Nancy Cassis, the senator who recently threatened a Michigan filmmaker with a lawsuit, has denied claims that she has a face for radio. The claims stem from the Senator's reaction to a video created by film maker Billy Whitehouse, which made fun of the Senator for her policy decisions. Critics say that the Senator over-reacted to the video because she has a face more suitable for radio.
"While it's true that Senator Cassis CALLED THE POLICE AND AN ATTORNEY in response to this video, these face related claims are preposterous," said one top aide. "The Senator's face isn't suitable for anything. Not even radio."
Whitehouse has been ignoring the controversy surrounding the Senator's face. "I am hopeful that the public will demand that freedom of speech be respected and protected."
But sources close to the Senator say that Whitehouse's calls for free speech are falling on deaf ears. "We're in the middle of a budget crisis here. These far-left demands for government freebies have got to stop."
Keep it tuned to BFM for ongoing coverage of this ridiculous Senator.
Oh, you kids know how I love me some Mike Bishop. Sometimes I blog about him, sometimes I doodle, sometimes we bring in some outsiders to expose his alter-ego. (Muwahaha!!) But do you all remember why I started loving him? Let me take you back.
Now some of you may remember that this little ditty was re-worked and run as an opinion piece in the Detroit Free Press? Well you all know what a cesspool the Detroit Free Press online can be. And what do you have in a cesspool?
Big flaming piles of poo.
One of these big flaming piles of poo, who I shall call "Darth Poo" found me on the Free Press and decided to start posting here. (Not sure if you can see his comments; he was troll-rated before being banned) I wasn't a part of this discussion because I was working down in Warren that day, and I had a wicked cold/flu thing. I told the Warren peeps to call me if they had a problem, and I took off early. By 3pm I was sleeping merrily in my bed, never having even looked at this thread.
Meanwhile, Darth Poo thought that I, Christine, was every single one of those people in that comment thread.
Really, he did.
I'm sleeping. My phone rang. I answered it, thinking it was someone at Warren who needed help.
Stupid. Stupid.
For the next few minutes, Darth Poo gave me a bunch of crap about France and Syria and BFM. (Keep in mind I just woke up.) And then he went on about Ann Coulter and how we liberals are pathetic for hating her. (I just woke up) And then he went on about how he could take down BFM any time he wanted if I didn't let him back on the site. (Just woke up ... shuffling my way to the computer now ... can't even see yet.) And how he knew my home address and my phone number ... ( Email from Wizardkitten, "just banned some guy name Darth Poo, he's nuts!")
... this would be the most significant threat to free speech involving an Internet outlet in the state of Michigan. Mike Bishop's blocked access to Blogging for Michigan last summer generated a lot of headlines, but in the end really only cut off access to the site by a handful of state computers. This, on the other hand, means cutting the story out at its knees.
The "most significant threat to free speech" in question is the threat of a lawsuit, against Michigan Messenger, for two allegedly defamatory articles about a private security firm. (The attorneys for the Center for Independent Media have responded to the threat.)
Taking the comparison a bit further -- one is a threat of a lawsuit by a private firm, against a nationwide organization, for two specific articles that were allegedly defamatory. The other is government censorship of a small privately owned blog, on the basis that we "said bad things" about them. The fact that Sovereign Deed receives public assistance does not make the threat of a lawsuit by them any more hideous than censorship by a state government.
I'm not trying to make light of the situation with Michigan Messenger, nor do I care who gets the title of "most significant threat to free speech." I just disagree with the comparison and the assessment of what happened to us.
I wish Michigan Messenger & CIM the best in dealing with this matter.
We saw last summer how Republicans hate to be challenged when they try to lie and spin facts, and when Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, R-Rochester, censored the liberal blog Blogging for Michigan by banning it from Senate computers we saw how far they will go when challenged with the truth.
I felt that same wrath when I was banned last week from commenting on the leading right wing blog, RightMichigan, by paid GOP operative Nick DeLeeuw.
It's pretty sad when their positions are so flimsily they cannot even defend them, and because they can't defend their positions they just shut people up. Many of my blogger friends and colleagues ask my why I bother posting on right-wing blogs and put up with all the personal attacks. It's pretty simple: How hard and how fun is it to have a debate with yourself or with someone with the same position. Hell, how do you even debate yourself?
Actually, I don't get a whole of lot out of these debates and exchanges because after I destroy their positions and punch holes through their lies and half truths, I get greeted with name-calling. When you do not have a leg to stand on that's what you get. I should have expected this because his boss has a "blog" that does not even allow any comments. They want to be able to spin their lies without being called out on it.
