Blogging Archives
This is a very large file. For the full smaller digest version, click here.Kos gets one thing right: the rightwing blogosphere is mostly just inept chatter
There's a first for everything, and subcomandante Markos Moulitsas Zuniga - the Kos in DailyKos - has finally got one thing right. From the article "Right-wing bloggers see their chance" (link):
While conservative bloggers talk about making a difference for their party, they have yet to back up their talk with action, said Markos Moulitsas, the founder of the liberal Daily Kos blog. Moulitsas, also a columnist for The Hill, boasts about how the liberal netroots got Howard Dean elected as Democratic Party chairman, raised millions of dollars for victorious candidates and created a "partisan message machine" to push back against conservative media on talk radio and cable television. That made the Democratic Party's establishment take them seriously, Moulitsas said.He's right on target with that, and for a tangible example see the nearly complete lack of response to my highly effective plan to defeat Obama. Rather than helping push that, Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit concentrated on sending people to Amazon, and the Pajamas Media with which he's associated concentrated on talking head shows featuring worthless minor pundits.
"The conservative bloggers' efforts might grow into something more meaningful over time, but as of right now, all I see is a lot of chatter," he said. "And if there's one thing the right doesn't lack, it's punditry. They can talk up a storm."
If you want to do something, write to the rightwing bloggers that you read and suggest that they actually do something for a change.
Youtube loves salmon, adds nofollow tags to profile videos
Youtube has made a couple of interesting changes for some reason or other. First, their "sites linking to this video" section is now loaded via Javascript; those links are no longer embedded in the page. Despite the fact that those HTML links had nofollow tags, apparently some people were using them to obtain juice.
And, they've also now added nofollow tags to the videos and favorites on profile pages, as illustrated below. As previously indicated, the salmon-colored links indicate a nofollow tag.
Just keeping you updated on YT's gradual transition from an independent company to a Google playground. Oh, and thanks again to all those bloggers who supported the anti-web nofollow because they thought it was what it was presented as. See also "We're all going to regret giving Youtube so many links".
Stupidity in action, illustrated
I'm not going to go into much detail in this, but a while back I offered a plan about how to deal with the mainstream media, which is somewhat similar to this.
Now, for an example of how many bloggers are like flickering 10W lightbulbs, see these searches for this guy:
peekURL.com/zarldu4
peekURL.com/zl7udo8
Note that the third result at the second search is to his LAT article, and that position was probably obtained by those linking to that article with a regular, non-nofollowed link. Some people probably linked to the article using his name. I saw at least one other person linking his name to his Wikipedia entry.
Considering all the "firepower" in the blogosphere, it shouldn't have been difficult to fill those pages with posts about the tape he refused to release. Unfortunately, the problem isn't with "firepower" so much as brainpower and/or an inability to take advice: peekURL.com/zar993k
On the one hand I don't want the competition, but on the other it would be nice if there were at least a few people out there who could learn how to do something effective.
Walter Olson/Overlawyered DIDN'T delete comment that provided information he did not
[Oops! While it looked like the comment I left had been posted immediately, Olson says that it - and dozens more comments - had been put into a moderation queue, and he then approved all of them including the one I left. So, ignore the following, which is being kept here as an artifact of your blogger jumping the gun. My apologies to Olson.]
Most of the time when bloggers and other sites delete my comments it's because I was pointing out how the site was completely wrong; it's rarely done with only slightly corrective comments.
But, apparently Walter Olson of Overlawyered is really, really scared of his visitors not thinking he's perfect or something because he deleted a comment in the latter category earlier today on this post: overlawyered.com/2008/11/community-service-yep-mandatory
Discussing Obama's mandatory/voluntary community service plan, he offered a post consisting of just two sentences. Here's the first, from Olsen:
Well, that didn’t take long. Coyote spots language on the Obama transition site that seems to make explicit what was left studiously vague during the campaign:
That's followed by one sentence from the first version of BHO's plan (see the link above).
Here's the comment I left:
The language quoted above contradicts something on another page at change.gov as well as his previous materials. Details at my name's link. And, BHO's new Chief of Staff supported mandatory service in a 2006 book.
If Walter Olson would delete a comment like that, what assurance do you have that he hasn't "manicured" all the other comments to delete those that provide other amplifications and corrections? Can you believe anything Walter Olsen says at Over Lawyered, or will you have to double-check every single thing he writes?
Instapundit, or The Strange Case of the GOP Hack Who Didn't Shill During the Election
Four years ago at this time, Instapundit was in full-on GOP shill mode, desperately doing his best to get Bush re-elected, such as by promoting obviously misleading stories.
Now, the magic seems to be gone. Sure, Insty hasn't linked to anything pro-Obama that I've seen, and he's linked to plenty of anti-Obama things, but there's something missing: the fire. He just doesn't seem to be all that concerned about a victory by the furthest left president in U.S. history. In fact, he refuses to push a highly effective plan to prevent that presidency.
Instead, he's certainly noticed a lot of Amazon sales lately, hasn't he? I'm going to guess that only 10 or 20 percent of his readership knows what he's doing: those links to Amazon contain his personal code, and if someone clicks on of the links and buys something he gets a cut. But, he also takes it a step further: sending clicks through an Amazon redirect that isn't necessary but at the same time probably sets their cookie. Nothing wrong with that (more or less), it's just that instead of trying to milk the cow perhaps he should be concentrating on protecting the whole damn farm.
Garrulous Pajamas Media paper tiger warns: mainstream media is biased (or something)
Newspaperman Michael Malone takes to the esteemed web pages of Pajamas Media to offer "Editing Their Way to Oblivion: Journalism Sacrificed For Power and Pensions" (link). Rather than being sarcastic or anything, I'll just point out that it's a worthless and wordy rant against the mainstream media ("MSM"), claiming that the MSM's support for Barack Obama is because they expect him to bring back the Fairness Doctrine and save their jobs.
The problem isn't necessarily in what he writes, but in that the only solution he offers is in the subtext: support Pajamas Media. The article is basically just an ad for a hugely flawed concept that isn't attempting to reform the media but is simply attempting to offer a web-based, highly partisan alternative to the MSM. See this for my alternative solution, and see this for an example why PJM is a false alternative.
My in-depth, completely spurious conversation with Scott from Power Line
Earlier today, I conducted a completely spurious conversation with Scott from PowerLineBlog! (I think there's an exclamation point in their name, but if that's wrong it doesn't hurt). It went like this:
24AHEAD: Thanks for bringing the story about the guy who made bogus donations to the Obama campaign to our attention (link). I previously saw how he put it in comments at minx.cc/?post=276324, but it's good to have a dedicated page for it.
SCOTT FROM POWERLINEBLOG!: It is merely part of the service we provide as part of our in-depth reportage on today's political scene.
24AHEAD: However, there is one thing. You quoted Mark Steyn's sarcastic comment about the MSM's priorities, and how they prefer to concentrate on shoes etc. rather than looking into BHO's donations etc. Then you ended the piece with this: "It is a point that needs making and that could be made every day." You'll never guess what I said to myself when I read that!
SCOTT FROM POWERLINEBLOG!: I would imagine that, like we at PowerLineBlog!, you scratched your chin and thought over our deep thoughts about today's political scene.
24AHEAD: Actually, I said, "and I'm sure you will", as in, I'm sure that between now and doomsday you and your comrades will keep whining about MSM bias instead of actually doing something that would actually have an impact.
24AHEAD: Hello, Scott? Are you there?
Valiant: private blog post about Obama - already cited over 500 times - saved from "memory hole"!
Some only sit on the sidelines in the battle to prevent Barack Obama from becoming president. Others are fully engaged, valiantly and intelligently fighting with all their force, fighting the good fight no matter what happens.
For a perfect example of that, turn to this post: patterico.com/2008/10/20/evidence-of-obama-ayers-tie-sent-down-the-memory-hole-almost (hat tap: pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/archives2/026008.php).
That, my friends, is truly brave and highly intelligent keyboard work. It doesn't matter that her quote has been featured on over 500 other pages, including at Politico. What really matters is that her page itself has been preserved for eternity. Because, no one would have thought it existed without that. Simply being cited on 500 other pages isn't enough. And, it doesn't matter that her quote isn't really "proof" so much as her opinion (I suspect she got it right, but it's not "proof").
Pajamaderians, hold your keyboards high! And, don't worry about doing things that actually would work.
Next up: let's freep a poll! Because that's a really good use of your time.
Who's behind the Obama Youth video, and why are they so successful?
Drudge is currently linking to this video of black teenagers at a Kansas City charter school - dressed in fancified paramilitary outfits - pledging allegiance to Barack Obama and describing how he's changed their lives. I linked to that video back on the second in the post about the then-previous example of BHO's personality cult.
Something about the video producer's modus operandi sets off red flags, but it's probably nothing. The owner of that video is listed as 39 years old: youtube.com/user/keepitwildtv. However, at this profile apparently from the same person, he's listed as 16 years old: youtube.com/user/NoObamaCant. It's certainly possible that those are two separate people who are related, but they're clearly either that or the same person since both profiles link to this site: obamaganda.weebly.com. And, the videos on both profiles are very similar. The first profile joined at the end of August, the second joined at the end of September.
And, since that time they've been quite successful. The two videos from NoObamaCant have over 50,000 views, and the two from keepitwildtv have over 500,000 views, with most of the ones for the last coming from Drudge. However, he's also gotten links from a radio station, hotair.com, worldnetdaily.com, powerlineblog.com, instapundit.com, breitbart.tv, etc. And, all his videos and pages use a lot of exclamation points and exhortations to subscribe. And, all are written in English that has a whiff of a foreign accent. But, maybe he's just a master of promotion.
Dave Winer deletes comment, locks thread
Earlier today, Dave Winer of Scripting News offered "I'd like to have a word with Republicans" (scripting.com/stories/2008/10/05/idLikeToHaveAWordWithRepub.html). Clamping his hands down over his ears just as hard as he could, he said:
Barack Obama is an honorable person. You may not agree with him, or like where he would take our country, that's your right of course, but he doesn't "pal around" with terrorists. I think we all know that, right? If you have any doubts, you can skip the rest of this post, and please don't leave any comments.
