This is a deeply and multiply dishonest argument. For starters, Silverstein never claimed that "media should decide who lobbying firms should or should not represent." For the media to "decide" something like that, there would need to be some sort of decision-making body (like a jury or regularory agency) comprised of media representatives with the power to enforce their decisions. No one has ever proposed creation of such a thing, so Socci is making is a totally bogus, dishonest, straw man argument. However, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does guarantee that the media have the right to report on the activities of lobbyists, and that's all Silverstein has done.
Socci's comparison of lobbyists who represent dictators with law firms who represent child abusers is also deeply dishonest. Under U.S. law, it's true that accused criminals are entitled to legal representation, regardless of whether they can afford to pay. This means that even an accused child molester or someone like Timothy McVeigh gets an attorney appointed to represent them. I would therefore never consider a court-appointed attorney simply for representing a client who happens to be guilty of some awful crime. That's supposed to happen to ensure fair trials.
With lobbyists, things are completely different. There is no law or principle that says, "if you cannot afford a lobbyist, one will be appointed for you." Lobbyists don't represent dictators who torture and kill because of some legal or ethical obligation to fairness. They do so simply for the money, and it's therefore entirely appropriate to criticize them for their actions.
Laurence Socci
Government Consulting, Lobbying and Advocacy
www.theclagroup.com (703) 780-1846
It's interesting that Silverstein seems to think that media should decide who lobbying firms should or should not represent. Next thing you know, he'll be telling law firms that they shouldn't represent child abusers.
The abbreviated and slightly corrected version of the Great Global Warming Swindle was broadcasted on Dutch public television last Thursday 12 July.
The documentary was followed by a discussion in which "sceptical, scientific and political aspects" were to be covered. The tv station deemed providing such context necessary as "it cannot be expected that the general public and politicians will be able to recognise the fraudulous character of the documentary"
Now they are resorting to personal attacks! Mike - lets put weight on kids report cards- Huckabee is claiming Moore's size is responsible for the US health care crisis. I am pleased to see Moore's staff expose his real agenda. Seems the homophobic, healthier-than-thou huckster is having trouble raising campaign cash. So his weight loss is the only thing he can exploit for national attention. I am glad they were aware of the scapegoating by this slimmed down simpleton. Not that prevention is a bad thing. But EVERYONE can benefit by more exercise and natural eating, not just fat people. Finger pointing is unacceptable. How does he know what Moore's medical expenses are?????? Both health care and obesity are complex issue that will take more than a low calorie Cracker to "solve."
This is a deeply and multiply dishonest argument. For starters, Silverstein never claimed that "media should decide who lobbying firms should or should not represent." For the media to "decide" something like that, there would need to be some sort of decision-making body (like a jury or regularory agency) comprised of media representatives with the power to enforce their decisions. No one has ever proposed creation of such a thing, so Socci is making is a totally bogus, dishonest, straw man argument. However, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does guarantee that the media have the right to report on the activities of lobbyists, and that's all Silverstein has done.
Socci's comparison of lobbyists who represent dictators with law firms who represent child abusers is also deeply dishonest. Under U.S. law, it's true that accused criminals are entitled to legal representation, regardless of whether they can afford to pay. This means that even an accused child molester or someone like Timothy McVeigh gets an attorney appointed to represent them. I would therefore never consider a court-appointed attorney simply for representing a client who happens to be guilty of some awful crime. That's supposed to happen to ensure fair trials.
With lobbyists, things are completely different. There is no law or principle that says, "if you cannot afford a lobbyist, one will be appointed for you." Lobbyists don't represent dictators who torture and kill because of some legal or ethical obligation to fairness. They do so simply for the money, and it's therefore entirely appropriate to criticize them for their actions.
Laurence Socci
Government Consulting, Lobbying and Advocacy
www.theclagroup.com (703) 780-1846
It's interesting that Silverstein seems to think that media should decide who lobbying firms should or should not represent. Next thing you know, he'll be telling law firms that they shouldn't represent child abusers.
The abbreviated and slightly corrected version of the Great Global Warming Swindle was broadcasted on Dutch public television last Thursday 12 July.
The documentary was followed by a discussion in which "sceptical, scientific and political aspects" were to be covered. The tv station deemed providing such context necessary as "it cannot be expected that the general public and politicians will be able to recognise the fraudulous character of the documentary"
http://www.klimaatportaal.nl/pro1/general/start.asp?i=1&j=7&k=5&p=0&itemid=297
Or, not eating Twinkies by the bushel is a sign of personal virtue...
Tables turned, even if the target is different.
Remind me to read this article soon -- just sticking it up here for right now:
http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/56440/
Now they are resorting to personal attacks! Mike - lets put weight on kids report cards- Huckabee is claiming Moore's size is responsible for the US health care crisis. I am pleased to see Moore's staff expose his real agenda. Seems the homophobic, healthier-than-thou huckster is having trouble raising campaign cash. So his weight loss is the only thing he can exploit for national attention. I am glad they were aware of the scapegoating by this slimmed down simpleton. Not that prevention is a bad thing. But EVERYONE can benefit by more exercise and natural eating, not just fat people. Finger pointing is unacceptable. How does he know what Moore's medical expenses are?????? Both health care and obesity are complex issue that will take more than a low calorie Cracker to "solve."
http://tinyurl.com/2cvkwp
Pages