say what? You mean other people don't play with themselves while reading about Howie Rich's shenanigans? It doesn't take more than a few paragraphs before I become an American under Limited Government, if you know what I mean...!
This may seem slightly off the topic, but one leaf of the verbiage stuck in my mind:
Ted ... believes Rich never tried to hide anything, so voila, there is no conspiracy
It's no wonder people like me think people like Ted are teh stoopid. Motivated, passionated, sure, but Teh stoopid.
Someone needs to tell Ted that being hidden doesn't qualify a conspiracy as a conspiracy. Conspiracies are merely groups of people–any group of people–getting together to get anything done. The word itself carries negative baggage, sure, but whenever two or more of you gather in anyone's name, there is conspiracy.
Secrecy has nothing what-so-ever to do with conspiracy. Someone please tell him.
I'll bet he's one of those folks who can't tell the difference between "discreet" and "discrete".
That The Pick flung monkey dung in this way says more about his character than it does that of Hart Williams.
Becky,
Actually I don't think I ever said to dismiss Hart's stuff out of hand "because" HW has a history as a pornographer.
My point is that he has a creative history. He has on past occasions embelished stories and events and is in fact a "creative," person. I think it something to keep in mind when reading his work.
I may be, to you, a dumb chimp, but it seems that Mr. Williams is already accusing me of being the author of that other blog in which his story first broke.
Just to set the record straight, I am to dumb a chimp to be able to spend that much time to research write and format such a story.
Another issue that Mr. Hart, and it appears you as well, seem to be overlooking is the secretive background behind the BISC group. Funny how the group recently pulled down it's advisory board members from their website.
I remember going there a few month's back and saw Tim Nesbit prominently listed as an advisory board member. AND of course George Soros is the primary funder of BISC. AND George Soros is the primary funder of, what is it called? Democracy America, or something? You know that group that makes people signe a PLEDGE of silence about the financial backers?
AND that same group has been involved in some illegal petitioning themselves....
However researching the financial backers of the left seems to not fit with the leftist theology.
Hey, call me a chimp, but I don't so much care. I care at the hypocrisy of the left, but I don't so much care about where, when, and how folks get funded. Even on the left. (so long of course, that the money is not made in an illegal means and i'll not accuse the unions of that.)
However since the left has brought up the topic of financial backers.
I wonder if Soros will be funding Kulongoski's campaign because Nesbit is there? Will HW be interested in the initiative fraud by Soross gang in Ohio's "Fair Minimum Wage," and "SmokeLess Ohio" campaigns?
How bout the hundreds of thousands of dollars that showed up in Nevada?
http://sos.state.nv.us/
000Contri...CE_Period_1.pdf
Once again. Who is funding is not as big a deal to me, as the issues at ground level. And I certainly don't disparage others who make it an issue to them. It is just that some folks actually apply the standards across the board and do a pretty good job of it.
What is the name of the group "money in politics," and groups like that. There are groups like that that actually do a bang up job and provide a service.
Unfortunately in HW's case he has is an admitted leftwing activist with a sincere distaste for the initiative process. So he has an agenda. One must keep his agenda into account when sorting through his "research."
Now we also know that not only is he an anti-initiative activist but also a professional story teller.
So you don't have to dismiss what he says out of hand. But keep in mind that what he offers comes in a very creatively designed package.
Ted, I challenge you to find where any of Hart's writing on Rich is not supported by fact. I'll bet you can't do it. He carefully cites all of his sources. Call him creative all you want, but that doesn't change the facts he reports. Package those facts any way you like and you still get a box full of a small group of libertarian rich guys who don't like playing by the rules and who want to dramatically change states where they don't even live in ways the locals, through their elected representatives, would not accept.
You say you don't disparage others who have concerns about how issues are funded, but your entire column is a stupid, smirking disparagement of someone whose research is very important in revealing the motivations behind measures the voters will be considering.
The rest of your finger-pointing is just funny. I'm amazed you didn't blame it all on Bill Clinton.
Funny he doesn't point fingers at George Soros and Soros' MO of hiding money to fund anti-initiative efforts.
He has reported things incorrectly before. One that jumps to mind is that somehow the measure 37 was backed by the same folks who are behind measure 48... or something like that... unfortunately (or fortunately?) his writing is just to long winded for me to remember exactly where it was.
And there were others as well but don't immediately jump to mind.
However that is not the biggest rub.
The biggest rub is that he does indeed get many things right. THEN ties those things together in some creative fashion so as to make it all sound like some dark shadowy movement. C'mon Becky surely you recognize the craft?
