Category: Blogging

He’s not a person, he’s a suit! You’re mailroom. No consorting.

I’ve written a little in the past on the liberal media and possible alternate explanations for the mass conspiracy that many conservatives want to see there. In the beginning I posited the idea that “bad news sells” is a better explanation. I’ve since refined it to include liberal bias, but only in the context of specific media outlets. Smear The New York Times with a liberal bias claim and I can accept that. But I’d same the reverse about Fox News. The back-and-forth could go on a long time. Information, with whatever desired slant, is available in a multitude of forms. The old, entrenched media is liberal? Fine, read, watch, or listen to something else. Changing technology has a way of flattening the market of competitive dinosaurs. It’s Capitalism 101. Accept it.

Because of that, whenever I hear or read “liberal MSM”, I suspect that the speaker/writer merely wants to spew an ideological point to score points. It’s little more than stereotyping to diminish. My idea of reporting, writing, and thinking is that facts win. If there’s a bias, I rely on my intellect to decipher truth. I don’t need a political party to filter my perception. Not to mention that the ideal world would have no bias, not a non-liberal-so-it-has-to-be-conservative bias. So I stand by my theory.

Luckily for me, the news media provided an example earlier this week. (I’m not happy that the actual events happened to prove my point. I wish it hadn’t happened and all that hippy blah, blah, blah.) So, consider this headline:

Marc Cohn shot in head during car jacking

I was horrified. I like Marc Cohn, so I clicked the link. This is what followed:

A Grammy-winning musician and husband of ABC news reporter Elizabeth Vargas was treated at a hospital and released Monday after being shot in the head during an attempted carjacking following a performance.

Right, so the headline gave no indication of that. Now, a few days later, the sub-headline does, but search the headlines and, even now, half still lead with only “Marc Cohn shot in head”. Is that liberal bias? Or is it “bad news sells” bias? I clicked. And that’s what the news media, whether MSM or not, want me to do. Again, it’s Capitalism 101. If people weren’t buying, the MSM wouldn’t be selling. More to the point, aren’t those people who link to and write about liberal bias in the MSM clicking and reading and discussing?

Solution? Keep questioning the “liberal” media. Technology makes that possible. But also question the people who bitch about the “liberal” media. Your brain makes that possible.

13 nanoseconds exerted for humanity

I’m seeing a word popping up around the blogosphere and I want to state my opinion. I’ve seen it here, here, and many other places. Just google the word and countless other examples appear. The word is “reax”, short for reactions. Here’s my opinion demand, voiced to all bloggers who use “reax”: Stop.

If you can’t be bothered to type the extra five letters in “reactions”, you shouldn’t have a blog. Maybe you think you’re one of the cool kids because you use a slang word, but you’re not. You’re lazy. Stop being lazy.

I will, of course, continue writing “the Internets”. File this entry under “Hypocritical but correct.”

At the end of the drive the lawmen arrive

I don’t get e-mails, because I think I’d have to put my e-mail address on this site, but I do get Google searches. Here’s a jaunt through some of my most recent unexpected visitors. Enjoy.

“dale murphy” – Rock!

“santa and jesus” – I can only assume someone meant to type “South Park” and it came out as “santa and jesus”. At least, that’s what I hope happened. Otherwise, someone has some serious explaining to do.

“finger paint” – “I’m eight years old, if I want to finger paint, then I’m gonna finger paint.” Eric Cartman is always solid.

“borrowing wifi against the law” – Right, so if it’s against the law, that means it’s stealing, not borrowing.

“a crushed heart” – Wow. I don’t even know what to say to that. I’m sorry?

“prince and apollonia kissing” – I know what to say to that. Just say no. I’ve seen Purple Rain; you should spare yourself the pain. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

“obsessed with her legs” – I’m intrigued. You’re not interested in any legs, but hers specifically. Who is “her”? What’s so special about her legs? Share with the Internets.

“doughnut porn” – Oh, I guess now I know how those chocolate doughnuts get covered in that sugary glaze.

The entry where I send my four readers elsewhere

Anyone who reads this site can decipher that I enjoy the writing process. I have a few favorite topics that appear repeatedly, but I’ll write about whatever interests me at the moment. Unfortunately, today I don’t have enough time to focus on news commentary. Instead, allow me to point you to two interesting pieces from around the Internets that fascinate me.

