The Other McCain

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

Subject to Misinterpretation

Posted on | February 16, 2012 | 82 Comments

In an e-mail to some friends this afternoon, I wrote:

While I was working on other posts and not following Twitter, it seems my feed blew up with ‘H8Rs’ who either missed the point or else got the point, and decided to blow me up for having pointed out some obvious but uncomfortable truths about New Media.
The issue here is not whether I am rude or sexist — I am occasionally both — but rather whether there is a polite way in which media exploits what is pejoratively called “sexism.” My willingness to engage in self-revelation, and self-deprecation, exposes me to abuse and ridicule from certain people who are more concerned about image maintenance and reputation enhancement than in, y’know, truth.
But these problems are my own, and I will not project blame onto others for reacting to my own deliberately provocative remarks. However, I wish to hell some people would have more consideration for how my remarks are themselves but a reaction to other provocative stimuli.
[Insert wry reference to Monty Python’s “Argument Clinic” sketch]

Not playing the victim here or anything, you understand. If I write something ambiguous, and am misunderstood, this is nobody’s fault but mine, and I am not entitled to attribute malice to my critics. However, permit me to retrace the chain of causality, just in case anyone wasn’t paying attention the first time:

It appears that my post was seen by some as a personal attack on Tina Korbe, despite my explicit denial of any animus toward her, and despite my attempt to cushion any criticism with self-deprecating humor. As I say, I’m not blaming others for misunderstanding a long and convoluted essay which, quite obviously, was easy to misunderstand.

Perhaps it is arrogant to believe that my good intentions would be apparent to my friends, and still more arrogant to suppose that any error or offense would be indulged on account of friendship. But it is at times like this that you learn who your real friends are.




UPDATE: Did I say “Nobody’s Fault But Mine”? Cue the Zep:

Had a nice phone conversation with Pete Da Tech Guy, who pointed out that there are some people who don’t seem to mind Whitney Houston dying nearly as much as they mind people being “judgmental” about her drug abuse. Interpret that how you will.

UPDATE II: Now, this is remarkable: Melissa Clouthier accuses me of being “vile” to Tina Korbe, while Katie Pavlich accuses me of “attacking” Tina Korbe, and I am at a loss to explain how so many people can see an intention that (to repeat myself) I explicitly disavowed.

The entire point of the post was that Patrick at “Thoughts and Rantings” had implied that his criticism of Tina’s skirt had prompted Melissa’s lecture on dress and decorum. Patrick linked me, and I saw his post because of the trackback. While I was thinking about doing a follow-up post to link back to Patrick, he blew up and called me a “f–king coward,” recalling an old grudge.

OK, so I wanted to show Patrick that I wasn’t holding grudges, and in doing so, (a) I pushed back against his over-the-top criticism of Tina Korbe; (b) recounted my own history of over-the-top criticism in a related example; and (c) concluded by advising Patrick that he should not be so quick to condemn others for their reactions to his deliberate provocations.

Did I argue this in linear form or compose the post in such a way that my purpose was entirely clear? No.

Is there an obvious danger in writing the way I write? Yes.

Are people prone to sympathize with someone they think has attacked their friend? No.

Do I know who my friends are? Yes. Oh, yes indeed, I do.

UPDATE III: Jenny Erikson is amazed by the uproar, as am I. There has been a lot of crazy on the blogosphere today that had nothing to do with me and, discussing it with Jimmie Bise Jr. this afternoon, we reached an agreement that a lot of conservatives are feeling frustrated lately. They are disappointed in the presidential field; their favorite candidate either dropped out long ago or is currently in third place. And there was also some disgruntlement over CPAC this year. Ergo, people are happy to have someone to lash out at.

So I was doing a post about human nature, specifically about someone (Patrick) who had lashed out at Tina Korbe and then lashed out at me, and beneath the video that started it, here is what I wrote:

Our keen-eyed readers will note that at the 0:28 mark of the video, Miss Korbe gives a little tug at the hem of her skirt and, not to get all Melissa Clouthier about it or anything, some folks might say that’s kind of a telltale clue that your skirt’s too doggone short.

