Kamis, 28 Juni 2012

Clipping blog

Clipping blog


The Delivery Presents – My Head Asplode and It’s Not Fair

Posted: 27 Jun 2012 01:08 PM PDT

Okay, there’s a reason Episode 153 went from flat calm to Rant Central Station and its name is Steny Hoyer. I hadn’t seen this article from The Hill wherein Hoyer made the most insensitive and arrogant remarks about Operation Fast and Furious I’ve ever seen until right before the show started. Blame Brent Teichmann, from whose Twitter feed the link arrived. I saw the quotes and, well, my head asplode.

Hang in for a quick rundown on the immigration debate, at least as it stands right now with a focus on the matter of fairness. That word won’t cover quite as much as those who use it most often think it will and I explain why that’s so.

Second half goodies involve my return to and departure from pro baseball fandom, and what’s pretty good and godawful on television right now. Trust me; you’ll want to take my advice on the television shows.

Please remember, at a couple times during your day, to pray for those in and around the Colorado wildfires, especially the entire city of Colorado Springs. The Waldo Canyon wildfire is very nearly out of control and, as of today at least, is threatening the Air Force Academy and the rest of the city.

The Delivery - Episode 153

Rabu, 27 Juni 2012

Clipping blog

Clipping blog


Conservatism: The Ideology of Choice

Posted: 26 Jun 2012 08:11 AM PDT

There seems to be this idea floating around that conservatives are not pro-choice. The truth is, we are pro-choice in nearly every aspect in the lives of Americans. We believe that you should have the right to choose the path your life should take, and assume the responsibilities for these choices. It is not up to the government to tell us how to live. Conservatives want you to have the freedom to choose.

Somehow, the left has taken the word "choice" and made it about one issue: abortion. Conservatives are painted as being anti-choice because we tend to be pro-life. That's not a restriction of choice. By and large, abortions are not performed on women pregnant due to rape or incest, and the abortions are not performed to save the life of the mother. Most abortions are performed on women who chose to have sex, and can carry the child to term without risk. They had that choice, which resulted in pregnancy. Now that there are other people involved (the father and the child), her time to choose not to be pregnant has passed. With that out of the way, let's take a look at how the conservative ideology is the one which supports choice.

Conservatives believe in school choice for every parent. They should be allowed to choose public schools, charter schools, private schools, school vouchers, or homeschooling. Parents should be allowed to determine what school is best for their family and their children. The government has tried education, and they are failing children. They should not be trapped in failing schools because their parents do not have a choice. Competition has been known to improve public schools, so we know that school choice leads to better options.

Conservatives believe in healthcare choices. We believe that people can and should be allowed to make healthcare choices for themselves and their families. This also frees healthcare from jobs. That way, people can choose the insurance and the job that is best for them without having to find a perfect combination. Conservatives want Americans to have the choice of a healthcare plan which covers what they need without job restraints. We believe that people should be able to choose to move to another state and take their insurance with them. If insurers and healthcare providers have to compete in the free market for clients, care will improve and costs will decline. Healthcare choices lead to better healthcare options.

Conservatives believe in the choice to join a union. If a worker feels that joining a union would be in his or her best interest, he or she can join. We also believe that workers should be able to exercise this choice without intimidation, which is why conservatives believe in secret ballots to vote for unionization, while liberals want ballots to have names. Employees should be treated fairly and treated well without unionization being forced upon them. Unionization choices lead to better employees and better workplaces for everyone.

Conservatives believe that anyone may choose to go to college. We believe that students should be able to get private loans rather than having to borrow from the government to reach educational goals. Jobs need to be available upon graduation, but they are not guaranteed. If a student chooses to major in something unemployable, then so be it. This is his or her choice. If colleges have to compete for students, that leaves students with a choice. These choices lead to better options, better education, and better return on investment for students.

Conservatives believe in the choice to own a home. Those who choose to own a home are then responsible for the mortgage they take. It's not up to the government to bail out our personal choices. Part of the American dream is owning a home, and conservatives are willing to work hard for it then take responsibility for those choices. Responsible choices in homeownership will be a boon to the economy, leading to greater freedom for everyone.

Conservative believe in energy choice. We believe that all domestic energy sources are created equal, and should be treated as such. Wind, solar, natural gas, clean coal, nuclear and, yes, even oil all need to be on the menu, along with others. Liberals don't even want us to be able to choose our own lightbulbs. Choices in energy will lead to investment in traditional and alternative types of energy. These choices will lead to options which are better for our wallets and our planet.

I don't need the government to tell me what to do. I don't want the government to tell me what to do. I'm pro-choice because I'm a conservative.

