In the past, I’ve kidded a bit about “blogger wars,” usually focusing on Ridor and his antagonist du jour. While there has been additional sniping in other quarters between bloggers, for the most part, we respect each other and interact with each other to some extent. I respect the majority of my fellow bloggers, and openly admire some of them. The discourse we’ve had in public forums has, I think, raised everyone’s consciousness to some extent.

However, I was recently involved in a conflict myself, just last week, and not for the first time. A number of you know or have heard of Brian Riley, a hearing man who was a Gallaudet grad student in the 1980’s. He was involved in the recent unpleasantness at Gallaudet last year, and runs a blog called “Gallaudet Protest Legal Issues.” He’s also garnered quite a reputation over at GallyNet-L, to the point that he’s apparently alienated a number of its readership.

My original entanglement with him involved Riley’s obfuscation of his identity to [former] Board of Trustees Member Bill Graham, and Riley’s subsequent defense of this deception. I’m not going to re-hash that now; you can find the whole story here. Since then, I put the incident largely out of mind, until Riley posted an entry at his blog claiming that I. King Jordan “invited himself” to deliver a talk at the upcoming Deaf history conference at Gallaudet next month [Full disclosure here: I’ll be live-blogging the conference] .

First, I’d like to make it clear I have no love for Jordan at the moment; while I’ve met him several times, and he’s quite charismatic (I think just about everyone, save perhaps Riley, can agree with that!), his actions and statements during the past year left a lot to be desired, to say the very least. His Op-Ed in the Washington Post in January of this year left a bad taste in my mouth, as it did for a lot of people. I too agree with many people that Jordan owes the campus community an explanation for his part in whatever actions he and his administration took that led to the recent Middle States Association report earlier this year; regardless of what he did or didn’t do, ultimately, as head of the university at the time, he must shoulder some of the blame.

That said, Jordan is no longer affiliated with Gallaudet beyond his role as President Emeritus. His presentation at the conference will be a historical retrospective on the DPN Protest in 1988, which I find ironically appropriate. Regardless of what you or I think of Jordan, he played a central role during that protest, and subsequently led Gallaudet for the next 19 years. He is, like it or not, a part of Deaf history.

Before I continue, I want to make it clear I have nothing against Riley as a person; we have never physically met in person (and probably never will). He could, for all I know, be a charming and delightful person. He could also be a very unpleasant individual. I DO have a problem with his online persona though, and I think I make my displeasure and rationales for that known on the two blog posts I previously cited, in addition to what I’m saying here now. Riley’s seeming vendetta against Jordan disturbs me, and his use of the royal “we,” along with hints and his own statements (since conveniently “disappeared”) that he is not alone in determining the content on and control of his blog, suggests there’s more to Riley’s crusade than meets the eye.

I’ve helped organize a conference in the past, and I’ve known quite a few people who have organized or been part of organizing committees for conferences, including the upcoming conference. Speakers, presenters, and panelists do not get to “invite themselves.” It just doesn’t happen. So I decided to comment on Riley’s post, and ask him for proof. You can see the majority of our exchange there.

This is a rather long introduction to the point I really want to make here, and I apologize for that. I merely want those of you who are unfamiliar with what happened to have some sort of understanding of what transpired up to this point.

Most of my responses and remarks are in the comments section of that particular post. However, Riley initially refused to post two of my replies, while continuing to respond to me as if my comment was visible to the general public. After a private e-mail exchange, he finally posted *one* of the comments. I found out during the course of the evening that at least three other people (three of whom e-mailed me separately, once they realized what was happening) had their comments suppressed as well. Since then, of the four of us, only one comment was released: one of mine (but not the other).

What bothered me (aside from Riley’s general evasiveness and unwillingness to directly debate or discuss a point, as illustrated in the recent exchange between Riley and Mike McConnell on DeafDC) was not only Riley’s classic “I think what I think because I’m right, what do I need proof for” behavior, but his bias in suppressing comments at will.

