Kamis, 08 Maret 2012

Clipping blog

Clipping blog


Introducing My New Hotness, Twitchy.com.

Posted: 07 Mar 2012 04:42 PM PST

For the past couple of months, I’ve been working with a bunch of exceptional people on a project I’ve not been able to talk about, even though I’ve really wanted to shout about it from the rooftops. Today, I can shout a bit.

Leading new media entrepreneur Michelle Malkin today announced the launch of TWITCHY.COM, a ground-breaking entrant in the Twitter curation/aggregation space. The founder of powerhouse blogs MichelleMalkin.com (established 2004) and HotAir.com (established 2006 and sold to Salem Communications in 2010) has recruited a savvy team of editors from across the country to staff the new must-read website.

"TWITCHY.COM is a ground-breaking Twitter curation site powered by a kinetic staff of social media junkies," Malkin said. "We're mining Twitter to bring you 'who said what' in U.S. politics, global news, sports, entertainment, media, and breaking news 24/7."

Malkin added: "If it's news, TWITCHY.COM is on it. If it should be news, TWITCHY.COM is ahead of it."

Here’s how it works. All day, every day, Twitchy has at least one editor scouring Twitter for the best tweets, the breaking news, the quirky wonderful stuff that makes Twitter such a great platform. Whatever they find, they post to Twitchy. You go there and enjoy it all. Simple, no?

I’m a contributor to the site, so I’ll be taking my turn behind the wheel and I promise you, I’ll find you the very best stuff I can. Michelle has assembled a crew very savvy in social media (and don’t you just like the phrase “kinetic staff of social media junkies”?) and we’ve already put up a ton of great posts for your perusal.

Go visit Twitchy. Bookmark it. Share it with your friends. It’s going to be a big deal, I think, and you’ll be glad you got in on it when it was brand new.

Rabu, 07 Maret 2012

Clipping blog

Clipping blog


The Constitution According to Kos, or How Conservatives are Like Earworms

Posted: 07 Mar 2012 05:45 AM PST

What it is with progressives and the Constitution? I don’t mean the usual progressive problem with the supreme law of our land, namely that it doesn’t let them render Republicans into a bland but nutritious gruel with which to feed the unwashed masses who will live in their Shining Utopia. I mean the problem with those tricky little black marks on the page that we call words.

Remember this little bon mot from Washington Post super-columnist and MS-NBC hired gum-flapper Ezra Klein not a few months ago? He was positively flummoxed that people could actually understand the words of the Constitution because they were written over a hundred years ago. Seriously. Hit the link and see for yourself. Despite that, the WaPo actually gave him his own staff of writers over which he exercises some level of control, possibly a level that ensures they only use language invented after 1913. I’m not quite sure how he found such a full stable of writers fluent in Esperanto, but it sure is a relief that he gets their newfangled language translated into English.

Tonight, another progressive has met the Constitution and been found baffled. Markos Moulitsas, better known at Kos, is what you might call a kingmaker in Democratic circles. Well, you might call him that if he had any great success with winning candidates. He has, however, written a book or three and did start the largest progressive-leaning website in the universe. His Netroots Nation convention draws the cream of the Democratic crop every year and it’s pretty much routine for would-be Democratic officeholders to pay obeisance to him.

Last night, Kingmaker Markos bestrode Twitter like a colossus as he watched the Super Tuesday returns and speeches roll in — a horribly confused and angry colossus who just couldn’t restrain himself from jumping onto twitter and delivering a proper civics lesson to the world:


Santorum scoffs at notion that gov’t creates rights. In other words, he doesn’t believe in the US Constitution
@markos
Markos Moulitsas

Wha…? Why the gall of Rick Santorum to interpret the Constitution in that way! And if we didn’t quite understand his meaning, he extended and revised his remark.


Dear Cons, show me where in the Constitution is god mentioned. In fact, it states “We the people” as the source of the rights (Preamble)
@markos
Markos Moulitsas

Now, I know what you might be thinking. Wha? God? “We the people”? What the heck is he talking about? Why are you making me pay attention to this, Jimmie? I hate you! Let me see if I can help out. See, Markos is a progressive, and they believe that the government is the people and the people are the government. So when, for instance, the government rifles through a little girls lunchbox, confiscates her home-made nutritious lunch, and substitutes it with a processed cafeteria special, that’s a good thing because it’s really not the government doing it to us, it’s us doing it to us and we’d never do anything to us that’s wrong. The only exception to this rule is if Republicans run the government. In that case, the government is still us, but it’s a bad part of us, like cancer or that part of our brain that can’t help but sing along when Escape (The PiƱa Colada Song) comes on the radio. So we have to fight it, like white cells fight Rupert Holmes or something. It gets a bit hazy, but it boils down to this: the government is us, so whatever it does is good, unless it does something progressives don’t like, then it’s bad.