The Delivery Presents – New Media is You

Posted: 26 Jun 2012 06:38 AM PDT

If you have any doubt about whether the mainstream media outlets are in the tank for Barack Obama, let the first half of Episode 152 blow your doubts to flinders like a cannonball through a Popsicle stick. What Andrea Mitchell did in her newscast ought to have gotten her fired . It should have drawn a serious and heartfelt apology from those who run NBC and it should have disqualified her from another serious news job for at least a decade.

Not today. Today, the MSM stands up for the powerful against the powerless — unless the powerful happens to be a corporation or a Republicans, in which case WOODWARD AND BERNSTEIN! The rest of the powerful get a free pass to do as they wish free from the worry that Andrea Mitchell and her ilk will dig very far at all into their dealings.

However, there are some new kids on the media block. Us. You and me and people like Chris Muir, who joined me in the second half of the show. Chris isn’t a writer or a reporter. He’s a cartoonist who has put his talent to work in the cultural and political realms and he shared a bit with me how we can all do the same thing with our talents and skills. This is no longer a world run by the monolithic voices of the television networks and the national newspapers. This is our world and we all have a place from which we can speak in our own way if we choose to do so.

[audio:http://www.takethatproductionsusa.com/podcasting/td/TD152.mp3|titles=The Delivery - Episode 152]

Kamis, 21 Juni 2012

Clipping blog

Clipping blog


Brian Williams and the Fast and Furious Shame Brigade

Posted: 21 Jun 2012 06:53 AM PDT

This, according to Byron York, is how Brian Williams began his report tonight about the vote taken today to proceed with a contempt charge against Attorney General Eric Holder.

'For those not following the complexities of all of it, it just looks like more of our broken politics…' says Brian Williams.
@ByronYork
Byron York

I can not begin to explain how patently deceptive that statement is. Yes, most of America probably has no idea why the President invoked executive privilege with all the casual breeziness of a Justin Bieber invocation of “baby” nor why the House responded with an invitation to meet them in court. It’s also true that Brian Williams is a big reason for our national ignorance.

Contempt charges do not simple appear out of thin air. Usually, people have to die before Congress pulls that trigger, no pun intended, and a Presidential administration has to button up completely because of it. That’s why no Cabinet official has been found in contempt since Janet Reno and even she wasn’t found in contempt by the full House. Eric Holder almost certainly will be unless he comes clean about Operation Fast and Furious.

The story of the operation and the hundreds of corpses left in its wake ought to be a national scandal. The media mavens, who so love a juicy scandal, should be talking about it the way they talk about Watergate and Iran Contra. They aren’t and that, folks, is another scandal altogether. I have an idea or two about why brigade of Certified Real Reporters shamed so badly on this story by the new media have been so quiet, but first I want to lay out a few facts about that operation, in case you are like those faithful viewers of NBC who have never heard of it.

Here is how it worked. In 2006, federal agents launched an interdiction effort called Project Gunrunner, designed to stem the flow of illegal guns to the violent Mexican drug cartels that were raising holy heck there. The first significant Gunrunner operation, called Wide Receiver, had a pretty simple operational plan. Gun store owners, under the ATF’s direction, would sell weapons to people known as straw purchasers who would then give them to their intended recipients — usually members of one of the drug cartels that have Mexico in complete chaos. The ATF was supposed to keep the weapons under surveillance until they crossed into Mexico where Mexican law enforcement would make the arrest. Wide Receiver, which involved 450 guns, failed because law enforcement here and in Mexico failed to track the guns competently. In short, the good guys lost track of some of the guns, which ended up in the hands of the bad guys. Obviously, this was not a good thing, so the Bush administration shut down the operation in 2007.  As of today, fewer than a dozen people are in jail because of it.

The ATF tried a smaller version of Wide Receiver in 2007, which involved about 200 guns and lasted for less than a month. They shut that operation down after Mexican officials lost track of the suspects inside Mexico.

So, we had two attempts at Gunrunner and two failures. Then the Obama administration took over. The new people in charge reviewed Wide Receiver in September 2009 and, a month later, decided to try an operation of its own that would look similar to Wide Receiver, but have fundamental difference. The new operation, called Fast and Furious, would launch out of the same Phoenix, AZ division office and would also rely on straw purchases. As with Wide Receiver, ATF agents knew which straw purchasers were involved, what guns they purchased, and often time to whom the guns would be given. What would be different with this operation is that the “gun walking” would be intentional, not accidental. The ATF agents would simply let the straw purchasers take the guns into Mexico and give them to whomever they pleased without supervision from either US or Mexican authorities. Later, when the guns showed up at crime scenes, or in the hands of people arrested by the police, they’d know who was getting the guns and what they were doing with them. If that sounds a bit…reckless…to you then you’re certainly not alone. Several ATF agents thought the same thing and said as much to their superiors. Their protests were swatted aside as handily as Bryce Harper swats lazy curve balls into the cheap seats.