Ever the maverick, I left the comment in the extended entry (needless to say, I could have said much more).
My comment was deleted and then Winer locked the thread from further replies. I guess finding out the truth about Obama is just too much for some of his lighter-weight supporters to bear.
10/13/08 UPDATE: He's now moderating comments, and another comment I left on scripting.com/stories/2008/10/12/michelleMalkinLikeHerParty.html wasn't approved. That's also below.
-------------- 10/5/08 comment -----------------
DW: "Barack Obama is an honorable person."
BHO is a serial liar whose campaign has engaged in an extremely sleazy, Chicago-style campaign using proxies, including those in the MSM. You probably haven't heard about most of those lies because the MSM refuses to call him on them: http://24ahead.com/blog/archives/007954.html
While he might not *now* "pal around with terrorists", he has in the past. The NYT article linked above was simply a whitewash, the NYT attempting to get in front of GOP ads on the issue. For the truth, follow the links here: http://24ahead.com/blog/archives/008087.html
-------------- 10/5/08 comment -----------------
-------------- 10/12/08 comment -----------------
Since a comment I left on another thread was deleted, this might disappear as well. However, the candidates can't be responsible for things they don't hear, nor is it generally a wise idea to draw attention to those causing disturbances (for instance, Vin Scully didn't acknowledge fans who ran onto the field). The majority of the "hate" involved in this case is coming from the MSM. In their attempt to elect BHO, they're attempting to portray those attending those rallies as violent yahoos and even playing the Hitler card (see a recent Frank Rich column referencing Weimar). Rather than playing along with the MSM's attempts, perhaps Winer should consider acknowledging what they're trying to do. See also this from 10/6:
http://24ahead.com/blog/archives/008098.html
-------------- 10/12/08 comment -----------------
Steve Benen/Washington Monthly gets hat trick: deletes three comments in one day
Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly has scored a hat trick: he or his helpers deleted three comments I left on his entries today. And, the deletions happened very shortly after I left the comments, so obviously they're very worried about their readers learning about the things that Steve Benen isn't willing to tell them. An earlier comment I left was also deleted from one of his entries (see the first link), and during the Kevin Drum era at that site about a dozen comments were deleted or edited without notice.
The three comments are in the extended entry, in reverse chronological order.
-------------------------
washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_10/015030.php
Steve Benen writes: "we already learned". Actually, that's just the NYT's take on it, in their desperate attempt to get out in front of a story and minimize the damage to BHO.
For the truth of the matter, see this and this.
[Note: Washington Monthly/Steve Benen deleted a valid comment I left here recently (including two just today), continuing a long-term habit during Kevin Drum's tenure. Because it contains information you aren't supposed to know about, this comment may disappear or be different from what I posted. Search for "steve benen" or "kevin drum" at my site for examples of comments that were deleted.]
-------------------------
washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_10/015023.php
BHO is a great champion of the press. In fact, he recently encouraged his followers to in effect shut down a couple radio shows that featured people he didn't like. They were saying things BHO didn't like, so it's perfectly valid to try to shut them down. (Note: I'm referring to BHO, not Hugo Chavez just so no one gets confused.)
[Note: Washington Monthly/Steve Benen deleted a valid comment I left here recently, continuing a long-term habit during Kevin Drum's tenure. Because it contains information you aren't supposed to know about, this comment may disappear or be different from what I posted. Search for "steve benen" or "kevin drum" at my site for examples of comments that were deleted.]
-------------------------
washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_10/015024.php
Whew! The NYT says BHO is faultless, and that's all everyone needs to hear!
Of course, if you go here and compare it to the second paragraph on page 2 you might have a sense of deja vu, but just completely ignore that and believe what WaMo wants you to believe.
[Note: Washington Monthly/Steve Benen deleted a valid comment I left here recently, continuing a long-term habit during Kevin Drum's tenure. Because it contains information you aren't supposed to know about, this comment may disappear or be different from what I posted. Search for "steve benen" or "kevin drum" at my site for examples of comments that were deleted.]
UCLA professor Stephen Bainbridge deletes comments showing how he was wrong
UCLA law professor Stephen Bainbridge recently tried to debunk illegal immigration's role in the mortgage crisis. Along with issuing smears, his only data points in support of his position came from data that was over a decade old. Not only didn't he tell his readers that the data was incredibly out of date, but he deleted two comments pointing out that the data he was using was woefully out of date.
One of the comments he deleted was from me:
Bainbridge should be embarrassed: for relying on data that's over a decade old (h/t a previous comment). And, all to support illegal activity, to show that he's one of the "good conservatives", and in order to avoid pointing out the truth and then having the left call him names.
The previous comment referenced above was also deleted; it wasn't adversarial, simply stating that the data was out of date and suggesting that that made it worthless in this case. There was no link and I forget the person's name, but their email address was at watson.ibm.com.
The bottom line here is that you can't trust anything you read at Bainbridge's site, because he's willing to try to silence those who fact-check him. If you're a UCLA student in one of his classes, make sure and double-check every assignment he gives you for anything he left out.
Stephen Bainbridge, Matt Yglesias embarrass themselves in support of illegal immigration (minorities, bailout)
A few days ago, Michelle Malkin offered "Illegal immigration and the mortgage mess" (link).
Now, if there's one thing that the corrupt on both the right and the left can agree on it's that illegal immigration is the best thing since 8ulova watches.
Thus it is that UCLA Professor Stephen Bainbridge [1] offers "They Make You Embarrassed to be a Conservative" in which he ironically embarrasses himself (link):
...the raving of people like Malkin and Krikorian [2] should be taking place in a padded room in Arkham Asylum not in the public discourse... Put simply, the freezing up of the credit markets doesn’t have anything to do with either affirmative action or illegal immigration, and people who believe it does are on a par with the conspiracy theorists who think fluoridation is a Chicom plot... When you look at the data, it’s true that minorities are slightly over-represented in the sub-prime mortgage market...
In the above, the word "data" is linked to this PDF file, and that's the only data he provides. That PDF says:
Our sample was drawn from a population of borrowers originating mortgages between January 1996 and June 1997
In other words, Bainbridge is basing his smears on data that's over a decade old.
Needless to say, simply relying on someone else who relied on faulty data wasn't enough for Matt Yglesias, he needed to race bait and smear those who, unlike him, support our laws [3]:
This is one of these wingnut talking points that I can't even begin to unpack in a coherent argument, but white supremacist sentiment has always been an important element of the modern conservative movement so it's not surprising to see it rear its head even in odd contexts.
While I haven't looked into illegal immigration's links to the mortgage bailout, I will point out that many banks are eager to lend to illegal aliens. In fact, the FDIC was working with the Mexican consulate to give home loans to illegal aliens. See also this, this, this, this, and this. The issue of the "unbanked" - including dissembling by Bill Clinton and Arnold Schwarzenegger - is related.
UPDATE: Steven Bainbridge deleted two comments pointing out how he was misleading.
[1] Bainbridge is such an idiot, he said "I like it, let's do it" about Bush's original "guest" worker scam.
[2] Bainbridge is misunderstanding a Corner post from Mark Krikorian, and probably doing so intentionally. I saw the update where Krikorian explained what he (pretty obviously) meant but can't locate it presently.
[2] yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/09/
did_minority_homeowners_cause_the_financial_crisis.php
How the Democrats rule online, Part #94295931
Yesterday I posted to FreeRepublic exhorting people to visit Time's Swampland and discredit house hacks Joe Klein, Karen Tumulty, and Ana Marie Cox, saying in part (link):
...almost all of the posts read like something from DailyKos, and almost all of the comments do as well... But, there's something you can do about it: sign up to post comments (it's free and easy) and then when they post something that's in error, point it out. The goal is to discredit Time's "reporters", so the comments have to show how those "reporters" are wrong...
A few people were interested in the idea. However, others said variants on the following:
I pushed back long ago by cancelling a subscription that had run for mre than 20 years... Vote with your dollars, people.
That itself is a variant on the old, "if you don't like the show, change the channel" argument. It ignores the fact that millions of people are not changing the "channel", and thus the "channel" has a great deal of influence. Simply turning off the "TV" won't lessen the impact on others. That's especially important to note in cases like this when the "channel" isn't telling the whole truth.
Related:
If only Ron Paul supporters had a brain
Digg Katie Couric Digging the Conventions
More proof of GOP stupidity (Digg division)
Steve Benen/Washington Monthly continues proud tradition of deleting comments
During the Kevin Drum years at Washington Monthly, several of my on-topic, non-abusive comments were deleted. As pointed out here a few times, that means you can't trust anything you read there: everything has to be double-checked because they're willing to delete fact-checking by their readers. (I also noted that many of their old pages are full of spam, and if you link to those pages it might harm your search engine ranking.)Now, Steve Benen continues that fine WM tradition. The following comment I left on washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_09/014836.php is no longer there. Here it is, as posted:
The latest BHO lie appears to be that McCain only supports "reform" for the Irish, when - just like Bush, the MexicanGovernment, and BHO - he wants it for almost everyone.That's a reference to this sentence from the roundup at that WM page:
You can't trust those like Benen who try to mislead you about issues like this.
McCain wants a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants ... from Ireland.It also references Benen's habit of trying to pretend that McCain has flip-flopped on amnesty.
Blogwar undeclared against Naomi Wolf; psychiatrist called instead
Back in October, I declared Blogwar against Naomi Wolf because she didn't approve a comment or two I left on the HuffPost.
Now, I am rescinding that call, and instead am considering calling in a psychiatrist for her:
Almost everyone I work with on projects related to this campaign for liberty has been experiencing computer harassment: emails are stripped, messages disappear. That's not all: people's bank accounts are being tampered with: wire transfers to banks vanish in midair. I personally keep opening bank accounts that are quickly corrupted by fraud. Money vanishes. Coworkers of mine have to keep opening new email accounts as old ones become infected. And most disturbingly to me personally is the mail tampering I have both heard of and experienced firsthand. My tax returns vanished from my mailbox. All my larger envelopes arrive ripped straight open apparently by hand. When I show the postman, he says "That's impossible." Horrifyingly to me is the impact on my family. My childrens' report cards are returned again and again though perfectly addressed; their invitations are turned back; and my daughters many letters from camp? Vanished. All of them. Not one arrived. Try explaining that to a smart thirteen year old. Try explaining it in a way that still makes her feel secure and comfortable.