Unfortunately I don't have the time, nor inclination to do the same with: (que dark shadows theme)
George Soros
Tim Nesbit
Patty Wentz
Nevadans for Nevada
Our Oregon
NEA
WEA
OEA
BISC
Democracy Alliance
Raise Montana
Jon Tester
SmokeLess Ohio
Ohioans for a Fair Min. Wage
You know all those groups are tied via personel and financially don't you? Now I wonder if the ever vigilant HW will weave his creative web around that dark shadowy group?
Of course not. Because they are against the initiative process and on the left they get to work in the shadows.
Now I encourage you to check out CA and follow some of those money trails. You have more time than I do.
Me, I'll just glean what I like because us chimps are not talented enough to do it on our own. Or? Does that mean we let someone else do the hard work?...hehe...
yip yip
Oh, on a slightly different note.
Is there no comment about his involvement in pornography? I mean isn't that the exploitation of women?
Especially women who drop out of high school?
Oh I understand that women of legal age have the right to engage in such exploits. Hey it happens and there is a market for it.
However, call me uninformed, I have always had this picture of the stereotypical porn director/producer as being a pretty self-centered male who really has no personal concern for the women (girls?) he hires.
You know it is just not the type of guy I would want my daughter to associate with.
I wouldn't say that for all lefties. Heck Ted Kulongoski, while I disagree with him politically I believe he is probably a personably honorable man.
There are plenty of groups and individuals connecting dots on all the groups and individuals you mention. Why duplicate their efforts? Hart Williams, on the other hand, broke new ground in uncovering this particular group.
You want liberals to investigate liberals? Then how about we start seeing conservatives investigating conservatives? Why didn't you guys figure out what Howard Rich was up to? Why are conservatives still working with Bill Sizemore? Because there's no incentive to dig for the truth (or believe it) on your own team. Duh.
One that jumps to mind is that somehow the measure 37 was backed by the same folks who are behind measure 48
Seems to me Howard Rich somehow actually did support Measure 37 - through Americans for Limited Government or some such group. You can see how someone could get confused on the connection, though. After all, there are so many groups with similar names to Oregonians in Action (i.e. Montanans in Action, and I can't remember which other ones) and Dave Hunnicut was the one who Howard Rich hired to write all this year's crop of eminent domain ballot measures.
As for that matter of who you'd let your daughter hang out with, better keep her away from Republicans.
Hart is going to be on my radio show on Friday. That will be a 4pm PDT at www.bbsradio.com.
I think that we are all responsible for cleaning up our own house first. "Take the log out of your own eye before prying the mote out of your brother's."
I assume that no one who commented negatively on Hart's literary background is a Libertarian since the porn issue is one of the few we don't fight about. Howie and Ed are registered Republicans now so perhaps they have changed their mind on that issue?
I was delighted to find Hart's blog but chagrined that I did not notice the Howie Action with Initiatves earlier. It goes along with their whole approach to politics for the last 30 or more years. Nice they are consistent, I guess.
From reading Hart's expose I did not conclude that he is a Liberal. He seems like more of a left libertarian. Right now there is a shift going on politically with Progressives adopting positions that are largely left libertarian; that makes it possible for a coalition between all libertarians, right to left, which would be a very good thing.
Let me see if I get this straight, Mr. Piccolo:
You write: "I am to dumb a chimp to be able to spend that much time to research write and format such a story."
Then
1: How is it you have time to write an almost equivalent number of words just in the commentary section of THIS blog?
2: If I take you at your word (for whatever that's worth) you are also, then, "to (sic) dumb a chimp" to understand this argument and you really ought to shut up. (Or, perhaps we now know what "your word" is worth.)
3. So how come the rhythm, meter and choice of language of "Helen Langora" the piece in question sounds so much like your postings on NWREPUBLUCKAN? And why the extreme contortions when you repost it, so that no one could POSSIBLY think it was just you writing on a blog you put together on September 18 with a Tel Aviv mail drop?
4. And why does "Helen Langora" sound so much like your comments here on her profile page http://www.blogger.com/profile/31270437 :
"*I'd like readers to know that I'm writing this blog under a pseudonym. I hope to be more open someday. This is such an overheated campaign season and appropriate boundaries have already been crossed. Blogger Hart Williams is posting satellite links to the personal residences of those who are deemed to be his political enemies. Writing under a pseudonym seems prudent right now."
5: Why do you suddenly shout the non-sequitur BISC -- a term I had never seen until this morning on the blog you claim not to have written:
"Irresponsible Spender said...
Hart, it's not that you were a pornographer ... it's that you weren't good enough at it to - er - stick. Can you share the details of how BISC recruited you? That would make a juicy story.