One of their favorite insulting names for me is troll. Whenever I disprove their spin and point out their lies I get called a troll instead of them backing up their position. I've repeatedly asked how I can be a troll when to comment I have to be registered with a screen name and password that has to be approved. You can comment on my blog, The Conservative Media, anonymously because I can defend my positions, and I'm not afraid to stand up for what I believe.
It doesn't really bother me that I got banned because I was just wasting my time debating people devoid of real ideas and closed minds, but the lame excuse he used to get rid of someone who was kicking his ass in debate really bothers me.
The other favorite slur against me is a play on my screen name, and I'm called Commie Guru, or similar variations. Very clever of them, but unfortunately, that's what passes for real, intelligent debate on that blog.
Being called a Communist is something that is particularly offense to me because I spent 20 years in the Navy during the Cold War. I made some 10 overseas extended deployments during that time away from my family, and it really bothers me to be called a communist after that.
The people on that blog, like many Republicans, are what Al Franken calls "Chicken Hawks" meaning they are pro-war but refuse to serve in the military to back that up. DeLeeuw and the few posters there are the very definition of chicken hawks. There is one serial poster there who continually calls me a communist, but at the same time keeps telling me how much he supports the Iraq occupation and the troops. One day I called him out on a particular offensive anti-troop remark, so I began calling him "troop-hater" when ever he called me a communist. Childish. Yes, but what can I say.
In reality, I know he nor DeLeeuw are really not troop-haters. They are just indifferent, and they want them to go and fight and come home, shut up and then disappear.
Back to what got me banned. DeLeeuw posted some untrue things about the people tying to discourage people from signing the petitions in the misguided recall attempt against Rep. Robert Dean. He claimed the paid signature collectors were being harassed, so I went right to the source to get the information and found out that DeLeeuw was lying. He later posted video he took that proved I was right.
To make a long story short, I was banned for - get this - "chicken-hawking." I have no idea how he reached that conclusion since I served in the military and am against the Iraq occupation.
If I misstated anything here or I am incorrect feel free to add your comments. You can even do it anonymously.
Senate Republican Leader Mike Bishop has banned access to all Senate bathrooms. According to Bishop's Chief of Staff Matt Miner, the bathrooms will be closed until they determine exactly who has been writing "bad things" on the bathroom walls.
It's clear that whoever is writing these messages has access to Senate servers. Fresh scrawl has been discovered immediately after Senate sessions, and the information is far too accurate to have been written by a member of the public. No bathroom breaks will be allowed until the bathroom scribbler is identified.
Assistant Secretary of the Senate Pam Nyquist reported that it was possible that Senate-issued Sharpies were used to write these messages, and "that would not be appropriate."
Under fire from both Democrats and Republicans, Mike Bishop stood by his Chief of Staff.
Senate employees spend far too much time in the bathroom. During this time of fiscal crisis, which is the Governor's fault and she has stupid hair, we cannot have public employees using the restrooms. It's a matter of fiscal responsibility. Excuse me, I'm late for a fundraiser.
Gongwer originally, incorrectly reported that Senate rules prohibit taking photos of the voting board. Later Gongwer corrected this to say,
News reporters and photographers have always been told Senate rules prohibit filming any votes other than roll-call votes. Senate rules specifically say "members of the media" may film or photograph Senate proceedings from the desk areas reporters are supposed to remain at, and further the rules say reporters and photographers can record sessions so long as they do not disrupt proceedings.
The Senate does have a long-standing policy, however, that only allows recording of the voting board during a roll-call vote.
(This long-standing policy is in direct violation of the Open Meetings Act. We'll get to that in a minute)
This bit with the photographer led to some nasty behavior by Republicans on the Senate floor yesterday. Senator Tom George blamed Senator Mark Schauer for destroying trust between the two parties.
With the Mike Bishop attempt at censoring a legitimate news source simply because they criticized him almost a month old, some in the mainstream and corporate media are just now getting around to putting their two cents in. Some get it, but apparently some do not understand the 1st Amendment.
As you know, back on Aug. 3 Senate Majority 'leader" Mike Bishop, R- Rochester, blocked access to the liberal blog "Blogging for Michigan" and only BFM from Senate computers. Bishop and his staffers blamed, depending on who asked and the time of day, that BFM was banned for saying mean things about Republicans, or political staffers should not waste government time by reading political content or the assistant communications director for the Senate Democrats Communications was running the blog. It took four days of pressure from other liberal bloggers, one conservative blog and the mainstream media for him to relent.
Some mainstream media outlets, like the Traverse City Record Eagle, got it, and they called Bishop out on his classic example of censorship: the government trying to silence the press for criticizing him. Unfortunately, the Livingston County Daily Press & Argus does not get it.