Eventually, I decided we were at an impasse, and I let it go. But the issue of comment suppression gnawed at me, for a few reasons: 1) Riley’s tendency to clamor for the “truth” and “openness” about Jordan, Jordan’s administration, and the problems Gallaudet has had; 2) the notion that blogs are open forums, miniature Greek democracies, if you will, where everyone and anyone can come and have their say; and 3) how to determine when a comment should be deleted or not.

But I digress… as the title indicates, the issue I really want to discuss here concerns comments. When should we allow comments? Should all comments be permitted, regardless of content? When is it appropriate to censor or suppress comments? It’s something that’s been on my mind lately for another reason as well: an online friend of mine who also has a blog has recently removed comments that they found counterproductive to the post and the blog as a whole. While it was an agonizing decision to make in some respects, once the decision was made, that was it. This individual isn’t in the habit of deleting comments, but I know this blogger’s not alone. For all the swagger about openness and a free forum, several of the more well-known bloggers have edited or removed comments left on their blogs. Quite a few have moderation filters set (including Riley). I have yet to encounter problems (other than spam, which bedevils us all!), and have only removed two legitimate comments thus far– both were at the original authors’ request. I’m not sure why that is– maybe I’ve just been lucky so far…

To me, simple disagreement is not sufficient grounds for denial. Riley’s apparent predisposition towards comments on that basis strikes me as inconsistent with his message of “truth” and “openness.” Now, Riley aside, I’m wondering just what kind of limits we in the blogosphere, whether deaf or not, should place on our blogs. As Ridor likes to proclaim from time to time, “It’s my domain.” McConnell states that anyone who doesn’t follow his “rules” will be censored or banned. Others have posted similar strictures. Lest you think I’m complaining about this, I’m not– each person has control over their own blog, and that’s how it should be. Ultimately, it’s Riley’s right to decide what he does with his blog; I don’t have a say in that, nor does anyone else. But I do wonder what it means in terms of a truly free discourse when comments are suppressed for reasons beyond bad language or gross indecency/inappropriateness (for example, if anyone posted a death threat or a similar hostile remark here, I’d yank it– there’s no question about that). Where do we draw the line? Should we draw such a line? Can such boundaries become slippery slopes? Should people say whatever they want, and contribute to the overall discourse, or if it happens, be allowed to make fools of themselves? What if one tailors comments on a post to skew or overtly influence the conversation at hand or to avoid embarrassing questions or challenges? Is that acceptable? Why or why not?

What do you think? I haven’t finalized my answers to these questions yet, and I’d be curious as to what your thoughts are on the matter.

Hey, folks! Time for yet another meme! (collective *groan* from my audience) This one is actually up my alley: a movie meme. I enjoy movies, and watch quite a few from time to time.

For this one, thanks to Bev at Funny the World.

Name a movie that you have seen more than ten times:

There’s quite a few that fit this category, so I’ll just list a few examples of films I’ve definitely seen more than ten times.

“Lone Star,” “Dead Again,” “The Sixth Sense,” “Casablanca,” “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid,” and the usual suspects, like “Star Wars” and “Raiders of the Lost Ark.”

Name a movie that you’ve seen multiple times in the theater:

Hm. A little bit tougher– that first question was kind of a softball, eh? I don’t tend to go back and watch movies again and again in the theater. Usually I’ll see them once, and then if I really liked it, I’ll watch it again when it comes out on DVD. I’m pretty sure I saw one of the “Lord of the Rings” movies at least twice in the theater– let’s just say my walking companion is a big fan of the movie series!

Name an actor that would make you more inclined to see a movie:

Ok, someone that would make me go, “Hm, that’ s definitely a movie to check out.” This is a meme question that probably would have worked better fifty or more years ago, back when movies were billed as an “Xxx Xxxx” picture. For example, there’d be that season’s Katherine Hepburn picture, the latest Edward G. Robinson vehicle, the current Bette Davis flick… that’s not to say that billing today isn’t star driven, but casting, billing, and PR are far different these days than they used to be. But I’m becoming tangential. My answer?