As if that wasn’t bad enough, the Justice Department officiants who devised the operation and the person or people who approved it didn’t say a word to the Mexican government about it. Indeed the whole debacle came as a complete surprise to the ATF’s attache in Mexico City, Darren Gil, who was beyond livid when he found out. And, to top of the whole Sundae of Failure with a special Incompetence Cherry, the ATF gave most of the guns to one of the two largest drug gangs in the country — the Sinaloa cartel. The Sinaloas were in open war against their rivals, the Zetas, and both were at war to one degree or another with the Mexican government.

So. Let’s review the Obama administration’s Underpants Gnome theory of law enforcement.

  1. Let guns walk to violent drug cartel members in Mexico without alerting the Mexican government and without tracking their movements in the hopes that they’ll show up at arrest or crime scenes so we know who is using them and for what.
  2. ???
  3. Success!

Between November 2009 and January 2011, when the Obama administration ended the operation, roughly 2,000 guns moved from Arizona into Mexico. Using those guns, the cartel murdered approximately 300 people, one of whom was an American law enforcement officer named Brian Terry. Terry was on duty when he was ambushed and murdered. Shortly after the Department of Justice learned that weapons used to kill Terry were from Operation Fast and Furious, it shut things down. Since the operation began, law enforcement has recovered slightly more than 600 of the weapons — assault rifles, pistols, and a few Barrett .50 sniper rifles.

Weapons from the operation have shown up at several heinous murder scenes including the torture and murder of the brother of a high-profile Mexican prosecutor. A sniper rifle from the operation was used to shoot-down a Mexican military helicopter. Mexican officials say that Fast and Furious weapons have shown up at some 200 crime scenes and there are still plenty of them out there.

Oh, did I mention that the Justice Department hasn’t put a single targeted member of the cartel in jail? Nope. They napped a bunch of the straw purchasers, including one homeless guy on food stamps. No cartel heads. No lieutenants. You might wonder why that is, but before you think too hard about it, go back to the part where the Obama administration didn’t let the government of the nation where all the drug cartel members live know about the operation.

So what’s been done about this? So far, we’ve seen very little from the administration. No one in charge has been punished. No heads have rolled. A bunch of people who were involved in Fast and Furious in Arizona ended up with transfers back to cushy office jobs in Washington. The ATF did fire one guy who happened to be one of the main whistleblowers. Other field agents who spoke up about the operation were transferred to worse assignments and ostracized by command.

Congress has been involved in the story since the beginning of 2011, when Rep. Darrell Issa (R – Calif.) and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R – IA) launched official investigations from their respective committees (Issa as Chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government  Reform and Grassley as the ranking minority member of the Senate Judiciary Committee). Attorney General Eric Holder has testified in front of Issa’s committee twice, during which he made a statement or two that didn’t seem right. So Issa’s committee asked for more documents from the Department of Justice, related to the things Holder said that were, to put it charitably, creative. They haven’t gotten most of those documents despite repeated requests.

That brings us to today’s contempt vote. Holder has refused to answer the lawful subpoena from the Oversight Committee about a DoJ operation over which he had authority that directly led to over 300 murders. To date, he has professed almost perfect ignorance of Fast and Furious and a surprising level of callousness toward the family of Brian Terry.

Which brings us back to Brian Williams and his media pals. Thus far, few MSM outlets have said much at all about Fast and Furious. Only a handful of people, precious few of whom are full-time reporters with a mainstream news outlet, have done any real work on the story: Katie Pavlich of TownHall, Mary Chastain of Breitbart.com, Matthew Boyle of The Daily Caller, bloggers David Codrea and Mike VanderboeghSharyl Attkisson of CBS News, and Richard Serrano of the Los Angeles Times. That’s it. On the other hand, Certified Real Reporter Juan Williams has not only refused to look into this news story but has gone out of his way to excuse the administration. NBC News, Brian Williams’ employer, has mentioned Fast and Furious exactly once before today’s events and Politico can’t be bothered to get the basic facts of the story correct. You could chalk that up to plain vanilla media bias or the near-Godlike esteem with which our MSM holds the current occupant of the White House. Or you could work your ways toward a more sinister, but very plausible, reason.