First, from Kip at A Stitch in Haste discusses the idiocy of Congressional Democrats and their new proposal called AmeriSave. This is the basic summary of the program:

AmeriSave Match: Help middle and working-class families achieve retirement security by matching dollar-for-dollar the first $1,000 contributed to an IRA, 401(k), or similar plan. The AmeriSave Match will not involve creating a new type of account; instead, it builds on a successful model of 401(k)s and IRAs by increasing incentives to participate. Individuals would receive their AmeriSave Match after they filed a tax return, at which time the funds would be directed to their 401(k) or other plan.

Kip responds accordingly.

This new matching scheme is apparently meant to deflect from (i.e., continue the absolute obstruction of) private accounts within Social Security.

It is also a total fraud. The matching plan will have little or no impact on national savings. It also, by definition, does nothing to address the Social Security crisis (understandable since Democrats lie by insisting that there is no crisis anyway).

He gives a detailed, point-by-point explanation for why AmeriSave is an idiotic, pandering non-solution. Remember, when the government offers us anything, we’re paying for what’s offered. It’s shameful when politicians treat us as if we’re too stupid to understand this. Unfortunately, I fear they may be right with many, though. (Yes, I’m speaking of the further left liberals, the ones who imagine that socialism is a good idea not yet given a fair chance to succeed.) Either way, read Kip’s post. It’s good and worth the short time investment. (As is the rest of his blog.)

Next, I didn’t write about the scandalous sex included in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. This type of issue is important to me, as I care most for the First Amendment and the surrounding free speech/intellectual property implications in today’s society. Unfortunately, politicians saw this non-scandal as a chance to jump up and pretend to lead. (Yes, I’m speaking of you, Senator Clinton.) I’ve read a few news reports, but I already understand the issues. If I’d had the time, I would’ve written about the stupidity surrounding the whole mess. Instead, read Timothy’s take on the topic at The One-Handed Economist. He wrote what I wish I’d written. As a bonus, I laughed out loud. Consider:

I have little to no patience for this kind of crap. Look, if you’re too goddamned stupid to not buy your child a game clearly based on violence, you don’t really have the luxury of demanding that the game company did something “irresponsible”. Hidden content is the bread and butter of gaming, that stuff has been around since the advent of computer games. Those of us familiar with the subject matter call them Easter Eggs.

Furthermore, the goddamn game is called GRAND THEFT AUTO: SAN ANDREAS, what did you think it was going to be about? Quiet strolls in the park collecting flowers? How can you not know this stuff, parents? If you refuse to “protect” whatever perceived innocence your precious little children have, then it certainly isn’t my job to do it for you. It also certainly isn’t the governments, and you certainly don’t have the right to ruin fun for everyone else.

Read the whole thing. It’s not just funny, it smacks everyone deserving of a good smack.

As a side point, for what it’s worth, I followed a link to The One-Handed Economist when Timothy defended me in a comment spat at Jeff Jarvis’ BuzzMachine. I use my intellect when I comment on other sites, but not everyone can be expected to follow the same on the Internets. When some kind folks attacked me for not being an ideologue with only sycophantic, partisan intentions, Timothy backed me up. I’ve never met corresponded with him, but I checked out his site and liked it a lot. I recommend it.

Who wants to be King Dumbass?

Jann Wenner aimed for the title last week. Consider this post from the useless Huffington Post:

Amid all the optimism surrounding Blair, Bono & Geldolf doing Live 8 and G 8, and the award of that most wonderful and pacific of international institutions and global brotherhood — the Olympics — what a grim thing to have happened.

I have no problems with that, except for the “most wonderful” part. Oh, and the global brotherhood crap. Remember, this is the same institution that just voted, by secret ballot, to remove baseball and softball from the Olympic games. So the whole concept is irrelevant. But I’ll pretend that it’s all true. Yet, Mr. Wenner’s rant is at The Huffington Post, so I’m not certain how long I can make pretend; nonsense is certain to follow.

So what brilliant thoughts come next?

Violence rarely gets us anywhere; the PLO, the IRA, the SLA, among others have achieved so little with their terrorism.

Wait, I agree with that. Is there some form of common sense taking over? I’m ready to accept that logic can come from the strangest places. So I read the conclusion.

If the London bombings are the work of an Al Qaeda offshoot, then you have to fairly say, in the same way we condemn other’s terror, this is in part the result of Bush’s War on Iraq.

This is in part the result of Bush’s War on Iraq? Wait… what? Terrorism is bad and we condemn other’s terror, so President Bush is to blame for this? As opposed to condemning the actual terrorists who planted four bombs on London transport? Oh, yeah, that makes sense.

Mr. Wenner should drop out of Irrational Liberal Guilt 101 and enroll in the local community college version of Logic 101.

(Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan, because I stopped paying attention to The Huffington Post about four minutes after it debuted.)

Inspector Butters is on the case, ma’am

As evidenced by the 2,146,316 flag amendment posts over the last few days, I’m a bit bothered up about it. But as Wendy pointed out in comments last night, there is another legal travesty in the news. In a (not really) stunning decision, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Kelo vs. New London. Here is a summary of the decision:

A divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a city can take a person’s home as part of a private development project aimed at boosting tax revenues and revitalizing a local economy, a decision that could have nationwide impact.

By a 5-4 vote, the high court upheld a ruling that New London, Connecticut, can seize the homes and businesses owned by seven families for a private development project that will complement a nearby research facility by the Pfizer Inc. drug company.

I admit that I’m not a lawyer, although I play one on RollingDoughnut.com. Sometimes, such as in this case, I admit that I don’t know as much as I should. I’m only basing my argument on standard, obvious logic. But I know enough to realize that this case is an abomination. However, since there are sufficient commentaries all over the internets, I’m not going to contribute anything other than to point to two of particular interest.

First, consider this New York Times travesty (link via Michelle Malkin – truth is truth, even when it comes from an ideologue):

In a blistering dissent, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor lamented that the decision meant that the government could transfer any private property from the owner to another person with more political influence “so long as it might be upgraded.” That is a serious concern, but her fears are exaggerated. The majority strongly suggested that eminent domain should be part of a comprehensive plan, and Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing separately, underscored that its goal cannot simply be to help a developer or other private party become richer.

That is not the situation in New London. Connecticut is a rich state with poor cities, which must do everything they can to attract business and industry. New London’s development plan may hurt a few small property owners, who will, in any case, be fully compensated. But many more residents are likely to benefit if the city can shore up its tax base and attract badly needed jobs.

Do you believe that some hack politician being bribed lobbied by a real estate company will make sure that eminent domain is “part of a comprehensive plan”? Right, neither do I. As for “fully compensated”, family history and memories can’t get an appropriate price tag. How does a city compensate a family whose house has eight years of height lines etched into the kitchen door frame? How exciting will it be for a man to take his kids to his boyhood home and point out the nice backyard parking lot where he used to play catch with his dad? Cash isn’t always king.

On a different angle, consider reasoning from KipEsquire:

Wouldn’t it be nice if all those grass-root, “let the voters decide,” Red State, “damn activist judges” types put as much effort into enacting state constitutional amendments limiting eminent domain as they did discriminating against gays? You might think people like that would care more about keeping their own homes than what goes on in their neighbors’ homes. We’ll see.

It’s an argument that some might not like, but he’s right. So, yeah, people can think what they want about social issues like same-sex marriage and flag desecration, but there are more important issues with a more fundamental, long-term impact on the United States.

So, yeah, although five Justices and the New York Times think this decision makes sense, I’m with everyone else. It pisses me off, too.

It’s just not the same without the balloons

I want to comment on Michelle Malkin again, but this time it’s not a complete disagreement. Today, she posted a new Desecration of the Day. (Here’s the picture.) I agree with her basic premise that it’s important to highlight how some around the world disrespect/hate America. There’s no need to pretend that everyone loves us. It’s not true, so why hide from it? Show it every time it occurs, even though it’s not new information. But, and this is important, we need to remember that we’re not the cause, something Ms. Malkin ignores. Consider:

Here’s your regular, gasoline-drenched reminder of the latest MSM-induced desecration that won’t be getting front-page coverage

I enjoy that phrase: “the latest MSM-induced desecration”. Ms. Malkin is referring to the Newsweek fiasco, of course, but why stop there? It’s the whole mainstream media’s (MSM) fault. Or, more to the point, the liberal media’s fault. One poorly sourced/reported story and every future anti-American activity will be MSM-induced. Does that make sense?

Long before Newsweek screwed up, individuals around the world have burned the American flag. They’ve protested us. They’ve burned our presidents in effigy. This is not new. If nothing else, remember this: people with opinions like to be heard. (Hence, blogs. That I’m writing this for free indicates that I’m not immune.)

Yet, there’s a more fundamental value that conservatives supposedly hold above most others. I thought Ms. Malkin would maintain this. I assume she still agrees with it, but it’s lacking in the phrase “MSM-induced”. What happened to personal responsibility?

If I walk up to someone and say “I hate you and I hate your ass face,” would that person be absolved of assault if he punched me in the face? No? Why not? Just because someone is offended does not offer liability-free vindication to respond in whatever manner feels desirable.

