The Other McCain

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

Too Sexy for Iowa

Posted on | December 23, 2012 | 19 Comments

The Constitution doesn’t guarantee you the right to be sexy:

The Iowa Supreme Court ruled [Friday] that employers can fire employees towards whom they have an “irresistible attraction,” irrespective of the latter’s workplace conduct.
The 7-0 decision, handed down by the all-male court, came about as a result of a lawsuit filed by married dental assistant Melissa Nelson, 32, against her boss of ten years, Dr. James Knight, D.D.S., alleging gender discrimination.
She claimed Knight fired her at the behest of his wife, who became jealous of their out-of-office relationship, which included the exchange of personal, yet innocuous texts.
Knight readily admits that he fired Nelson, whom he said was the best dental assistant he’d ever had, after consulting with his pastor, because he found her tight-fitting clothes distracting and he felt his marriage was in jeopardy.

Neighboring states may need FEMA to help them cope with the expected influx of irresistibly hot refugees in tight skirts and low-cut tops.

UPDATE: Being a lawyer, Aaron Walker gets all into the legal and constitution aspects of Nelson v. James H. Knight DDS, P.C. et al.

Myself, I find the case interesting chiefly in its abundant opportunities for random sarcasm — and classic rock and roll.

Category: Iowa, Sex

‘How Dare You Let Your Mental Illness Disturb My Gun-Control Narrative?’

Posted on | December 23, 2012 | 33 Comments

That’s what Laura Beck was saying at Jezebel:

In light of last Friday’s tragic school shooting, some people are arguing that gun control is just a band-aid, and that access to mental health services in this country is the real problem. . . .
You’ve probably read the “I Am [the Creepy Little Weirdo’s] Mother” piece that was on the front page of the internet [Dec. 16]. . . .
If we find out that [the creepy little weirdo] was schizophrenic, it just doesn’t matter. We’re not going to change the way we medicate all schizophrenics because of this. It’s irresponsible to say, “He had this! Liza Long’s son has this! People with mental illness are violent! Causation!” Two, three, ten people going on such a rampage — it’s a bad indicator of an entire population, it’s not statistically significant. . . .
Yes, we can talk about both guns and mental health, but we must prioritize action on guns — it’s concrete, and it’s doable today. Guns are a problem, a known commodity, and we must do something about them. . . .

You can read the whole thing, which is crammed with irrational gibberish that makes me wonder if Laura Beck is off her meds and, if so, whether she’s armed. Maybe cops should keep an eye on her.

Anyway, my point is that liberals instantly decided that the Connecticut school shooting story is about gun-control, and they become irrationally indignant if you disagree: “How dare you!”

Liberals would have us believe that we must generalize from this specific example to one — exactly one — policy prescription, namely new restrictions on firearms ownership, and that any other argument is invalid, an attempt to distract people from The One Solution.

This insistence that we know all the facts we need to know, and that what is needed now is national legislation — “Do something!” — has the effect of obscuring entirely the very specific facts in Newtown, which involve a divorced woman’s increasingly desperate attempts to solve the problem of her profoundly disturbed son:

Friends told AP and the Wall Street Journal that Nancy Lanza was planning to move across the country in order to enroll [the creepy little weirdo] in a “school or a center” in an attempt to draw him out from his insular world. “He wouldn’t be dwelling with her,” said Russell Ford, who added that [the creepy little weirdo] never spoke to him or even made eye contact.
“She knew she needed to be near him,” Ford added. “She was trying to do what was positive for him.” Mark Tambascio, owner of the bar Nancy frequented, told the Journal that she believed a school in Washington would be the right fit, and she was planning on selling her beloved Red Sox season tickets. “She was ready to move,” he said.
The Journal’s profile of [the creepy little weirdo] points to his parents divorce as a major breaking point for him; though they separated in 2001, they didn’t divorce until 2009. A year after the divorce, [the creepy little weirdo] cut off communication with his father, Peter Lanza. They note: “It is unclear why Mr. Lanza refused to speak with his father, who made repeated attempts to contact him, this person said, but the breakdown in their relationship came as Peter Lanza started to get serious with his girlfriend, whom he married last year.” By Christmas of 2010, he also had stopped speaking to his brother Ryan.