Regardless of the reason, the Certified Real Reporters to whom we bestow special privileges just so they can dig into instances of government wrongdoing have failed us all. Brian Williams ought to hang his head in shame for what he said tonight along with Certified Real Reporter Juan Williams and every other member of the MSM who have abdicated their responsibilities as truth-tellers, disrespected the Fast and Furious dead, and joined the ranks of the shame brigade.

Rabu, 20 Juni 2012

Clipping blog

Clipping blog


The Podcast Profile II: Strictly Right

Posted: 19 Jun 2012 11:35 AM PDT

Podcast: Strictly Right (web link / iTunes link)

Length: One hour

Frequency: Twice a week, usually Tuesday and Thursday.

Rating: PG

I’m going to dip into to the stable of podcasts produced all or in part by SuperMegaProducer Mike and his one-man factory of production called Take That Media for this week’s Podcast Profile. For the record, @SMPMike produces The Delivery as well and not only do I know the guys behind the Strictly Right podcast but I have also been a guest on and co-host of the show.

So, yes, I’m biased, but not in the way you think. See, a lot of folks who have something to promote will jump on any radio show, terrestrial or internet, and grab their ten minutes. Not me. When I appear on a show, you can bet it’s a show I know and like.

I do like Strictly Right. The host are Andrew Lawton, a young Canadian who is currently attempting to take over all Canadian conservative media all by himself, and Ben Swenson, a radio veteran with serious chops and a voice that would make even Barry White’s knees weak. They have good chemistry, especially in the moments when Andrew tries to kick the show’s rating up to a solid R and Ben searches frantically for the ejection button. They carve the show up into several segments, which gives you plenty of places to take a break if you can’t listen to the show in one sitting, and drop in “themed” bits like “It Must Be A Liberal” and “The Mommy Files”.

Strictly Right is unabashedly conservative but with a good sense of humor and, like the subject of last week’s Podcast Profile, little of the hollering and screaming that has come to typify conservative talk radio. Sure, you will get some hollering, mostly when Ben has lost his mind over justified outrages like when the TSA junk-handles a little kid or a reporter tosses his ethics out the window to suck up to someone in power. Wouldn’t we all holler just a bit in those cases, though? I like to think we would.

The show isn’t just a couple guys talking to each other, though. Andrew has a knack for getting interesting guests and making them sound even more interesting (a skill which, by the way, does not just happen). The interviews are usually short, which suits the pace of the show — short enough that you might want to go back and listen to them again.

Strictly Right usually comes out twice a week, though sometimes that doesn’t always happen since neither Andrew nor Ben do the show for a living. Life does intrude at times, but it doesn’t happen often, so you can be sure if you subscribe to the show, you’ll get plenty of podcast with little disappointment

Previous Podcast Profiles:

I: Coffee and Markets

Selasa, 19 Juni 2012

Clipping blog

Clipping blog


John Kerry: Barack Obama’s New Sparring Partner

Posted: 19 Jun 2012 07:32 AM PDT

Does this seem like a smart move to you? I ask because I can see about a half dozen ways it could go terribly wrong.

President Obama has tapped Sen. John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, to play Republican Mitt Romney in mock debate rehearsals, Obama campaign officials and the senator's office confirmed Monday.

Kerry will help Obama prepare for among the most consequential events of his reelection campaign — the three fall debates against Romney. As the senior senator from Massachusetts, Kerry has studied Romney's career and campaign style for nearly two decades and has first-hand knowledge of his record as governor.

Okay, it makes sense for the President to bring someone in who has clear command of Mitt Romney’s record and campaign style (though, to be honest, Kerry has no better insight into Romney’s recent campaign work than, say, John McCain). On the other hand, if the Obama people truly believe this, then they’re in deep, deep trouble.

Kerry has long been considered one of the Democratic Party's most skilled debaters, and his performances in more than 25 debates in the 2004 race earned plaudits. Some credited his strong debates against President George W. Bush with tightening the race in the closing weeks of the 2004 campaign.

Now I remember the 2004 campaign and John Kerry did not clean George Bush’s clock with any regularity at all during any of the three debates. As “one of the Democratic Party’s most skilled debaters” he should have, considering that the MSM spent 8 years characterizing President Bush as a stumble-tongued buffoon. You do remember that persistent meme, don’t you? I sure as heck do.

