Feb: LLP changed Click

    2001, Sept [ or before ]: Hardin Assigned to WVa agency

    2002, Mar-May: Comments on Amazon

    * * *


    A. Did $9,128.87 funds get transferred from the State to Hardin's law firm?

    B. Was Hardin still in control of the firm at the time of $9,128.87 funds transfer?

    C. Why did the entity dissolve after Hardin was assigned to a state agency; was the state agency actually in the county and different than where she was assigned as of Sept 2001?

    D. Did $9,128.87 funds get transferred from the State to a law firm Hardin sill was associated with, but actually also assigend to the State agency or county entity related to that disbursement?

    E. Were any of the $9,128.87 funds related to rewards above and beyond for work actually perfomred?

    F. What private gain did Hardin acquire, in any of the FY01 $9,128.87 funds transfer?

    G. Were contract awards, $9,128.87 funds transfers, or interests in the decision appropriately or inapproproiately separated?

    H. Was Hardin assigned outside the law firm at the time the public defender services were rendered?

    I. Did somdone other than Hardin perform work related to the $9,128.87 funds?

    J. Was Hardin in control or had influence over the assignemnet of cases and public defenders?

    K. Did Hardin have influence as an APA over which firms may have been available as a public defender?

    L. Did Hardin's work as an APA affect which firms were hired?

    N. Did Hardin have a controlling interest in the law firm that was paid $9,128.87 in funds at the same time that she held a positon with the county?

    O. Was there an overlap in [a] Hardin's assignment to county and/or state government and [b] the times that services were rendered and $9,128.87 funds transferred from that government entity to her law firm?

    Identifying information

    Hardin's details:

    Birthdate: 1968-10-19, Libra [ Open source ]

    Mom: 2 1/2-year old, as of 14 Nov 2005. Child is now just over 3 years, born in 2003.

    Foreign exchange student -- athletics

    "arthritis, where my autoimmune system is attacking my connective tissue"

    Former Associate: David Feintuch [Sorry to hear]

    Bio 1:


    Christy Hardin Smith is a former attorney who now blogs at the progressive political blog (formerly as ReddHedd). Christy earned her undergraduate degree at Smith College, in American Studies and Government, concentrating in American Foreign Policy. She then went on to graduate studies at the University of Pennsylvania in the field of political science and international relations/security studies, before attending law school at the College of Law at West Virginia University, where she was Associate Editor of the Law Review. Christy was a partner in her own firm for several years, where she practiced in a number of areas including criminal defense, child abuse and neglect representation, domestic law, and civil litigation. She was an attorney for a small municipality before switching hats to become a state prosecutor, has extensive trial experience, and has worked for years both in and out of the court system to improve the lives of at-risk children.

    Bio 2:

    Christy Hardin Smith was born and raised in Williamstown, West Virginia. She attended Smith College, in Northampton, Massachusetts, for her B.A.; the University of Pennsylvania, where she worked on a Masters Degree; and the College of Law at West Virginia University. She has her own law firm with another attorney in Fairmont, West Virginia -- Folickman & Smith, PLLC. Christy is happily married to her husband Bill, and shares her home with two ornery dachshunds, Tasha and PJ, and a ginger tabby named Henry. She is currently working on a fantasy/science fiction novel tentatively titled An Ill Wind Blows, which will be Part One of her Kinsale Saga. Christy has been writing fiction and poetry since she was knee high to a grasshopper, and will continue to hold a pen until her aging hands force her to get a talk and type program for her computer. Since that day seems far away at this stage, Christy plans on writing for a long while, and may hopefully claim one day soon to have been published in something other than an academic/ professional journal.