What she's saying is certainly possible, and I'm not putting it above some forces in the government to do some of those things. And, if they were doing that, they might intentionally be sloppy a) in order to make her paranoid, and b) in order to make her appear paranoid when she retells the tale. But, things like the above happen to people all the time, and certain people may bring some things like that on themselves through things like not having a secure mailbox.
However, in the case of someone who's mostly famous for encouraging Al Gore to go alpha, I don't think anyone in the government would bother.
Washington Post: America's finest source for bad reporting (Palin "slashed" funds story)
The Washington Post recently published a blog post about Sarah Palin (in their words) "slash[ing]" funds to a non-profit group. Except, what they got from the state of Alaska alone was over three times what they got from all government sources combined in 2006. Let's take a look at the WaPo's "downstream", the three-eyed fish who gobble up what the WaPo sludges out.
First, there are several digg posts on the story. These link to the WaPo article; looking at the histories of who posted them is left as an exercise:
digg.com/political_opinion/Palin_Slashed_Funding_for_Teen_Moms (UPDATE: now has 1771 diggs, but is also marked as "May be Inaccurate")
digg.com/2008_us_elections/Palin_Slashed_Funding_for_Teen_Moms_That_s_gotta_hurt
digg.com/2008_us_elections/Palin_Slashed_Funding_for_Teen_Moms_2
Oddly enough, the last two were submitted in the same minute. These posts link to other sites:
digg.com/2008_us_elections/Palin_Slashed_Funding_to_Help_Teen_Moms
digg.com/2008_us_elections/Palin_cut_1_1_million_in_assistance_for_teen_moms_in_need
digg.com/politics/Palin_personally_cut_funding_that_gave_unwed_mothers_a_place
digg.com/political_opinion/The_Issue_IS_Sarah_Palin_She_Cut_Support_for_Pregnant_Girls
digg.com/2008_us_elections/Palin_Opposes_Funding_for_Teen_Moms_ToTheCenter
Those last five link to:
dailykos.com/story/2008/9/2/19220/39740/973/583820 (typical airhead DK "reporting" that puts an even more partisan spin on the WaPo's spin)
rawstory.com/news/2008/Palin_cut_1.1_million_from_funding_0902.html (a bare rewrite of the WaPo story from Nick Langewis)
americablog.com/2008/09/palin-personally-cut-funding-that-gave.html (Joe Sudbay simply wraps the WaPo story with his brief commnets, such as "Sarah Palin apparently wants those unwed mothers out on the street.")
allspinzone.com/wp/2008/09/02/heres-where-the-issue-is-sarah-palin-cuts-support-for-pregnant-girls/ (braindead attempt at breezy commentary that discusses the WaPo story in a couple paragraphs but takes the WaPo's word for it)
tothecenter.com/news.php?readmore=6991 (just a sploggish rewrite of the WaPo story)
Others discussing this include:
mahablog.com/2008/09/02/what-did-i-miss (mentions it in passing but completely takes WaPo's word for it)
slog.thestranger.com/2008/09/palin_to_teen_moms_drop_dead
(Dan Savage simply intros a WaPo excerpt with his own vile spin; post is titled "Palin to Teen Moms: Drop Dead")
UPDATE: These others are just as bad or worse than the ones above and all, of course, simply take the WaPo's word and none do any thinking or reporting:
salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2008/09/03/palin_slashed_teen_mom_funding (from Lynn Harris)
blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/09/03/palin-s-handling-of-other-people-s-pregnant-teens.aspx (from Michelle Cottle)
thinkprogress.org/2008/09/03/palin-mccain-mothers (from "Amanda")
truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20080902_palin_cut_funds_for_teen_moms
washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_09/014534.php (Steve Benen; links to Cottle instead of the WaPo)
jezebel.com/5044818/
ask-not-what-bristol-palin-can-do-for-you-ask-what-sarah-palin-can-do-for-your-pregnant-daughter (from "Jessica")
motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/09/9554_palin_veto_teen_moms.html (from Jonathan Stein)
UPDATE 2: Isaac Fitzgerald and Tana Ganeva from AlterNet offer "8 More Shocking Revelations About Sarah Palin" (alternet.org/election08/97350). One of those "shocking" items is as bad as the posts above. It's got over 2600 diggs here, but it's also marked as "May be Inaccurate":
digg.com/politics/8_More_Shocking_Revelations_About_Sarah_Palin_2
UPDATE 3: As anyone familiar with his blogging could have been expecting, Matt Yglesias fell for the WaPo's tale too:
yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/09/life_begins_at_conception_and_ends_at_death.php
(The link here before was to another post where MattY got things wrong:
yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/09/palin_and_special_needs_children.php
UPDATE 4: NPR also fell for the WaPo's tale, but at least they printed a correction: npr.org/blogs/politics/2008/09/lineitem_irony.html
UPDATE 5: Somewhat surprisingly, ThinkProgress offered somewhat of a correction, noting in an update to their post that the executive director of the non-profit disagreed with the WaPo's assessment. This is similiar to past TP "corrections" in which they just slip something in at the end without making a big deal about it. But, it's at least better than most of the others above.
Erin Carlyle/OC Register's Issue Blog: why wasn't my comment approved?
The Orange County Register operates an "Issue Blog", and yesterday Erin Carlyle offered 'WSJ editorial writer attacks illegal immigration "myths"' (peekURL.com/z6xhh1s) all about the thoughts of open borders (literally) advocate Jason Riley. I left the comment that's in the extended entry; it hasn't appeared but four others have. I sent an email asking why it wasn't approved and I haven't heard back. I also tried to submit it again and Wordpress told me that a duplicate comment had been detected. Now, I know as well as anyone else that technical issues can arise, and due to the link in the comment (left without the http part however) it might have been put into their spam folder, but hopefully my follow-up email could have caused them to root around in that folder and approve it. I also don't think it's that groundbreaking a comment, but I'm just wondering.
UPDATE: It took a few days, but eventually they approved the comment.
Riley falsely analogizes between past conditions and the present. It's false because the current conditions are far different: immref.com/spin/immigration-of-yesteryear/
I'm also not aware of him discussing this from a political POV. The current situation gives a tremendous amount of power to the far-left, racial power groups, the Mexican government, and others. No one who isn't far-left should support giving more power to the first group. No one who believes in American ideals should support giving more power to the second group. And, no patriotic American should support giving more power inside the U.S. to a foreign government.
The bottom line for the WSJ is the bottom line: they're willing to sell out the U.S. if some very small segment of supposed Americans can make money on the deal.
"You aren't Lonewacko!"
"Yes, Guillaume, I am Lonewacko," I informed the key member of Team Lonewacko, now known as Team 24Ahead, who had rushed into my office in a tizzy. "I am simply in a new guise."
"Bbbbut... the sign on our building has been changed! I thought that you had 'flown the coop' as they say! What has happened? Why didn't you tell me?"
"It was a surprise. The 'lacrosse practice' I told you about does not exist. I knew you would drive past our building, see that the signage had changed, and do what you're doing now. I planned all this, as a surprise."
"But, '24ahead'? What does that mean, in English?"
"Yes, I imagine many people - not just speakers of foreign languages - will wonder about that. Then, they'll realize this is a news and politics site. Then - in a flash - they'll realize it means we're at least 24 hours ahead of other sites in reporting on things. And - due to that flash - this site will be seared in their memory forever. It is psychology, mon ami. Also, everyone thinks about time zones when traveling or contacting persons in other states, and they know that, for instance, the East Coast is three hours ahead. Every time they think of such things, the neurons in their brains will associate those thoughts with this site and they will come back to check on what's new!"
"You are clever... like a fiend! But, if I may, the name it is five syllables!"
"It's also only seven letters. Plus, it passes my Hillary Test."
"Oh, you and your Hillary Test. You will never..."
"Yes, I will. One day, I will get to ask Hillary Clinton a question. If I said I was from 'lonewacko.com', the best that would happen is I'd get laughs from the audience and a nervous twitter from Hillary. With this new name, Hillary would assuredly pretend she's been to the site. Her reaction matters to me."
"But, the Team! What will become of the Team?"
We're still Team!" I assured him, "Dale is still Research Director. Gwendolynne Fritz-Ruffalla is still our intern. The Team is still strong. It is just Team 24Ahead now."
"But, will there be changes?"
"Nothing major. Over time, certain things such as the tagline will change. But, we'll still be covering immigration and politics, plus occasional forays into sports, celebrities, and music."
"That's it?"
"Well, eventually there are going to be blocks."
"Blocks?"
"Yes, Guillaume, blocks! Sidebar blocks. Drupal blocks, made with PHP so they're dynamic!"
"Oh!!!"
"And, that's not all! Eventually," I painted the picture for him, "perhaps tomorrow but more likely months from now, there will be effects!"
"You mean, Javascript effects?" Guillaume was hooked.
"Yes, that's what I mean! In fact, I might make things fly across the screen at some point in time! Now," I joked, "get out of here and get back to work!"
Instapundit still confused over that whole "nature" thing
Perennial idiot Instapundit (aka "Glenn Reynolds", "Seasonal GOP Hack", "Insty") says (pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/archives2/022837.php):DAVID BARON, CALL YOUR OFFICE (CONT'D): Black bear attacks boy in Smokies; father also hurt. "A black bear repeatedly mauled an 8-year-old boy Monday evening near a popular motor trail on the outskirts of Gatlinburg, and an animal matching its description was later killed by park rangers."1. The incident is certainly unfortunate and it's good that those involved made it out without serious injuries.
Plus, this commentary: "Parks were designed so people could experience nature in a positive way. Not be eaten by it."
2. Just because Insty links to something doesn't mean he agrees with it, but I strongly suspect that Insty does in fact agree with that "commentary" (from lastcar.blogspot.com).
3. The incident occured in a National Park (specifically here: nps.gov/grsm/planyourvisit/roaringfork.htm), which is quite a bit different an environment from a "park" in the sense of a suburban park or similar. It's not like the victim was playing on a swing in Central Park. The victim was in the bear's habitat in a location that has a fair number of bears. If you go into such an environment, you have to be prepared for an encounter; there aren't packs of rangers whose job it is to clear them out of the way for your convenience.