10:17 PM"
I take it that you're not "Irresponsible Spender" either.
Hart Williams (contd below)
This is that "Jon-Benet" screech now that "PORNOGRAPHER" has been screamed. You are a stealth Libertarian, Ted. So it's extremely disingenuous of you to shrill that pornography exploits women who drop out of high school.
Libertarians don't believe in government regulation of porn any more than they believe in the criminality of pot. But, perhaps you've suddenly become a 'moralist.'
Having admitted that: "However, call me uninformed, I have always had this picture of the stereotypical porn director/producer as being a pretty self-centered male who really has no personal concern for the women (girls?) he hires."
I don't call you uninformed: I call you a bigot, sir. How is this any different from me saying that I have this stereotypical view that you live in a teepee, wear feathers, grunt a lot and kidnap and rape white women?
That was a fairly prevalent stereotype of Native Americans in these parts and we all decry it.
So how is what you've said any different?
And, if I may NOW call you uninformed, you mean the "Producer" -- who is the person who hires the stereotypically exploited girls you speak stereotypically of. I'm sure they will be enthralled at your dehumanizing characterization in furtherance of your vile ends. There are SOME forms of behavior that sicken even pornographers, Mr. Piccolo, and you've certainly shown us one of them.
Having tried to hijack the conversation from the dirty tricks of the Rich gang, by screaming PORNO! you fail to respond to Becky's reasonable question and scream "BISC"!
(I'm reminded of Mark Twain's "Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offenses," specifically his analysis of the 'Cooper Indians' attempt to jump onto the houseboat.)
BISC quick: I can't see where the British International School Cairo is our concern here. But how is it that Irresponsible Spender and yourself both screech the same acronym on the same day that I've never heard before?
Since nobody even knows what you're talking about anymore, I have a feeling that you're probably going to be as successful in this new
GEORGE SOROS! GEORGE SOROS!
Attack as you were with the "PORNO! PORNO! BURN THE WITCH!!" approach.
You really need to stop cribbing from the Karl Rove playbook: the old "Swiftboating" tactic is SOOOOOOO 2004.
The new fad is honesty and integrity.
Oh, and having had this brush with her father, I wouldn't WANT to hang out with your daughter, either. Who knows what barking moonbat craziness she has dancing around in her head?
Hart Williams
Hart/Ed,
Sorry to break the news but I am not Helen Langora. I post under my screen handle.
Besides whoever that is writes posts much to long or me. I noticed a lot of other of his/her posts are pretty long as well.
Secondly it has never really been a secret as to who Coyote is. After all it has been in the Oregonian newspaper a number of times and even with picutres! The latest was a week ago Sunday and I think that was on the front page.
Third it is one thing to research google (as you do, and quite well actually), write, copy, paste, link etc... And another thing entirely to prattle off personal impressions.
The latter comes much quicker and usually entails a greater degree of opinion which of course is admittedly subjective.
Finally I'll admit that the big brother networking software I utilize during the day inhibits me from logging in and posting on "blogger" software. I may be full of opinions, however I am a technological clutz (chimp?) and just don't worry bout fixing it because until today it was really never an issue.
Oh and one more thing (see, since I said "finally" above must mean I am lying again by continuing?)... I am not a libertarian any longer. I think Becky can attest to my rather public breakup with the party as at the time she chastised me for the way I went about it.
I have a term for libertarians. I call them "libercrats," as all the party is really good for is electing Democrats.
If I mispelled anything please fix it will you? I don't have time.
Thanks,
There is a sweet irony to Coyote's smugness about how everyone knows about his handle, yet he sure thought he was revealing something big when he told the world that Ed Waldo was Hart Williams (never mind that Ed Waldo's Boregasm website is lodged at a Hart Williams address).
And what was that you said to me in comments a couple weeks ago? Oh, yeah:
If I got snarky towards you in the past I do apologize. Believe it or not I do try NOT to do that on a personal level. However sometmes low blood sugar levels gets the best of me.
So, accept or not tiz up to you. However I really do mean it. (Doesn't mean I agree with your new found outlook... Let's not go that far... )
yip yip
ps. you really hate that yip part don't ya?...
I'm sure you meant it as much as I mean this: Geez, I'm really sorry if I've gotten snarky with you, Ted. And don't feel bad about the yapping, er, I mean yipping. I don't mind it at all. But next time you're considering writing about someone, maybe have a glass of orange juice first.
Is there no comment about his involvement in pornography?