The truth is, George Bush’s approval rating dropped below 50 percent right before the election and Kerry couldn’t put him away despite the concerted MSM push predicted by Newsweek’s editor Evan Thomas (an example of which you can see here). The most memorable part of any of the 2004 debates had nothing to do with John Kerry but with a suspicious bulge. No one can remember one memorable thing Kerry said during a Presidential debate and he sure as heck wasn’t trumpeting his rhetorical superiority over Chimpy McHitlerBurton in the days preceding Election Day.

I suspect there are two reasons the Obama team has tapped Kerry to spar with the President. First, Kerry fits the stereotype the left has of Mitt Romney — an out of touch rich white guy from the northeast — like he was born to it, which, come to think of it, he was. Second, Kerry will put on a good show but he knows his place and won’t do much to really push the President in rehearsal. As we’ve seen over and over again, Barack Obama can’t take a political punch. There is no chance his campaign team will bring in a sparring partner who can or will draw blood in a practice debate. Those are fine reasons to bring in a stiff if your guy is on the top of his game and has the drive to stay there, but Barack Obama is not the orator we were told he is and his Eye of the Tiger is more the Jaw of Glass Joe. John Kerry won’t make him a better debater. In fact, he may just make him worse.

(Graphic from Charles Williams’ Flickr site)

The Delivery Presents – Kurt Schlichter on Caring, Conservatism, and Zombies

Posted: 18 Jun 2012 09:14 PM PDT

Kurt Schlichter joined me in Episode 151 to talk about his new book, I Am a Conservative: Uncensored, Undiluted and Absolutely Un-PC, which you should all buy right away and not just because I get a small fraction of the purchase price if you use that link or because Kurt is my friend. His book is genuinely good: smart, funny, and invigorating. If current events have you weary and you need a straight shot of conservative nitro, Kurt’s book is for you.

And so is The Delivery, by the way. There’s a good bit about halfway into the first segment where we talk about how you don’t have to ask permission to create, and put your creation into the market, I think you’ll like. Entrepreneurship is easier today than it has ever been. The more people realize that, the more we’ll dispense with the old gatekeepers (and the political ideology that rules the vast majority of them).

Kurt stuck around for the second half, during which we talked about the movie Prometheus and how Ridley Scott managed to make a spiritual movie entirely without God. We also kicked around how we’d bring World War Z to the big screen and ranted a bit about how Hollywood overthinks the simple zombie movie.

You know, that makes me wonder. This is the third time Kurt and I have spent a good chunk of The Delivery on zombie movies. I honestly don’t know why that is, except that we both like the genre and really want Hollywood to drop the cutesy stuff and tell a solid story. If you have a better answer, feel free to drop it int he comment section!

[audio:http://www.takethatproductionsusa.com/podcasting/td/TD151.mp3|titles=The Delivery - Episode 151]

Jumat, 15 Juni 2012

Clipping blog

Clipping blog


The Delivery Presents – Winning, in Wisconsin and on Baker Street

Posted: 14 Jun 2012 01:24 PM PDT

If there is some sort of award for gloating, I may have won it in the first half of Episode 150. I probably should be nicer to the labor unions and other progressive rabble that dumped tens of millions of dollars into the effort to convince the voters of Wisconsin that they man they elected barely more than a year ago is actually Satan Incarnate, but…nah. I’d also like a chance to gloat about the crashing defeat of the crashing bore Mike Bloomberg, but I may have to wait a while. He’s built himself such a comfortable next in NYC that it will take some real outrage to dislodge him. Still, totalitarians tend to meet a bad end and I predict one of those is coming for Nanny B’s political career.

The real meat of the show this week was the second half, where I dug into the tasty television feast prepared by Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss called Sherlock. I can’t think of a television show made in the past two years that’s been better in any aspect — story, casting, acting, dialogue — than Sherlock and I spent a good chunk of time taking the good stuff apart to show you why I think it’s as good as it is. Take a listen and tell me what you think.

The Delivery - Episode 150

Selasa, 12 Juni 2012

Clipping blog

Clipping blog


The Podcast Profile I: Coffee and Markets

Posted: 11 Jun 2012 09:34 AM PDT

Podcast: Coffee and Markets (web link / iTunes link)

Length: 30 minutes

Frequency: Daily, available by mid-morning.

