CR Convention. I sucked, but it seemed like it was a pretty good group.

I was asked to sub for State Auditor Rich Sattgast at the CR convention today, and it was pretty interesting. Rich was delayed from a conference and laid over two days on his way back, so I took pity on him.

I was instantly regretting not having done more prep, as I walked in and saw the speaker before me, Dusty Johnson had a powerpoint presentation on this year's political races being projected.

Ugh. I'm following a powerpoint presentation? That and Dusty noting how aged he is at 29. (I razzed him a little for that one) When you're facing 40 this year, you don't want to hear how old a 29 year old is. 29... back when I had 2 kids. Four more kids and ten years later, I'm about ready for the iceflow.

And lets face it, my talk was pretty mediocre. I'm wishing I had done more prep. I was the guy with a few scribbled notes going "I'm subbing for Rich Sattgast. Just consider me a shorter and fatter version of him."

What I did find interesting was that there were several people there who read the SDWC. I spent a few minutes talking about those things that I think are and are not blogworthy, and what I've done to build my readership from 500/monthly last June to over 11,500 readers this last month.

I mentioned that I think it's important to some journalistic standards as they will draw people to you if they know you're not a tabloid, and will also keep you out of trouble by making wild charges. I also used my faithful line about how a blog is not a new technology, but a glorified letter to the editor. Except you can include multimedia with a blog.

I also spoke on a couple of current issues such as how both major political parties are against JAIL, and I asked the SDSU attendees about their thoughts on the Aguiar thing. Aside from finding out he didn't show up for at least one class yesterday after all of this broke, I did get one great comment from one of the SDSU CR's in attendance.

Their input? "I won't take classes from him." Ouch! that doesn't speak positively of this supposedly Republican Professor.

Last night had the party chair, as well as Brock Greenfield addressing the group. Today had a full day of speakers including Congressional Candidate Bruce Whalen, Attorney General Larry Long, Lee Schoenbeck, and School and Lands Candidate Jarrod Johnson speaking.

Today they're also going to elect new CR leaders, so it should be a good two days for them. I appreciate the opportunity to come chat, and I'm looking forward to hearing more from them as the election season progresses.

Comments

Anonymous said…
supposedly republican would be the key phrase here.
Bonnie Russell said…
Too funny. I take it this wasn't a Paid assembly if you were talking about Blogs and "journalistic standards." Because I'm guessing you may have Neglected to mention how you took a cut and paste quote I said about myself and Altered it with a "Excuse me if I misquote her slightly" before adding your own lines to distort all reality.

So any chat about journalistic standards, means you have to at least mention your actions.

And as long as your talking about Amendment E, which you deliberately also mis-identify, oops. There's that darned Integrity thing again...

why not include the below Relevant story from the Washington Post, about a judge who is Exhibit A for Amendment E.

*
Glossing Over Mistreatment in the Magbie Case

By Colbert I. King
Saturday, April 8, 2006; Page A23

Jonathan Magbie was a 27-year-old man who was paralyzed from the neck down as a result of a childhood accident. Although he had never been convicted of a criminal offense and although he required private nursing care for as much as 20 hours a day, Magbie was given a 10-day sentence in the D.C. jail in September 2004 by D.C. Superior Court Judge Judith E. Retchin for possession of a marijuana cigarette. He died in city custody four days later. His story has been the subject of several previous columns.

Earlier this week Edward D. Reiskin, deputy mayor for public safety and justice, provided D.C. Council members David Catania (I-At Large) and Phil Mendelson (D-At Large), chairmen, respectively, of the council's Health and Judiciary committees, with the findings from the D.C. Department of Corrections (DOC) investigation into the care provided Magbie from Sept. 20 to Sept. 24, 2004.

Actually, to call the Corrections Department's report an "investigation" is like describing a BB gun as an AK-47. The eight-page document produced by the department's Office of Internal Affairs attempts to explain away a more extensive and highly critical investigation into Magbie's death that D.C. Inspector General Charles J. Willoughby conducted last October. Willoughby's report and the lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and two lawyers on behalf of Magbie's mother, Mary R. Scott, are more credible. They provide real insight into Magbie's neglectful treatment by the criminal justice system.

Now to the Department of Corrections "investigation." The findings were dutifully and uncritically transmitted to the council by Reiskin, who, incidentally, complained to lawmakers that "the investigation was hindered by legal advice provided to [the contractor medical staff] by its counsel not to release any information to DOC regarding this issue due to pending litigation."