Notice the carom-shot: I said I didn’t want “to get all Melissa Clouthier about it” — nudging her for her post specifying what she considered an appropriate dress code for CPAC — before saying that “some folks might say” the skirt was nonetheless “too doggone short.”

Did you catch the downhome informality of those phrases? Did that register to readers in terms of tone? Because having been accused of “attacking” Miss Korbe, it occurs to me that the jocular tone must not have registered.

Now, to let you in on a little secret: I knew for a fact, before I wrote the post, that Melissa’s criticism wasn’t directed at Miss Korbe, because I called our mutual friend Ali Akbar to check first. But Patrick had seemed to be under the impression that his criticism of Miss Korbe was reflected by Melissa’s post, and I was replying to Patrick.

Did you also notice the exaggerated generalizations that followed?

For example, I think tattoos and pierced bellybuttons are two of the tackiest things in the world, but I’m pretty sure not every woman with tattoos and a pierced bellybutton is a whore.
Most of them? Sure, but not all of them.
Similarly, short skirts and exposed cleavage do not necessarily signal that a woman is up for some action with any dude who’ll give her the price of another hit of methamphetamine. It is true that many hookers dress that way, but not every woman who dresses that way is a hooker.

That’s called hyperbole — deliberately stating an argument in an exaggerated way. And the line that followed was about “Maine College Republicans,” a running gag from a previous post I’d linked. And then I got into what prompted the whole thing:

Anyway, my responsible-but-not-judgmental post was linked in a roundup on the CPAC decorum controversy at “Thoughts and Ramblings,” whose proprietor suggested that this was in response to a post he’d done earlier, in which he said, “Tina, you are a Catholic, try actually dressing like one,” and accused her of giving the Senator “a peep show of her hoo haa.”
That went too far, I’d say. It was judgmental to the point of being irresponsible. And while I didn’t realize it when I saw the link yesterday, the proprietor of that blog has kind of a history here, of which he has since reminded me.

OK, when I linked the post that prompted my reply, I expected that people will click through the link and see what I was talking about. But evidently many people didn’t do that, and thus overlooked the nature of the provocation — being accused of having thrown Patrick “under the bus,” etc.

The reason I’ve added this sort of un-fisking of my own post is because I am being accused of attacking someone I had thought I’d made clear I was actually attempting to defend. But this obviously wasn’t as clear to others as it was to me, and so I appeared to be “beating up a girl,” and everything escalated from there.

I’ve since talked to Melissa Clouthier about this, and she was concerned about the “impression” I had created, intentionally or otherwise, and felt that I was insufficiently concerned about it and I suppose she’s right. The problem, I guess, is that almost no one ever shows any deference toward me or concern about my feelings — many people never miss a chance to insult or snub me — and therefore I’m surprised when my occasional breaches of decorum are treated as inexcusable.

Category: Blogging, Da Tech Guy, Rule 4

Free-Market Heartland Institute Victimized by Liberal Hoaxers

Posted on | February 16, 2012 | 4 Comments

One of my smoking buddies at CPAC was Jim Lakely, a veteran newsman (and former Washington Times colleague) who now makes his living as communications director for Chicago’s Heartland Institute. And he’s outraged by the shoddy work of liberal journalists:

Yesterday afternoon, two advocacy groups posted online several documents they claimed were The Heartland Institute’s 2012 budget, fundraising, and strategy plans. Some of these documents were stolen from Heartland, at least one is a fake, and some may have been altered. . . .
Since then, the documents have been widely reposted on the Internet, again with no effort to confirm their authenticity.
One document, titled “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy,” is a total fake apparently intended to defame and discredit The Heartland Institute. It was not written by anyone associated with The Heartland Institute. It does not express Heartland’s goals, plans, or tactics. It contains several obvious and gross misstatements of fact. . . .
The individuals who have commented so far on these documents did not wait for Heartland to confirm or deny the authenticity of the documents. We believe their actions constitute civil and possibly criminal offenses for which we plan to pursue charges and collect payment for damages, including damages to our reputation.