Yes, the mainstream media screwed up and reported “facts” that portray America badly. (Newsweek, really, but I’ll stick with Ms. Malkin’s MSM generalization.) Don’t the flag-burners have the choice of how to respond? If they choose to riot or burn flags, is that really “MSM-induced”? Yes, it sets the conditions, but unless the reporter provides the matches and the flag, the flag-burner must retain ultimate responsibility for his actions.

But you already knew that. It just doesn’t sell very well among the “with us or against us” and “blame liberals” crowd.

_____________________________________________________________________

On a related “with us or against us”, “blame liberals” lesson, this post is 100% spot-on. Read it and know the truth.

Fifteen words are worth a picture

Following up on yesterday’s post about personal “lockboxes” for social security, I want to pass along this brilliant analysis of John Fund’s idea. Consider:

I assume Fund’s unspoken premise is that substituting “marketable” Treasury bills for the current system of vague promises will make it more difficult for future versions of the government to cheat, because defaulting on Treasuries amounts to ripping off the Chinese, which is much harder to get away with than ripping off Americans. Note that this addresses the dishonesty problem only by increasing the insolvency problem: future fiscal obligations become larger and more mandatory.

And…

Anyway, read a few paragraphs down and tell me who’s huffing the pipe:

Would the deficit increase if Congress used the Social Security surpluses to create personal accounts rather than finance current government spending? Not if Congress found the will to cut federal spending by roughly 3% a year.

Oops; when I saw that the first time, I thought it said, “Not if Congress found a nest of pixies at the bottom of the garden who vomited shiny gold coins”, but then I realized that Fund’s assumption was ridiculous. His overall conclusion, however, is true: if we spent less money, then we would spend less money.

I tried to explain the absurdity of Mr. Fund’s proposal through illustrations. I think they were effective, but I wish I’d written Evan Kirchhoff’s words, instead. How much more fun it would’ve been to write “a nest of pixies at the bottom of the garden who vomited shiny gold coins” than to drag clip art into neat order in Microsoft Visio…

At least I’m not the only one who understands the basic principles of government and debt. And for what it’s worth, I’d like to participate in Evan’s “Let me out of Social Security” plan, as well.

(Link via The Penultimate Genius)

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

I think I’m beginning to make a hobby out of countering Michelle Malkin’s lapses in logic contentions. Today, she linked to a story about released French hostages. Consider the basic facts of the story:

A French journalist who was held hostage in Iraq for five months says she was beaten by her captors.

Speaking at a new conference in Paris, Florence Aubenas said she was kept blindfolded in a basement cell that measured 4m by 2m (13ft by 6ft).

She said she was beaten after being accused of speaking to a cell mate.

Ms Aubenas was forced out of her car in Baghdad on 5 January, along with her guide, Hussein Hanoun al-Saadi. They were both freed on 11 June.

Mr Saadi was reunited with his family in Baghdad. Ms Aubenas, who is a senior correspondent for Liberation, was flown home to France.

What’s the lesson in this story? Terrorists are despicable. They’ll beat hostages for allegedly speaking to a cell mate. They’ll hold hostages captive in a basement. They’ll subject them to mock trials. Most importantly, this is the lesson reported by the BBC, which any right-thinking conservative will tell you is one of the biggest pushers of the Liberal Agenda&#153. Yet, the BBC reported this with objective facts that are easy to interpret. Again, terrorists do Bad Things.

So what does Ms. Malkin focus on? Consider:

TERRORISTS HEART THE FRENCH

Terrorist farewell gifts for a recently released French kidnapping victim:

Two rings and a bottle of perfume.

The French hostage reported that one of her captors offered her gifts at the same time he returned her belongings. Rather than discounting the significance of this as either a crush or a goodwill gesture or a hideously presumptuous guard, Ms. Malkin decided that this was the lesson: We hate terrorists, terrorists like the French, we hate the French. All with the specter of hating the Liberal Agenda&#153, I presume.

How ridiculous. From reading her blog, I understand that she wants us to realize that terrorists are bad, we’re fighting terrorists, and we can’t waiver in our commitment to the task. Ok, got it. I even agree with it, despite not casting my vote for George W. Bush last November. Yet, she doesn’t use this as an example to further illustrate who the real bad guys are in this war. She takes another hysterical jab at Those Who Are Against Us because they don’t agree with and condone every action we take. That’s stupid logic.