4. The lesson to be learned here is that those who aren't prepared to enter bear country should be either kept out of bear country or should be made aware, not that people should just start blowing away bears.
5. There is no #5, because I think the foregoing is evident enough.
Kevin Drum/Washington Monthly deletes yet another comment (Obama's Global Poverty Act)
Kevin Drum obviously doesn't want his readers to know how much of a hack he is, since either he or someone else at Washington Monthly keep deleting comments from me and apparently from others as well.
The latest in this long line was left earlier today on a post about Barack Obama's Global Poverty Act. It was left on washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_08/014237.php, which links to blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/08/05/this-just-in-obama-is-a-secret-agent-from-the-u-n.aspx from Jonathan Cohn.
Here's the comment, as posted:
------
Let me get this straight: Jonathan Cohn admits he knows nothing about this, but he's basing his mockery on a "quick Google search" and he admits he might be missing something. And, since all the complaints about this are coming from rightwing sites, well, then it's not really necessary to look into the claims, right?
And, then Kevin Drum does an even more hacky job than usual by simply linking to someone else's hackwork.
If there are any intellectually honest BHO supporters, start here and then tell us why the figure quoted is wrong.
Remember: the key part of that is to be intellectually honest, that is unlike Kevin Drum and Jonathan Cohn.
[Note: WM and/or KD have a habit of deleting or editing comments without notice, so this comment may disappear or be different from what I posted. Search for "kevin drum" at my site for examples of comments that were deleted.]
------
UPDATE: I left another comment saying the following:
------
Here's the comment that was just deleted from this thread. Needless to say, this comment will probably be deleted too.
------
Guess what: I was right. At the WM link, out of 22 comments there are only two that have any value whatsoever: one links to the votegopher link (also left in comments here), and another that says "Just read the bill. It's typical Obama. All rhetoric and no substance. Probably unconstitutional as it violates the separation of powers." None of the others address the bill but are simply attempted "jokes", rants about how the GOP is evil, and so on.
The bottom line is that nothing Kevin Drum says can be trusted. By deleting comments from those who disagree, they're removing any fact-checking from their site. Kevin Drum could lie about something obscure and then simply delete all the comments that point out the lie. Anyone who took Drum at his word would have been misled.
Regarding the votegopher comment in comments here, I left this comment there (whew!):
------
It would be fair to state that this bill could start a process that would result in the U.S. spending the amount claimed; see for instance this estimate from the WorldBank: peekURL.com/z1doski
Note also this from the bill: "The year 2007 marks the mid-point to the Millennium Development Goals deadline of 2015." That implies that the bill wants us to continue on the path to meeting that deadline, and doing that is going to require us to spend a lot of money, in addition to doing a lot of other things covered by the MDG.
Maybe next time we can look forward to this site discussing those other MDGs and admitting that BHO obviously wants us to meet all of them.
------
Doesn't the left realize how embarrassing Max Blumenthal is? (Toby Keith, lynching)
The latest example of Max Blumenthal's abject stupidity is called "Toby Keith's Pro-Lynching Publicity Tour Hits Colbert, CBS and More" (huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/toby-keiths-pro-lynching_b_115526.html) and concerns the song "Beer For My Horses" which is apparently also a movie. Discussing all the ways it's wrong is left as an exercise (actually, don't bother), but:
The terrifying spectacle outside the courtroom prompted Jewish families to flee Atlanta in droves. Two years later, after the governor commuted Frank's sentence, a lynch mob spirited Frank from his prison cell, dragged him into the woods and lynched him -- from "a tall oak tree," as Toby Keith sang.
The quote leads to a presumed picture of the lynching showing a tree. Usually when someone puts something in quotes it involves someone else saying something, but the tree is not identified and could be anything. The only hits for "leo frank" "tall oak tree" are from Blumenthal's article; when the "tall" is removed it gets more hits and apparently the tree was in fact an oak. None of that has anything to do with the song since there's nothing in the song even implying a connection to Leo Frank. To Blumenthal, however, that doesn't matter.
Further, the song may be referring to unlawful lynchings, or it may be referring to hangings as ordered by a court; perhaps Max should see some Westerns. The song also references "the long arm of the law", so presumably Keith is promoting lawful executions rather than lynchings.
I'm as sorry to have to put anyone through that as I am at wasting my time discussing this.
Banned by Alternet!
A couple weeks back Alternet deleted a comment I left. Now, after having successfully left another comment, I've been banned. The comment that drove them over the edge is below.Alternet frequently posts articles supporting illegal immigration, and until the last two incidents I've been able to post a dozen or two comments pointing out issues with those posts without a problem. Due to the non-abusive nature of my comments, the issue is that Alternet is afraid of an open debate and only wants an echo chamber.
Here's the email they sent me:
AlterNet commenting privileges suspendedAs previously discussed, I can't find those "community policies" and they didn't respond to the email I sent after the earlier comment was removed.
Grounds: Violations of AlterNet's community policies and/or complaints from other readers.
Here's the comment that apparently caused the ban, which still appears at post time on alternet.org/blogs/peek/93035:
The people being discussed are IllegalAliens, i.e., citizens of another country who are here illegally. Needless to say, giving them discounted educations would encourage even more people to come here illegally with their children. In other words, it would be horrible public policy. Not only that, but every college spot or discount given to an IllegalAlien is one that's taken away from our own fellow citizens. That's even worse public policy.
(Note: the last time I posted a comment here, Alternet deleted it. Hopefully that won't happen again.)
Is my.barackobama.com trollproof? No, you just need to work at it
Back on the 22nd, "Bill Hawkins" started a blog at Barack Obama's site and posted an entry (my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/billhawkins) entitled "Which hate sites should be banned?" The post suggested that BHO take his push to drive hate off the airwaves to the Internet as well, and solicited BHO fans to list some sites that should be banned. Perhaps as a coincidence, I saw this post immediately and watched it over the next several days. Unfortunately, I was shocked to learn that the post only received one comment, and that was generally supporting free speech.
Now, I have absolutely no idea whatsoever who "Bill Hawkins" is, but just in case "Bill Hawkins" is a made-up name and this was a troll, I want to assure others that the weak response doesn't necessarily indicate that trolling BHO's site isn't going to be fruitful. What "Bill Hawkins" should have done is promoted it in some way or some. I'll be sure to recommend that to "Bill Hawkins" if I ever meet him.
The original post is still on BHO's site and is in the extended entry.
"Bill Hawkins'" post follows:
Recently, Obama spoke out forcefully against hate on our airwaves, and promised to do something about it:
The 12 million people in the shadows, the communities taking immigration enforcement into their own hands, the neighborhoods seeing rising tensions as citizens are pitted against new immigrants... they're counting on us to stop the hateful rhetoric filling our airwaves – rhetoric that poisons our political discourse, degrades our democracy, and has no place in this great nation.
I trust Obama, and I know that as president he's going to work with the FCC to make sure that hate is driven off our airwaves. However, that's only part of the problem. There are plenty of websites that spread hate as well.
For instance, as I read this story about a college professor tracing smear emails back to freerepublic.com and other sites, I became more and more outraged. How could a site like that be allowed to even exist? All they do is spread lies.
I feel that Obama must do more. In addition to speaking out - and supporting action - against those who spread hate on the airwaves, he also has to speak out against those who spread hate on the Internet.
I encourage my fellow Obama supporters to offer detailed proposals on what actions President Obama should take against these hate sites. I also suggest we start a list of the most noxious hate sites for future reference.
Together, we can stop the hate!
New DailyKos slogan: Liar, liar, pants on fire, you f#$%ing liar
Presented for your amusement is the diary entry from one "clammyc" called "John McCain, f#$%ing liar" (dailykos.com/story/2008/7/28/165138/698/993/558351):
It's long past time for people to not only give McCain a total pass on his outright lies, smears, "McCain moments" and other absolute nonsense that comes from his mouth. And if he isn't lying, then he is goddamn near senile and shouldn't be President for that reason alone, notwithstanding all of the other very valid reasons that he shouldn't be President... So let's start calling him what he is. A full on liar. Not only "forgetful", not only "misinterpreted", not only "misquoted", not only mean-spirited and stretching the truth... A liar. As in "pants on fire"...
Now you know why I run sites, not "blogs".
More proof of GOP stupidity (Digg division)
I'll leave it to political scientists, political analysts, and psychologists to try to figure out why the Republican Party (GOP) is unable to use the internet to their advantage and I'll just point out one example of how the Democrats and Barack Obama are eating John McCain's lunch.
In the US Elections 2008 subsection on Digg right now, almost all of the popular and "hot" (upcoming) stories are anti-McCain, a couple are anti-GOP in general, and almost all the rest are pro-Obama. Not a single pro-McCain story makes either list. And, several are from the Huffington Post. The only one that doesn't fit that pattern and that saves it from being a complete rout is a mostly impartial joke posting from the lightweight site Gawker.
The titles of both sets are in the extended entry; note that the last "hot" story is the HuffPost entry described here.
Part of the reason why the GOP can't break into either list is partly because many of their leaders probably wouldn't even have a clue what this post is about. Part of the reason is lack of enthusiasm. Part is lack of organization. And, another issue might be that the Democrats are working the system in some way. Since Obama supporters frequently infest blog comments with a swarm of sockpuppets, it's not too difficult to imagine them using multiple Digg accounts to bump up some of those stories. No doubt a large number of the Diggs of those articles are legitimate and obtained through networking on Facebook or similar, but it's inconceivable that all of them are legitimate. And, some might even involve payments to those who supposedly do such sockpuppeting as a sideline.
** Here are the titles of the popular stories **
McCain On The Run: Cancels Press Availability
McCain Attacks Obama's Holocaust Museum Statement
Why McCain's Iraq "Surge" Success Story Is A Lie
Devastating New YouTube Video: John McCain's Neverending War watch!
