Right Wing Nut House

Given that my common law relations have been delayed a few hours (sparing yours truly the frightening prospect of having to interact with human beings less than 4 feet tall and of considerably less advanced years than me), here are a few more tidbits from my web journeys this morning.

“THE WORST BOOK OF 2005″

Leave it to R. Emmett Tyrell to do a real, first class deconstruction of Jimmy Carter. Giving him the J. Gordon Coogler Award for the worst book written in 2005, Tyrell slices, dices, and barbecues the ex-President as only he can:

Jimmy has actually published 20 books now. Probably he should have been made Coogler Laureate 20 times. The problem is, so vain is this insufferable huckster and so desperate has he become for notice that, as his presidency attracts ever more flies in history’s dustbin, he is increasingly likely to show up at our Coogler Awards ceremony — whether invited or not. There he would stand, clutching his Coogler to his bosom and sermonizing until the janitors turned out the lights. Worse, he might bring Rosalynn, an author in her own right.

Jimmy was the worst president in American history and, in personal terms, the most repellent. That last statement would have been implausible a year or so after he vacated the White House. Today, however, after a quarter-century of caddish behavior toward his successors, it is perfectly acceptable. His public criticisms of sitting presidents have been insulting and usually dishonest. He has oozed vitriol against America even while he was strutting on foreign soil. Before him no president criticized his government from foreign soil. Jimmy has repeatedly broken that rule.

In fact, no prior president has spoken as rudely and dishonestly of his successors or of his country as has Jimmy. The acerbic Harry Truman came to loathe President Dwight D. Eisenhower. In public, however, Harry minded his tongue.

Jimmy’s presidential achievements were even more modest than those of Bill Clinton and of Gerald Ford, and his blunders on domestic and foreign policy are unsurpassed and possibly unsurpassable. What is more he writes bad books.

Read the entire, hysterical piece.

REMEMBER…

Lori Byrd (blogging from her swanky new digs at Wizbang) is asking for links that highlight what Memorial Day should be all about. I will have a post Monday with some thoughts, but please go to Wizbang and leave a link to a news story or a blog post that you find particularly relevant.

NET NEUTRALITY MAKING PROGRESS

It appears that the bipartisan net neutrality coalition is making an impact.

The broad, nonpartisan movement for Internet freedom notched a major victory today, when a bipartisan majority of the House Judiciary Committee passed the “Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006″ — a bill that offers meaningful protections for Network Neutrality, “the First Amendment of the Internet.”

20 members of the Committee (6 Republicans and 14 Democrats) voted for the bipartisan Bill, and only 13 against.

This legislation has the support of many conservatives and liberals and is designed to keep large Telecoms from imposing a “two tiered” internet on the rest of us. For information on what this legislation does, go to Save The Internet.Com and read about it.

YES…BUT WHAT DOES FERDY THINK?

Without a doubt, the smartest feline on the internet is Ferdy the Cat. As a guardian of internet behavior, Ferdy celebrates the takedown of hackers and spammers wherever they ply their execrable trade.

This news story is something I would like to see more often. I want to see hackers getting arrested and spending long years in jail. I want to see these jail terms publicly announced over and over again. Every hacker should be seen as a disgusting little felon instead of a romantic warrior against The System.

Thank you for listening to this important message. We will resume our usual light-hearted fare as soon as Bruce finishes trying to get the new web development software at work to operate properly within the guidelines of the lab’s security system.

Sounds like Bruce is going to be busy for a while…

Ferdy will probably be doing a cat dance when he hears of this.

HAYDEN CONFIRMED AS CIA CHIEF

What about the big fight all the netnuts were promising over this nomination?

At his confirmation hearing, Hayden sought to assure lawmakers he would be independent from his military superiors but said he would consider how his uniform affects his relationship with CIA personnel. If it were to get in the way, he said, “I’ll make the right decision.”

Hayden, who headed the National Security Agency for several years, became a lightning rod for the debate about the Bush administration’s domestic eavesdropping program. Some Democrats and civil-liberties advocates argue the monitoring was illegal.

As head of the NSA from 1999 to 2005, Hayden oversaw the program. His defenders say he was relying on the advice of top government lawyers.

Hayden was confirmed by a vote of 78-15. And this points up the utter vacuousness of the left’s critique of all the NSA “surveillance” programs - the Democrats themselves are not saying that the programs are illegal and with very few exceptions, are not calling for these program’s termination.

Having said that, I have my own questions about how these programs have been run and I believe it would be in the interest of civil liberties if a full briefing on how these programs operate be given to the full House and Senate Intelligence Committees. I also am worried about proper oversight.

But to say the programs are, on their face, illegal is just plain stupid. Just another outgrowth of Bush Derangement Syndrome…

THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES

His Highness has been “tagged” and the questions he is forced to answer are revealing the pussycat beneath the warlike exterior:

4. Would you rather sleep with someone else, or alone?

Now, let’s be logical here: If I’m asleep, why would I care? That being said, it’s so much more fun going to bed knowing that there’s somebody you can make utterly miserable with your loud snoring.