I’d say anything with John Cusack will probably get me in line at the box office. I think he’s rather underrated compared with the latest billable, bankable hunk in the headlines these days. For the ladies, I’d say Meryl Streep is worth the price of admission. She’s the Katherine Hepburn of the second half of the 20th century, and she’ll be long remembered after most of the “stars” in the claptrap out these days are dead and buried.

Name an actor that would make you less likely to see a movie:

There’s quite a few, but one of the first that comes to mind is Adam Sandler. I think his stuff isn’t worth a minute of my time, let alone a minimum 90 minutes.

Name a movie that you can and do quote from:

There are a number of films that I can easily remember dialogue from, but there aren’t really movies I tend to quote from. I will say that I think probably one of the most quotable films ever (with the most memorable and easily clichéd lines!) is “Casablanca,” which I definitely remember tons of dialogue from (but that’s probably true for half the movie buffs out there…)

Name a movie musical that you know all of the lyrics to all of the songs:

As a deaf person, normally you’d expect me to take a pass on this question. But in the interests of fairness (and honesty!), I’ll admit to a guilty pleasure: “Grease.” I definitely have the songs and most of the dialogue memorized. *blush*

Name a movie that you have been known to sing along with:

This is where I’ll take a pass. Next question?

Name a movie you would recommend everyone see:

There’s quite a few. I think my permanent housemate is close to mortally sick of my saying, with wide eyes, “You haven’t seen that…? Oh, you must! I’ll put it in our queue!”

But I’ll just list the most recent two movies, that if you haven’t seen, then you should. The first is “Hotel Rwanda.” I blogged about this particular movie when we saw it, and while I doubt I’ll watch it multiple times, it’s definitely a movie I won’t forget.

The second is “An Inconvenient Truth.” Even if you’re in the minority who thinks global warming is a bunch of bs, it’s still food for thought. In all of the coverage about carbon fuels and human-influenced environmental damage, a very big part of the problem is mentioned, but practically overshadowed: the massive global population growth over the last 200 years. I’ve often thought that many of our problems worldwide stem from overpopulation.

Name a movie that you own:

Too many at this point. About half of what I own are VHS tapes, and we know what the future is for that format. The other half are DVDs. All of the films I mentioned in the first question are movies that have a home here, so I guess I can kill two birds with one stone, and just say, scroll up and see the answer. *grin*

Name an actor/actress that launched his/her entertainment career in another medium but who has surprised you with his/her acting chops:

There’s quite a few, but for this question, my answer’s Cher. When I was growing up, she was kind of a joke– the tall lady with the short bozo on TV. But starting with “Silkwood,” she’s shown that she can act when she wants to. She hasn’t done much in the last fifteen years or so, but she’s been more than halfway decent in her film work.

Have you ever seen a movie in a drive-in? If so, what?

Ah, the drive-in. There are fewer and fewer drive-ins these days; the second drive-in ever built in the entire nation was located just a mile or so from here, and where I grew up, there were at least three drive-ins within a 15-2o mile radius. I think the last movie I went to see at a drive-in was a Disney movie, but I can’t remember what was second on the bill. This was probably about ten years ago, so it probably was “The Hunchback of Notre Dame” or a similar flick.

Ever made out in a movie?

Nope, I’ve never made out in a movie, and given my rapidly fading good looks and dissipating youthful charm, I highly doubt it’s going to happen. A better question might be, “Have I ever made out at a movie?” The answer is, “No.”

Name a movie that you keep meaning to see but just haven’t yet gotten around to it:

There’s a few, but one of those that I keep meaning to sit down and watch is “Rabbit-Proof Fence.”

Ever walked out of a movie?

Nope– I’m pretty choosy when it comes to movies, and I don’t waste my time on crap that belongs in a garbage can and should never have gotten greenlighted. I will say there’s one movie I stopped watching and never finished: “Brain Damage,” a low-rent horror flick. There’s one movie I distinctly remember fast-forwarding through and regret ever renting: “Cool World.” Unless you have a major hard-on for Brad Pitt and/or Kim Basinger, there’s no mortal reason to see it. Consider yourself forewarned.