Well that brings up a very interesting point. Returning for a moment to the Meese Commission hearings, and the outcome of the legislation and court decisions that followed, the very construct of pornography is highly debateable (can we say commonly derived community standards, deviation from artistic intentionality, etc??). To assign this value to someone's work requires the signifying person to have a working knowledge of the concept and its application across a wide diverse cultural landscape.
One could easily assume that if TP is sufficiently knowledgeable of HW's writing, and of other creative textual endeavors that are representative of the class of literature referred to by the Library of Congress and the Dewey decimel system application as "eroticism," then TP's been doing a great deal of that kind of reading. If not, then his use of the label pornography is purely an ad hominem attack upon the person of HW, and merits no value in this debate.
Did I "attack" HW? Is that what that was?
There was a blog post about his background and he himself has already seemed to dismiss that background as no big deal. Even mentioning that he has not tried to hide it. (note that I don't think I ever said he was trying to hide it. I have known it for quite sometime but just did not have the time nor interest to try to tie it all together).
I pointed to the blogpost. Is it in error? If so tell the author and myself. I can't speak for the author but if it is in error then I will address it first chance I get.
Although I am really leaning towards pulling it down anyway because the content really does make me feel a little uneasy. Ok... call me a prude. I've been called worse.
And Becky do you really think that I thought I was somehow outing him because of his blog? I knew it was under his name HW. I never thought I was "telling the world" who HW was because he was pretty open about that in the first place.
I did find it of interest after reading the long story and knowing how some mainstream reporters had become pretty tied to his reporting. Not to mention less mainstream such as PBS.
After all HW's reporting is primarily focused on the backgrounds of political figures. Okayyy... Well he is a political figure in that he is doing this because he dislikes the initiative system? So could one say that since he seems to be judging the motivations of others one could also question his motivations? By looking at his background of course.
As for my knowledge of HW's writings... I'd say I am only as knowledgable as what I reposted from the other site.
Well other than a casual read of some of his series. And the only reason it is more caual than in depth is because the posts are so dog gonned loooong.
So... I ask... Is my post in error? Has he not had an influence on the reporting from the MSM? I think yes.
Is, as I state, HW creative? You would have a hard time finding an argument against that.
Was he involved in the porn industry as one who writes stories? I think that AC has shown us yes?
Was he involved in the Democratic party in Oregon and was at least marginally conspiratorial in his description of the structure at the time? Again (although I know this question is subjective) I think yes.
Is his writing about ALG somewhat conspiratorial as well? Well I think somewhere in his blogposts he admits as much.
So I don't know where I am wrong. Except that the discussion of pornography tends to make most (me included) just a little uncomfortable. So is THAT the reason you are so worked up about that post?
Does any of what you wrote have any relevance whatsoever? No. That's what I pointed out.
I'm not worked up - you are, and I suspect it's because what Hart has dug up is bothering you, so it's just somehow easier for you to disregard it by labeling him a pornographer.
It's too bad you find reading so burdensome, because if you read his posts you would know he has tried for a long time to get the MSM to pay attention to what he found.
Reading is a wonderful skill to have, Ted, as opposed to skimming. I suggest you take it up and break your habit of looking at things from such a shallow perspective. You are like a lot of Americans who want to jump to pat conclusions based on preconceived ideas with which you are comfortable, but we can no longer afford to think that way. It's time to grow up and look more deeply at what is really going on in the world. Slow down a bit. Quit feeling so smug and start using that noodle in your head.
Heavy sigh... now I am the one worked up? But you are the one who created a post calling me a chimp?
How is that not worked up?
And dug something up on me? Good Lord are we getting dramatic?
Did I say that I found reading burdonsome? Oiy...
Heavy sigh... now I am the one worked up? But you are the one who created a post calling me a chimp?
How is that not worked up?
And dug something up on me? Good Lord are we getting dramatic?
Did I say that I found reading burdonsome? Oiy...
Let's say for the sake of argument that Hart is a hardcore pornographer. Let's say he's the hardest of the hard core.
So what?
How does that change anything he's dug up and written about in regard to Rich?
THAT is the important question here.
And that's what Ted is trying so very hard to use to obfuscate.
There is a pernicious and deliberate lie that Mr. Piccolo continues to push here and it needs addressing. He writes several variants of: "Unfortunately in HW's case he has is an admitted leftwing activist with a sincere distaste for the initiative process. So he has an agenda."
That's simply a lie, and Piccolo should know it.
First: That I am a "left wing activist." I deregistered as a Democrat after 18 years on November 3, 2004. That is the reason that I was, as a NAV on the Rich mailing list. I was also a registered Republican for 14 years. So, I am truly an "Independent."