The phrases necessary to describe this outrage? Confirmation bias and epistemic closure. Liberals are willing to believe the worst about conservative individuals and institutions, and the intense partisanship of liberal news organizations insulates their employees from contact with anyone who may be skeptical of their own beliefs.

So when one of these “too good to check” stories comes along, there is no one on the inside of the newsroom to say, “Hey, wait a minute — how do we know this is legit?”

Look: I’ve occasionally run with a blind-sourced rumor, reporting it as such without bothering to seek confirmation. But those items generally involved internecine campaign tactics, rather than (as in the case of the smear against Heartland Institute) serious allegations of purposeful fraud. The more serious the accusation, the more important the need for confirmation: “If your mother says she loves you, check it out.”

BTW: Guess who doesn’t believe in global warming? Rick Santorum.

Just sayin’ . . .

Category: Global Warming, Media Bias

FreedomWorks On SSPICE FTW!

Posted on | February 16, 2012 | 5 Comments

by Smitty

The GOP needs to be pushing common-sense approaches like SSPICE. Follow that link. FW provides a very easy interface to research you Congresscritter’s phone number and give them a call. I had blogged the SSPICE conference call a couple of weeks back, to a chorus of crickets. While I think that the Social Security zombie needs a double-barrel shotgun load to the face, SSPICE has the virtue of being here and somewhat realistic.

But this FreedomWorks approach is a great means of disseminating information and leveraging conservative voices to keep Congressional feet in the popular fire.

Redistribute Power, Not Wealth

Category: Social Security

Gunny Ermey Triggers The Vote

Posted on | February 16, 2012 | 5 Comments

by Smitty

The Second Amendment, and, by extension, Western Civilization, is at stake:

Trigger the Vote did a fine job here. Things have gone a long way toward the gutter when one actually notices the two kids swapping spit in the video are heterosexual. One is tempted to say ‘viva temptation’ at the sight of passion on display that could lead toward the continuation of society, and not some false, barren, gay future.

Category: humor, Video

Who Wants to See Tina Korbe’s Thighs?

Posted on | February 16, 2012 | 101 Comments

The title of this post is not a hypothetical question, because last week the aforesaid Miss Korbe joined her Hot Air colleague Ed Morrissey for a video interview with Rick Santorum, which I didn’t see until somebody brought it to my attention yesterday:

Our keen-eyed readers will note that at the 0:28 mark of the video, Miss Korbe gives a little tug at the hem of her skirt and, not to get all Melissa Clouthier about it or anything, some folks might say that’s kind of a telltale clue that your skirt’s too doggone short.

OK, so how this came to my attention: Tuesday I blogged about Melissa’s criticism of the dress and behavior of some young ladies at CPAC and, as I said, I wanted to be responsible without being too judgmental. That is to say, I hesitate to judge a lady’s morals merely because she feels obliged to follow contemporary fashion.

For example, I think tattoos and pierced bellybuttons are two of the tackiest things in the world, but I’m pretty sure not every woman with tattoos and a pierced bellybutton is a whore.

Most of them? Sure, but not all of them.

Similarly, short skirts and exposed cleavage do not necessarily signal that a woman is up for some action with any dude who’ll give her the price of another hit of methamphetamine. It is true that many hookers dress that way, but not every woman who dresses that way is a hooker.

Or even a Maine College Republican.

‘A Peep Show of Her Hoo-Ha’?

Anyway, my responsible-but-not-judgmental post was linked in a roundup on the CPAC decorum controversy at “Thoughts and Ramblings,” whose proprietor suggested that this was in response to a post he’d done earlier, in which he said, “Tina, you are a Catholic, try actually dressing like one,” and accused her of giving the Senator “a peep show of her hoo haa.” Read more

Category: CPAC, Hot Air, Rule 5

LIVE AT FIVESIX – 02.16.12

Posted on | February 16, 2012 | 3 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho


TOP NEWS
U.S., EU Eye Risky Move To Cripple Iran’s Finances

Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili and EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton

Is the West ready to kick Iran off the SWIFT network?