13. Who was your first love?

A lovely, sweet little Korean girl that I had the worst crush on in 2nd grade. She must have loved me too. She didn’t slap me, call me a “pervert” or kick me in the groin, not once. Unfortunately, those were only three things on a rather long list of things that she most pointedly didn’t do.

19. What’s the one thing on your mind?

Avoiding ever reaching the point in my life where I have only one thing on my mind.

MEXICO GETS “VETO POWER” OVER BORDER ENFORCEMENT?

I’m not sure if this is something to worry about or if it’s just common courtesy:

(b) CONSULTATION REQUIREMENT.–Consultations between United States and Mexican authorities at the federal, state, and local levels concerning the construction of additional fencing and related border security structures along the United States-Mexico border shall be undertaken prior to commencing any new construction, in order to solicit the views of affected communities, lessen tensions and foster greater understanding and stronger cooperation on this and other important issues of mutual concern.

If this is indeed “consultation” I don’t think we have anything to worry about. However, given this Administration’s curious rollovers when it comes to pleasing Vicente Fox, I would follow any “consultations” like a hawk.

JUST WHEN YOU THOUGHT IT WAS SAFE TO GO BACK TO BLOGGING…

Former FEC Commissioner Bradley Smith is raising additional warnings about blog regulation:

Now a contributor at RedState, Smith pointed readers to a new article that included what he saw as a foreboding quote from Rep. Tom Allen, D-Maine.

Allen “co-sponsored legislation in March that would bring political Web sites under campaign finance rules if they spend $5,000 or more on their operations,” the paper wrote. “He said he would watch how blogs factor into the 2006 races under the FEC rules before deciding whether to press the issue.”

Smith’s reaction: “We need to understand that these guys are relentlessly hostile to free, unfettered political speech. Every bit of freedom they see as a potential threat, and they are always ready to regulate as soon as they think the have the votes.”

Given John McCain’s recent comments made about bloggers at The New School commencement where he accused us of being little better than ideological hit beasts, I think we should take Mr. Smith’s warnings to heart. Once McCain’s candidacy gets underway, he knows that he will be skewered on a daily basis by conservatives and may seek to forestall criticism by putting some bloggers out of business.

GLOBAL WARMING DEBATE HEATING UP

I find myself in almost total agreement with the Commissar here:

I’m not sure what to make of the global warming debate. With the release of algore’s “Inconvenient Truths,” the discussion is front-and-center again. On the one side the many scientists and politicians who warn that human activities (CO2 emissions, for example) have added to global warming, that it is worsening, and that we must take steps to alleviate it; these are the “advocates.” On the other side — the skeptics, the rebutters.

The complex forecasting models used are beyond my understanding. About the only way for me to make sense of this debate is to look at the competing claims of the different sides, and see which seems more compelling, more objective.

So much of the information we get seems to be agenda driven - by both sides. I read Scientific American a lot because at least they give both sides a fair hearing. But read all of the Commissar’s post for some truly thoughtful analysis.

MISSING IRAQ WMD’S

Frontpage has an interesting colloquy between three “experts” who are convinced that IRAQ’s WMD was spirited off to Syria by Russian Spetznatz troops prior to the invasion:

Just recently, Saddam Hussein’s former southern regional commander, Gen. Al-Tikriti, gave the first videotaped testimony confirming that Iraq had WMDs up to the American invasion in 2003 and that Russia helped removed them prior to the war. His testimony confirms numerous other sources that have pointed to Russia’s secret alliance with Iraq and the co-ordinated moving of WMDs before the American liberation. Today we’ve invited three experts on this subject to discuss the details of Al-Tikriti’s testimony and its larger significance.

Color me unconvinced, although I would love to know what Russia was moving to Syria (and Lebanon) prior to the war. The preponderance of evidence to date suggests that Saddam was fooled into believing he had WMD when he didn’t. Until something a little more substantial emerges to counter that argument, I will remain a reluctant skeptic.

AL QAEDA’S “LONG WAR” SCENARIO

Rusty Shackleford has a superior piece about plans being made by al Qaeda for the long term conflict with the west:

At some point, al Qaeda realizes, it is not enough to simply weaken the will of the enemy. Readers should remember that the goal of terrorists is not to “terrorize”. Terrorism is a method, not a goal. Al Qaeda’s goal is the same goal as the Council on American Islamic Relations or the Muslim American Society–the imposition of Sharia law and the eventual restoration of the global Caliphate. What separates CAIR and MAS from al Qaeda is not the goal, but only the means to achieve it.

Read the whole thing.

Finally, many thanks to John Hawkins at Right Wing News for making The House “Website of the Day” yesterday.

With Zsu-Zsu’s kids and grandkids coming in this weekend, blogging will be intermittent, sparse, and probably incoherent. Or should I say, more so than usual…

Until next time, here are a few items that ordinarily I would have penned 1000 word screed on but don’t have the time to give them the justice they deserve:

ALBINOS RIDING THE IDENTITY POLITICS GRAVY TRAIN

Who says identity politics is ruining America?