Why did Nancy Lanza think it made sense to stockpile firearms in a home with a son with such serious mental problems? (I’ve dubbed him “the creepy little weirdo” because I refuse to assist the media in conferring posthumous fame on this mass murderer.) Why should the foolishness of Nancy Lanza and the evil acts of her son automatically impose limitations on people who are neither foolish nor evil? And why did the media establishment peremptorily dismiss as implausible Wayne LaPierre’s call for employing armed guards to defend schools?

They’re liberals. Don’t confuse them with facts and logic — hater!

Category: Connecticut, Crime, Media Bias

#AnnotatedLyrics “Do you really want to hurt me?” Hm. Maybe.

Posted on | December 22, 2012 | 3 Comments

Category: humor, Uncategorized

Newsroom Management Training Video

Posted on | December 22, 2012 | 45 Comments

“The idea that I could do for a living that which I would do in my free time, for free, is the single greatest thing on the planet.”
— Andrew Breitbart, May 2007

“He had so much energy. He was so positive. . . . He was definitely a mentor. He was great to his employees. . . . He leaves behind a huge legacy.”
— Dana Loesch, March 1, 2012

“This case concerns a poorly managed but well meaning relationship gone tragically awry, resulting in the attempt by one vindictive party to sabotage the reputation and career of another. . . .
“For reasons that may just as easily be attributed to basic ideological conflicts, the working environment for Loesch became increasingly hostile.”
— Dana Loesch v. Breitbart.com LLC, December 2012

Generally speaking, when a routine personnel matter at a political news organization turns into a federal lawsuit that zooms to the top of Memeorandum, we might suspect that editorial management practices are not optimal, to say the very least.

Look, I once worked for the legendary notorious Otis Brumby, the pluperfect stereotype of the temperamental domineering publisher.

Otis recently did the world of journalism an enormous favor by dying, so that he can’t sue anyone for libel. Then again, truth is the ultimate defense and there were alway plenty of witnesses willing to testify that Otis was one evil, mean and crazy son of bitch.

A certain level of “cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs” in the newsroom therefore seems entirely normal to me, experience that came in quite handy during my decade at The Washington Times, another news operation where the words “commitment” and “institution” have special significance.

IYKWIMAITYD.

Megalomania as a managerial principle is perhaps a suitable topic for a graduate thesis at the University of Columbia J-school, but I digress . . .

Having further explored the background on what is now a matter of litigation (Loesch v. Breitbart.com), I think three things are obvious:

  1. Andrew Breitbart never would have let this happen;
  2. There’s much more to the story; and
  3. Dana Loesch has already won.

Whatever happens to the lawsuit, Dana is and will remain a person much beloved by the conservative Tea Party grassroots, whose light cannot possibly be kept hidden beneath a bushel.

The problem for the defendants in this lawsuit is that there is now blood in the water and the sharks — TPM, ThinkProgress, Media Matters, Mother Jones, Slate, Salon, Politico, Gawker, etc. — are going to insist on having themselves a feeding frenzy.

When McKay Coppins did his little “sources say” story in October, it pissed me off, because institutional loyalty and staff morale are essential to any news organization. It was shocking to think anyone who worked for Breitbart would have anything to say to McKay Coppins that did not begin with “fuck” and end with “you.”

Now, however, in my mind’s eye I’m seeing a 4,000-word article in the New York Times Sunday Magazine, or an equally in-depth cover article in The New Republic — written by liberal journalists who despise everything that Andrew Breitbart believed — and there is nothing anyone can do at this point to prevent that from happening. Too many people are already talking, and the inherent news value is too great, to convince an editor that it’s not worth reporting at length.

Go read Dana Loesch’s lawsuit and ask yourself what is meant by such phrases as “poorly managed . . . vindictive . . . sabotage . . . basic ideological conflicts . . . increasingly hostile.”

Well, these are merely allegations, eh? So far as we can claim to know, all these things are wholly imagined by the plaintiff, and the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

I first met Andrew Breitbart at CPAC in February 2007, and interviewed him for a feature profile in May 2007. I hung out with him many times over the years, including at the Michigan AFP event in February this year, just a few days before his untimely death.

