dagblog - Comments for ""Liberals See Opportunity for Big Cuts in Defense""

I don't think your approach

Elusive Trope — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 14:36:42 +0000

In reply to What I liked about the news

I don't think your approach is wrong, just one approach to submitting news. Just as those who want to make a few personal comments along with it. Just as I think those that are more of opinion piece should be welcomed along side the more "newsy" who-what-when-and-where pieces.

What I liked about the news

Donal — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 14:30:10 +0000

In reply to Just my two cents: The only

What I liked about the news section was that I didn't have to write anything - I could just copy a title, a link and a few teaser paragraphs, and let the reader take it from there. So now I'm faced with the choice of dumbing it down so's not to offend anyone, or not bothering.

Just my two cents: The only

Elusive Trope — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 13:16:09 +0000

In reply to If readers would be pissed

Just my two cents:

The only rules I know of occur at the top of submit news page: Please provide the title, URL, and a brief description of the linked article.

There is no mention of brackets for personal comments. Personally I like a few words from the submitter as to why they think that people should read the article, why they think it significant news, or what the implications are of the information contained in the news article. In some cases this will allow the commentators to go to the heart of the matter rather than fishing around for the opinion the submitter.

My memory of the creation of this portion of the website came in part from bloggers who saw something that thought was interesting, but didn't want to create a whole stand alone blog which related to the content of the article. This doesn't mean the person submitting it doesn't have opinions about the content or the implications of the content. It makes sense that they would add this in the submitted piece rather than placing it down in the comment section after submitting it.

Moreover I operate under the assumption that if there is an implied rule, it would be that any quotes longer than a sentence or two should be placed in the quote box by using the quote icon offered at the top.

Thank you for listening and good luck.

Silly me ! I just read the

Beetlejuice — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 09:51:37 +0000

In reply to "Liberals See Opportunity for Big Cuts in Defense"

Silly me ! I just read the link provided at the bottom.

Anyway, referring to the linked article, perhaps the "liberals" are pondering going after the military budget to see if the GOPer's are willing to stand on their principles of being the protector of the military, troops and their benefits? I'm sure those "liberals" are quite aware of the the sacrifices our military members make for the good of the country. However, since GOP'ers' attention span tends to shift with the winds when it comes to those who aren't huge campaign donors, I suspect there is a political opportunity the "liberals" can manipulate to see how far the GOPer's are willing to include the military in their "cut spending at all cost and don't raise taxes not matter what" meme. While there are areas where cuts can be made without affect the fighting spirit and morale of the troops, they're few and far between. The bigger DoD ticket items, DoD contracts and large military communities, located within GOPer Congressional districts is where the bigger fight will be staged. If they're smart, "liberals" will be looking there while leaving the troops out of the fight. Otherwise, the troops will voice their dissatisfaction at the polls in 2012.

Yes indeed. So do

Watt Childress — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 20:08:45 +0000

In reply to "Liberals See Opportunity for Big Cuts in Defense"

Yes indeed. So do Independents like me who have tested membership in both parties.

I noticed this blog as I was posting one on the same topic. Thanks for your work, Donal.

I think that the ambiguity is

Michael Wolraich — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 19:23:47 +0000

In reply to Your first sentence reads

I think that the ambiguity is because this is an opinion piece rather than a news article and reads a bit like a blog.

Such confusion hasn't been a big problem, but with opinion pieces in the links section, I sometimes start with the byline. That's also useful because with opinion pieces, people often base their interpretations and assessments on the author's reputation. It makes a difference, for example, whether a conservative or a liberal suggests cutting defense spending. Maybe I should add an author field.

As I mentioned, I found it on

Donal — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 18:27:44 +0000

In reply to Oh, it wasn't Donal, no

As I mentioned, I found it on Andrew Sullivan's blog, The Dish. Sullivan is a strange beast of a conservative. I don't agree with some of what he writes, but he isn't stupid about it.

If readers would be pissed

Donal — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 18:22:56 +0000

In reply to Your first sentence reads

If readers would be pissed off at that, they aren't actually readers. For the news section, I keep to the rule of putting only brief comments in brackets. I wish everyone would do so - otherwise it's just another place to put blog posts.

I've seen a college with a room full of unopened computer boxes that won't be opened before the computers are obsolete and I've seen a school where the principal's office was a former janitor's closet and the hallways doubled as the gymnasium. I am neither an automatic supporter nor an automatic opponent of additional government spending. It seems clear that DOD is funneling too much money directly to contractors, though.

Oh, it wasn't Donal, no

NCD — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 18:18:57 +0000

In reply to Your first sentence reads

Oh, it wasn't Donal, no mention of windmills or cats destroying the planet.

But where does Donal find this stuff? Gotta love the way the web link 'information dissemination' (spreading what, some disease?) talks about DOD and 'sausage' being made, 'liberals' seeing the Pentagon as an ATM machine for 'denuding' to fund US social programs.

I guess DOD is only an ATM for Halliburton, 'social programs' anywhere but the US, corrupt dictators in or not in countries we invaded, guys we have paid not to kill us in Iraq or Af/Pak, and whoever got the bricks of $8 billion in $100 George W. sent to Iraq in airplanes way back when when he and the Pentagon were saving civilization.

Your first sentence reads

acanuck — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 17:57:38 +0000

In reply to "Liberals See Opportunity for Big Cuts in Defense"

Your first sentence reads like you, Donal, are commenting and linking to a Washington Times story, rather than quoting somebody else's comment on a Washington Times story. You should watch that. No need to get readers more pissed off at you than they normally are.

It is interesting to find even some avowed right-wingers realize the Defense budget is bloated. Though of course he's wrong; money saved on the military would be better spent to help citizens than to fund more tax cuts. What's your take?