Name a movie that made you cry in the theater:

I don’t cry when I watch movies. Strike that– I cried over the movies in the previous question, simply because I realized I’d just lost a chunk of time I’d never get back.

Popcorn?

Sure– at home, where I can pop it in the microwave or pop it on the stove. It’s overpriced in the theater– I don’t care if that’s how the chains make their money, I’m not paying $4 for a sack of popcorn. I will occasionally bend this rule, and buy a bag, but it’s very rare that I do. Ditto for candy and other treats– the same bar I pay $3.75 for, I can go to the supermarket and buy four or five for the same price. Did I say overpriced?

How often do you go to the movies (as opposed to renting them or watching them at home)?

Not as often as I’d like– when a movie costs us close to $20 a pop, it’s going to have to be worthwhile. That means either it’s gotten good reviews, it’s a blockbuster, or it’s a film that you must see in the movie. “Dances with Wolves” is a good example of that– the cinematography is vastly diminished on the small screen, compared with the silver screen. There’s also the captioning factor– for example, I’d like to see “The Namesake,” but so far it looks like it isn’t going to be open- or close-captioned at the movies. “TMNT” doesn’t do it for me, sorry.

What’s the last movie you saw in the theater?

We went to a Spanish film festival at the Egyptian last week, and saw the film “Alatriste.” It isn’t out on DVD yet, but it’s a surprisingly good film, starring Viggo Mortenson (not often you see a movie star in American films doing a foreign film, and in another language too!). Right now we’re reading the book it’s based on, Captain Alatriste, by Arturo Perez-Reverte.

What’s your favorite/preferred genre of movie?

I’d say a historical-based movie, or a drama, is what I go for. A lot of times, movies like these tend to diverge dramatically from the historical events. Sometimes the changes are worthwhile– for example, the changes in “The Molly Maguires” were acceptable, while the inaccuracies in a movie like “300″ (we haven’t seen it yet, but I’ve read reviews, and they’ve changed a bit around) aren’t acceptable– sometimes you really don’t need to embellish the truth– the truth is fascinating enough.

What’s the first movie you remember seeing in the theater?

I’d probably have to ask my folks what the first movie I ever saw was, but the first I remember clearly was probably either “Sleeper” or Disney’s “Robin Hood.” (Gee, this answer dates me– and I’m sure dates anyone who fills out this meme!)

What movie do you wish you had never seen?

Scroll back up to “Ever walked out of a movie?” Those two. Gimme back my 4+ hours…

What is the weirdest movie you enjoyed?

I wouldn’t say it was *weird*, but one of the stranger movies I’ve watched is “Donnie Darko.” That’s not to say it wasn’t good, just that it was strange.

What is the scariest movie you’ve seen?

I really don’t scare easy, so I can’t say what the “scariest” movie is (now if you were to ask me what I consider a good horror movie, I could probably give you an answer!). But one of the more disturbing movies I’ve seen is “The Woodsman.” I’m sure a number of you have played “Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon” (or in the Deaf-world, “Two Degrees of Separation”), but this is by far the most different role I’ve seen Bacon play: a recently paroled child molester coming to terms with himself in the wake of his prison sentence. It’s a good movie, but it’s very disturbing, adult subject matter.

Another equally disturbing movie is “An Inconvenient Truth.” Regardless of where you stand on global warming, the reality is that we’ve overpopulated the planet and we’re not doing enough to clean up the environment. I believe that the evidence is in, but even if it ultimately turns out humanity is not primarily responsible for global warming, it can’t hurt to do our part to mitigate what *is* going to happen.

What is the funniest movie you’ve seen?

Comedy isn’t a big genre for me– I think comedy is an individual taste. For example, my walking partner greatly enjoys the “Austin Powers” movies, while I think they’re gross-out movies not worth my time. So what’s funny to me may not be funny to you. Also, what I think is the “funniest” movie now may not necessarily be the same answer next year. But there are two movies I’d say that are still funny, even after repeated viewings and many years later. The first is “Harold and Maude.” It’s surprising how well this film has held up, and it still gets me laughing. The second is “Dirty Rotten Scoundrels.” I guess by now you know slapstick isn’t what gets me roaring– it’s a mixture of verbal and situational comedy, and “Dirty Rotten Scoundrels” has that in spades.