That clampdown on salient information did not, however, stop Corrections from arriving on the scene after Willoughby completed his extensive investigation and producing an Internal Affairs document that exonerates or at least gives a virtuous appearance to many of the actions by staff and employees at the corrections facility where Magbie was confined. But even Corrections couldn't cover all the participants with whitewash.

In some cases, Corrections' critical findings were accompanied by recommended disciplinary actions that have all the harshness of a beating with a wet noodle.

Internal Affairs found:

· There were instances in which Magbie's medical care was not documented. But the nurses culpable in the acts of omission couldn't be identified because the medical contractor, paid by the Corrections Department with D.C. tax dollars, wouldn't give access to the contractor's employees.

· The associate medical director of the jail where Magbie was confined knew about Magbie's vulnerable medical condition and that he needed acute care immediately, but failed to notify higher-ups. The associate medical director, the report noted, resigned last October. Undeterred, Corrections bravely directed the medical contractor to "place a letter of reprimand in the doctor's Official Personnel File" and to determine "any other appropriate disciplinary action to be pursued against the doctor."

* Correctional and medical staff provided written memos to the Corrections Department director stating that they never saw Magbie's cell door locked while he was in the unit. (It should have remained unlocked, because there was no way that Magbie, a quadriplegic, could reach the emergency button.) Corrections discovered information that contradicted the staff-written memos: Magbie's cell door had in fact been locked, in violation of doctor's orders. For their lying, Corrections fearlessly instructed the warden, disciplinary action was to be taken against the two officers and a disciplinary letter placed in the personnel file of each.

· A physician in the Corrections facility housing Magbie told the inspector general that he was unaware of Magbie's return from Greater Southeast Community Hospital, where he had been taken as an emergency patient during his first night in jail. It turns out, the Corrections report noted, that the physician did see Magbie upon his return. That physician, thundered the Corrections report, "will no longer be permitted on DOC premises . . . this action is to take place posthaste."

As for the Corrections Department's decision to keep the ventilator-dependent Magbie confined for four days to the Correctional Treatment Facility, where no ventilator or appropriate medical care was available? The "investigation," done by Corrections staff and passed along by Reiskin, gave the rest of the nurses, physicians and staff a pass.

Judge Retchin? She was cleared by the Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure.

Say this much for ol' D.C., it takes care of its own.


If justice is to be had in this case, it won't be found in D.C. agencies. Better to look to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. That's where the Jonathan Magbie lawsuit is filed.

**

Then you could round out voter fraud if you felt like addressing other, real issues.

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/homepage/abox/article_1092799.php
PP said…
Bonnie -

first of all, I read the original, and couldn't find it again when I went to quote it.

Secondly, how about some SD examples ir you're going to try to make your case?
Anonymous said…
Bonnie,

I've said it elsewhere and I am saying it here - you are off your rocker as a publicist. Either you don't understand the concepts, or you are just ignoring them cause you are too lazy to do it right.

You can not possibly build a case for amendment E in South Dakota without having examples from South Dakota.

Every time you bring up something from out of state, you validate everyone's concerns that some California group is trying to control South Dakota law.

Also, I don't think PP is claiming to be a journalist. If he was, he couldn't report with such an aggressive slant. He's a blogger.

I love the idea that amendment e has such a stupid publicist.

The web page looks horrible. It has no logic to its organization, and is far from readable or credible.

How can you possibly find work.
PP said…
Anon, I vehemently disagree with the comment that I report with "an agressive slant."

I prefer the terminology "happy slant." It's much more friendly and non-offensive.

I don't take on issues. I throw sunshine on them, and.....

Oh, ok. I'll live with agressive slant.
Bonnie said…
Ever notice it's the cowardly Anonymous posters who are always calling names. . .ever the Tiny little pipsqueaks that they are? :)

Yes, I do have SD examples. Haven't y'all been paying attention locally?

But to address the "journalistic standards" some people will believe ~ anything~ and irresponsible people will Exploit that.
PP said…
So Bonnie, when do we get to hear these SD examples, and look at the list of South Dakotans who are on your letterhead.

I'm interested to see who the notables are.
Jen said…
PP,
Just wanted to let you know that none of us in attendance this weekend thought you sucked---not even in a little bit! Thanks Again for taking the time to visit with our group & keep up the good work!!!

Popular posts from this blog

Breaking News: After the television commercial salvo fired at them, Vote Yes For Life Fires back.

Heidepreim: Republicans are the party of hate

The Day in politics - October 24th