Until we stop throwing around this nonsense and presenting the “with us or against us” mentality, we’re going to be mired in the problem rather than striving closer to the goal. America is founded on belief in the moral correctness of our ideals and the ability to dissent in an effort to stretch the moral correctness of our actions closer to perfection.

You know, because it matters not really

God bless the staunch conservative mouthpieces bloggers who look out for the good people.

In yet another lapse in logical causality thinking, Michelle Malkin points her readers (of which, I am strangely one) to this story about Rosie O’Donnell’s guest appearance on Friday’s episode of The View. Ms. Malkin quoted the article’s recap of Ms. O’Donnell’s remarks concerning breastfeeding and a recent “nurse-in”. Consider:

O’Donnell Halted Her Partner’s Breastfeeding

Comedienne Rosie O’Donnell banned her partner Kelli Carpenter from breastfeeding their daughter Vivienne just a few weeks after she was born–because she was jealous of their bonding sessions. Kelli gave birth to Vivienne in 2002, and the lesbian couple have been raising her along with their three other adopted children.

But O’Donnell admits she felt left out of the motherhood process whenever she observed her partner nursing their child.

She says, “Kelli only nursed for like a month and then I was very angry.

“With the other babies, nobody nursed because they were adopted. But with this baby she was the only one getting to bond, so I was like, ‘The nursing is over!’ I cut her off.

“I’m like, ‘You’ve had your limit, honey, no more!'”

I watched the clip (watch it here) and she did say those things. While I think she was being dramatical for the sake of television, knowing that the people who watch The View would not likely jeer her comments, I concede that it was stupid. Ms. Malkin correctly attacks Ms. O’Donnell’s “selfish, psycho comments”. I’ll even add to that how absurd Ms. O’Donnell’s comments were because, given that her partner is the biological mother, Ms. O’Donnell is in the role of the father. Men don’t get that bonding, yet somehow the term “daddy’s girl” is familiar to everyone. So, yeah, Ms. O’Donnell is selfish, putting herself above the child’s needs (if she didn’t exaggerate the truth for dramatic effect, though I don’t doubt she’s “me, me, me”).

But. How does that correspond with introducing the story as “one for the Hollyweird files” and concluding with this:

Can the pathological self-absoprtion [sic] of Hollywood be illustrated anymore clearly?

You know, because Rosie O’Donnell is the sole spokesman for parenting skills and decisions for anyone who has ever worked in Hollywood. This is ridiculous. Ms. Malkin should have challenged her comments and then explained why “forbidding” nursing is wrong. And then, she should’ve stopped. But Ms. Malkin can’t do that. Everywhere she turns there is some further proof of the Liberal Agenda&#153, which dictates that all people must be brainwashed into collectivism, self-absorption, and homosexuality. (I’ve written about this here and here.)

I do envy her, though, because I imagine she has much free time. Ignore the likelihood that she uses this free time to sniff out the tyranny of the Liberal Agenda&#153, she still has lots of free time that most of us don’t. I know this because I think of those moments I spend evaluating each individual news item/circumstance/whatever to determine the truth and insight it reveals. How much easier it must be for Ms. Malkin to see the headline “Rosie O’Donnell Halted Her Partner’s Breastfeeding” and immediately know it’s the Liberal Agenda&#153. Oh, cursed objectivity, you are my life’s bane.

I thought perhaps I read too much into the post, but I know from reading through the trackbacks to her entry that I did not. Not because there is so much hatred for the Liberal Agenda&#153 in the post as much as what she spews regularly. There is an overwhelming “with us or against us” absolutism in much of her thinking, which permits every basic fact to represent the Path of Righteousness&#153 and its obvious triumph over the fallacy of the Liberal Agenda&#153. The trackbacks to most of Ms. Malkin’s “liberals are destroying America” posts include nonsense such as this blog:

Here’s yet another reason why it’s dangerous to exchange natural relations for unnatural ones. The family unit is being torn apart and Hollywood embraces it. This is enfuriating [sic].

That logic is solid, because any time one member of a community does something stupid or illegal or immoral or {insert other obvious bad Liberal quality here}, that person represents everyone in that group. Right, because every priest who molests an altar boy indicates the problem with every member of the clergy. And every doctor who abuses drugs reveals the heavy burden to which every doctor succumbs. And every pro athlete who crashes his car after beating his wife while drunk with his penis in another woman is proof that athletes are poor role models and should be mocked, shunned, and shamed for existing. How much easier life must be for those who have found that ideology trumps the mind’s flexibility.

I hope the Kool-Aid&#174 tastes really good because there sure is some mass consumption happening.