In an editorial today, the conservative and corporate editorial board is parroting the rightwing topic talking point that it was a simply "mistake" by Bishop.
I just watched the first few minutes of OTR, and I have to say, I'm disappointed. I appreciate that Joan and Marcy were there to represent us; they did a great job. But once again, this Bishop censorship thing was played off as a "blessing" to tiny little BFM. So, I thought I'd take a minute to count some of those blessings:
BFM never wanted to be known as a "mean" blog. We want to be a substantive blog. Other blogs can be the ones to "say bad things." We say good things about Michigan. As for the Republicans, all we do is use their own words and actions to expose their agenda. We really didn't appreciate being put in a position where we had to defend our content.
All of the good work that we do on things like MDOT, civil rights, economic development, etc., was devalued as soon as people started labeling us as a "questionable political blog."
Wizardkitten had to reveal her identity. Her real name is on this blog, and in the press, and she's being accused of a crime, and all of this is happening while she's looking for a job. (Incidentally, I can't believe that bloggers are not up-in-arms about an anonymous blogger being outed.)
This is the kind of arrogance that he brings to the budget negotiations. Is it any wonder that we don't have a budget yet?
He decides a particular product or service is a waste of state money, he just shuts it off. Not even the Constitution of the United States of America can get in his way. (George W Bush, anyone?)
He won't communicate with you about it, unless you catch him, in which case he'll just insist he's right. (In fact he's so adverse to communicating with you, he'll hide in the bathroom to avoid it) His responses will defy logic, but he'll stick to whatever story he's telling at the time.
What else is Bishop not telling you? What else has he taken from you? What will he take next?
When Mike Bishop's Propaganda Minister Matt Miner decided to block access to BFM, he obviously didn't know he would be facing a firestorm in the press. The thought of Bishop's staff running about like the Keystone Cops, trying to come up with a proper reason for blocking us, is tragically comic.
The most enduring lie is that the block on BFM was a matter of "workplace ethics" ... that Senate Democrats / state employees were spending too much time on BFM, and the use of state equipment to view "questionable political content" (QPC?) is unethical. This is ridiculous for several reasons, starting with the fact that they blocked only one blog, and ending with the fact that the man who blocked it has so little regard for work, that he changed the Senate rules so that no one could make him do any.
This was not a legitimate effort to increase productivity; it was an attempted purge by a pathological megalomaniac. This was one website, targeted for "questionable political content", as identified by the political opposition that is so often criticized here. To believe that this was a matter of "workplace ethics" is to believe that "war is peace" and that "lies are truth" and that "some animals are more equal than others."
Censorship in America is mild to the kind that you might find in the former Soviet Union. None of us were ever in any danger of being "disappeared" or taken out and shot. But if that did happen, one has to wonder how many people would say "Miner has a valid point, but he shot the wrong ones."
Today's editorial from the Traverse City Record Eagle.
Oh, Mike. You got some 'splaining to do.
Who does he think he is? Dick Cheney?
After a brief fling as Michigan's Censor-in-Chief, Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop on Tuesday restored access for lawmakers and staffers to a political Web site that had apparently hurt his feelings.
By the time he reversed himself, however, whatever the site had said about him paled in comparison to the beating he took in the blogosphere and in print - from left and right - over his decision to unilaterally suspend the First Amendment for senators and staffers.
When Mike Bishop blocked access to our site last week, he came up with a few different excuses for it. The one that seemed to stick with people is that "blogging is not the work of the people." It's ironic that Bishop is spinning it this way, since the reason he cut us off was that we were criticizing his do-nothing caucus. But, that's not the point of this article.
We need to get away from this idea that blogging is a waste of taxpayer time. Sure, if you blog about your cat, that's probably not relevant to a Senator's job. But BFM is not a blog about cats. It's a blog about Michigan policy and politics. That's what a Senator's job is about.
On August 6, subscription only Gongwer ran an article that included the following paragraph:
(Though ironically, on the blog, Ms. Barry has encouraged Cleary College in Livingston County to not invite conservative columnist Ann Coulter to speak at a college fundraiser.)
Since I have never involved myself in the Coulter - Cleary College situation, Gongwer has issued a correction on their website. However I want to take a minute to address the "ironically" part.
If a group of citizens want to pressure advertisers, sponsors, etc., to keep Ann Coulter from coming to their town, that's called a boycott. It's the free market at work.
If your government wants to single out one website for censorship because that website says "bad things" about it, that's a constitutional violation.