That’s that for this meme. See you next time!

Part of the reason I blog is to safely vent, where no one else can hear or see (yeah, right), my frustrations and outrage at politics in today’s world. While I admire those who blog day in and day out, and even make money off of it, I seem to have deteriorated the last couple of years from blogging nearly daily to blogging a couple times a week. Thus, my posts aren’t exactly what you’d call timely. Still, when you’re a political and news junkie, there’s almost always something to comment on, vent about, or on rare occasions, praise. There’s definitely a lot to make fun of– there’s a reason Colbert, Franken, the late night guys, and tons of others make a good living, hm?

So while I may never possess the kind of blog people check every other second for the latest, I hope you find my rants and commentary refreshing enough, even if it’s just more or less a safety valve for me. Now that we’ve got that out of the way, let’s proceed to today’s topic, shall we? *grin*

I was but a young lad during the Watergate era, and while I remember seeing the hearings on television, I was too young to really understand what was going on, or why it was so important, or why half the adults around me looked like they’d just been sucking a lemon. Once I was older though, I was both fascinated and appalled at what had happened. I never thought our country would again face the kinds of crises it did then.

However, I think we came uncomfortably close during the 1980s, with the Iran-Contra scandal; it was extremely troubling then, and now, to realize our country was in collusion with forces that deserved condemnation for their deeds. I think we’re approaching that same level of seriousness these days, with any number of scandals and issues. The crisis du jour, though, is the nakedly political dismissal of eight U.S. Attorneys, and the fallout thus far has shades of Watergate.

At this time, Bush Smirk is defying Congress, and insisting that his henchmen present and former personnel such as Kyle Sampson, Karl Rove, and Harriet Miers be allowed to meet with Congressional committees and individual representatives behind closed doors, without transcripts, and without being sworn in. Congress, on the other hand, has awoken from a 6+ years long sleep, and finally grown a pair of balls asserted its constitutional responsibilities of oversight, as part of our systematic checks and balances. At this point, it’s a standoff; Congress is poised to issue subpoenas, and Smirk is poised to reject said subpoenas.

I could spend an entire post distilling this current controversy to its simplest elements, but I think others have done a better job than I. What it looks like to me though, is echoes of the stonewalling perpetrated by the Nixon White House in their desperate effort to retain executive privilege and avoid having to answer to anyone (already, quite a few blogs and commenters have drawn parallels between the 18 1/2 minute gap on the Nixon tapes and the potentially undisclosed e-mails from a two-week period last November). Speaking of the Watergate era, John Dean has an interesting take on the unitary executive and executive privilege here. For too long now, the Bush White House has been equally adamant in its drive to avoid accountability, but I suspect the time has come to pay the piper.

What will be interesting though, I think, is the extent to which Smirk is drawn into this affair, and how much potential there is right now that this contretemps will cripple him. At this point, he is defending Gonzales (although rather tepidly), and more staunchly fighting on behalf of Rove et al. While I have no doubt Smirk was involved in the Plame affair at some point, whether from the very beginning or close to the beginning, the criminal behavior in that case and the subsequent Libby trial were more about Cheney Scowl than Smirk. The Iraq War has been Bush’s albatross from the start, but the political fallout from that has been rather slow and steady; this mess involving the attorneys threatens to politically wound the administration in a far shorter time.

Right now, the central battle, on its face, centers on executive privilege. Smirk is arguing that his communications should be privileged in what the White House disingenuously wants us to believe is merely a “personnel issue.” His case might be strengthened if he could show he was involved in discussions regarding the removal of the eight attorneys, either from the start or at least at some point in the process. However, even if this bolsters his argument for executive privilege, it would then demonstrate his willingness to sacrifice the attorneys on the altar of political expediency, rather than allowing the law to operate within its own boundaries, without partisan influence or considerations.