Of course, there’s the bit where Markos think he’s one of the brilliant few who should run the government because we the people aren’t quite bright enough to figure things out for ourselves, but never you worry your pretty head about that. He’ll take good care of us when he’s in charge.

The extension of this thought is that, as Moulitsas said, we don’t have any rights that the government doesn’t give us. This makes a weird bit of sense when you think about it (but, please, don’t think about it long. I can’t be held responsible for any lasting brain damage). The government has to give us our rights because if it doesn’t, who else will? Some strange Sky Being? A “Creator”. Don’t be silly! It only stands to reason that the government must give us rights, and since we’re the government, then what’s really happening is that we’re giving ourselves rights, which is quite nice, when you think of it.

Unfortunately for Moulitsas, though, that flies directly in the face of what our Founders actually believed when they wrote the Constitution. In order to get a view of Constitutional rights as exactly backwards as his, you’d have to believe the Declaration of Independence which, acting as the Preamble to the Preamble outlined exactly what power “we the people” had, was unconnected to the Constitution in any way. I won’t quote all the relevant parts of the Declaration of Independence that backstop “we the people”, but Sooper Mexican did a very nice job of finding the good parts so check out his post (or better yet, forward it to Moulitsas because he obviously hasn’t read it in a while). Really, what Moulitsas wants you to believe is “the governed” of the Declaration of Independence who give their consent so that governments may have just power to secure their rights are not at all the same as “the people” of the Constitution.

That’s simply a bizarre view of history that only a committed (and by that, I mean one who has been struck sharply on the head by a brick) progressive could hold. But never let it be said that ol’ Kos isn’t completely committed to his ideology, no matter how brainless it appears.

I know. That “brainless” bit seemed a bit unfair, didn’t it? Well, let me leave you with one more Kos tweet, this at the end of his little Constitutional lesson.


So what I have learned today — conservatives haven’t read the Constitution.
@markos
Markos Moulitsas

If anything, I went too light him. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have a song in my head…something about getting caught in the rain.

TwitterFacebookStumbleUponGoogle BookmarksDeliciousFriendFeedTechnorati FavoritesGoogle GmailRedditWordPressShare

Selasa, 06 Maret 2012

Clipping blog

Clipping blog


What a Real War on Women Looks Like

Posted: 05 Mar 2012 07:10 PM PST

It has become nearly an article of faith inside the Democratic Party and the MSM (a Venn diagram that consists of one large circle) that the Republicans have launched a “War on Women”. They have come to this belief because Republicans have, in a most dastardly fashion, said it is wrong for our government to force an employer to violate their religious beliefs in order to provide one small and particular aspect of health insurance to their employees.

As I said, dastardly.  The situation has reached such a level of crisis that a sitting Democratic Senator took to Twitter to ask his followers for their support in this “war”.


RT this photo if you’re sick of the GOP’s #WarOnWomen http://t.co/1FjAA4v3
@FrankLautenberg
Frank R. Lautenberg

That “RT” in the tweet is short for “re-tweet”. What it means is Lautenberg wants everyone who follows him to send his tweet, picture of Rush Limbaugh attached, to all of their followers. It is his hope that thousands, if not tens of thousands, of people will see it, become enraged, and leap into the “War on Women” on his side.

But let’s step back for a moment and take a look at what a real War on Women looks like. I don’t want to diminish Senator Lautenberg’s crushingly logical argument nor the calm and reasoned fashion in which he delivered it. He’s a sitting Senator and, surely, a member of that august body wouldn’t stoop to a crude attack that focused on Rush Limbaugh’s physical appearance. That would be no better than a crude playground taunt. Worse, it would be bullying and, as the administration has stressed with a considerable expenditure of taxpayer money, bullying is wrong.

So let me set Lautenberg’s jibe aside and bring this piece in Time magazine on why you will not see women athletes representing Saudi Arabia in the 2016 Olympics.