    Millennium Philcon Program Participant Biographies


    Christy Hardin Smith
    Christy Hardin Smith lives a double life as an Assistant Prosecuting Attorney putting skanky criminals in jail by day, and tapping on a laptop as an aspiring science fiction and fantasy writer by night. She was most recently published in Colonies magazine, with a story entitled "The Fox Mutiny," the first of a series set in this storyline. Additionally, Christy provides fiction and nonfiction reviews for a Web site. Her husband Bill, two miniature dachshunds and two cats constantly stare over her shoulders wondering what her fingers will type next -- or maybe when dinner will be ready. Christy is currently putting the finishing touches on her first novel. Home Page

    Admitted 1995

    Photos: [ Click ]

    Christy Hardin Smith Esq
    Law Id: 6959 Admission Date: 02-Oct-95
    County: Harrison District: 13 Status: Inactive
    Address: 300 Philippi St
    City: Clarksburg State: WV Zip: 26301
    Phone: 304-623-2329 Ext: Fax:

    Number Assigned to:

    Advanced Chimney Sweeps, (304) 623-2329, 428 W Main St, Clarksburg, WV 26301


    * * *

    August 2001: Bush, PBD Aug 2001; Hardin, WVa Supreme Court

    Two days after "the big scary day", guess who was still an attorney?

    Confirmed: Hardin was assigned, still an attorney in Sept 2001, well after the President's illegal NSA activities had started.

    September 13-15, 2001 [ Evidence ]
    Holiday Inn Martinsburg, West Virginia [ Photo ]

    Most likely before the wifi was added.


    This means, we should be able to get a connection between, the hotel and Hardin's private e-mail:

    Audio [ NSA Archive ]

    A. Begin

    Toll-Free: 8008626282
    Tel: 1-304-2675500
    Fax: 1-304-2649157

    B. End: 304-623-2329

    Text [ NSA Archive ]

    C. Begin:
    D. End:

    Former Law Firm ISP appears to be through: Charter Communications


    Fees transferred: $64/nite, plus expenses, through accounts linked indirectly with law firm.

    Evidence: Hardin is reported by the WVa Supreme Court to have provided a 1 hour presentation: Psychological Reports for Dummies; the presentation appears to have been a working lunch, starting just after 11:00.

    You'll also notice on page 2, the "evidence" section: Wonder how they handle Brady when the NSA provides data . . .

    So, she has some experience reporting, reviewing, accessing, and making decisions about psychology. Yet, her primary undergraduate training was in international affairs, and her law paper was related to insurance.

    Now, she's talking about . . . .

    * * *

    E-mail Intercepts

    Please review other e-mails listed, back to 1998 [ Click ]

    Other names in to/from: Vera Nazarian

    Accounts: Information below will trace to Hardin's accounts.

    1. Any evidence of funds paid out by the Prosecutor's office to former associate law firms?

    FISCAL YEAR 2001

    Please trace: The following 2001 Funds, and identify discrepancies
    Total Funds: $9,128.87
    Total transfers: 10

    Known Associate: Pamela Reese Folickman

    Folickman & Smith, P.L.L.C.
    Address: 421 Fairmont Ave
    Fairmont, WV 26554-2714
    Map & Directions

    Phone: (304) 363-4529

    Fax: (304) 366-1734

    The issue is: What interest, if any did she hold -- or was this completely segregated in February?

    The PLC was terminated in 1997; and the LLC was terminated in Feb 14, 2001 -- seven [7] months before she was linked with the 13 Sept 2001 State Prosecution. [ Link ]

    * * *

    Compare the book review dates in Amazon with dates assigned as an Attorney

    Listed as: Christy H Smith Click

    May 2002

  • Can people become a character on the internet from their favorite book?

  • Is it possible for someone to leave one world and enter another? Christy writes, the novel had "characters that are so real, I almost felt like I knew them from next door." That's a very interesting blogosphere analogy. If you really heard what they thought about the future, would you really listen to them, or close the door?

  • Here it is: The book deals with the following issues, which Christy recognized as being very familiar from people "next door": "dealing with a thirst for power (be it your own or someone around you), insecurity, parent/child relationships, friendship and betrayal"

    Can you imagine that in 2002, Christy was writing her own novel about what would become of her in 2006.

    The problem with looking at people and issues in terms of general principles, and not individuals is that you're stereotyping, especially when your stereotypes are at odds with reality. What's of concern is that the stereotypes Americans hold about foreigners is crated on the basis of myth and [wait for it] Hollywood.