It seems that The Da Vinci Code cannot not offend everyone on the planet; this time, it’s the albino community that is angry with the movie for depicting albinos as evil villians. Michael McGowan, the head of the National Organization for Albinism and Hypopigmentation, had asked the movie’s production people not to bleach Silas the albino monk’s hair or make his eyes red, but to no avail.

These guys ought to get in touch the CAIR for instruction in how to browbeat a major media company. And they definitely should take some lessons in how to practice the old grievance and guilt routine. They also need a little instruction in media relations as well as spokesperson identification. The trick is not to sound like you’re whining, just hurt and disappointed.

I have complete confidence that the Albino community will eventually “get it” and will join the ranks of aggrieved and suffering minorities very soon.

BUSH APOLOGIZES FOR SAYING “BRING IT ON”

And we all wondered why Bush never apologized for anything:

The significance of this shouldn’t go unnoticed. Bush has now admitted what the progressive blog community has said all along: Bush’s tough talk was wrongheaded and cost lives.

While contrition may be a media policy that works with our lapdog press (and judging from CNN’s first blush of commentary, it seems to be getting the desired result), America must now ask what this admission means. Does Bush take responsibility for the deaths generated by his admitted mistake? Does he accept the logical conclusion that his bluster resulted in the killing and maiming of hundreds if not thousands of US troops?

Considering that much of the insurgency was planned before Bush even took office, this is an interesting construct. Is the gentleman saying that Bush’s “bluster” killed Americans?

HOORAY! In a similar context, one might posit the opposite as well; THAT THE SIMPERING, DEFEATIST TALK ON THE LEFT ALSO EMBOLDENED THE INSURGENCY AND COST LIVES AS WELL!

In fact, since it seems clear that we are now settling on giving out responsibility for mistakes in Iraq, perhaps it is time for the left TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR PROLONGING THE CONFLICT BY GIVING THE INSURGENTS HOPE THAT THE LEFT’S AGITATION FOR CUTTING AND RUNNING FROM IRAQ WOULD HAND THE SUNNIS A VICTORY!

Somehow, I don’t think that Peter is quite willing to go that far, do you?

GEORGE GALLAWAY…NO WORDS

I think I’ll just let this stand with no comment:

In an interview with GQ magazine, the reporter asked him: “Would the assassination of, say, Tony Blair by a suicide bomber - if there were no other casualties - be justified as revenge for the war on Iraq?”

Mr Galloway replied: “Yes, it would be morally justified. I am not calling for it - but if it happened it would be of a wholly different moral order to the events of 7/7. It would be entirely logical and explicable. And morally equivalent to ordering the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq - as Blair did.”

On second thought, this really does deserve some kind of response, although for the life of me, I can’t think of anything to say that doesn’t begin with a string of expletives and end with a call for Mr. Gallaway’s being in the dock for treason.

But I better not - too many liberals would take me to task for criticizing the bloke and that “speaking truth to power” like this is protected speech and therefore, perfectly righteous. A touch “over the top” perhaps, but that can be excused because George is…so, well passionate!

In other words, his heart is in the right place…

HOUSE REPUBLICANS PREPARE TO ABANDON THE SINKING SHIP

This news from my Chicago Tribune this morning is not unexpected. The House will engage in a “free flowing debate” on the Iraq War over the coming weeks.

The purpose is not to elicit support for the war. It will be to allow vulnerable Republicans the chance to jump ship:

The decision to hold a public debate on an issue that has sent President Bush’s approval ratings tumbling and put Democrats within striking distance of recapturing the House reflects the growing pressure facing Republicans from bad news about the war. GOP leaders hope the forum will give their endangered incumbents a chance to distance themselves from the war, argue that it is going better than most recognize, or both.

Wars and other military conflicts have long triggered sharp emotions in Congress, imperiling political careers and prompting public despondency as well as enthusiasm. With the winding down of the Vietnam War and revelations about the Watergate scandal, voters swept in a new freshman class with 92 members in 1974, roiling the usually staid House with an influx of largely liberal members.

Iraq is at a critical juncture. The next six months will see the new government trying for the first time to get a grip on the security situation. This is an extraordinarily complex task given the players involved and the stakes.

They must not only rely on the police and the military to fight the insurgency, they must also negotiate with the various sectarian militias who have infiltrated the police (heavily in some parts of the country) and army (not as much). They must also work to rid the corruption and graft from the ministries, establish themselves in the Arab world, and try and build confidence in the people in democratic institutions that will truly unite the country under one, central government.

And the Iraqis must do all of this just as we begin to draw down our forces. It is a challenge that would tax the abilities of even established states and I consider it a less than even chance that the new government will be up to the task without considerable American help.

But that help will not be forthcoming if Congress has any say in the matter. These debates will show the true depth to which Republican incumbents will sink as they try and split hairs about where they stand on the war and what the President must do for their continued support.