And I think everyone involved in this unfortunate mess — defendant, plaintiff, and the horrified witnesses — can agree with this four-word sentence: Damn, I miss Andrew.

 

 

 


Category: Andrew Breitbart, Dana Loesch, Journalism

Put Stakes In The Hearts Of Fanny Mae And Freddy Mac

Posted on | December 22, 2012 | 15 Comments

by Smitty

This is area #234,125 for the GOP to come out with dramatic reform, to convince voters they are not part of the problem:

At ~4:00, recent Republican Artur Davis makes a brief appearance. So, he clearly has some insights into the nature of the discussion. It would do my heart proud not only to see Davis run for Congress again, now on the GOP ticket, but to champion a federalist solution that notes:

  • All houses exist in exactly one state
  • The Community Reinvestment Act was a 10th Amendment violation,
  • The result of he CRI has been economic devastation, irrespective of whatever the Good Idea Fairy was thinking, 
  • The time has come to return housing management to the 57 States.

If the Republicans are willing to talk substantial reform, the suspicion that GOP means “Glorified Obama Pets” might abate.

via preciseBlogs and Gateway Pundit

Category: HUD, Republicans

FMJRA 2.0: Relay Breakdown

Posted on | December 22, 2012 | 2 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Death Porn Media Victim Unexpectedly Negative About The Encounter

Obama’s Benghazi Fall Guys

‘He Was a Quiet Ewok, Kept to Himself a Lot. Kind of a Loner, I Guess You’d Say’

FMJRA 2.0: I Can’t Stay Long

Guns Don’t Kill People …

Criticism From a Friend: Can We Help Victims of Random Sarcasm Syndrome?

Rule Five Sunday: Night Flights

Furnishing Your Tidy Little Mind

Still Crazy, After All These Years

Patterico on Tommy Christopher and the ‘Wheelerization’ of Steven Crowder

I’d Always Taken ‘Valley of the Shadow’ As A Psalm 23 Reference

#Newtown: ‘Exotic Weapons’? Nope.

Is It ‘Metaphor’ to Suggest Erik Loomis Should Be Sodomized by Orangutangs? UPDATE: Is Professor ‘Head on a Stick’ Now Under State Police Protection?

Why the Creepy Little Weirdo Did It

Herbert Marcuse, Wile E. Coyote and the Auto-Beclownment of Erik Loomis, Ph.D.

LIVE AT FIVE: 12.19.12

University President Repudiates Professor’s Violent Anti-NRA Messages UPDATE: Associated Press Article Whitewashes Loomis Scandal

#Metaphor: Academics Sign Their Own Death Warrants by Defending Loomis

‘Candyass Blogger’ Update: Free Speech Absolutists Who Banned Mr. Althouse UPDATE: ‘These Are Historical Dildos’

Viral Video Idea, Only Minor Damage To Robert Stacy McCain Required

Leaders Are People With Followers

Don’t Get Too Fixated On The Raaaaace Card, Jonah

Professor Erik Loomis, Code Pink and the Media Hate America’s Gun Owners UPDATE: More Progressive Civility™

Gutfeld Hammers NYT’s Adolph Reed

Dana Loesch, Indentured Servant?

Top linkers this week:

  1. Lonely Conservative (8)
  2. Hogewash (6)

Everybody’s busy with preparations for Christmas or still hung over from Hanukkah, I guess. Deadline to submit links for next week’s FMJRA will be Friday, December 28.

Category: FMJRA Award

Dana Loesch, Indentured Servant?

Posted on | December 21, 2012 | 40 Comments

Rumbles of discontent at Breitbart.com, which I’d been hearing from various sources since spring, have finally erupted into actual news, as Dana Loesch has filed a federal lawsuit seeking (a) $75,000 and (b) to be released from her contactual obligations:

St. Louis talk radio host Dana Loesch, also a frequent guest on CNN, alleges in the suit filed in federal district court in St. Louis that the site is refusing to publish her work while “sabotag[ing] her attempts to labor in a similar fashion elsewhere through public misstatements and private threats to sue those who would otherwise employ Loesch.” . . .
Breitbart.com is “binding Loesch to what amounts to an indentured servitude in limbo,” she charges in the suit, which was first reported by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

More at the BuzzFeed. It’s unfortunate that matters came to such a pass, and I don’t want to get into the blame game in a situation where I don’t know both sides of the story.