    Should we be surprised why the mythmaking of Fire Dog Lake is at odds with their conduct? No, because in the Fire Dog Lake world the problem is "out there," -- all the while the real issues, those prompting the response are within.

    All things they say about others are "fair" while all things other do are "unfair" -- especially when they are not well understood. This means that when FDL and the blogosphere interact with unfamiliar things -- those who are attempting to help without any desire otherwise -- are treated as the opposite: Threats, hidden agendas, mistrust, and with one aim: Opposite of what they state.

    This is at the heart of America’s communication problem worldwide, as was the problem with Iraq and Iran. Saddam said he had no WMD, but the Americans asserted the opposite, crating evidence.

    The issue going forward is what evidence is required not to turn outward, but to recraft the defective system all Americans remain blindly loyal, but unwilling to admit it has failed: The Constitution.

    That is the core power struggle happening now. The problem is the major players are not acting out of genuine desire for good -- in terms of the advancement of the Constitution, prevent the abuse of power, or protect rights -- but to assert their personal agenda, even if it moves at odds with what is clear: This Constitution has holes in it which need to be repaired immediately, outside the election and cannot wait until November or "what may or may not happen."

    All Americans see what has happened: The system has failed. The issue is whether the system will be repaired, or whether the existing players attempt to jockey to win under what has failed.

    The real agenda is much different than what is unfolding. There are illusory timelines. We need not wait to assert our rights, nor "get around to" ensuring our power is or is not abused. Rather, it would be fitting to transform this Constitution to ensure it is strengthened, so that no one -- however well intentioned -- can betray a nation and defy the laws.

    Many know. Many remain swayed by non-sense. But ask: What will solve this dilemma; and what real power needs to be revoked. We need not wait to have self-evident abuses occur; they already have, and nothing has been done. We're simply asked to hold onto hope, when hope is not the issue: The issue is power and rights.

    People do not take kindly to being asked to provide inputs; then having those inputs thrust to the ground as if they were trivialities. Rather, you will soon learn what does happen when a nation realizes that its leadership has betrayed them, and the existing alternatives are not better.

    The people will have to choose: Whether we abandon hope, and simply solve what is self evidently broken.

    Your problem is that you only have one part of the solution. The way forward is to ask what is the larger picture. You will not ask, because to ask would imply admitting something you refuse to admit: There are limits to what is acceptable, even when done in the name of protecting rights and preventing the abuse of power.

    The error is to cross the line, as you have done.

    You must choose whether you are for a solution, or for continued assent to what has failed. The solution will ultimately prevail.

    You have no input into whether the events will or will not unfold as they have already started. Rather, you must decide whether you will ride the wave of hope -- all the while doing otherwise and destroying the hope of others -- or focusing on a real solution, one that transforms America and members of both the RNC and DNC.

    It is not either-or; rather, it is something new. It appears it is beyond your vision. You cannot claim what you deny; and you do not control what is beyond you..

    Some are more powerful. They say little, murmuring, but now they know.

    * * *

    Issue: Listing oneself as a "state prosecutor" may or may not mean working "at the state". Rather, County Prosecutors consider themselves to be working for "the state."

    Is this what you wish to let us believe: That you were a state employee working in Marion County; or you were in the State Attorney General's Office?

    Wrong state: Marion County Jail [ Click ]

    [ Marion County ] [ Archives: WPAI ]

    The following people may be able to provide background:
    Patrick Wilson
    Brandon S. Flower
    Belinda A. Haynie
    Christina A. Mulligan
    Lea-Anne Hawkins
    Charles A. Shields

    [ Enter here ]

    If you agree to be civil, and not be rude as you are in FDL, maybe you can enter this forum: [ Click ] Do you agree not to be rude as you were on FDL?

    2001 course offerings, page 9 of 9 [ Click ] Would you like to be a prosecutor? You can learn here: [ Click ]

    Courses they should offer Click:

  • What to do when the NSA evidence you've been provided winds up on the internet, and Gonzalez keeps lying about what was really going on in 2001

  • Being polite with those you do not understand

  • Listening skills

    Prosecutor Ethics: Lessons for the blogosphere [ Click ]

    Discussion topics for prosecutor ethics: If you decide to be a blogger, can you still use the investigative leads and NSA data you were given; or is this not wise to do?