Rating: G

Coffee and Markets is Ben Domenech’s answer to progressive public radio shows like Fresh Air and All Things Considered. The intro music is folksy, with a bit of a kick, the tone is calm, and they keep the yelling and beatings to a minimum. In other words, Ben is recreating NRP for a more conservatively-inclined listener. That is a fairly lofty goal in a time when most conservative radio (and the new flood of conservative podcasts) is loud, aggrieved, and apt to delivery random pummelings. Domenech’s show works though, not because it is calm and quiet but because his commentary is incredibly smart. Did I mention the commentary and how smart it is? I did? Good. The intelligence of everyone on the show, the hosts and guests, is the main draw for me. That’s not to say the show is stuffy, like most of NPRs news or political programs are. They are not. Domenech and his main show partner Brad Jackson know pop culture as well as they know public policy and economics and you will hear the random Simpsons reference of song lyric tossed into the show. There are jokes. People laugh. Occasionally, Rebecca Black’s “Friday” is mentioned. I’m waiting for the first “Call Me Maybe” reference. Odds are, Ben will make it, but I secretly hope that Pejman (more on him later) is the first to slip one onto the show.

Coffee and Markets is strongest when Domenech and Jackson work with frequent guest Francis Cianfrocca. The talk will inevitably involve economics (the “Markets” part of the show) but won’t restrain itself just to domestic economic talk. Cianfrocca known his way around a number of subjects and when the three of them lock into a good conversational vibe, there are few places the show won’t go. That, by the way, is a good thing. Too many podcasters forget that a meander through a topical tangent can make for some very informative and entertaining radio. When smart and entertaining people get into a groove on a subject, even if it’s not the one on which the show started, it’s always a good idea to let it go for a bit. Domenech and his fellow hosts work together well and know the difference between a good tangent and one that will end in tears and awkward silence.

Let me also mention the other two show hosts. Coffee and Markets has two “teams” of hosts. Domenech and Jackson handle most of the shows, either with Cianfrocca or with a special newsworthy guest. The remainder of the shows are manned by Pejman Yousefzadeh and Kevin Holtsberry. The author interview is their usual “beat” on the show, which in many ways is a more difficult job. It’s not easy to read a book well enough to talk about it intelligently with the author (a truth recently illustrated by Piers Morgan, who bumbled his way through an interview with Jonah Goldberg), but Yousefzadeh and Holtsberry do not stumble and always leave me more interested about their interview subject when they’re done. That takes talent and hard work.

Come to think of it, “talent and hard work” pretty much describes all of Coffee and Markets. It is a strong show that would do well on a terrestrial radio network. It would not surprise me at all if that happened before the end of the year. If it does, remember that you read it here, though. Okay?

Senin, 11 Juni 2012

Clipping blog

Clipping blog


Clearing the Browser Tabs – Accolades Where Accolades are Richly Deserved

Posted: 11 Jun 2012 06:00 AM PDT

I am pleased to pass along some very good news this morning. Duane Lester is the first recipient of the Breitbart Blogger Award, an honor jointly bestowed by the Franklin Center and the Heritage Foundation at the Future of Journalism Summit held this past week in Rhode Island. As you know, Duane is my friend and I’ve long held that he’s one of the very best in the new media world. I’m glad he was recognized for his work and I hope this propels him to the rock star status he has earned.

I was not at the summit, but Michael Bates was and, from his description, there was a lot for the attendees to learn and a huge number of networking opportunities. We who blog, broadcast, and use social media need more of both — our influence and ability to grow into more respected media outlets will depend largely on how well we work and share our experience with each other.

I have one other piece of good blogging news. Over the weekend, The Other McCain reached ten million hits. Stacy, Smitty, and Wombat have done some pretty amazing work over there over the last few years and, if there’s any justice in conservative new media, they’ll get the recognition they richly deserve very soon. Few bloggers have built what they have and almost none do the kind of quality work they do.

And now, links!

Jumat, 08 Juni 2012

Clipping blog

Clipping blog


On the National Day of Blogger Silence, Stand Up for the First Amendment

Posted: 08 Jun 2012 06:00 AM PDT

The ongoing saga of lying felon Brett Kimberlin has advanced this week with news alternately good, bad, and good again. Aaron Walker, arrested thanks to a judge’s inexcusable disregard for the law has legal help on the way. First Amendment legal giant Eugene Volokh has agreed to help Walker’s defense. Parts of the story, particularly the parts where Kimberlin or someone acting in sympathy with him and his goals “SWAT” innocent Americans, have reached the MSM. David Hogberg of the Investor’s Business Daily’s Politics and Markets Blog has written about the story and ABC News (not CNN, who had one of its commentators SWATted) has reported on the SWAT-related part of the story in some detail.

The National Bloggers’ Club, a non-profit organization devoted to protecting and promoting new media, signed on to help Walker get a good legal defense. That act of civic engagement, however, put the group’s President Ali A. Akbar squarely in Kimberlin’s sights. A photograph of his mother’s house and a lengthy post about Akbar and the NBC appeared on an anti-Andrew Breitbart site — a website about which Kimberlin to my knowledge claims no connection — and shortly after that he received a threat of legal action from a lawyer who claimed to represent Kimberlin’s Justice Through Music Project.