It will not be a pretty sight, I assure you.

I culled my blogroll yesterday for the very first time. Out went about 20 sites that are either defunct or which have displeased me in some way.

I don’t make a big deal about the latter as I hate blogosphere dramas. But if someone notices that they are no longer on the blogroll, it is usually because you haven’t posted regularly enough or because you’ve gone nutzo.

That said, I am taking applications for the blogroll. Preference is given to those blogs who have already linked me or are willing to. Preference doesn’t mean inclusion. There are very few sites on the roll that don’t post at least once a day. And, it should go without saying that if your site prints objectionable material, I’d say you have a better chance of getting into the Space Shuttle program than getting on my blog.

Send me an email with your blog URL and I’ll take a look.

My article in Thursday’s American Thinker about 9/11 conspiracy theories has brought some not-so-lovely company over for dinner here at The House. In fact, since Google News placed the article near the top of the queue, I have been deluged with almost 40 emails from crackpots, crazies, kooks, and paranoids, all trying to tell me that I’m a fool for believing the “official version” of what happened.

Ordinarily, I laugh this kind of stuff off. But some of these emails are truly frightening and I thought I’d share a few of the more readable ones.

This is the dark underbelly of American politics. It exists on both the right and the left and, in fact, both sides are generally in agreement on who the “enemy” is. Even the articulate emails are filled with a kind of desperation that Daniel Pipes attributes to people’s feelings that their lives are out of control. Pipes scholarly work on the origins of conspiracies and conspiracy theories shows that such political paranoia is common following shattering events like 9/11 or the Kennedy assassination as people seek to “explain” events. The great historian William Manchester described the disbelief in Oswald as the lone Kennedy assassin using a scale analogy. On one side, you had the President - handsome, dashing, admired by millions. On the other the loser Oswald. Manchester points out that the imbalance is so great, so striking, that many simply cannot accept what still stands as the most logical theory regarding the assassination; that the preponderance of evidence shows that Oswald shot Kennedy acting alone.

Conspiracies surrounding 9/11 have some of that same flavor best articulated by Michael Moore; how could a guy hiding in a cave carry out such a deadly attack? The scales just don’t balance - until you look at al Qaeda and its deadly effective organization, it’s massive financing, its support from rogue elements in the Pakistani government (and probably others as well), not to mention the over riding motivating factor of pure, homicidal hatred for America and Americans.

Conspiracy theories are hard to answer because, as I say in the article, it takes an enormous amount of time and expertise to do so effectively. I just wish that some of these nuts would have followed a few of the links I gave in the article that would have seriously challenged their ideas.

david denhouse wrote:
That was really sad.

Pathetic.

Come along with something better - something that has been peer reviewed like the FEMA study, and I’ll take a look. Until then, best that you turn off your TV on Monday when Bush is speaking. I hear that if you look into his eyes, he will have you under his spell.

cv wrote:
i just read you 911 article. you are the nut and people like you perpetuate
false history. i would like to think you are at at least sincere, but i don’t.
you are either a fool or a traitor. i think a traitor.

anyone with eyes see’s the collapse of the world trade center buildings for
what they were- controlled demolitions.

A “traitor?” MMMM…’kay. At least I’m a sane traitor.

Etienne de la Boetie wrote:
You should really examine the evidence of 9-11 a little more carefully with an
open mind. you could start with my website. It was elements of the
intelligence agencies, the executive branch, and the military.. they painted
you a picture… start with Cui Bono.

Website: www.involuntaryservant.blogspot.com

I couldn’t resist putting that web address up there. All I can say is…WOW!

Terry Gabrich wrote:
There is to much proof of a conspiracy concerning 911. Especially when there is
proof that Bush ordered it, and signed an order for it.

And I’ll bet you have a signed copy of the order, too.

Andy wrote:
Hey, f**ko! You have the nerve to try and defend the Warren Commission?
Look, we’ll go on and glass Iraq, and you and
Dubya, and Hannity can all move there and be fascist together; ok? How about
that?
And we’ll stay here and restore our Republic; ok?

Ok…Get thee to a nunnery.

How supposedly rational people can believe the pronouncements of dubious
leaders who demonstrably lie to us as a matter of course is a sad indicator of
pandemic cognitive dissonance.

CS

Another common denominator of the conspiracists is their wish that you “open your eyes” and see “the truth.” Aside from the obvious condescension involved in such a “wish,” it is enormously satisfying for the conspiracist to play “I’ve got a secret.” They know something you don’t which makes them superior in their own eyes. Pipes speculates that this covers up feelings of inadequacy elsewhere in their lives. If they are a failure at everything else, at least they have that “special knowledge” that others lack.

Pitiful.

Finally, this gem. Sounds like its from a jihadist:

sorry loooooser…. U have lost and usa gov has lost. SHALL be destroyed and
USAers like U punished!

And U are a LUUUN.

UPDATE 5/14

Look ma! Top o’ the World!

I just can’t believe it. After all these years of working and slaving for the Forces of Darkness, I’ve finally graduated: I’m a full fledged member of the New World Order!