    Prosecutors who have been trained on "safe and sound jury arguments" -- do they necessarily have "safe and sound" blogs?

    Prosecutor-turned Blogger Ethics: Perception and Reality -- What happens when you confuse the two; is it OK to assert wrong doing in others, when the problem is really insecurities inside?

    What is the statute of limitations on prosecutorial liability for using NSA-intercepted database, when they should have reasonably known what was going on in 2001?

    Are all prosecutors necessarily respected and effective; or is it OK to be just "OK" and "Kind of respected"?

    If we learn media relations as a prosecutor, does that count for the blogosphere, or do we need to do something different?

    How dangerous is it to lead discovery using NSA-intercepted data: Is it "really scary" or Just "kind of scary"?

    Can we learn lessons about communication by applying what we learned from interactions with Witnesses, the Court and Jurors; or do we have to do something else when dealing with real people in the blogosphere?

    What will curb the abuse of power -- do we need new rules; or is it better to just start over with a new Constitution; how do we prevent the abuse of NSA-collected information: Is the solution to make prosecutors something different, and split their power into three different areas?

    If we get upset at our reaction to uncertain situations, is it OK to divert attention, exile others; or does our personal discipline issue warrant an increase in audit scope using SAS 99 indicators?

    * * *

    If you want to be a prosecutor and put on your résumé, "lots of really neat trial experience," you don't have to wonder about it or watch it on TV, you can read about it. It's in a book. It teaches you how to maintain discipline and focus. Forty-three articles, each of them written to assist you, even when you trip, or lose your thought. You don't have to stand there saying, "Ummm. . . "

    You can learn it at a workshop with some "hand on" click: Is there a "hand on" program that will help prosecutors lighten up and realize "someone is actually trying to help them," or are prosecutors forever stuck in the, "If anyone attempts to do anything, it is for personal gain?"

    Aha! Perhaps there needs to be some work shopping at the YearlyKos: Timeouts for those who assume all questions -- as they did when they were a prosecutor -- are evil plots by the heathens of the dark underworld. Put that in your science fiction trilogy.

    Does someone have a credibility issue when they were in government during 9-11, but they want to play stupid about what the NSA evidence and investigative leads might have done for them?

    "Resolving Evidentiary Problems": If we get caught with illegal NSA data, does that mean we have personal liability; or does the use of the NSA as a combat support tool link prosecutors to war crimes against American Civilians? [ Click ]

    * * *

    Case study: Let's suppose someone is a blogger on the internet, and their WVa Bar status is "inactive" -- do they still have to be civil to others, or can they say, "I'm no longer an attorney"? Try this: [ Click ]

    If you don't have a "client" does that mean you can do what you want? [ 4.4 ]

    Can a person with an "inactive" bar status face court sanctions for making assertions as to whether someone other than a client has or has not violated the law; does making out of court statements on matters of law related to Plame and Libby -- a Federal Issue -- constitute an unauthorized practice of law outside WVa; and what if the person advocates political action on the basis of disagreements with lawful adjudicators and fact finders: Is that a violation of the attorney conduct of WVa? [Click ]

    If someone is a blogger, and relying on their prosecutorial experience to make public statements about non-clients, is that inside or outside the ABA ethics? [ Click ] The rules do not apply to non-prosecutors, even people who used to be prosecutors. Although they may act like a prosecutor and be rude, you are expected to grovel on the ground and tolerate their non-sense: How's that for a "community":

  • A. "Put up with my closed mindedness, but do not dare comment on my closed mindedness."

  • B. "I want to talk about the law, even though I'm an inactive lawyer."

  • C. "Don't ask me to be an active lawyer, I want to blog and write fantasy stories."

    The only way is if they can argue that the blog is not likely to prejudice the Libby case. Click ] -- Does that mean that blogs aren't going to have an impact on the outcome; and if not, why bother to blog about criminal matters on the Plame and Libby situation?