One might question the timing.

So that was the good news, then the bad news. The second helping of good news? The American Center for Law and Justice has stepped in to represent Walker in his appeal of what I believe are bogus charges against him. The ACLJ is one of the true heavy hitters on First Amendment issues. It is a mortal lock that if some judge like C.J. Vaughey tries to pull his “Hey, let’s get this thing wrapped up in ten and to hell with the Supreme Court” routine, the ACLJ will have him for lunch. Also, today, the story reached Congress. Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and Rep. Kenny Marchant (R-TX) have asked for the Attorney General to investigate the SWATting cases. Given the predelictions of our current Attorney General, it’s not likely their requests will be taken seriously, but they’re out there and where there are two, there can be many more.

That is the story, at least the broad strokes of it at any rate, to date. I understand if it seems confusing. It’s sometimes confusing to me. It’s not necessarily important, though, that you know all the details. Here is what is important.

The goal of Kimberlin and those who act like him is simple. They want you to be afraid, so afraid that you will not speak out freely and boldly in the public arena. Their message, so plain any reasonable person can see it is this: if you disagree with us in any way in public, we will make a spectacle of you. Kimberlin and his ilk have assaulted the First Amendment in a way we have not seen in this country in a very long time. They want our silence and, today, that is what they will get. Ace has called for a National Day of Blogger Silence in which I will participate. This will be the only post I write at The Sundries Shack today (my co-bloggers might have posts of their own later). I won’t post to my Twitter feed either, except to send the link to this post.

Now it is time for our elected officials to act. Their core mission is to uphold the Constitution of the United States. The most fundamental freedom, so important that it is spelled out specifically and first among all the liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, is the Freedom of Speech. Our Founders knew it was essential that the citizenry be free to speak as they pleased, especially about matters of politics. To speak far more crassly, there are quite a few Republicans on the Hill today who owe us in new media for stumping for them, promoting money-bombs, introducing tens of thousands of people a month to them, and encouraging those people to vote for them through an entire election year. We spent a lot of time and effort working for them. It is time they spent a little time working for us. It is, after all, their job.

I ask Congress now to guarantee our Freedom of Speech. My suggestion is a national anti-SLAPP law, modeled on the California state law outlined here by the law-blogger Popehat. That law would serve as the a basic minimum on which the states could build more stringent protections against abuse of our legal systems. No matter what they do, however, it is imperative they take this attack on the First Amendment seriously. Congress could bring in Mr. Volokh, Popehat, Kurt Schlichter, and James Skyles — experts on First Amendment law and SLAPP lawsuits — to help craft the law.

Here’s where you can help. Find your members of Congress on this list and contact them (that is the most comprehensive list I can find. I know nothing of who put it together, however). Ask them to look into the stories of Aaron Walker, Patterico, Stacy McCain, Erick Erickson, and others. Ask them to learn about SWATting and the frivolous use of the legal system to squelch political speech. Then ask them to take decisive action to protect your First Amendment rights. Be polite — always be polite — but be insistent. Make it known that your support of their re-election effort could hinge on what they do about this important issue. If you are well-versed on the matter, offer to speak to your member of Congress or a very senior staffer to explain things to them in terms they can easily understand. Send them links to good blog posts (like the ones I linked here to Popehat’s blog or this one by Stacy McCain). Let them know that Senator Chambliss and Rep. Marchand have already spoken out. Give your best effort to get them on the issue, then asks your friends and family members to do the same.

As individuals, we are easily intimidated and silenced. As a throng, a throng that demands our elected representatives represent us, we all remain free.

Dianne Feinstein: Ein Senator. Eine Lawine. Ein Durcheinander.

Posted: 07 Jun 2012 01:35 PM PDT

I don’t expect members of Congress to be geniuses. As conceived by the Founders, Congress was intended to be composed of regular citizens, so that you’d get the normal range of smarts, experience, and savvy as you would if you scooped up any 535 people. However, since the federal government has taken so much power to itself — power to dictate to you decisions as mundane as what light bulbs you can use in your house and how your toilet flushes — I think we can safely say that those who sit in those exalted seats in Washington fancy themselves a cut or two above the rest of us.

Thus, I don’t feel terrible at all when I point and laugh at Senator Dianne “Don’t Call Me Ma’am” Feinstein for her recent attempt to appear a lot smarter than she, apparently, is.