You’ll dress only in attire specially sanctioned by MiB special services. You’ll conform to the identity we give you, eat where we tell you, live where we tell you. From now on you’ll have no identifying marks of any kind. You’ll not stand out in any way. Your entire image is crafted to leave no lasting memory with anyone you encounter. You’re a rumor, recognizable only as deja vu and dismissed just as quickly. You don’t exist; you were never even born. Anonymity is your name. Silence your native tongue. You’re no longer part of the System. You’re above the System. Over it. Beyond it. We’re “them.” We’re “they.” We are the Men in Black.

I am, indeed, a member of “them:”

“They’re getting so worried, they’re writing articles like this :-)” Poster of my article referenced above at The Liberty Forum. The poster’s name is “Origin Unknown” and lists as his hobby “Fighting the New World Order.”

I wonder when I’ll get my pass to fly in one of those black helicopters.

This will make you laugh whether you’re Catholic or not:

The CEO of Tyson Foods manages to arrange a meeting with the Pope at the Vatican. After receiving the papal blessing, he whispers, “Your eminence, we have an offer for you. Tyson Foods is prepared to donate $100 million dollars to the church if you change the Lord’s Prayer from “give us this day our daily bread” to “give us this day our daily chicken.’”

Finally, the Tyson guy says, “Your Holiness, we at Tyson Foods respect your adherence to your faith, but we do have one final offer. We will donate $500 million dollars - that’s half a billion dollars - to the great Catholic Church if you would only change the Lord’s Prayer from ‘give us this day our daily bread’ to ‘give us this day our daily chicken.’ Please consider it.” And he leaves.

For the punchline, you must go and visit my friends at Maggies Farm. While you’re there, the Bird Dog of the Week post is up. And since it’s Thursday, that means it’s Dylan Lyrics and Download day on the Farm.

If you take a look at my blogroll, you’ll see a new edition. The Vivid Air is run by one of my older, smarter, (but not as good looking) brothers. Jim is a less excitable, wiser version of me except he’s a liberal - more of an FDR or Harry Truman Democrat rather than a John Kerry moonbat or worse, a Noam Chomsky Stalinist.

I don’t know whether he’s gotten more conservative through the years or I (God forbid) have gotten more liberal but we don’t seem quite as far apart on many things as we did in the 1970’s. Oh well…you know what they say: If you walk far enough, eventually you’ll end up shaking hands with yourself. Maybe moderating views comes with advancing years.

He probably won’t write exclusively about politics. Even if he does, I’m sure that he will challenge your thinking. I personally hope that he writes about his real love - literature. As a lifelong teacher, his insights into books and the people who write them will be great reading I’m sure.

Stop by and pay him a visit. He’s got some interesting thoughts on the Malkin matter I posted about below. Please be on your best behavior. If I hear that any of you are up to the usual tomfoolery, it will be off to bed with no supper…and I mean it. Be nice.

I plan on making The Vivid Air a regular stop. I hope you do too.

Oh, the perilous, evil times in which we live.

The current escalation in the war between liberals and conservatives just took a very nasty turn as far left websites have published personal information, including the address and exact location, of Michelle Malkin’s house. The stated purpose was revenge: Malkin published the contact information contained in a press release from a University of California-Santa Cruz student group who physically threatened and violently intimidated military recruiters who had come on campus to participate in a job fair. The young military men were forced to leave fearing for their safety as well as the safety of anyone who may have been able to run the gauntlet of shouting, spitting, pushing leftist lickspittles who were trying to impose their idea of “free speech” on those who may have been a little more open minded about that alien concept in wishing to see the recruiters. (I would think anyone with courage enough to endure those kind of hardships just to see military recruiters should have been signed up pronto).

It is unfortunate that these facts have been drowned out by the subsequent brouhaha over Malkin’s publishing the student’s contact information. Or perhaps not. Lefty websites ignored the free speech implications of the UCSC incident until Ezra Klein came out with his best imitation of Joe “Have you no shame” Welch. His curious use of the euphemism “slug” to describe Malkin was probably appreciated by Michelle in that lefties routinely use very personal anatomical descriptives in referring to her. Klein’s dramatic, chest thumping denunciation of Malkin for publishing a press release was extraordinarily revealing. The student “protest” (assault) was just harmless fun! They’re “undergraduates,” for Gosh sakes.

And then, the jaw dropper:

Malkin has already done grievous harm to an idea. I went to UC Santa Cruz. It’s entirely possible I was friends with some of those Malkin has placed in danger. It’s a school filled with young, idealistic kids determined to save the world, feeling their way through uncertain thickets of ideology and unfamiliar collections of ideas, and naive about the dangers of direct political action outside a university’s protected confines. That, after all, is what college is about — providing a protected space for young adults to experiment, learn, try out ideas and identities. If they made a mistake attaching their home numbers to a press release, it’s understandable — forgive them father, they know not what they do.