    If someone challenges me about evidence the NSA may have provided, can I credibly claim that I'm not an investigator; or do I have to truthfully respond that a prosecutor has an investigative responsibility and should have determined the source of the information, not just whether people would or would not be in jail? Click ]

    What if the NSA data I've been using has put alot of people away -- do I have a responsibility to contact the attorney directly; or should I personally visit the [ Click ]

    What if all this time that I've been prosecuting cases, I thought it was strange how much NSA evidence was showing up, but our investigator budget kept getting cut. Is that something out of the ordinary, or should we just say that we get alot of anonymous tips -- is that really credible given most of our operators are so bored that they quickly forget how to properly hand routine calls like civil disturbances? [ Click ]

    Can we talk about "facts outside the law" [ Click ]

    How do we handle NSA-illegally obtained evidence that is favorable to the defendant: Are we obligated to turn it over?

    When we discuss issues of evidence which the NSA has illegally obtained, does a prosecutor have to immediately notify the accused-counsel of the illegally obtained evidence, or can they keep their mouth shut? [ CLicK ]

    * * *

    It is a violation of the Prosecutor Ethics to use illegally obtained NSA information that is not admissible. What do prosecutors like to pretend is going on With "anonymous tips" and "investigative leads" so they can convince others "they really had no idea about the NSA data that was going into court"? [CLick ]

    Can adverse inferences be made about current and former prosecutors who refuse to answer questions about illegal activity, or information that a prosecutor has been reasonably advised is related to "investigative leads" -- a code word for NSA illegally obtained evidence? [ CLick ]

    What happens when the NSA keeps giving us illegal stuff: Should we blog about it, or should we send it back in a really big box saying, "Hay, this is illegal."? If we ship it back, does that mean we are transmitting illegal things through the post office? [ Click ]

    Can we pretend to act stupid about the NSA illegal activity, or do we have to admit that we've known all along? [ Click ]

    Suppressing Evidence Gained by Government Surveillance of Computers, 19 Criminal Justice 46 (Spring 2004) [ Drake ]

    Electronic Surveillance, Commentaries and Statutes (NITA 2003-2004, co-author)

    Are you concerned about judicial abuse? [ Click ] -- There are solutions, judicial power can be lawfully revoked with a New Constitution.

    * * *

    Please discuss the following article: Thomas C. Cady & Christy Hardin Smith, West Virginia's Automobile Insurance Policy Laws: A Practitioner's Guide, 97 W. Va. L. Rev. 583, 592-93 (1995).

    1. Please discuss the concept of prosecutorial discretion and declination decisions: Are there some valid reasons not to take a case to court; how were investigative leads from "outside agencies" handled and identified; are there situations when prosecutors are provided information through "outside channels", and law enforcement "just happens" to come across that information?

    2. Could you discuss the various inputs you may have been provided by the NSA as a prosecutor, and how information from the NSA and "other sources" was vetted to ensure that it was not tainted.

    3. Did any information or evidence used to prosecute come from sources which may have been linked with illegal intercepts of e-mail and phone calls; how was potentially inadmissible evidence handled; what direction was given to officers to find "other similar evidence" when the original evidence was tainted?

    4. Please discuss the decisions used to classify the various segments: Criteria; basis for inclusions/exclusion; and how differences were resolved prior to publication of a journal article.

    5. What was the basis for excluding, omitting Arkansas from the list insurance list? [21 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 167]

    6. Why is the 1995 insurance policy law related to a 2001 criminal prosecutor?

    7. The legal ethics opinion 78-17 outlined references to a law review article. How were law review articles handled in your office; were they ignored; or were there times when they were useful?

    8. The Sowa case [ 167 W. Va. 353 ] relates to appointments. The court found, that counsel may "accept indigent criminal defense appointments in counties other than that in which the prosecutor serves." This requires various internal checks. How was this handled in your office. Please discuss the reviews and verifications.

