Monday, December 26, 2005

"Afganistaning" In the Blogosphere

About 20 years ago, before Afghanistan was a point of interest to Special Forces, the term "Afghanistaning" was used to describe newspaper editorials which were written about things totally irrelevant to the editorialist's own personal life and circumstances. A Milwaukee Journal editorial would appear bemoaning some political development in New York, e.g., or wailing about some school-tax referendum in Rhinelander.

That was when there was such a thing as the Milwaukee Journal--and, as mentioned, when "Afghanistan" was about as distant from 4th and State as was Rhinelander, at least mentally.

That was then.

NOW we have bloggers from Ozaukee or Sheboygan County (who knows?) bewailing the fact that Waukesha County residents and taxpayers are calling for Vrakas' head, after a certain Ms. Finley revealed that Vrakas did not assiduously pursue budget cuts.

"Afghanistaning" has risen again!!

Perhaps Ms. Finley is posturing; perhaps not. Perhaps Mr. Vrakas should not have hired Ms. Finley, and perhaps he will actually address the issue himself at some point in time.

But we do know this: Vrakas SAID that he would not increase taxes--and then he DID increase taxes. Not by much, true. But by the testimony of Ms. Finley, Vrakas did not HAVE to increase the levy.

The Afghanistaners tut-tut. After all, they are mature.

7 comments:

David said...

Where were you during the Pewaukee recall?

Not counting me there was exactly one blogger who actually lives in the city spouting off on what should happen or what we should do. Everytone else who could not get their nose out of bellings rear end went on and on liek they had the slightest bit of knowledge o\about thissue at all. None of them could actually answer one frickin question about it with any actual intelligence.

Get used to it Dad29, they will not stop being lemmings so why bother trying to point it out.

Dad29 said...

Living in Brookfield. You note I did NOT comment on P'ville, nor on the 33rd (Delafield Assembly) race.

It would be different if I had a very good personal knowledge of one candidate or the other--that would be a contribution worth making, I think.

But in P'ville, I knew no one and had only a general idea of the issue. In Delafield I knew no one and had no particular interest.

Belling's function is different from mine; he's a regional broadcaster and he has AND uses sources about the news in the region. Presumably, he had good sources about both P'ville and Delafield.

Belling's been glaringly wrong on some issues, but I suspect that's not really the point: his objective is to get ratings.

David said...

I did note your silence. I do not have an issue with anyone commenting on anything. However, if someone is going to specifically attempt to change MY form of government then they should damn sure have a stake in it.

My Belling point was simply that 99.997 percent of everything most of the bloggers were saying were damn near word for word what Belling or one of his callers said. These dopes just liked to go into Belling Repeat mode and failed to invest more than 10 seconds of original thought or research to the issue.

James Wigderson said...

Does that mean:
1. I should never have worked for any candidate outside my home district?
2. I never should've written about the 33rd Assembly race, even though it was clear I had the most information?
3. If a local politician behaves in a particularly egregious way, does this mean I have no right to criticize him or her if Idon't live in that jurisdiction?
4. Would David be happier if I didn't criticize CRG for getting involved in a Madison policy dispute? (Unlike Pewaukee, where it was clearly an ethics issue.)

I understand the silliness of a newspaper weighing in on matters on which they have no influence, but if a blogger has some influence or readership in the area being discussed, shouldn't he or she be free to comment?

Dad29 said...

Jim, if you have a valid contribution to make (I mentioned at least one instance in my comment), then MAKE it.

Another (conservative!!?!) blogger has called the Waukesha County Pub Party 'dysfunctional,' and was in a snit over my suggestion that Vrakas could be recalled.

Well--I doubt that the RP/Waukesha is 'dysfunctional,' based on what I've seen at GWB campaign events.

Further, since I LIVE in Waukesha County, and have lived here for over 50 years, if I want to poke Vrakas for his promise-problems, I don't expect to hear 'tut-tut' from somebody who lives in ANOTHER county.

IOW, Jim, well-informed and useful commentary is perfectly acceptable--but gratuitous advice from parties who don't have a dog in the fight are not necessarily taken very well.

James Wigderson said...

I think then we have to call them out by name on the basis of their arguments (or lack thereof). No different than when I disagree with Owen when he says we need to be armed to protect ourselves from a potentially tyrannical government.

I would generally agree with your assessment of the Waukesha County GOP. I would disagree that it's time to plan a recall of Vrakas (he hasn't done anything ethically or criminally at issue). But let's not push Fred out of the debate since he disagrees with me but lives in Racine County.

So the clarification is those without any knowledge of a situation that doesn't affect them should butt out. Sounds reasonable to me, but then I was slow to jump on the Cathy Stepp was intimidated bandwagon (I think I still am).

Dad29 said...

First of all, Owen's right on THE reason for the 2nd Amendment. Sorry to break it to you, but your cynicism-content is short by half a quart; check with your MD and buy a couple of big-boomer rifles.

And ammo.

No, I don't seriously think it's time to recall Vrakas--but I did send him an email using the "R" word as a mnemonic. He cannot get too comfy...

And since I know even less about Cathy Stepp's problem(s) than you apparently do, I'll wait for your commentary.

AFAIC, if she's abusing the system, she should get whomped.