Malkin lays claim to no such ignorance. A skilled and experienced rhetorical warrior, she saw the pale, white flesh of their throats and lunged. The vicious always seek out the weak. Rather than forgive their poorly-written, too-revealing press release, she published their oversight, opening them to danger and harm. If any of these students are hurt by a crazed Malkinite, the blood will drip from her hands, the guilt will burden her shoulders. But forgive her just the same, for there is nought else she can do.

Oh puh leeze!

Did anyone else laugh out loud when reading “she saw the pale, white flesh of their throats and lunged?” That’s not hyperbole. It’s juvenile. One might expect to see something like that in the diary entry of a 12 year old girl.

And the idea that college “provides a protected space” so that these students can violently intimidate people they disagree with is one of the most outrageous ideas I’ve ever heard. Yes, let them protest the recruiters visit. Let them stand outside the venue and spout their slogans, wave their signs, even try and shame people who wish to visit the recruiters. But to physically insinuate themselves to prevent people from seeing the recruiters in the first place is wrong - wrong for anyone, of any age, in any place, at any time. And throwing rocks, slashing tires, pushing, shoving, spitting, and threatening violence are not the acts of innocents. They are the acts of criminals.

Of course, we’re now beyond the debate about what went on at UCSC and into the bloody aftermath; Malkin’s publishing the press release containing the telephone numbers of those poor, innocent college students. This is something Malkin does quite often. She publishes contact information of school principals, corporate CEO’s, college professors, local elected officials, and anyone and everyone who demonstrates either extraordinary cluelessness or a particular bias against conservatives. It is the fact that she encourages her readers to initiate contact that has lefty blogs up in arms.

The default position of Klein, et al is that because there is a minuscule percentage of Malkin’s 144,000 daily readers who are in desperate need of psychological help, she should have refrained from publishing the contact numbers of the students. This brings up a fascinating question; are bloggers responsible for the actions and attitudes of their readers? Are novelists? Are newspapers, screenwriters, and anyone else whose writings see the light of day responsible if some wacko makes a threatening phone call?

John Aravosis agrees with Klein; absolutely yes:

Malkin, on the other hand, has posted the phone numbers and email addresses of college kids on her uber-trafficked site, and the kids are now getting deluged with hate. It’s wrong, in terms of sicing your audience on kids. It’s also wrong in terms of once kids are getting death threats and they ask you to stop, you really ought to stop (hell, even for adults, if things start to get THAT out of control, you really ought to reconsider your activism strategy). Not dig in your heels in order to prove some bizarre, and rather sick, point.

And finally, having her audience call these kids is a rather bizarre, and I’m not convinced defensible, practice. It’s one thing to call a corporation to complain about their sponsorship of x, y or z. But having your audience call up individual activists and yell at them because of a protest they held, that seems to start bordering on creepy and un-democratic.

In a demented sort of way, Avarosis has a point. Even though the last I heard, none of the students had been in contact with Malkin and asked that she remove the information (the same info is still available on at least three lefty websites), from my own personal point of view, once I heard that they were receiving death threats, I probably would have pulled the information. In the end, one does have a modicum of responsibility not only toward people who read your site but also anyone affected by what’s on it. It’s ridiculous to believe that Malkin deliberately set out to injure these idiot kids by publishing their little mimeographed press release. But once it became clear that some of her readers had crossed the line, I personally would have pulled the information without comment or notice.

That said, what do you make of people publishing Malkin’s home address and the location of her house?

The crickets are chirping on the left as only one blogger has mentioned the outing of Malkin’s personal information - and that was to simply tweak Jeff Goldstein’s nose. Goldstein applauds Malkins defiance of her tormentors and adds this:

So. I am now calling for the very public condemnation and ostracizing of those who would post satellite photos and personal addresses of a their political opponents on the web. I am also calling for the public condemnation and ostracizing of those hyperpartisan bloggers / media figures who condone or applaud such actions.

Jeff Goldstein is absolutely correct. The potential damage this practice could do to political speech demands that left and right make this a line of demarcation - a “line of death” to cross. Anyone, be they right or left who crosses this line should be immediately de-linked. Anyone who still links to the offending site should also be delinked. Anyone who links a post from the offending site (even to make sport of it or to criticize it) should be delinked.

For that reason, I am going to delink the Democratic Underground from my sidebar (as soon as I can figure out how to do it). And I am putting on notice anyone who still has them on their blogroll by this time next week will also be delinked. This includes numerous righty bloggers who link to them under the rubric of “The Enemy” or “The Left.”

And no, I will not delink Malkin even though some apparently have. The difference between what she did and what the DU crew did is night and day. Publishing a press release is one thing. Inviting people to physically harass someone is quite another.

This kind of thing must be nipped in the bud now before it gets out of control.

UPDATE

If you know of other lefty websites who published this information or linked to it, please let me know who they were.

Also, an absolute must read by The Anchoress: Judas and the Cult of Malevolent Mendacity.