As to my take on the Initiative process (and Mr. Piccolo -- ADD afflicted though he might be -- SURELY read it.) This is what's up at the PBS NOW website:
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/238...t-
williams.html
NOW: What's your take on the ballot initiative process itself? They're clearly controversial: many people love them for their ability to put the power of lawmaking directly into the hands of citizens, and many others hate them for the very same reason. Where do you come down?
Williams: They were originally a necessary check on the power of a few powerful robber barons to block pieces of legislation that a clear majority of citizens considered necessary and proper. When initiatives are used that way, I think they're a fine thing. But in the past decade or so, we've seen that flipped on its ear: the robber barons use it to block the legislature instead. The whole thing is upside down.
And THIS is the unedited version, as several people I bcc'ed my interview to -- for just this reason -- can attest.
Williams: The first ballot initiative was voted on here in Oregon in 1904. (South Dakota passed the first initiative law, which the Oregon "blue book" conveniently ignores). They were originally a necessary check on the power of a few powerful robber barons to block pieces of legislation that a clear majority of citizens considered necessary and proper.
When initiatives are used that way, I think they're a fine thing.
But in the past decade or so, we've seen that flipped on its ear: the robber barons use it to block the legislature instead. The whole thing is upside down. At the ALG 'conference' in Chicago last month, one speaker said that even if they lose, they still win, because they block people they disagree with in that (my) state from proposing measures of their own -- because they have to spend all their resources "playing defense."
Or to quote from High Country News reporter's Ray Ring's amazing interview with Howie Rich (akin this season to interviewing a recluse on the order of J.D. Salinger), Rich himself states: "I'm far more interested in initiatives. The initiative process enables you to bypass the legislature ...."
I think that says it all.
And so it does.
Hart Williams
Well Ed it was not a "lie." If I have mischaracterized your political leanings then it was a "mistake." There is a difference.
So you are a fan of the initiative process? I thought I read somewhere in that PBS interview that you were negative toward the initiative process? Hmm... Okayyy...
However... More to the point.
You have a propensity to be creative. To tell (write) stories. Yes?
The stories you wrote were pornographic in nature. Yes? If you had been a Western writer or Sci-Fi. The point is that you create stories with a pen. Yes?
You also show a propensity to quickly believe there is always some deep dark secret cabal working behind the scenes. Just look at how you immediately jumped to the conclusion that the AC blog author and myeself are the same person AND a commenter on that site and I as well.
So in one day you assumed that I was trying to remain anonyous, publishing two blogs and commenting on one of them under a psudonym.
When in truth I am not an anonymous blogger. If you would research the AC site you would find the referrences to the the anachronym you are referring to and... well I can't explain the anonymous commenter "irresponsible spender." However it is after all, hard to prove a negative.
Oh and you said that I was Rogued by Willamette Week? (as if that is a BAD thing?) I surely don't remember that. Could you send me a link? That is one of those things that I would hold as a badge of honor.
I have been panned by them, written about by them and they have quoted me on any number of occasions. However I just don't remember being rogued.
Ted, your inability to grasp a simple point is becoming hilarious.
Hart's writing history doesn't matter one iota. Why would you bring it to anyone's attention? Because you thought it was scandalous and would discredit his discoveries about Howard Rich's efforts. But the problem with your plan to discredit him - or rather "expose" him - is that everything he wrote is true and supported by factual evidence. You don't have to be a conspiracy nut to see what's going on.
You have a propensity to be creative. To tell (write) stories. Yes?
Michael Crichton writes fiction and nonfiction. So?
I'm sure you're smart enough to understand the difference between the two, Ted.
The problem you've got here is that that Hart has sourced his nonfiction material heavily. His material on Rich is well documented.
So unless you've got some evidence on the factual matters regarding Howard Rich that works against what Williams is saying--you're doing little more than throwing shit against the wall to see if it sticks.
So do you actually have anything which demonstrates Williams' work on Howard Rich lacks basis in fact, or don't you?
I have been proud to call Hart Williams my friend for over 15 years. You would be hard pressed to find another person on this planet with more integrity.
Speaking as a person twice elected as Secretary of the Democratic Party of Lane County and twice elected Chair of the Oregon 4th District Democratic Congressional Committee and an Electoral College voter in 1996, I can state unequivocably that his description of events regarding the DPLC are accurate.
The local party leadership brought their wrath down upon Hart because he had the audacity to raise questions they didn't want to answer regarding their lack of democratic process and questionable fiscal policies.
I know, for I was there.
f980f7 d231e96d89
Commenting by HaloScan