But Smirk’s case for executive privilege and a successful rebuff of the impending subpoenas will be weakened if it is shown that he was not involved at all, and that it was a case of Miers, Sampson, Rove, and whomever else handling the matter themselves. This is hardly good news for Smirk either; who really wants a chief executive who’s out of the loop? That is an extremely troubling notion (and was bothersome during the Reagan era, when quite a few folks dashed as quickly as the could to say they were out of the loop… like father, like son?).

I’m hoping that Rove, Miers, and others will be compelled to testify– if there really isn’t anything to hide, then why would there be a problem with testimony under oath? Why would there be a problem with transcripts? Why would there be a problem with telling the truth? I’m not sure about Miers, but as others have pointed out, Rove isn’t exactly known for being an (*ahem*) “straight shooter.” This is the same guy who visited the grand jury four times in the Libby case– most people only need to appear before a grand jury *once*, if at all. It’s really the same issue as in Libby, actually– if there’s nothing wrong, then why lie? Why not just tell the truth? It does make one wonder why Smirk is going to all the trouble to defy Congress– what is this bunch hiding? If it was merely a case of an overzealous administration official axing a group of attorneys, then the simple solution is to fire that official, ‘fess up to what happened, take the requisite lumps, and let the issue die out. But that’s not what’s happening here.

At the least, I expect some, if not all, of those involved will be required to testify. Gonzales will eventually be forced to resign (which he should– this is just a one in a series of incidents that demonstrate he’s not acceptable as Attorney General). But what hasn’t happened so far that should happen is the reinstatement of the eight attorneys. In the midst of all the rancor, the struggles, the clash between two branches of government, eight public servants are still without employment– eight people that shouldn’t have lost their jobs in the first place. While some of them may not wish to return, they should at least be offered the opportunity to do so. That’s the least that should happen.

Once again, Happy St. Patrick’s Day! Naturally, I’m wearing green and thinking of an Irish meal tonight. Thanks to some family business, I’m not sure if we’ll be cooking in or if we’ll search for some pub grub. If we were in San Diego, we could head to The Field in the Gaslamp Quarter, and *really* sample some pub grub. As it is, if we go out, perhaps Molly Malone’s or Tom Bergin’s. Maybe we’ll cheat and go to Canter’s and have a corned beef sandwich, but it’s kind of hard to feel cheery and green simultaneously when you’re surrounded by folks noshing on potato pancakes, knish, and hamantashen.

As always, it’s a strange holiday– as a person of Irish heritage, it’s a day to celebrate ME, but it’s also a day anyone of Irish ancestry shares with a larger number of people each year, as everyone seems to wear green, put on funny hats, drink tons of food dye along with their hops and barley, and hopefully exercise some control so that they wake up on Sunday remembering what they did the night before. I anticipate it’s going to be a busy evening, since it’s a Saturday night. That’s probably the troubling fact– too many people see it not as a holiday to celebrate their heritage, or to honor the Irish who populated numerous corners of the world through the Irish Diaspora, but as a means to go bar hopping.

Still, I’ll take the day as it is. I’ve never been to the L.A. St. Patrick’s Day parade, but wouldn’t mind seeing the NYC parade again, or if I’m ever in Chicago, seeing their version. It’d be neat to see the river all green.

As usual, we’ll settle in after dinner with an Irish-themed movie. This year’s selection is “The Molly Maguires”– both of us are descended from Irish mining families who worked in the coal regions of northeastern Pennsylvania, so even though the movie isn’t completely historically accurate, it’ll give us a sense of what our forebears experienced in that era, when plenty of “Irishtowns” in Pennsylvania and New Jersey meant you could go for miles and only hear an Irish brogue. It should be a fun movie, and it doesn’t hurt that my walking partner will enjoy eye candy in the form of Sean Connery. *grin*

Erin Go Bragh! Beannachtam na Feile Padraig! Sláinte!

Ireland Forever! Happy St. Patrick’s Day! To your health!