John McCain's Never-Ending War In Iraq
McCain Gets History Of The Surge Wrong, CBS edits out gaffe
3,000 GIs Mob Barack in Baghdad (Video and Goodies)
McCain Makes False Claims On Iraq Timeline (VIDEO)
McCain Adviser Points to 2020 Iraq Withdrawal Date
McCain is Getting Desperate, As the World Embraces Obama
McCain Camp "Frustrated" With Obama's Trip
Sen. Ted Stevens Falling Down Series Of Tubes In Latest Poll
Obama Far More Popular Among Jews Than Lieberman
S.C. State Senator Posts Osama-Obama Photo On His Website
What Will Our President of Tomorrow Look Like in the Future? [joke story]
** Here's the "hot" list **
The Greatest Threat America Has Ever Faced: the GOP?
Seth Colter Walls: Wexler: McCain Attack On Obama's Holocaus
McCain cancels press avail in light of his Iraq deception
Laugh, clown, laugh [note: anti-McCain, anti-GOP editorial]
Seth Colter Walls: McCain Tries To Cover Surge Mistake With
Clueless McCain Suggests Rationing Vets Health Care
McCain Implies That Oil Prices are Psychological
John McCain says "F**K You!" during Interview
CBS Busted Violating its own Standards to Help McCain
Spreading Lies About Obama's Health Care Plan
DailyKos' Netroots Nation has Mexican government-linked group
All rightthinking comrades will be in Austin, Texas this weekend for DailyKos' Netroots Nation, a convention formerly known as YearlyKos.
A search of the site shows just one session relating to immigration, called nutrootsily enough "How to Win the Immigration Debate and Beat Back ICE's Emerging Police State" (netrootsnation.org/node/864). Put on your diving cap and try to follow their logic:
With Congress held hostage to a vocal minority of hard-line immigration restrictionists stirred up by right-wing websites and talk-radio, the Bush administration has launched a series of showy "crack-downs" that have divided working families and transferred billions into the hands of well-connected DHS contractors, but done nothing to reform a deeply dysfunctional immigration system. We can do better.
Actually, the ones holding Congress at bay are the citizens; left to their own devices Congress would have easily passed amnesty. The contractors bit makes some partial sense, even if I imagine their numbers are off a bit. However, the people who've played a major role in the Bush administration putting on a show are those who support illegal immigration, including DailyKos and others on their side. If they would simply support the enforcement of our laws then there'd be no need for things such as the fence. Likewise, it's those who promote disorder - such as DailyKos and other "liberals" - who make it easy for those whose goal is power over others to push "police state"-style proposals.
As for the presenters at that session:
* Marisa Trevino of the blog Latina Lista
* Joshua Holland of Alternet
* "Duke 1676" of the blog Migra Matters
* Jackie Mahendra of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights
The last group is headed by someone linked to the Mexican government. What's a Kos convention without a little collaboration?
On a general note, they also have "identity" caucusi (netrootsnation.org/agenda-2008?topic=identity), including those for African Americans, Asian American Pacific Islanders, Latinos, and Women. Oddly enough, there aren't ones for Whites or Men, for some strange reason. All have the same generic description:
Connect with like-minded folks and talk with others from your community in our identity, issue and regional caucuses.
And, what would the Nutroots Nation be without those who are only known to bloggers, with book signings by notables such as Cliff Schecter, Matt Yglesias, and Amanda Marcotte.
If you register now, you can save 10% if you use the special code GUSHALL at checkout.
Alternet deletes comment (Kyle de Beausset, NCLR)
I've left several comments on Alternet's immigration entries, and as far as I know none had been deleted until the last. That last comment was left on the entry "Minutemen Scream "F@$k You Brown Boy!" at Latinos Attending Obama Talk" by Kyle de Beausset (alternet.org/blogs/peek/91440). That post is just the latest in that leftwing site's long line of far-left articles supporting illegal immigration; note that in contrast to some other leftwing sites, left-leaning commenters occasionally call Alternet on their biases.
The comment is included below; how exactly it violates their "community policies" isn't clear since I've been unable to find out what those are. It doesn't seem to violate the rules of other sites, and I'm going to ask Alternet to explain exactly what the problem is.
De Beausset (aka "kyledeb") operates the site Citizen Orange (citizenorange.com) and contributes to The Sanctuary (thesanctuary.soapblox.net) and he starts the post with the following:
I'm here in San Diego where Barack Obama just spoke at the annual National Council of La Raza (NCLR) conference. NCLR flew me out here and provided with me accommodations at the luxurious San Diego Marriot Hotel Marina. I was given the opportunity after I helped publicize NCLR's latest We Can Stop the Hate video using Digg and StumbleUpon, among other new media tools.
The comment that was deleted follows; unfortunately, I forgot to call them on their false headline in that there was just one supposed "Minuteman":
Thank you, Alternet!
Whenever someone's confused over the meaning of the word "irony", I'll send them to this post. It's truly ironic that the only incident of racism at a La Raza convention Alternet can find is an alleged incident from one loon. "Brown boy" isn't exactly a common slur, and it's quite likely that it was said in response to him being called "white boy". There are also plenty of goons on Alternet's side. Oops: I didn't mean to reduce myself to the NCLR-funded kyledeb's side by engaging in guilt by association.
If Alternet is going to continue publishing open borders articles, let me suggest at the least getting better writers.
Netroots, mondegreen added to dictionary!
America's perkiest newsbabe, Katie Couric, informs us that the words "netroots" and "mondegreen" have been added to the dictionary.
The second word is derived from a song lyric "laid him on the green"; in reference to Katie I'd prefer rondegreen (phwoar), but that's just me.
And, of course, we know about the word "netroots" because it's related to the word "nutroots", the blogging term for FireDogLake, DailyKos, and other sites. Maybe if we write enough letters to whichever company is responsible for the dictionary we can get a montage of their logos added next to that word when it's eventually added.
Youtube's Citizentube blog doesn't want to hear from citizens, deletes all comments
Youtube's "Citizentube" (citizentube.com) apparently doesn't want to hear from citizens, because that blog where they post promos for Youtube's political ventures has stopped allowing comments on their entries. They used to allow comments, but they've even gone as far as deleting all comments which were left on their past entries.
I blame myself, since I pestered Youtube's Steve Grove by leaving the three comments in the extended entry, none of which are there anymore.
1. From citizentube.com/2008/04/announcement-general-election.html
Have you ever heard hype about a new band, and when you listen to them it's just elevator music?
Youtube's "debates" are like that. The "debate" will be like the CNN/Youtube "debate", featuring puffball after puffball which the candidates will simply answer with their stock speeches. And, whoever the moderators are won't call them on their lies or press for a followup.
Youtube is already telegraphing what they're going to do by featuring the superlightweight James Kotecki, someone who wouldn't know a tough question if it fell on his head.
Not only that, but their example of a user-generated question is someone asking "do you think your personal qualities will allow you to be an effective president"?
What does anyone expect the answer to be, "no"?
If I were Youtube, I'd watch out: the questions they're going to allow to be asked might give Sergey Brin Soviet Union flashbacks.
2. From citizentube.com/2008/04/announcement-general-election.html
Let me light a candle by offering this proposal. The only way to avoid a repeat of the CNN disasters is to have bloggers and the like vote on the questions. They'll be charged with selecting the *toughest* questions, not the ones they want answered or anything else. And, their votes for each video will be public. So, if they vote up weak videos or vote down tough videos then they can be held accountable by their readers. And, the votes could be sliced and diced by who voted in which categories, a specific blogger's votes, etc.
On the plus side for Google, this would also cause more people to visit whatever site they host that at because the bloggers could link to a list of their votes.
And, this would also give Google plausible deniability when those tough questions get asked and the candidates get angry: it was the bloggers that selected the questions, not Google.
3. From citizentube.com/2008/04/welcome-to-new-citizentube.html
If Youtube wanted to do a public service they'd encourage people to go to campaign events and ask the questions that the MSM is too corrupt to ask. The MSM includes CNN and CSPAN, two Youtube partners that ran contests and then selected the wimpiest questions of the bunch. Regarding the CNN debacle, see these:
youtube.com/watch?v=nIbDAVQMKGM
youtube.com/watch?v=wm0uWz2BS9M
If someone who's familiar with the issue and who isn't afraid to ask real questions ever engages one of the top three candidates on immigration, the candidate is going to end up looking very bad since all three of them have offered unworkable proposals and have frequently lied or made misleading or incomplete statements. Perhaps Youtube is afraid of encouraging people to ask real questions lest they lose their access. Or, maybe it's something else.
NewsHounds edits comments without notice
NewsHounds is a bargain-basement "liberal" site whose tagline is "We watch FOX so you don't have to": their contributors watch that network and then write up reports. No less than two comments I left on the thread "Ingraham criticizes Washington Post for report, but fails to disprove it" by contributor "Chrish" [1] were edited without notice. Which is pretty rich coming from a site that in the past has offered posts like "Bill O'Reilly cuts mic of US Colonel Ann Wright as she defends her service and stance" and "Jane Hall Gets Mic Cut For Exposing BOR's Hypocrisy" [2]. I guess cutting someone off is OK if News Hounds does it.
The first comment I left was this:
----------
Obviously, Ingraham doesn't read my blog!
Because, if she did, she would have been able to point out how the WaPo author is lying.
----------
The change they made was to remove the link. My name's link was left in place, but by removing the link in the text, they reduced my comment to a statement that could be construed as just a simply reflexive disagreement instead of someone offering proof of the author lying. Note also that their commenting system is Javascript, meaning there's no search engine benefit to leaving links there.
After noticing that they'd edited my comment without notice, I left the original comment with a preface:
----------
Apparently there was some sort of odd technical problem, because the link to my proof that the author is lying is now missing from my earlier comment.
Here's the comment as it was before:
----------
The original comment followed the above. NewsHounds edited the last comment to be just the single sentence "Apparently there was some sort of odd technical problem".
For more fun, I'm going to leave another comment with a link to this post.
The depths some bloggers are willing to go to prevent their readers from being exposed to the truth would be funny, except little Stalinists aren't really that funny at all.
[1] newshounds.us/2008/06/30/
ingraham_criticizes_washington_post_for_report_but_fails_to_disprove_it.php
[2] site:newshounds.us cut off microphone
PBS "Engage" deletes comment critical of Gwen Ifill
[PBS re-posted my comment; see the update.]
