Friday, February 6, 2009

Friday: The Week (Or So) That Was

Did you know that Dykes on Bikes is going to change gay consciousness in Pittsburgh? Did you know that droves of queer individuals are now reading and commenting on Sue's blog as though she's an actual community leader? These would be things to know. (Pittsburgh Lesbian Correspondents)

Lady Elaine has a conspicuously thorough primer on that which Gov. Rendell is contemplating cutting from the state budget. It's a must read if, I guess, you care about the state budget. (View from the BurghChair)

Demolishing half a building is better than not demolishing it at all, right? (The Hoagie)

I think the best part of my D-2 coverage was the candidate forum. I may cease interviewing candidates; they're all starting to sound alike. (The Pittsburgh Comet)

You can't win, Darth. (Have a Good Sandwich)

According to Schultz's push-poll (by which I mean, he's being pushy =)) Doug Shields has pulled ahead of Patrick Dowd, with the caveat that the results are about as unscientific as you can get. (Thoughts on Government or whatever)

Everyone thinks it's over but me. At least if Georgia happens to run and win (or mess with the machine's mojo in the process) we will have demonstrable evidence of tactical blogeriffic superiority. Which is all that really matters. (City Paper Slag Heap)

Check out what the New 2009 Liberals sound like:

Whoa, y’all. I don’t know if you’ve been checkin out this shizz, but yo! The Kyrgyz Parliament is going to vote on Friday to decide whether or not to close a “key” U.S. Military base which could then cause problems possibly jeopardizing NATO supply lines to Afghanistan! WTF, Kyrgyz Parliament?!!! Why? I think you are trying to [redacted] with President Obama. You know that the war in Afghanistan is his “highest foreign policy priority” and you are trying to [redacted] with his stride, [redacted]!!! I see through you! You just don’t want us (The United States of America) to be happy, do you? No. You just can’t let us enjoy ourselves, can you? NO. You are trying to [redacted] with our ultimate mission, but you will not succeed. You are [redacted] with the wrong country now. We have real leader. He can take the Russians just like the Steelers took the Cardinals, okay? We’re on this! First, we won the Super Bowl! Next, we’ll win the War on Terror! DON’T [REDACTED] WITH OUR MILITARY BASE, JAG-OFFS!!! (Gab Bonesso)

Finally, the Radical Middle, which is now loading for the most part at an acceptable speed, is unloading on its commenters as necessary:

You don't need any authority to have an opinion. That is both the beauty and the curse of discourse in a free society. It is also the refuge of people who sling opinions like a bartender slings drinks at a frat party. (P-G, Radical Middle)

Ah, that's goooood watchin'.

Alright, WTC is with titles and descriptors appearing on YouTube still frame embeds? I don't want all my little surprises to get ruwined!


  1. Hardly "droves", my friend, but thanks for the nod. Dykes on Bikes may just be a turning point in local queer organizing. Hence my new blog, The Radical Vagina.

  2. Pushing people to vote, yes, but not pushing them to vote for one candidate over the other. The poll has been posted to both Dowd for Mayor and Shields for Mayor facebook pags. I am also starting a boycott of anyone who is working to Reelect Luke or is a member of the "I like Luke" facebook group.

  3. Boycott how, Schultz? What services are you going to withhold? You might want to pick through that group with a fine-toothed comb.

    Alright, I guess it's getting unavoidable to talk about this. Schultz do you have any evidence that either of these dweebs is running? I've heard it hypothesized that Shields will run only to prevent any chance of a Dowd victory. That way Shields can still inherit the earth in the unlikely case of ... um ... what to call it ... for the lack of any better term, let's call it "The Michael Lamb Eventuality".

    This would explain Patrick's relative quietude -- keep 'em guessing until the last possible second. (I guess it could also explain Michael's). Then again, I've heard it hypothesized that Dowd looked at the facts and figures already and said, "Uh ... no."

    It's my contention that if either of these guys are to stand a chance of reigning victoriant, they need to get the conversation started quickly, because it will have to be a long, enthralling conversation. I think there's a presumption that the first one to "go political" will be seen as damaging Pittsburgh and getting in the way ... but have we seen that already with the Financial Post-Agenda That Wasn't? If politics are motivating things, it might as well be transparent and forthrightly political. The very assertion that launching a political campaign would be Bad For Pittsburgh is a political argument anyway.

  4. We will learn more this week but if you want to talk offline send me an email and we'll schedule something.

  5. Word up, Bram.

    The Boss is again the Boss.

    I still think Smith is weak. Just bc you win a special doesn't mean you are a shoe in. That's a false sense of security.

    But, Blotzer has to be willing to change her strategy and do the work. If all the reformers get together and unite behind Blotzer, get real about her outreach to neighborhoods, get serious about voter turnout, and limit the field to just her and Smith, then I think she has a real chance of pulling out a victory.

    The voter turnout is so much higher in the primary than in specials that there are many more people to reach out to who have never heard of Smith. There is a real opp out there.

  6. Many many many many people don't know who Blotzer is. She has issues relating to the average District 2 voter.

    Take it from me. She has zero chance of winning if she runs.

  7. The comment from the Radical Middle was addressed to me. A comment was made by someone else about something I said: “A previous commentator opined, with no authority beyond his serene ipse dixit: "I think that Caroline Kennedy is perhaps a bit more qualified for the Senate than Jerry Seinfeld." I agree. After all, she was potty-trained in the White House.” I responded that I didn’t realize I needed some specific authority to comment, and Chad chose to ignore the other commenter and comment on what I said.
    An “ipse dixit’: “an unsupported statement that rests solely on the authority of the person who made it.” Pretty much what blogging or commenting on posts is. Still, if we express opinions on the Radical Middle that run counter to Chad’s, we are wrong, because, we are informed that we similar to bartenders who show contempt for the law by serving underage kids at parties.
    It’s a nice precedent for the PG to establish, to suppress public debate rather than encouraging it.