    9. Prosecutor ethics require meeting certain standards of conduct.

    10. How was it handled when there was a conflict. Is it appropriate to disclose to the client the conflicts?

    11. The Prosecutor ethics also require compliance with internal controls. This requires a great deal of training and skill. Were there every situations where there was a problem with a non-notification.

    12. In Sowa, the court found that the written consent must be filed with the court. Please discuss instances when the consent was not filed. What as done. How was this discovered.

    13. Was there ever a time when there existed a conflict between your law firm and the municipality.

    14. The rules state, "Ordinarily, the reasonable care standard will be satisfied if the prosecutor issues the appropriate cautions to law-enforcement personnel and other relevant individuals." In those cases where information may have been illegally intercepted, can you discuss how the law enforcement was notified of the 4th Amendment requirements.

    15. The NSA technology currently being employed depends on sophisticated technology developed prior to 2000. During that time, you are reported to have been a prosecutor. Is it incorrect that you were a prosecutor prior to 2000?

    16. After Sept 2001, and in re the Plame Case the United States was actively involved in combat support targeting, and using NSA intercepts to watch both domestic and foreign sources. Yet, there was insufficient time to reconfigure the NSA after Sept 2001. Rather, this technology remained in place. Can you discuss the minimization procedures you were briefed on, and how you were or were not informed of the sources of the President's programs in early 2000.


    It seems ironic that the very person who appears to be on a panel discussing sensitive information was in a position as a prosecutor to have access to NSA information and intercepts.

    Either the NSA program in 2000 was in full swing and this information was being used to intimidate people -- thus raising questions as to your access to that; Or there was no information being provided, and no basis to be concerned about Plame's retaliation.

    How can we have it both ways? If the NSA and White House were supposedly collecting information -- was there a special provision with the Lockheed Martin Contract that said "any clients of Christy Hardin Smith will not be targeted" or that "the physical locations around West Virginia" are off limits?

    I see nothing before me that suggests you were unfamiliar with the law; or the standards of professional conduct. Yet, you were assigned to a municipality which had the requirement to report potential conflicts to clients; and also brief personnel in law enforcement of standards.

    The issue CHRISTY HARDIN SMITH is while you were employed where you were, what steps -- if any -- did you take to ensure that you were in lawful compliance with Brady, and that all information which could be probative to a client’s defense -- including information about potentially illegal activities was or was not provided. Again, the burden of proof is on the state.

    It's all well and good to point fingers at Libby, and Bush over Iraq over what they may or may not have known; but based on the public records -- if what we are to believe is true -- that the NSA equipment was in full gear providing investigative leads to law enforcement, we're at a standoff: Clearly, if what you allege is true -- that there was some sort of "big scary conspiracy" over Plame, and secret transmissions and intercepts, then while you were in the Prosecutor’s office you would still have access to that similar information.

    How do we explain the apparent disconnect here: Was there something you learned in the Prosecutors office that suddenly made you upset; or are we to believe that despite your "really big qualifications to discuss the NSA, Plame, 9-11, and Iraq" that you were outside the very nexus NSA was creating: Namely, channeling information, investigative leads to law enforcement.

    Either you did or didn't know what the NSA was or wasn't doing. It's all well and good to talk to the country about what you do or do not know in hindsight. But the issue is: When push came to shove when you were in the Prosecutor’s office, did you actively ensure that the laws -- and evidence -- that you were providing were not tainted.

    How do we explain this? In 2006 -- fully 6 years after you were apparently in the prosecutor’s office the country gets to hear the "big scary story" about what was or wasn't known pre-9-11. There is one major problem: We know in 2006 that the NSA programs and activities were not in compliance with FISA, and the phone companies knew this.

    This means one thing: That the investigative leads -- as NSA was providing to law enforcement, and through your office, which you apparently worked in -- were in conflict: The evidence was one thing; the standards were something else.

    So let's ask the question one more time: When you had this evidence coming across your desk, did you -- at the time, in 2000, pre 9-11, ever ask: Is there something going on here?

    Maybe you suspected something. Maybe you made an early withdrawal. Maybe you were really upset. Who knows. The issue is: In 2006 it's meaningless to talk about what someone could or could not have happened, when you yourself -- in that position -- had to make some decisions about evidence to use, and information.