The Public Broadcasting System (PBS) has a relatively new effort called "Engage" [1] in which they solicit feedback from their viewers. However, they only want the "right kind" of feedback and are willing to delete or ignore comments that are critical of their (public) network. In this particular case, a comment I left that was critical of Gwen Ifill appeared and then was later deleted. The whole sequence of events - and the comments in question - are included below. If the reader thinks the comment shouldn't have been deleted, please contact PBS and let them know what you think:
pbs.org/engage/contact
pbs.org/ombudsman/feedback.html
I'm also considering filing a FOIA request related to this issue; the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has claimed that they're exempt but has also admitted that they'd comply with FOIA. Yes, I realize that in the greater scheme of things a deleted comment isn't that big a deal. However, PBS is a publicly-funded entity that's supposedly impartial, so such a reaction is justified.
Here's the sequence of events:
1. I tried to leave a comment on the post pbs.org/engage/blog/folks-back-home-are-talking-about-obama-mccain on June 9. It was put into a moderation queue, but never appeared. Now, certainly, some bloggers might not even be aware that they have a moderation queue or it might be so clogged that they ignore it. You can see that as the first comment in the extended entry [2].
2. I tried again with a different comment on a different post (pbs.org/engage/blog/five-good-questions-gwen-ifill) on June 25. That also was put into the moderation queue, and it also never appeared.
3. I tried to leave the last message again on June 26, and this time I used a different user name (NoMoreBlatherDotCom instead of LonewackoDotCom), and I also removed the 'http://' which was in front of one of the links. That's the second comment in the extended entry. [3]
Success! The comment appeared.
However, when I checked back the next day, the comment was gone. PBS had deleted the comment, despite it not violating any of their listed rules: it was on-topic, it didn't contain profanity, and it wasn't a personal attack but simply a discussion of PBS' and Ifill's low journalistic standards.
Note that at the Gwen Ifill link, almost all the comments are supportive, with some even gushingly so: inquiring about who does her lighting, suggestions that she take Tim Russert's place, and so on. Also, a comment containing a link in the body has been there since I left the second comment. If their rule is that comments containing links are moderated, that means that that comment was approved by a moderator and thus they do pay attention to that queue. And, if PBS objects to me including links, then they're playing favorites, saying that a link to metagovernment.org is OK but not a link to my site. Note that for the final comment both links were in bare format, which the user would have to copy and paste into their browser. Note also that there are about 35 comments at the Ifill link, yet there are 63 anchors (the part after '#' in a comment's individual URL) used. That implies that several comments were deleted. What did they say?
UPDATE: PBS sent this response to my email:
Thank you for bringing your comment to our attention. We've taken a look at your post in light of our terms of service, and we've concluded that we should have allowed it on the site. We reposted your comment yesterday afternoon... As the Engage initiative grows and more people participate in our discussions, we're continuing to evaluate our moderation policies. Feedback like yours helps us clarify our thinking about these issues, and we appreciate it.
[1] Their "Engage" site started in October but I found out about it due to a BlogAds campaign they're running. The reader might want to send this URL to sites that are running their BlogAd.
[2] HERE'S THE FIRST COMMENT I TRIED TO LEAVE; THIS WAS MODERATED BUT NEVER APPEARED:
PBS and NPR are just leftier versions of the MSM, and neither do any real reporting and instead just push their agendas.
Examples I can provide come from the topic I cover: immigration.
1. The NPR debate was a sham:
http://24ahead.com/blog/archives/007291.html
2. NewsHour segments on the topic almost always feature "debates" with two people on the same basic side:
http://24ahead.com/blog/archives/007264.html
http://24ahead.com/blog/archives/006003.html
http://24ahead.com/blog/archives/005823.html
3. Instead of following the money, NPR offered a tear-jerker designed to make illegal immigration acceptable:
http://24ahead.com/blog/archives/007616.html
[3] HERE'S THE SECOND COMMENT I TRIED TO LEAVE; THE FIRST VERSION WAS MODERATED BUT NEVER APPEARED, THE SECOND VERSION OF THIS COMMENT APPEARED AND WAS THEN DELETED:
1. Back in 2006, you offered two guests discussing an issue, and they turned out to be on basically the same side. Have you considered that debates between two people who basically agree is how things were done in the Soviet Union and how things should not be done in the U.S.?
Details:
lonewacko.com/blog/archives/006003.html
2. At a "average voter" panel you moderated, a supposed "regular voter" (who turned out to be a wonk) made various inflammatory claims, none of which you called him on. Why didn't you do that? Was he a "plant", similar to what CNN did with audience members with their debates? And, why couldn't you find a regular voter who supports our laws?
Details:
lonewacko.com/blog/archives/005823.html
Questions for Matt Yglesias
Recently, Matt Yglesias of The Atlantic (matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com) has been posting a daily thread soliciting questions that he'll answer from his visitors ("requests"). I've posted a few comments to those threads without an answer, but that just means I'll keep trying. To be frank, the reason I do that is in the hope that one of these days Matthew Yglesias will let someone at the higher levels of the DNC know that the old lies aren't working any more. Specifically, if one of these days MattY would say to someone at the DNC, "my reputation is being harmed by trying to push your support for illegal immigration, and I fear that if someone who's familiar with this issue is able to interrogate Obama on the topic of immigration it's going to have a very negative impact on his chances", that might cause the DNC to change their policies to be more supportive of our laws. One can always hope.
Here are some of the questions. New ones will be added to the top of the list:
12. Discuss this recent GOP loss. Extra credit: contact those who used his previous wins to push their agenda, and see what they say now: Barone, Barnes, etc.
11. Find a public figure who opposes immigration enforcement, and then follow the money. For instance, this shill who I mentioned on this thread from today: matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/06/exurbs_aint_what_they_used_to.php
10. On this recent post, you came out for "comprehensive immigration reform". I pointed out that "reform" would give even more power inside the U.S. to racial power groups as well as the Mexican government. Should we worry about a neighboring government having political power inside the U.S.? If so, what should we do about it? How specifically will that power be reduced should what you support be enacted?
9. What are your thoughts on Barack Obama's latest NAFTA flap? Do you agree he admitted to being deceptive?
8. Will you be condemning New Haven's support for illegal activity?
7. When the Federal Reserve explicitly sets out to profit from money that was earned illegally, isn't that an example of political corruption at the highest levels of our political system?
6. Since you say you aren't part of the establishment, tell us how close you've come to doing some like this.
5. Last year, you told us the NAFTASuperhighway was just a myth (matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/the_highway_that_wasnt_there.php). This year, BHO said more than his handlers would want him to: "there's this highway being built in Texas that will facilitate more transportation and travel between Mexico and the intercontinental United States, on up to Canada". Please explain that for us.
4. Please tell us the differences between this Barack Obama proposal on global warming and how things would have been done in the Soviet Union.
3. Please list all the costs of the Katrina scandal, including those which aren't immediately obvious.
2. Why didn't your colleague Marc Ambinder push what should be a big story, the one about McCain and Juan Hernandez?
1. Have you considered asking people outside the cocoon for their take on the issues you discuss, and then a) accurately representing their concerns and b) offering a valid counterargument (if possible)? For instance, take one of the points from my first comment here, and see if you can come up with a valid counterargument.
It it The Onion, or Reason Magazine?
Notice anything interesting about this libertarian-themed "American Voices" feature from The Onion?
Yes, that's right: by an odd coincidence, those last names are the same as the last names of several cherished staffers from Reason Magazine: reason.com/staff
As pointed out here many times, it's often difficult to tell the difference between satire and libertarian ideology, but at least they're entertaining.
Related:
A challenge for Drew Carey/Reason Magazine (and other open borders hacks)
Is Bryan Caplan the world's looniest libertarian? (give every Haitian a green card)
Free the Jefferson 1! (loony libertarians)
An Ayn Rand Institute flashback: "U.S. Should Not Help Tsunami Victims"
Instapundit offers Katrina update, fails to note impact of illegal alien labor on issue
Glenn Reynolds (aka "Instapundit", "Insty", "seasonal GOP hack", etc.) sandwiches (pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/archives2/020261.php) an excerpt to this article about Katrina victims still living in hotels between "KATRINA UPDATE: Some receiving FEMA assistance unwilling to help themselves:" and "Read the whole thing."
Unfortunately, Insty doesn't appear to have covered the massive Katrina scandal foisted on the nation by both the GOP and Democratic leaderships, under which illegal aliens were allowed to move into the Gulf Coast and work for connected contractors. Absent such competition, those Insty is obviously complaining about would have more motivation to find work, and after all is said and done the influx of illegal labor will end up costing us far more than anything that crooked companies made on the deal.
Certainly, due to Insty's linking style he might have linked to something covering that issue with little more than a "heh" or a "huh", but I doubt it.
UPDATE: While I'm on the general Insty-bashing topic, could someone sic PETA on him?
pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/archives2/020283.php
Washington Monthly deletes yet another comment, again
Washington Monthly has a habit of deleting comments I (and apparently others) leave there. Kevin Drum is apparently on vacation so I don't know whether he popped in just to delete the comment I left earlier today on this thread:
washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_05/013790.php.
The author is "Hilzoy" of the blog "Obsidian Wings" who cross-posted it here:
obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/05/taking-tough-ac.html I left the comment there as a test.
The comment that Washington Monthly and/or Kevin Drum and/or Hilzoy don't want you to see is in the extended entry.
---COMMENT BEGINS---
Del Capslock writes: Sure looks to me like Obama's "weakness" is his strength. McCain's experience has allowed him to be corrupted by the Washington machine, whereas Obama brings a fresh and intelligent outlook.
What city is Obama from again? I seem to recall them having some kind of machine there or something, with BHO being linked right into it:
tinyurl.com/4rlhgj
BHO also served foreign interests, and there's a highly questionable McCain staff member that neither the MSM nor mainstream bloggers will discuss. I guess some questionable foreign links are more equally bad than others.
[Note: WM and/or KD have a habit of deleting or editing comments without notice, so this comment may disappear or be different from what I posted.]