Just clicked on the old sitemeter and found this:

Total: 678,806

Average Per Day 2,534

Average Visit Length 2:05

Last Hour 165

Today 1,133

This Week 17,736

PAGE VIEWS

Total 1,000,020

Average Per Day 3,963

Average Per Visit 1.6

Last Hour 269

Today 1,597

This Week 27,740

THAT’S ONE MILLION PAGE VIEWS FOR THE HOUSE!

I can remember back when my old Blogspot site was getting 25 visitors a day and I wondered if anyone would ever read anything that I was writing.

Back then, I’m glad they didn’t. Some of that early stuff was pretty horrible. Writing, it turns out, is much more like playing a musical instrument than you might think - constant practice makes you better. Or at least, more readable.

Many thanks to all my regular readers and I sincerely hope anyone who visits this site leaves with a little different perspective on the issues of the day.

I will take a back seat to no one in my efforts to expose what I see as bias on the part of the mainstream press when they report on a host of issues. A simple search of this site will show that I have devoted hundreds of posts to this subject and given much time and attention to destroying faulty logic, knocking down strawmen, and generally giving our MSM brethren a hard time.

But the way so many bloggers jumped on the Jill Carroll story this past weekend - both right and left - has compelled me to examine many of my own assumptions about how we in the blogosphere treat the press and how unless things change there is the real possibility that in bringing down the media, we may be destroying ourselves as well.

First of all, I am not a journalist. I do not want to be considered a journalist. I do not want to become a journalist. With two brothers who are making a living as journalists, I have a great deal of respect for the craft as it is practiced by those who take journalism seriously and who live by its codes and precepts. But for me, I am a scribbler, a polemicist, a rabble rouser, a 52 year old grossly opinionated fat man with a loud mouth and sharp pen. Sam Adams is my hero. Tom Paine is my role model.

Clearly, you will not find a journalist anywhere in that description. A journalist - even one who publishes their opinions on a regular basis - takes extraordinary care to make sure all the facts contained in a story are accurate and true, employs a writing style that is as clear and concise as possible with little hyperbole and less emotion, and crafts a finished product that adheres to the standards of the publication he is writing for.

That lets me and most bloggers out. By and large, most bloggers write for themselves or at least, write about what interests them. With few exceptions, most bloggers are verbose, rambling hither and thithter, sometimes hitting their intended target and sometimes trailing off into the ether with no salient points made and little meaning or context in their post. Any MSM editor looking at the average blog post - mine included - would shudder. For this reason (among others) reporters and columnists with a few notable exceptions, look down their noses at blogs and bloggers while decrying the attacks of these anklebiters who have the temerity to brag about how they will someday replace them.

This is becoming less and less likely as blogs mature. Not because there aren’t bloggers who are conscientious about getting their facts right or because there is a dearth of talented people in the blogosphere but rather because the nature of journalism and the nature of blogging are diverging. Both are changing at a rapid pace. And while there will always be a symbiotic relationship between the two, rather than merging as many prophets of the New Media have been promising, they are both evolving to reflect the realities of commerce - something perhaps unforeseen as recently as a year ago.

I have nothing but the greatest respect for people like Jay Rosen and Jeff Jarvis who have been proselytizing how “citizen journalists” of the New Media will crash the gates where content is disseminated in dribs and drabs and open the floodgates of information that will revolutionize the way news is received and digested. Their thesis - that content will no longer be king but rather sharing information in a linked community of like minded individuals will be where the center of gravity settles when the dust of the new media revolution clears - is based on good analysis and solid logic. It may even come to pass.

But that revolution will have to be seen separately from the issue of what is to become of what we now call blogging. I mentioned in a previous post that the national pastime of blogs had become “scalp hunting.” This relentless pursuit of people in politically motivated witch hunts is only a symptom of what has gone terribly wrong in the blogosphere: At bottom, it is no longer a question of blogs being crusaders for truth, justice, and the American way but rather a race to see whose ox can be gored next. The importance of finishing first in that race is that the rewards can be very enticing; readership and links. In some cases - and the Carroll case is illustrative - the wilder the charges and more radical the language used, the more attention one is afforded by the amorphous mass of bloggers and readers of blogs who will soon be the determining factor in what promises to be vast amounts of money flowing into Blogland.

I can hear my detractors now. “But I don’t blog for the money, I blog because it gives me personal satisfaction.” I believe you and wish you well. Now please get out of the way while the other 80% of us who harbor delusions of grandeur about making a living blogging continue to run the race to the bottom over your prostrate hides.

As a practical matter, what this means is that the kind of character assassination we’ve seen recently is only going to get worse. That’s because the amount of money pouring into the blogosphere is only going to go up for the foreseeable future. It should be interesting to see to what lengths people will go to get a piece of that action.

Face it. Even if “only” 9-10 million people ever read blogs on a regular basis, that is 9-10 million people gathering basically in one place. Advertisers are not stupid. Those kinds of numbers attract people trying to sell something as bees to butter. And despite the improbability of more than a couple of dozen bloggers ever striking paydirt with their on-line efforts, many thousands will enter the fray and try their luck at reaching for the brass ring just the same.