    Are you asking us to believe, "You didn't know" -- or is the issue, as it was with the Insurance Journal Article -- you declined to do something; or are we to believe that the internal controls that required notification of a potential issue were simply ignored; or is there something else that would explain: All the NSA activity, the investigative leads, your presence in the prosecutor’s office, and now the apparent claim you have in 2006 that you're completely free and clear?

    Quite a curious contrast. George Bush, evil dictator. Christy Hardin Smith, writer, mother, former prosecutor. The issue is: When you had the chance to do something, what did you do: Did you look into it, or did you not look into it; and why the discretion in the Journal; but you want us to believe that there are clear lines of what is right an wrong." All prosecutors are required to ensure the evidence is probative. A reasonable prosecutor should know more about the NSA and investigative leads than some might believe.

    Come clean: Are you overstating what you knew; or are you hoping we won't dig into the apparent disconnect between your clean record in 2006 to make comments, but the apparent cess pool of NSA "investigative leads" that any reasonable attorney would have at least asked, "Gee, is there something weird going on?"

    Maybe you can enlighten the blogosphere: Talk about investigative leads, and how the conflicts were handled on family issues.

    Then again, maybe the “big scary NSA” that is at the Heart of the WMD, Iraq, and Plame issues really isn’t what it is: And everyone in the world was being targeted, except for one person: Chirsty Hardin Smith.

    How did you create this bubble around yourself to remain immune to knowledge of investigative leads; all the while in 2006 you now know all about what apparently wasn’t going on in West Virginia.

    We await something that would explain why you are an expert on the Plame Case, and how the Iraq WMD information that NSA should have does or does not square with what you were given as an admirable, fine, well qualified, competent, and outstanding prosecutor.

    * * *

    Notice the responses. Notice what is or is not said. The issue is: Why is there one standard on how the public is or is not to respond about government issues; but the government has a different standard?

    Look closely at the responses you read, and what people appear to be upset about over the NSA program: Non-sense responses: [ Click ]

  • Is there a double standard on whether questions are or ate not responded to?

  • Should there be a double standard?

  • Why are some vague responses or non-answers more acceptable than others?

    Let's consider the matter of the Plame, NSA, WMD, and Iraq issues: Big scary President, with big scary power won't answer big scary questions.

    Are there questions that should not be answered; if so, why do some people get to whine that some questions are or are not getting answers, but their conduct may or may not have been what [ how do we say ] above reproach?

    Did someone have a standard that they are imposing on others, but not willing to reciprocate?

    Hay, you've got an expert on your panel. Watch whether they discuss what the President refuses to discuss; or whether they do or do not respond to questions that others may or may not respond to.

    It's that lovely. It's only March, and the conferences isn't until [ wait for it ] June. Count the weeks: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Almost 400 hours to find more stuff.

    Is this going to be fun and who's looking forward to a "really exciting" plane discussion?

    Christy Hardin Smith: "Democracy is back in the hands of the people where it belongs and I am so proud to be a daily participant."

    Isn't democracy great?

    * * *

    [Disregard] Identifying Information: Does Not Match Bio

    Christina L. Smith
    701 Main Street
    Barboursville, West Virginia
    (Cabell Co.)

    Born 1970; Admitted 1997; University of Kentucky, B.B.A.; West Virginia University, J.D.

    ISLN: 914016791

    [ CLick ]

    West Virginia Disciplinary System



    * * *

    If Democracy is "in the hands of the people" -- why are the people voting to ignore what might address what they're talking about?

    "Hay, we don't want to hear it -- we just want to whine."

    Smith writes: "Democracy is back in the hands of the people where it belongs and I am so proud to be a daily participant." What the hell kind of crap is this, especially coming from the legal community. I don't know about you, but last time I checked the legal community -- which failed us under this Bush regime -- isn't a "community event" -- they're violating the law. So quit your bullshit "Happy aren't we"-clap trap and fess up: Where the hell was the legal community since 2001?