Women in the Kingdom are legally prohibited from breaking a sweat over anything more strenuous than wearing the burka in 120 degree desert heat. To exercise publicly is to risk being smacked with the sticks of the religious police, or worse. Girls don't expect to learn to swim, ride a bike or, god forbid, do gymnastics.

For a while in the 1990s, Saudi women had gyms where they could exercise, but in 2009 the government decided that Stairmasters and their ilk were gateways to female licentiousness and shuttered 153 women's gyms.

A few weeks ago, Human Rights Watch (HRW) released a report on the Saudi prohibition on women and sports. The report noted that some forward-thinking Saudi men, specifically Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, sponsored Saudi Arabia's first women's soccer team, the Jeddah Kings, in 2009. "But he abandoned the effort when media coverage of a women's soccer tournament that year involving the Jeddah Kings and five other private teams caused a public backlash, with a hostile reaction to the players by some conservative Saudis," according to the report.

That is what a real War on Women looks like. That is what is looks like when a government bends its power to making women a permanent underclass, a group of possessions and not people. Saudi women aren’t worried about contraceptives. They’re worried about being raped, publicly flogged, or murdered because their male relatives believed they had run afoul of a moral code that was antiquated in the 9th Century. If they do have daughters, they live with the reality that their little girl could be married off to a middle-aged man before she turns 9 years old or that she will be raped almost to death and they will be unable to report the rape because of the massive shame it would bring on their family.

Contraceptives? Saudi women would weep for joy at a chance to buy their own contraceptives with their own money without fear of being stoned to death for their moral heresies. They would happily lay down the $9 a month WalMart and Target ask for prescription contraceptives.

Here in America, we are so free that Frank Launtenberg and his Democratic pals can manufacture a “war” so that they can grab just a little more power for themselves and freedom from you. Teri Christoph drilled down to the real motivation behind their fake “War on Women”.

Knowing that women voters are leaving Obama, the left has deliberately waged a war designed to scare them into thinking their birth control will be taken from them. EMILY's List calls these disenchanted women voters "defectors" and they'll stop at nothing to get them back.

The use of the word "defector" by the left is supremely insulting. A defector is someone who switches allegiances, usually in a manner deemed to be traitorous. Got that? If you are a woman who voted for Obama in '08 but don't like what he's done as president and don't plan to vote for him again, you are considered a traitor by the left. Newsflash: Women are not born with a genetic allegiance to the Democrat party and its liberal causes. Plenty of us prefer to think for ourselves.

Democrats are running scared knowing that a significant number of women are wise to the fact that the economy has tanked, true unemployment is around 25 percent, and our president is wholly unequipped to deal with any of it. They also know that women voice their discontent at the ballot box. So they are waging this war against women. They use people like Sandra Fluke to distract from the real issues at stake this election season. They use women as pawns in their political game.

Don’t buy it, folks. There really is a War on Women, but it’s not being fought by Republicans, Catholics, or other people whose religious beliefs mean more to them than the progressive sense of entitlement. Frank Lautenberg should be ashamed of his crass attempt to gin up a “war” where none exists and his party should feel some electoral pain in November because of it.

TwitterFacebookStumbleUponGoogle BookmarksDeliciousFriendFeedTechnorati FavoritesGoogle GmailRedditWordPressShare

Senin, 05 Maret 2012

Clipping blog

Clipping blog


When You Scoff At Newt’s $2.50 Gas Promise, You Scoff at History.

Posted: 04 Mar 2012 01:14 PM PST

Newt Gingrich has caught quite a bit of heat for his claim that he would, as President, help get the price of gas down to $2.50. His plan is pretty simple. He wants to increase domestic drilling, begin construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, and take a giant machete to the EPA’s job-killing, price-increasing regulations on the production of domestic energy. But even those simple steps have drawn little but dismissive derision from the bureacratic class and prominent Democrats. Mitt Romney, favorite candidate of the professional Republicans, jumped on Newt’s plan with a barely-disguised scoff and used many of the same arguments. He said he would not “pander” to voters by setting, as Newt has, a certain price for gas in the future. Here’s a good summary of the criticism from CNN.

The promise might garner attention on the campaign trail, but there’s little politicians can do to influence the price of gasoline in the short-term, and long-run efforts are likely to be complicated by the global nature of the crude oil market.

