The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

When Do We Say ‘Up The Left!’?

Posted on | May 3, 2012 | 12 Comments

by Smitty

Insty points to Treacher going on about the latest shenanigans at Wikipedia. It seems that it’s OK to have a page about Seamus the Dog, of Romney family fame, but no one need be bothered with talk of Obama’s dog consumption. Even though the dog munching is in one of Obama’s biographies, the dog may have been a composite of several species of small furry animals gathered together in a pot and grooving to world music. Wikipedia is great for scientific stuff, but goes high and to the left whenever a political topic emerges. This comes on the heels of Chris Loesch getting tooled on Twitter for offending the powers-that-delete.

In defense of these Lefty jackwagons, if you’re not paying the hosting fee for the service, you haven’t got much to say. Which brings me to my point. When are we going to shift emphasis from Wikipedia and Twitter to things like Conservapedia? While it makes sense to return to the usual sites to engage the Left, there needs to be some thought given to alternatives.

Maybe a Breitbart.com or a PJMedia could undertake such a project.

Category: Culture

Comments

12 Responses to “When Do We Say ‘Up The Left!’?”

  1. Adobe_Walls
    May 3rd, 2012 @ 10:16 am

    Alternatives to everything left are whats needed. Isn’t that what home schooling and Declaration Entertainment are about?

  2. Dai Alanye
    May 3rd, 2012 @ 11:44 am

    I get the mpression Conservapedia is pushing RonPaul. That’s enough to turn me off.

  3. Portlandus
    May 3rd, 2012 @ 11:48 am

    Here, Here!

  4. ThePaganTemple
    May 3rd, 2012 @ 11:56 am

    The Internet isn’t cable television, and I doubt it ever will be. I don’t know, but I seriously doubt the most popular blog on the internet gets as many viewers as Animal Planet on any given day.

    My point? A conservative cable news station would do well. It would take off and the ratings would go through the roof. And most importantly, it would not be only conservatives who would watch it. There would be plenty of liberals, moderates, and fence sitters who would tune in.

    But-again-that’s cable. This is the internet. Ask yourself, would you bother with Wikipedia if it were named Liberalpedia. I doubt it. Oh, you might check it out a few times for laughs, or to post examples of liberal lunacy, but you damn sure wouldn’t turn to it as a source of information of any kind, including and beyond politics.

    My point is, why identify it from the start as conservative? Why not follow the Twitter, Facebook, and Wikipedia model? Name it something that doesn’t identify from the outset as devoted to one particular political ideology. It could still be promoted as a “conservative alternative” by the big name conservative blogs and websites, but in the meantime it would attract more initial viewers who might give it a look and take it seriously.

    Of course, in the case of the Wikipedia model, it would have to at least pretend to strive for objectivity, otherwise it wouldn’t be an on-line encyclopedia, but just another conservative site, which would give it the very limited range of appeal enjoyed by Conservapedia, which frankly I’m shocked is still on-line. 

  5. Woodsterman
    May 3rd, 2012 @ 11:56 am

    Conservapedia, Who’d a thunk?

  6. Finrod Felagund
    May 3rd, 2012 @ 1:36 pm

    Kudos for the Pink Floyd reference.
     

  7. Adjoran
    May 3rd, 2012 @ 3:21 pm

    There are things like Wikipedia, which will always be dominated by those who devote the most time to it, or the federal bureaucracy, attracting the mediocre and those without a lot of ambition, which will always be dominated by liberals.  Same thing with liberal arts faculties.  It’s just the nature of the beast.

    We can only fight the good fight against the obvious biases, like we are doing right here right now, and work to reduce, prevent, and cut off funding from the government.

  8. K-Bob
    May 3rd, 2012 @ 6:08 pm

    Yep. “Conservapedia” is a total name FAIL.  I’ve said so from the first time I heard of it.

    Glenn Beck had a chance to win a lot of minds because he could do funny.  But then he got serious.  Then he got scared of how serious was *working*–or something–and dropped it …like a thing you drop really fast.

    Mel Gibson had the same shot.  Same outcome.  Ran away from conservatism itself when he felt it happening to him.

    I think there’s a fear of success among decent conservatives.  A fear of looking like you didn’t deserve your wealth.  A fear of seeming too “Corporate.”  Maybe the drunks and ex-drunks are too stupid to notice that big wave that’s lifting all boats is a rising tide–and not a tsunami.  They don’t even see it at all until success actually happens.  Then they *really* get scared.

    Rush shows the way to deal with it every day, but no one notices.  Just like no one seems to notice how Reagan did all that he did.  Not so much “blindness,” I guess, as it is “blinders.”

  9. K-Bob
    May 3rd, 2012 @ 6:09 pm

     Depends on where they are pushing him.

  10. K-Bob
    May 3rd, 2012 @ 6:18 pm

    This touches on the one thing I simply do not understand about conservatives, Smitty. Why do they keep going back, again and again to the same bullying idiots in the media?

    There’s enough evidence to show that real journalism still sells.  It’s damn hard work, and it’s not a wealth generator, but it is a calling.  The Democrat/Media complex partakes of none of it (or very little, to be honest–they still cover sports well in some towns).  But the real question I have is why treat the NYT, WaPo, LAT, MSNBC, etc. as anything more serious than say, an issue of High Times or Solidaridad Obrera? Sarah Palin had the right idea, by refusing to take interviews from most of the lefty rags.

    I don’t think the conservatives ever stand a chance until they simply develop genuine sources of both news AND entertainment. The Disney model is still more conservative in shape and output than it is pandering, greenie, lunatic left. Why not follow that model and lop off all the leftist crapola?

  11. K-Bob
    May 3rd, 2012 @ 6:39 pm

    Clarifying: by “wealth generator,” I mean “you’re never going to make Zuckerberg money at it.”   Building a media empire can generate decent wealth if the entrepreneur is a good businessman (and doesn’t settle for desperate moves–think “Steve Jobs” there–demand the best).

  12. Conservative Ghettos, Liberal Beachheads « Blog de KingShamus
    May 4th, 2012 @ 5:35 pm

    […] let the terrific Smitty_One_Each over at The Other McCain fill us all in on the latest leftist dirty tricks on the internet. Insty points to Treacher going on about the latest shenanigans at Wikipedia. It […]