As I said, I’ve heard “rumbles” about the Breitbart.com operation for several months, but having spent so long in the newspaper business — where every newsroom is a seething cauldron of frustrated ambition — it’s something I didn’t want to read too much into.

Dana Loesch is one of my favorite people in New Media, and I know she was one of Andrew’s favorite people. It’s just very sad to see things break down so badly so soon after Andrew’s death.

Click here to read the eight-page text of Dana’s lawsuit.

UPDATE: Now a Memeorandum thread. I’ve printed out the lawsuit and may have further comment after I read it.

UPDATE II: OK, now having skimmed over the lawsuit, the claim is that in October 2011, Breitbart.com failed to exercise its option to renew Dana’s contract for another year, so that her employment thereafter was on a month-to-month basis. In September of this year — perhaps having been offered better terms by another site — Dana gave a month’s notice of her intent to leave Breitbart.com, at which point management claimed that she was still contractually bound to the company, and threatened legal action against any company that hired Dana.

Four word come to minds: Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.

Without regard for contracts, it is just plain nuts for Breitbart.com to try to keep Dana if Dana wants to leave. What is this, the Mafia or something, where once you’re in, you’re in for life?

Frankly, I’ve never heard of anything like this before. It simply doesn’t make sense: If, as Dana alleges, Breitbart.com no longer wants to publish her writing, why would they prevent her from taking her work elsewhere? If her services are not valuable to them, why deny her the right to find another publisher who might value her services more?

Maybe management at Breitbart.com can explain this, or maybe I’m somehow misunderstanding the dispute, but what it looks like is, they’re trying to drive Dana Loesch off the Web altogether: She can neither write for Breitbart.com, nor write for anyone else.

How the hell can they do that in America?

UPDATE III: Linked by Doug Hagin at Daley Gator and by The Lonely Conservative. Continuing rumbles indicate that the situation with Dana Loesch may be part of a larger issue with the business model and the management philosophy at Breitbart.com: More like an old-style Hollywood studio system, oriented toward celebrity “star power,” so that if they can’t have Dana Loesch, nobody can have Dana Loesch. Or something like that, anyway.

David Martosko at the Daily Caller points out that, since Andrew died in March, “a coterie of friends of the company’s late namesake has continued to run the  company, most recently hiring a raft of conservative bloggers and reporters that  included former Washington Times staffer Kerry Picket and former Daily Caller  reporter Matthew Boyle.”

Knew they had hired Boyle, a young investigative reporter, but didn’t realize they’d also hired Picket, an ultra-aggressive Capitol Hill reporter. And, to show you how little attention I pay to these things anymore, I hadn’t seen this Dec. 10 story by Betsy Rothstein at Fishbowl DC, talking about Breitbart.com’s Stephen K. Bannon hiring up reporters by the bushel basket load, signing them up to four-year contracts:

Reporters around town being wooed for Breitbart.com include: Katie Pavlich of Townhall, Lachlan Markay of Heritage, Charlie Spiering of the Washington Examiner, Caroline May of The Daily Caller and Daniel Halper at The Weekly Standard.
Some have described a cultish feel to the process, with phrases such as “This is the way Andrew would have wanted it” being bandied about in conversation.

So, if they’ve got all this cash to throw around for hot talent in D.C., why should they insist on keeping Dana Loesch sidelined?

To repeat: Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.

Category: Andrew Breitbart, Dana Loesch

Gutfeld Hammers NYT’s Adolph Reed

Posted on | December 21, 2012 | 7 Comments

by Smitty

Greg Gutfeld does a straightforward job of rebutting Adolph Reed. It’s a fairly obvious argument, but it builds nicely, and the conclusion is effectively delivered, for all you kind of know it’s coming:

via The Daley Gator

Category: Uncategorized
« go back — keep looking »

    About

    This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

    Subscribe to our feed

    Search

    Admin