Consider if you will the desire to become a professional athlete. The chances of any one high school player making it to the pros is extraordinarily low. Only 1 in 736 high school players today (0.14%) will eventually make it to the professional level in sports. And yet, 80% of American high school athletes think they can make it to that level. Ask many of those young people and they will say they play for “love of the game” first. But dollar signs are always in the back of their minds.

Which brings us back to journalists. Journalists are paid to write stories about the day’s events or offer analysis and opinion which will attract readership thus attracting those who wish to sell something to the already gathered eyeballs. In short, journalists are not paid to necessarily attract readers as much as they are supposed to contribute to the overall accuracy of what is being reported and the honesty of opinion offered thus upholding the integrity (or “brand”) of the publication.

The key word is integrity. And sadly, as I see it, many bloggers simply don’t have it, don’t want it, and refuse to consider it. The Blogospheric Model says that these people will lose in the long run because people will stop reading them. Oh really? Since I refuse to link to her, you will have to guess who I mean when I say one particular blogger’s stats skyrocketed after she not only refused to apologize for smearing Jill Carroll but had the gall to ask everyone else to apologize to her. This blogger suffers no consequences. And since this is not the first time this particular person has transgressed against decency and integrity in this fashion, and the fact that her blog continues to grow, it would seem to give the lie to the Blogospheric Model that everyone confidently predicted would be the “self correcting” mechanism that would make the blogosphere superior to the mainstream media.

I don’t buy it anymore. The blogger mentioned above is not the only individual with integrity issues in Blogland. The question is if the self-correcting model was worth anything, why are they still writing and attracting readers and links?

One might also consider that a mainstream press reporter making a similar error in judgement would have been fired and would have a hard time getting similar employment in the future. Does this mean that the mainstream press is still superior to blogs in this regard? Until I see some evidence to the contrary, I would have to say yes.

Of course the press has their own problems with bias and opinion masquerading as analysis and fact. How much of this is driven by a desire to adhere to a particular agenda and how much is sheer laziness is debatable. I would say that there is ample evidence that bias at the New York Times is driven by an anti-Republican, anti-Bush agenda to the detriment of news gathering and reporting. Is it a conscious manifestation of bias or an indication that the corporate culture at the Times is corrupt? It doesn’t matter because the effect is the same.

The taking down of Ben Domenech would not have occurred a decade ago. The way blogs jumped down the throat of Jill Carroll would probably not have occurred two years ago.

Anyone want to place any bets on what Blogland will look like this time next year?

Sheesh! My appearance on C-Span this morning brought the trolls out from underneath the bridge. Here are two of the more printable ones.

You are a scumbag wrote:
Hey assf**k, I’m watching you on CSPAN, and though I’ve never heard of you
before I think I can safely nominate you as one of the biggest walking infected
sphincters on the earth. When Helen Thomas takes a sh*t the stain she leaves in
the bowl has more knowledge, more integrity and higher intelligence than you
do. It most likely smells better than you as well.

Dear Your are a Scumbag:

I guess you didn’t count on a response otherwise you would have thought how your salutation would look being returned to you. Or maybe you just aren’t very smart and don’t think about anything much at all.

I must confess I didn’t know that sphincters could get infected. You must have had some experience with the malady.

As for the image of Ms. Thomas defecating, I congratulate you on having a better imagination than me.

And Helen leaving a stain in the bowl… Is this something you check on regularly or is it more of a once in a lifetime opportunity for you. If a regular occurence, I can understand why you might have a hard time differentiating smells.

Warmest Regards,

Me

Then there was this fellow who took issue with the Democrats calling Bush Hitler:

Bill Gardner wrote:
Saw your sorry ass on c-span this AM.When you started moaning about those nasty
libs comparing your hero to Hitler,that pretty little lady from Misouri sort of
broke it off in you didn’t she? Of course that is a bad comparison.Bushie is way
too f**kin dumb to be another Hitler.

Bill is a long time reader here and I’m glad he was able to catch the show this morning. I will first of all say that there is nothing sorry about my ass. It is, in fact, one of my better features as I receive compliments on it from both men and women, the men being more than generous. And since my ass could not be seen on TV, I wonder if you were able to procure that picture of me, Babs Streisand, and Helen Thomas cavorting in that pool of Lemon-Lime Jello from the Oscars party last month. If so, I would say nobody’s ass looks very good with whipped cream and little pieces of pinneapple dripping off of it.

As for your sexist comment regarding Ms. Marsh, (”little lady?” Tsk…Tsk…), please go to the Daily Kos website and using the search function put in “Bush + Hitler” and tell me what you find.

I would challenge you on your Hitler comparison but since you seem to be such an admirer of his, I’ll save you the aggravation.

Finally, there’s this gem:

BEN HASSEL wrote:
YOU MAKE FUN OF HELENS LOOKS,WHAT DOES YOUR MAMA LOOK LIKE?

Dear Ben:

Better than Helen. And she’s been dead for 6 years.