    That's what "expert lawyers"-turned-bloggers need to account: "Where the hell were you while this country slid into fascism?"

    Wilson and the Blog

    Ambassador Wilson believes that "The Blogosphere represents a welcome revolution in journalism. For too long, mainstream media has had a monopoly and, as a consequence, has become fat and lazy. Competition is a good thing. Our democracy is stronger for the blogs."

    Blogs can make a difference. The key is to make sure that the right people read your blog. You can't simply let your information sit; you have to find those who "know someone" who can actually translate your solution into something.

    That's the problem with the blogs right now: The "community focus" isn't open to the "needed other views" that will challenge people. That's why I'm completely amazed at the unwillingness to engage with those you actively despise. They're actually your ally: They can teach you alot about what your weak points are, and help build strong arguments.

    The goal of the blog isn't to simply "win over" 51%; it can transform society.

    Hyping the Blog Hype

    For many news stories today, facts and details are being uncovered by the blogosphere. In the absence of thorough due diligence in these stories by the main stream media, the blogosphere is now becoming part of the bedrock of the Fourth Estate, helping to ensure accuracy and comprehensive coverage of the activities that are shaping our nation and the world. Dan Froomkin, with his many years of experience and stellar credentials in the field of journalism, will provide an expert's view and insight into how the CIA leak story was covered.

    If the blogosphere finds a fact that people don't want to hear about, or it's not "packaged the right way" -- whatever that means -- you're out of luck.

    "Bedrock fourth estate"-my ass. I disagree with the "accuracy" and "comprehensive coverage" aspect: Rather, we had blogs in 2003, and the many concerns about the Iraq ware got drowned out. It's not an issue of blogs; it's an issue of whether the voters and blogs are using reality or non-sense.

    Are you too tenacious?

    Froomkin notes that "Among its many achievements, the blogosphere has set a new standard for tenacity and persistence. The traditional media has taken notice, and we're the better for it."

    Tenacity and persistence -- I'll say; if you show too much, you're ignored.

    "We're better for it" -- that's right, we in the blogosphere are better at finding new ways to dissuade others from thinking, or listening to solutions when people are screaming, "But what can we do."

    "Go away," they cry. Fine.

    * * *

    Here’s the problem with blogosphere:

  • Complete waste of time on details – I don’t know how much time I’ve spent fact checking blogs; after I while I threw up my hands and said, its easier and a more efficient use of my time to rely on the traditional media for major headlines; and then I’ll dig into things on my own. The utter non-sense I’ve seen on the political agendas. People don’t want to hear it when they called on their bullshit. All this whining about why people are or are not doing stuff – hey, they whine on their blog, I’ll whine back. But their “big deal” is when people complain about what they’re complaining about – and solving their problem. They don’t want a solution; they just want to whine. Get over that.

  • No to really open to responses on what they’re discussing. They don’t want to hear a credible solution; they do want to hear, “I’m ok as I’m stuck”-feedback.

  • Look at the non-sense they waste their time on: Who wants that, “hay, it’s my blog just don’t comment about my stupidity.” OK, so much for “free and open.” I’ll say Democracy: What happens? The mob will assert non-sense. That’s not what’s needed. We need lawyers to lead, not blame “the system” that they’ve sworn an oath to preserve, not reform or ensure it actually does what it’s supposed to.

    The way I look at things: If I’m going to make a comment, or discuss an issue, I better have my backup. That’s all I do on my links. But the blogosphere looks at backup as a liability: They want everything in a single sentence.

    Here’s my single thought about the blogsophere:
    Watch out, you might actually get more of what you are getting elsewhere -- Get your filter ready. There’s a lot of crap out there, especially from those who “have their view” and aren’t truly listening to understand. They simply are listening for reassurance. I learned: Let people solve their own problems. They will show up when they're ready to listen. [ Backup. ]

    Oh, and if you have comments or concerns, feel free to e-mail me or leave a comment in my blog. I'll be sure to get back to you.

    * * *

    Other thoughs on the FDL Community: Click -- How visitors are treated: very low tolerance for other ideas.