People who enjoy Ann Coulter's work think that it's "censorship" when someone asks that she not be a celebrity speaker in their home-town. But Ann Coulter uses words like "raghead" and "faggot" to describe people she doesn't like. She jokes about killing Presidents and Supreme Court Justices. It's not censorship to lobby or boycott the sponsors who are financially rewarding that kind of speech.
BFM does not call for people to be killed, nor do we use peoples' ethnicity as a means to disparage them, nor do we mock the death of a candidate's son.
Nor do we make $25,000 every time we open our mouths, or wear black cocktail dresses at 8am. We're just bloggers. Not celebrities who appeal to the lowest forms of life in our part of the political spectrum.
The censorship of BFM and the business with Coulter-Cleary, is a false equivalency on the part of Gongwer. I'm shocked that a news service cannot tell the difference between the two.
First and foremost, this is a victory for free speech. The fact is that Senator Bishop singled BFM out for censorship. He targeted BFM, and only BFM, because we said "bad things" about them.
After 5 days, he backed down.
Second, this is a victory for, and because of, the Senate Democrats. Democratic Leader Mark Schauer showed strong leadership through this situation. When the ban was confirmed, he personally assured Christine that the Senate Democrats would not tolerate censorship of any kind. He didn't back down to Bishop's bullying, and he didn't fall for his story-telling.
To Senator Schauer and the Democratic Caucus, if you're reading, BFM can't thank you enough for your stand on this issue.
Finally, the blogosphere had a role to play here. Liberal Lucy got the word out through DKos and Michigan Liberal. Libby Spencer helped us out with the Detroit News and NewsHoggers. Our own Communications Guru worked up a story at his personal site. And Nick at Right Michigan played a role too.
All of us can rejoice in this victory, but we cannot allow ourselves to think the world has changed for the better. It has shifted the other way.
First of all, I would like to thank everyone for their support of BFM and of free speech. Some people really stepped up here and helped me through a very difficult time, you know who you are, and you have my undying gratitude.
Special thanks go out to Senator Mark Schauer. Whatever it is that you are "going to decide" in the next 24 hours, I'm behind you all the way.
I am way too tired to try to write about all of this, but I did want to give you the SOD from Bishop's Chief of Staff Matt Miner, courtesy of MIRS-
"I think it's great that people have these so they can express their opinion," he said.
Turns out that Senate Republicans love blogs. Who woulda thunk it.
After four day of solid pressure from both the left and right side of the political spectrum and those that truly understand the intent and importance of the First Amendment, Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, R-Rochester, relented and stopped the illegal censoring of a liberal blog for daring to call him out on his foot-dragging and attempt to hold the state budget hostage for his political gain.
Late last Friday Bishop blocked access to the liberal blog "Blogging for Michigan" and only BFM from Senate computers. Bishop and his staffers blamed, depending on who asked and the time of day, that BFM was banned for saying mean things about Republicans or political staffers should not waste government time by reading political content.
Bishop's office just released a statement that said:
"I stand by the position that Senate employees should be not be using taxpayer equipment to view political blogs pursuant to Senate Rule 1.401(c). These blogs are of questionable content and employees who are paid to conduct the business of the people of Michigan should not be interacting with them during business hours."
He just does not get it. He further went on to blame Senate Democrats for correctly pointing out that he was doing exactly what the Founding Fathers were protecting against when they wrote the Bill of Rights: stopping the government from censoring political speech and writing and trying to hinder a free press.
"Senate Democrats seem intent on making this a debate on censorship and their right to view questionable political content during business hours. Senate Republicans believe this a discussion of the proper use of taxpayer resources and appropriate conduct during business hours and establishing strict guidelines on employee use of the Internet and websites."
Again, he just does not get it. The debate is exactly about censorship. Perhaps someone should send Bishop a copy of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Also, thanks to rightwing bloggers like "RightMichigan" for supporting the Constitution and recognizing the debate was exactly about censorship.
I am writing to call your attention to how the recent content-based blog censorship by your staff has a chilling effect on constituents, the online community, and all of us as elected officials. I would hope that you agree that freedom of speech and the right to express contrary viewpoints are fundamental values that we should all embrace and defend. This is why your staff's decision to block access to a particular independent, Michigan policy-focused blog because of its critical statements is so disturbing. I hope this is simply a matter of your staff lacking an understanding of the role of new media, and not something more sinister.
Oh, you kids know how I love me some Mike Bishop. Sometimes I blog about him, sometimes I doodle, sometimes 
When Mike Bishop's Propaganda Minister Matt Miner decided to block access to BFM, he obviously didn't know he would be facing a firestorm in the press. The thought of Bishop's staff running about like the Keystone Cops, trying to come up with a proper reason for blocking us, is tragically comic. 