Correction: "The Anchoress" is not Ken Mehlmann
Over thousands of posts, this site has had to make very few corrections, probably at most the same number as the NYT makes in a day. However, in the past some unnamed members of the team whose content appears here advanced the belief that "The Anchoress" (theanchoressonline.com, "TA") is actually former RNC hack Ken Mehlmann. It has recently come to our attention that that is false, and TA is actually one Elizabeth Scalia (theanchoressonline.com/about-the-anchoress-online). She is presumably not the UK professional biker by the same name and she presumably previously desired anonymity in order to shield herself from abhorrent reactions relating to rampant BushBotism. This site apologizes for any confusion.
Nico Pitney helps Huffington Post descend to ThinkProgress level
Nico Pitney is the Huffington Post's "National Editor". Until around August of last year he was Deputy Research Director at the Center for American Progress and the Managing Editor of ThinkProgress. And, yes, those are very strong warning signs considering that CAP seems to screen its hires for childishness and stupidity. Nowadays he's helping drive the HuffPost even further down, and, yes, unbelievable as it might seem, it's possible for them to be even lower than they are now. He's made just 15 posts since December (huffingtonpost.com/the-news/reporting/nico-pitney), with the latest being called "Anti-Immigration Protester Needs A Spell-Check" (huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/04/whoops-anti-immigration-p_n_100043.html). A May Day 2008 anti-illegal immigration protester in Houston held up a sign saying "Make English America's offical Language", with "official" being spelled wrong. It was taken by Johnny Hanson of the Houston Chronicle and considering that it's available in that incorrect form on their site I'm going to assume that it wasn't photoshopped.
The sign is certainly ironic, but the point being made is extremely minor. And, Pitney incorrectly states that the protester is "Anti-Immigration", when in fact she's at a protest for illegal immigration and the sign's directive wouldn't impact those immigrants who learn English. I'll leave it up to someone else to figure out whether "spell-check" is the correct form in this context.
I left the comment in the extended entry, which hasn't been approved and probably won't be considering that comments left after it were approved. However, plenty of other ThinkProgress-style comments have been approved: "All graduates from the Dan Quayle School for Spelling!", "It was good of her to highlight the word with 2 underscores too. Love the busy shirt as well.", "makes one proud to bea an Amerikan ;-)", etc. The jokes just keep coming, but only a couple make - or are allowed to make by the moderator - the point I made.
Arianna has been embarrassed by comments left on her site's posts before, and she might want to reconsider whether having lightweights like Nico Pitney throw out red meat is the direction she wants to go in. It might be good for the traffic, but it's not so good for the reputation.
Here's the comment which wasn't approved:
---------
Here are some fun pictures from the other side:
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/03/my-immigrant-vagina-is-angry-and-other-militant-may-day-moments/
And, here's a fun question: whose interests do HuffPost posts like this serve? Certainly not the interests of the vast majority of Americans. In fact, those who get a boost from posts like this include the Mexican government, crooked businesses, crooked banks, crooked politicians, racial power groups, and on down the line. Whenever someone tells you something, asking "cui bono?" is a good idea.
Xeni Jardin/BoingBoing deletes comments
Xeni Jardin is a lightweight supporter of illegal immigration and pseudo-hipster (tech division) who blogs at BoingBoing. She offers "Online game teaches immigrant kids about rights of due process" (boingboing.net/2008/05/01/online-game-teaches.html) about a video game which portrays a superhuman ICE agent oppressing people of color (and one young lady from Poland) over legal immigration edge cases (icedgame.com).
A couple of on-topic, non-abusive comments I left on the entry were deleted almost immediately after I left them. And, a follow-up comment combining the two received a moderated message and will probably never appear. In the past BoingBoing has had a forum, then they went to technorati only, now they have comments. So, always willing to inform, I signed up and left the two comments in the extended entry.
Boing Boing readers who drop by might want to consider what else Xeni and/or Boing Boing don't want them to see, and whether they should trust anything they read from her or that site.
Related:
Kevin Drum/Washington Monthly deletes yet another comment
Banned by Crooks and Liars
ABC News' Political Radar edits comments without notice
Comment #1:
#12 is suggesting following the money. Who profits from massive and/or illegal immigration? When (just as an example) a certain blogger from a certain site smears those who support our laws, whose ends does that serve? For those who don't know, Mexico receives around $24 billion per year that their people send home from the U.S., and plenty of companies - and even the Federal Reserve - want a slice of that money, much of which was earned illegally.
In the case of this game it doesn't apply that much since based on a quick glance it seems to involve legal edge cases rather than illegal immigration, but OTOH it doesn't show much respect for - and racializes and demonizes - law enforcement.
For more on the elites, see this
Comment #2:
#22: You might want to reconsider offering an argument for importing a third-world serf class to do our dirty jobs for several reasons, the primary reason being that we've already gone down that road a while back, albeit with some significant differences. Yet, the mindset - and that which supported child labor - is remarkably similar.
The second reason is that "economic" arguments frequently ignore all the costs, both financial and non-financial.
Some changes ahead
In the near future, the following changes will be made in this general order:
1. I'm going to change this domain name to something that isn't stupid. I think I'm going to just redirect every current page to counterparts at the new site, so none of the URLs would 404, they'd just be automatically redirected to the corresponding pages at the new site. I may redirect the non-politics pages to hotsop.com or another site, but those URLs wouldn't 404 either. Needless to say, this is a bit risky vis-a-vis traffic from search engines, but the long-term benefits of a better name are worth it. The problem now is to find that name; even interminable names like "opensourcereporting.com" are taken.
2. More punditry, with attempts to write content for display on other sites.
3. I'm going to attempt to hit the campaign trail and ask the candidates the questions that the MSM refuses to ask. Then, I'll be uploading the answers to video sharing sites. It'd be just great if I could get some form of sponsorship for that. One possibility is a tip jar of some kind. Another is sponsorship by some form of media organization. What makes that very difficult is the general non-partisan nature of the questions, the fact that almost everyone in the political establishment does not want tough questions to be asked lest similar questions are asked of their side, and the fact that the questions would probably be about immigration, a topic that many don't want to discuss at all. And, no one in the MSM would be interested since it would reveal them to be the complete hacks they are.
How to make Amanda Marcotte forget all about the Patriarchy's hegemonical control
The answer is somewhere in this picture:
Unfortunately, it looks like a mole or other cylindrical beast from The Vast Patriarchical Conspiracy snuck into Amanda Marcotte's publishing house and caused them to insert (as into a book) highly questionable images: link. This has caused her to issue a completely voluntary apology: pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/04/25/im-sorry
For an unknown reason I don't want to know about, there are other Amanda Marcotte pictures at these links from her book readings, ordered by how hard I laughed:
majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2008/04/amanda-reading.html
majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2008/04/amanda-marcotte.html
majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2008/04/tonight-amanda.html
majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2008/04/amanda-at-blues.html
UPDATE: Fellow former John Edwards intern/blogger Melissa McEwan responds to the Seal Press Scandal as follows, referring to their press release about the questionable images in the book:
Part of their apology is a promise to participate in some diversity training. It might be beneficial for them to go back and take a Feminism 101 course, too, since they've evidently not learned that dismissing concerns on the basis of humorlessness is about the oldest silencing trope in the patriarchy's book, so ubiquitous as to be positively quaint (in that Alberto Gonzales kinda way).
Another round, anyone?
Righteous panel accuses Amanda Marcotte of misappropriating, not honoring work of feminist blogger of color! Or, something.
I have no idea what the heck is happening here because I'm laughing so hard. Apparently running joke in these parts Amanda Marcotte based in some way or other one of her screeds on a series of others' works. One of those affected has gone as far as shutting down her blog! I have not researched the matter because, once again, I'm laughing too hard.
There's a pledge you can sign here (..."We will not appropriate their work, but amplify their work and integrate their ideas with attribution"...).
There's a hyperlinked copy of the disputed work here:
problemchylde.wordpress.com/2008/04/08/dont-hate-appropriate
Marcotte defends herself here, making a rarely somewhat coherent case that the others are just making it all up in order to play a mean game.
I link, you laugh and decide.
Let's blame John McCain on Ann Althouse (bloggers helped McCain?)
Stephen Dinan of the Washington Times offers "Blogger outreach boosts McCain" (link), an uncharacteristic attempt to blame the resurgence of John McCain on bloggers rather than where it mostly belongs: on constant MSM puffery:Even as talk radio was brutalizing Sen. John McCain in the Republican presidential primaries, conservative bloggers reached a respectful truce with the Arizona senator over touchy issues and gave him what the campaign called a "tremendous positive psychological" boost.McCain's resurgence was more likely due to the MSM, which did things like smear his opponents and those who support our laws (for instance, from Joel Achenbach) or which lied about his immigration stance (examples from Bennett Roth, Elisabeth Bumiller and John Broder, and Ron Claiborne and Peter Canellos).
The main reason: Mr. McCain's blogger outreach, the most extensive of any presidential campaign in either party, helped keep him afloat in the dark days last summer when the major press was sizing up his campaign grave. During those times, Mr. McCain got attention and digital ink from the bloggers he invited to biweekly conference calls, and got a chance to talk policy.
However, that doesn't leave hack bloggers who participated in those conference calls off the hook, who completely failed to ask McCain anything approaching a real question. Those bloggers include Ann Althouse, someone who's constantly promoted by Instapundit despite having little to say. After a couple of her reports of conference calls I left comments with suggested questions and instead, if she asked a question at all it was extremely lightweight. I continue to be amazed that she's an actual law professor.
Others include "Captain Ed" Morrissey. Despite asking a better question recently, every other question that I'm aware of him having asked politicians in the past is something that even Politburo hacks would consider too obsequious. Others apparently taking part in the conference calls were Jim Geraghty from the National Review, PowerLine, one or more people from Townhall, one or more from race42008.com, and Robert Bluey of the Heritage Foundation and affiliated in some way with RedState.
Kevin Drum/Washington Monthly deletes yet another comment
Kevin Drum and/or the Washington Monthly have a habit of deleting perfectly reasonable comments; because of that you can't trust anything you read there. Comments sections serve as a form of check on the blogger or reporter; if they make a mistake someone will probably come along to point it out. If - like Kevin Drum and/or WM - they start deleting comments you never know what's missing, and it might be a comment offering a correction. So, every single thing he writes has to be double-checked before relying on it.