Congress Cuts A Deal
$150 billion extension of payroll tax cuts, Medicare doc fix, unemployment approved by conferees


Romney Weak With The White Working Class?
Santorum’s growing strength in polls coming from this vital group



POLITICS
Unions, HRC Put On The Hard Sell For Gay Marriage In Maryland

Delegate Emmitt Burns (D-Baltimore City)

Black Democrats not buying; resistance especially strong from black churches in PG County, Baltimore City

Oklahoma Senate Passes Personhood Act




Christie Defends Half-staff Honors For Houston

Gun Grabbers’ Boycott Of Starbucks Fizzles, Gun Owners’ “Buycott” Thrives

Most Of Elizabeth Warren’s Funding Coming From Out-of-State Donors

Joe Kennedy III Officially Announces Run For Congress

MN Senate Approves Voter ID Amendment



THE ECONOMY, STUPID
Oil Falls From Five-Week High After Greek Bailout Delayed
Gold Adds More Than $10 To End Slide
Euro, Global Stocks Fall On Greek Bailout Delays
Morgan Stanley, UBS May Face Moody’s Downgrades
Kellogg To Spend $2.7 Billion On Pringles
PRC To Pass India As Largest Gold Market, Council Predicts
Illinois Home Foreclosures Up 14% As Lenders Iron Out Paperwork SNAFUs
Apple Tweaks Apps Policy Under Pressure From Lawmakers
Lightsquared Blasts FCC For “Bureaucratic Irresponsibility”
Cisco To Challenge Microsoft Skype Deal In EU Court
Samsung Galaxy Note Bridges Gap Between Smartphones, Tablets
Facebook Launches Verified Accounts & Pseudonyms
“Twisted Metal” Blasts Into 21st Century
Clearwire 4Q Loss Widens On Interest Expense; Stock Price, Customer Base Up



SPORTS
Linsanity Rages On As Knicks Extend Streak To Seven

Jeremy Lin drives past Sacramento defenders during the second half

13 assists in a 100-85 blowout; bound for the All-Star Game?

18 Arrested In TCU Drug Bust Include Four Football Players

Sixers Defeated By Magic



ESPN Drops Jaworski From Monday Night Football

Butler Does It For Tired Clippers

Battle For Global Cricket Supremacy Thrown Wide Open

Suns: Nationals Forcing Us To Move From Hagerstown



FAMOUS FOR BEING FAMOUS
George Clooney’s Big Surprises

George Clooney

Small paychecks, insomnia, bouts of loneliness

Taylor Armstrong Shtupping Her Married Attorney

Lil’ Wayne Slips GF MASSIVE Ring In Valentine’s Day Surprise

Kobe Bryant Smooches Estranged Wife Vanessa – Reconciliation In The Works?

Wills And Kate Become Ken & Barbie In Time For First Anniversary

Heart Attack Grill In Vegas Lives Up To Its Name

Aretha Franklin To Sing At Whitney Houston’s Funeral

Inside Rihanna’s Caribbean-Themed Birthday Bash

“The Vow” Earns $11.6 Million On Valentine’s Day



FOREIGNERS
Hundreds Dead In Hellish Honduras Prison Fire
Bangkok Blast Suspects Targeted Israeli Diplomats, Police Say
U.S. Says Iran Nuclear Claim Is Hype
Karzai Says Taliban Have Met His Envoys For Talks
Kim Jong-Un Leads 70th Birthday Celebrations For Late Father
Fake Video Showing Putin In The Dock Goes Viral



BLOGS & STUFF
Babalu: Chimichangamalangarepaorale
Allahpundit: Chimichanga-gate
Heartland Institute: Response To Forged, Stolen Documents
Lonely Conservative: OMB Director May Have Botched Legal Case For Obamacare; Also Can’t Answer Question On Balanced Budget
ZeroHedge: Farage On Greek Chaos – “You Ain’t Seen Nothing Yet”
Jawa Report: Al-Qaeda Names New Leader For Iran
Rush Limbaugh: A Coordinated Contraceptive Attack
Legal Insurrection: Be (Not) Nice To Rick Day
PowerLine: Newt – In The Polls, It’s Deja Vu
Newsbusters: Joe Scarborough Says America Is Much More Conservative On Social Issues Than The Media Thinks
Gateway Pundit: Obama Warned In 2007 He’d Leave America Defenseless – Now He’s Cutting 80% Of Nuke Force
Weasel Zippers: Santorum Says Obama White House Full Of Elite Snobs
Pirate’s Cove: Shocking News – $4 Billion In “Green” Booty Flowed To Obama Donors

