Thursday, September 20, 2007

David Vitter's Page at Wikipedia: Acrimony or Objectivity? interesting note: I perused the page and saw not one mention that Senator Vitter serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. There have been a number of disputes over "NPOV," or "Neutrality Point of View." I've joined and filed a request that the page for Senator Vitter be unlocked from "semi-protection." Also expedited was a post of a comment noting the fact on Vitter's committee post:

"Agreed Captain Annoying and Journalist1983. I believe it's time to end the semi-protection, incidentally. Why? Because nobody but long-term registered users can add information. This can effectively block new information that established users may be biased towards, yet is a solid, verifiable fact. For example: not one section contains the fact that Senator Vitter is a member of a subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committe, and holds a security clearance [Ed.-Basically all elected representatives do, with few-exceptions.] It's verifiable with a quick search. As a result of Randall L. Tobias calling Ms. Palfrey's service, it's possible Vitter has committed an oversight failure. This can be proven eventually, but the basic facts are pertinent and deserve an airing. Individuals can challenge them after they've been posted for their veracity. ." [Final version, September 22nd, 2007]

It's @
Here's the request post to unlock David Vitter's page so that additional information is allowable to others besides "established users" and editors:

David Vitter (edittalkhistorylinkswatchlogs)
"Locked since July [10]. Lock is preventing the addition of crucial information on Senator Vitter's seat as a member of Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the fact that he was serving on it when calls were made by Randall L. Tobias to Deborah Jeane Palfrey's Pamela Martin and Associates. This is an oversight failure on Senator Vitter's part. Addition should be allowed to at least be challenged for veracity. User:MattJanovic/MattJanovic 3:09 EST, September 20, 2007." (both the 'talk' section post and unblock request were modestly edited again after midnight by the author. Final corrections, 22nd September, 2007.)

It was @ (above the one for Che Guevara, how apropos)
I'm not drawing any conclusions yet, but look at the identities of some of the disputants, it's fairly telling in some areas. It's a hard call as to why Senate Ethics Committee Chair Barbara Boxer (R-Ca.) and Vice Chair Sen John Cornyn aren't moving on an ethics investigation of Sen. Vitter. Or are they? Usually ethics investigations are done "confidentially," so there could be one that's ongoing. We should be asking her and others in Congress why Sen. Vitter hasn't undergone an ethics investigation.

This is especially glaring when one considers that Sen. Larry E. Craig has been met by calls for an investigation from within his own party-ranks, even being induced to step-down from his committee and subcommittee positions. There hasn't been a peep on David Vitter being investigated.

Senator David Bruce Vitter, still being allowed to hear key testimony on September 11th, 2007 from General John Petraeus:

[Ed.-After checking Wikipedia around midnight tonight, the author discovered that a ruling has come from the board that has unblocked the article. Additions have been made, and only the facts known to the author at the time of the additions.]

[Ed., 09.13.2008--Again, I make no apologies for the additions. Bill Keisling should have made them himself, but I'm always ready to lend-a-hand in downing corrupt politicians. Politics makes for strange bedfellows. I leave it at that.]