The latest example of a deleted comment is presented in the extended entry, as left on the thread washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_03/013403.php
As for why I'm forced to say "Kevin Drum and/or the Washington Monthly", I don't know whether it's Drum himself or someone else who does this. I asked him about it, but he was too cowardly to admit to doing it himself.
And, even as Drum/WM delete legitimate comments, they continue to have very major spam problem; see, for instance, the toxic stew at the end of washingtonmonthly.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=10203. If you link directly to WM, search engines might consider you part of those spammers' extended networks and that might have a negative impact on your site. I suggest dropping all your links to WM, using the plain text version as I used above if you still need to link to them
I'm not surprised to see Kevin Drum admit that he supports corruption and wants the U.S. to make money off illegal activity.
Nor am I surprised that he can't figure out what that implies: massive PublicCorruption as federal agencies turn a blind eye to lawbreaking.
What would surprise me is if Kevin Drum knew about all the actions the Bush admin has taken in this regard, such as strongarming a change that let banks profit from money that was earned illegally. And, how the FDIC is working with the MexicanConsulate to give home loans to IllegalAliens.
What would even surprise me more is if Kevin Drum could figure out all the costs associated with IllegalImmigration, including long-term costs and/or those without a direct financial impact.
Those Democrats with integrity and who put what's best for the U.S. ahead of the corrupt interests of the Democratic Party should reject attempts to profit from illegal activity and oppose PublicCorruption.
[Note: WM and/or KD have a habit of deleting and editing comments without notice, so this comment might disappear or be edited.]
Sleazy Jason Linkins smears Sean Hannity (Max Blumenthal)
How sleazy is Jason Linkins of the Huffington Post? Sleazy enough to post this smear of Sean Hannity, linking him to white supremacist radio host Hal Turner. The latter apparently used to call in to Hannity's radio program; he claims he and Hannity were friends until Hannity's Program Director told him no more call-ins. Yet, if you do a find for the comment from PhilBoyceWABC on the HuffPost link you'll see that Turner's account of their friendship is more than a bit questionable. Not only that, but Linkins' post relies on the Newshounds blog, not exactly a source of intellectual analysis. And, even worse, it relies on a Nation article from known liar Max Blumenthal which only includes one example of statements made by Turner when calling in and which includes a Turner quote from 2003 in which he said, "I had never judged people on their race, not prior to that point" (thenation.com/doc/20050620/blumenthal). Perhaps the Huffington Post should consider the impact that smear attempts from Linkins have on whatever reputation they currently have.
Flickr now using nofollow tags
About a year ago, Youtube - apparently prompted by Google - added the anti-web nofollow tag to an increasing variety of their outbound links (except for some links, such as those which were on content provided by videomaker.com, something that would seem to violate Google's own rules). You can see the salmon-colored excess here and here.
Now, visiting my barely-used Flickr site (flickr.com/photos/lonewackodotcom), I see that they're using that tag too, for instance on this: flickr.com/photos/lonewackodotcom/265708046 (see the link in the caption). I'm almost positive there was no such tag there before, but I don't know exactly when they added those or if those who buy a subscription or who have some sort of business deal with Yahoo don't have the tags on their links.
Donate a penny for RedState! (needs $25,000 to move from Drupal to Django)
Our friends at RedState have issued an urgent plea [1] for $25,000 so they can upgrade their site from Drupal to Django. In the spirit of helpfulness, I urge everyone reading this to donate a penny if PayPal allows it. But, only if the transactions costs exceed the amount you donate.In the plea, Erick Erickson implies some sort of liberal conspiracy that's prevented them from getting help or something; at least one person calls him on it in comments, and Kos says he offered to conduct a "technology swap" when they had previously used the Scoop system:
...they could have all of our improvements if their developer helped with some patches and whanot. I saw this as a way to spread out the costs of improving the platform amongst various sites.(Other "liberals" weigh in here and here). I'll also add that Drupal is an open source system, and it has a very active user community. In the Drupal forums, no one knows you're a dog, a liberal, or a GOP hack. If they needed help, there was nothing preventing them from asking questions in those forums, and I don't think they'd find too many people who'd turn down money as long as it was coming from at least a semi-reputable source.
But that doesn't fit their narrative of being "censored" by those crazy liberals.
So in other words, as ludicrous as their charge was -- that they were being censored because no liberals offered to help them -- IT'S NOT EVEN TRUE!
Furthermore, Drupal is written in PHP, a very widely used language. And, it's infinitely extensible. It's very easy to completely change everything Drupal looks and acts like simply by writing add-on modules and themes. And, while it would be almost never needed, the core code can be modified at will since it's open source. Any server issues can be handled as discussed at the RedState thread, and Erickson admits that that wasn't even the issue. While Drupal isn't by any stretch of the imagination as well-designed (in an object-oriented fashion) as other APIs (such as as some of the Java APIs), much of that can be mitigated by writing your add-on code in an OO fashion. (If you're reading this as an individual post, some of the sites to the left are Drupal together with custom modules I developed.)
In other words, there's no reason I can see for them to switch from Drupal. While Python is an attractive language, and Yahoo has used it for years, and Django may be less kludgy than Drupal, switching over rather than simply writing a few add-on modules doesn't seem all that necessary.
But, don't let that stop you from sending a penny, just as long as it costs them money.
[1] redstate.com/stories/miscellanea/redstate_has_a_real_need_for_your_help
About the Thomas Crown/Redstate smear
Thomas H. Crown [1] of RedState offers a roundup of the year's events [2] that mentions me:
Second, Lonewacko Blog, if you're reading this -- and based on your obsessively repeated tirade across half the blogosphere and Wikipedia, you are: I banned you, you dirty little racist. I banned you for being a racist, and for showing us that you are a racist. I did not ban you for criticizing George W. Bush, in no small part because where you disagreed with him, I have publicly disagreed with him, you diseased piece of rhinoceros pizzle; I banned you because you decided to share your problems with brown people on this site.
As yet another example of why you can't trust what RedState says, see the archives at this site, or for a quicker read see my last post at RedState, the one that caused me to be banned by Red State.
The last post at RS was simply a quote from an article by Dan Stein of FAIR, in which he used temporally ambiguous language, referring to "illegal aliens" instead of "former illegal aliens who had been converted into legal workers." However, depending on one's temporal reference, Stein's language could have been correct: they were illegal aliens at the time of his writing and would only become legal workers should the "Gold Card" discussed in his post have been enacted. A quick glance shows that FAIR has been mentioned and linked to by RS contributors several times since then.
And, the last time I checked, RedState still has my content on their site, despite my express request that they stop displaying it (and displaying ads next to it). I was unable to find a legal right that RS has to continue displaying my content, yet they've refused my requests to delete it.
And, one wonders why they continue to display my content when Crown suggests it's offensive.
As for Wikipedia, I inserted note of my banning there, but it was deleted in October by someone using the IP address 208.34.234.180, which resolves to a Wilkesboro, NC company called Product Management Inc. with a contact person of Jim Byrd. Whether he has any link to RS is not known.
[1] t-crown.blogspot.com (whether Thomas Crown is his real name or not is unknown; I don't think I've run across him before)
[2] redstate.com/blogs/thomas/2007/dec/31/just_a_drop_of_water_in_an_endless_sea
Alan Colmes has a blog
Radio host and co-star of the Hannity & Colmes show Alan Colmes has a blog here. Please go destroy his arguments.
UPDATE: I thank Alan Colmes for sending some traffic my way. I note also that I learned about his site a few days ago and even started pointing out how he's wrong.
HuffPost breaking news alert: Laurie David stranded at Mojave desert Motel 6!
Before the advent of the Huffington Post, the only way that Laurie David could get the word out about her adventures was through things like typing out articles for the monthly Brentwood Intelligencer. Nowadays, sharing her life with the world is just a click away, as she offers "Dispatch From A Mojave Desert Motel 6" (link):If there is anyone out there wondering if I made it out of Iceland a couple weeks ago, the answer is yes. The freakish high winds finally calmed down long enough to fly home. But if you're wondering where I am right this minute you can find me in the Mojave desert at the Motel 6 in the middle of a freak wind storm!! Believe me I wouldn't make this up...I left the following comment; it hasn't been approved and it might not be. We could debate all day about the correct strategy to use in such cases. Should there just be one hidden zinger? Or, should I go whole hog and include mention of private jets? Should I include conspiracy information about powerful interests blocking Mojave wind farms? In any case, feel free to do better:
Just two hours in (two rest stops and one DVD later) the wind kicks up just past Lancaster and with it a full scale brown out sand storm! Traffic slowed to a crawl, white knuckles gripped the steering wheel and we inched forward. Then a police car blocked the way and said all roads leading to Mammoth are closed till the winds die down.
In an emergency, you have to do what you have to do! We were in a similar situation once, although the motel was a bit more quaint than those garish Motel 6es. I had my PA approach the manager and set things up, and we "bought out" those who were staying in the adjoining rooms so we could get some privacy. There were no other rooms available, and at first most of them didn't like the idea of sleeping in their cars, but as they say "money talks".UPDATE: Still no sign of my comment. Maybe we'll have to wait until she comes back from lunch at the IHOP before she approves or denies it. I note also that she's put this in their "Politics" section with the following tags: Extreme Weather, Malibu Fires, Mammoth Ski Resort, Santa Ana Winds, Weather, Breaking Politics News
UPDATE 2: I changed the title to be more dramatic, but despite that my comment looks like it's been denied. However, I did leave a new comment. At first glance this might appear too over the top. But, it is the HuffPost so this is normal:
I've been driving up 395 for years, and I've never seen the dust storms as bad as they've been during the Bush administration. I think it's even worse than we fear. Not only are they ignoring Global Warming, I think they must be engaging in some form of weather modification or something.UPDATE 3: The second comment was approved. I have nothing more to add.
Banned by Crooks and Liars
The site Crooks and Liars (Crooks & Liars, crooksandliars.com) has banned me from posting comments there. I've twice tried to comment on a recent entry, only to be confronted by a popup saying that I've been banned. I haven't left too many comments there, and a couple have been deleted in the past. Commenting there is usually pretty useless because of all the noise, but, I have lots of domain names and I don't have to provide a