In a televised interview Wednesday, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein repeatedly vented her ire over leaks of classified information and she signaled that she favors a more aggressive crackdown on those who are passing national security secrets to the press.

“What we’re seeing…is an Anschluss, an avalanche of leaks. And it’s very, very disturbing. You know, it’s dismayed our allies. It puts American lives in jeopardy. It puts our nation’s security in jeopardy,” Feinstein (D-Calif.) said on CNN’s “Situation Room” program.

Anschluss? I don’t think that word means what the Senator thinks it means. Then again, I’m not a United States Senator, smart enough to tell the hoi polloi what health care they “need” and what type of car they should drive.

For the Senator, and Wolf Blitzer, who apparently didn’t notice the word, Anschluss doesn’t have anything to do with avalanches. It has quite lot to do with Nazis and the annexation of Austria in 1938 through a rather suspect (to say the least) election process. In fact, one of the more well-known Nazi slogans, “Ein Volk – Ein Reich – Ein Führer“, was born to support Anschluss. The word itself means “unity”, which I suppose avalanches bring, if by unity you mean being a small part of a large pile of rocks at the bottom of a mountain.

My guess, were I inclined to be more charitable to Senator Feinstein, is that her temper got the best of her rational mind and caused her to stumble over a word in a rush to get her ire out all at once. I admit I’m not so inclined, since the Senator felt the need to vote for a ridiculously-flawed Obamacare bill she barely understood. Such displays of arrogance should not earn any measure of slack from we who have to live under her skewed sense of morality. It is obvious she believes herself smarter and more wise than any of us, despite her misguided foray into German yesterday.

There is a remedy, though. In November, Californians can replace Feinstein with Elizabeth Emken, a candidate who knows that you and your children are far better off when you are represented by a humble public servant who will guard your liberty fiercely. Besides, I’m pretty sure Ms. Emken known the difference between an avalanche and a German military power play.

(Post title translated: One Senator. One Avalanche. One Mix-Up.)

Kamis, 07 Juni 2012

Clipping blog

Clipping blog


Did the Greatest Orator in the History of the Republic Make a Crude Sexual Joke About His Wife?

Posted: 06 Jun 2012 09:23 PM PDT

President Obama gave a speech Wednesday, a part of which genuinely boggled my mind. Now, I know you’re probably thinking I’ll quote a stirring bit of admiration of the heroes who stormed the beaches of Normandy so many years ago. After all, Wednesday was the anniversary of the Day of Days. But no. The President didn’t honor D-Day save for a lone tweet from his Twitter account (by comparison, “he” tweeted about “paycheck fairness” 23 times over the past two days).

Today’s mind-boggling moment cane during a speech at a fundraiser before an LGBT audience. I suppose he’s patched things up a bit since he revised his revision of his revised views on gay marriage, at least enough to rattle the tip jar for them a bit. At any rate, in the midst of his remarks, he dropped one of the more inappropriate comments I’ve seen from a President since, well, the last Democrat we had in office. This is from the official pool report, as quoted by Todd Starnes of Fox News Radio.

“Michelle outdoes me in pushups as well,” he said, after saying that she’s taken some criticism on her technique “because she doesn’t go all the way down” – a line that he let hang, naughtily provoking laughter from the crowd.

BuzzFeed provided a transcript of the relevant section (not available at present on the White House web site) that is a bit different.

I want to thank my wonderful friend who accepts a little bit of teasing about Michelle beating her in pushups — (laughter) — but I think she claims Michelle didn't go all the way down. (Laughter.) That’s what I heard. I just want to set the record straight — Michelle outdoes me in pushups as well. (Laughter.) So she shouldn't feel bad. She’s an extraordinary talent and she’s just a dear, dear friend — Ellen DeGeneres. Give Ellen a big round of applause.

Mark Knoller reported the same remark on his Twitter feed.

Okay, now I want to be fair here. President Obama probably didn’t mean to make an oral sex joke at the expense of his own wife. It is most likely that he fumble-tongued (no pun intended) his way through the comment and paused because, well, he knew he had just said something truly stupid. On the other hand, we have been told more times than there are starts in the sky that Barack Obama is a master orator, a speaker without peer in modern politics, a man who handles the spoken word like Paganini handled the violin. If that is true, then it’s reasonable for us to assume that he meant to deliver that crude remark about his own wife before an audience he was absolutely sure would get the joke.

So which is it: inartful remark or crass sexual joke about his wife? Either way, it reflect poorly on the man who holds the highest office in the land. I suppose we should be thankful they didn’t have lunch at the YMCA before the speech. It could have been worse.