“Political rhetoric is all it is,” said Guy Caruso, an economist who led the Energy Information Administration and worked as an analyst at the Central Intelligence Agency.

“Short of price controls, which were a disaster during the Nixon administration, politicians can’t do much to change the price of gasoline,” he said.

Other industry experts CNNMoney surveyed echoed those sentiments.

“This is absurd,” said Paul Bledsoe, a Bipartisan Policy Center scholar who spent more than 20 years working on energy policy in Washington. “Obviously the price of oil is set on a global market. In the immediate term there is almost nothing you can do.”

Both of those arguments are ridiculous and I can prove it with a couple charts and a few simple links.

Here is a chart of gasoline and crude oil prices that goes back four years. It’s tracked by the GasBuddy site, which tracks gasoline prices from all over the country. If you want to know what gas costs in your area, GasBuddy is there for you. And no, I don’t work for GasBuddy, but it’s a terribly useful site if you want to scout out gasoline prices in your burg, or elsewhere.

Notice that little gap between 6/4/2008 and 7/25/2008. At that point, gasoline hovered around $4.00 a gallon nationally, and crude oil was at nearly $150 a barrel. Then something happened, very close to July 25 that drove the prices of both down to the point that, by the beginning of 2009, gas cost less than $2.00 a gallon. Something happened to drop the cost of a gallon of gas about $2 a gallon. What could have happened?

Well, how about this?

President Bush lifted an executive order banning offshore oil drilling on Monday and urged Congress to follow suit.

Citing the high prices Americans are paying at the pump, Bush said from the White House Rose Garden that allowing offshore oil drilling is “one of the most important steps we can take” to reduce that burden.

However, the move is largely symbolic as there is also a federal law banning offshore drilling.

“This means that the only thing standing between the American people and these vast oil reserves is action from the U.S. Congress,” Bush said.

A few months after signed his executive order, President Bush signed legislation to lift the decades-old moratorium on offshore oil drilling.

Now, follow that little blue arrow. President Bush signed his executive order on July 14, 2009 at which point prices dropped to about $3.50 a gallon. They dropped slightly, blipped upwards a bit, then dropped off the table as Congress debated, and finally passed, the legislation which ended the offshore exploration moratorium in late October. The President signed it into law and gas prices continued to drop through the rest of the year.

But what happened after that? Well, let’s look at this timeline, and use this chart for reference.

As you can see, gas prices nudged up after the first of the year, as the Bush administration ended and the administration of the man who promised to raise energy prices began. In February, 2009, Energy Secretary Salazar made it known that the Obama administration would shelve the previous administration’s Outer Continental Shelf lease plan for six months while he went on a “listening tour”. The Bush plan would have opened up a number of new leases for domestic exploration and drilling and had already received significant public input, most of which was positive. Between then and September, when he announced that we would see no new lease plan until at least 2012, gas prices rose sharply and continued to trend steadily upwards.

The big blow came on December 1, 2010 when President Obama slapped a new moratorium on drilling over many, of not most, of the areas the Bush administration had opened just a year earlier. You can see what happened to the price of gasoline after that.

So, you still think, as CNN dismissively wrote, “there’s little politicians can do to influence the price of gasoline in the short-term”? It looks to me as if there’s quite a bit politicians did do and there is every reason to believe that we would see a similar drop in gas prices if the politicians in Washington decide to allow us to get the trillions of gallons of oil we and the rest of the world know are in areas Barack Obama has specifically placed off-limits.

I want to make one more point here. When George Bush signed that executive order and when Congress lifted the moratorium, gas prices dropped even though we had not pumped one drop of oil from those newly-opened areas. The very idea that the United States would tap its immense oil wealth — put into motion with a concrete government action — caused the worldwide markets to move. Does anyone really believe that could not happen again? Remember, gas prices dropped well over $2.00 a gallon in four months in 2009. Newt Gingrich’s plan would only drop prices by $1.50 or so and he’s given no particular deadline for when that would happen. If it takes a year, that will mean that would have taken three times as long to do less than the Bush administration did.

That does not strike me as “absurd” “political rhetoric” not a “pander” but a realistic goal with reasonable plans to back it up.

TwitterFacebookStumbleUponGoogle BookmarksDeliciousFriendFeedTechnorati FavoritesGoogle GmailRedditWordPressShare