Category: Live at Five

NARAL Is Orgasmic That Women Can Get Birth Control Without A Copay. Drugs They May, You Know, Need? No’ So Much

Posted on | February 15, 2012 | 22 Comments

by Smitty

First of all, my wife’s name is not Jane Smith. But Mrs. The Other Smitty heard this ad and was genuinely offended. The text:

Jane Smith! Your prescription’s ready for pick-up at the pharmacy counter!
Thank you! That was fast. How much do I owe?
No charge. This is covered without a co-pay now.
Then a narrator says: “Thanks to President Obama, the 99 percent of American women who use birth control could now hear this same message. You see, we scored an important victory when the President stood up for our health care, and guaranteed insurance coverage of birth control at no cost. He’s making sure women of all faiths, no matter where they work, can get contraceptive coverage. But extremists in Congress are trying to change the policy by making it harder for women to get birth control with no co-pay. Call Congress at 202-225-3121 and tell them to stand with President Obama and not between a woman and her birth control.”

Scored a victory? As my wife points out, birth control is a lifestyle drug–not, for example, a chemotherapy drug. We can save the analysis for why birth control is so important for National Offend a Feminist Week. Maybe the woman is a troglodyte in Wisconsin, where the sperm sort of roam the bog (they say). Birth control could, hypothetically, be an important tool for minimizing trog reproduction.

The real objection here is the Lefty distortion of what is important, and the dishonest claim to have helped, when, overall, the Left exacerbates problems. When, ever has government queering a market helped matters? Rarely if ever, according to Sowell.

Update: via House of Eratosthenes, Senator Blunt is trying to redistribute power to employers, and the White House is having none of it. The Postmodern Left is all about redistributing money; power, no’ so much.

Category: Abortion, Uncategorized

Santorum Conquers the World?

Posted on | February 15, 2012 | 33 Comments

When I wrote about “Santorum’s Second Surge” Monday, there were not yet any poll numbers available to substantiate my perception that he had scored a critical breakthrough with last Tuesday’s hat-trick triple win over Mitt Romney.

Now, as Tina Korbe says, “Good news just keeps coming for former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum” — and not merely because he’s getting interviewed by bloggers in skirts short enough to require a lecture from Melissa Clouthier, but let’s not go there, OK? One unfortunate digression per day is my limit.

Santorum now leads Romney by 5.4 points — 33.7% to 28.3% — in the Real Clear Politics average of national polls, and the latest Rasmussen survey hwas Santorum ahead by a whopping 12 points, 39-27, while Newt Gingrich has faded to a distant third.

When you start looking at it state-by-state, the polls are even more encouraging: Leading all four of the most recent polls in Michigan, including a PPP poll that shows Santorum ahead by 15 points and an “Inside Michigan” poll that has him up by 10. As Tina in the Short Skirt notes, Santorum is also closing the gap on Romney in Arizona.

The really big news, however, is that Santorum now leads Romney 36-29 in a Quinnipiac poll of Ohio.

Freaking huge, man. If Santorum wins Michigan — Romney’s home state — on Feb.28 and then follows up with a Super Tuesday win March 6 in Ohio, that’s going to change the whole race. Those are big states with lots of delegates, and if Santorum wins those, he’s going to win a lot of other places, too.

Why? Because Romney would have to spend a lot of money for ads to try to defend his aura “inevitability” and, as Zeke Miller points out, Romney’s fundraising capacity is not infinite:

Over 82 percent of Romney’s haul from individuals in 2011 came in donations greater than $1000 . . . And as Rick Santorum stays in the game with a growing pool of small donors — to whom he can return for another $20 or $100 when the millions they’ve given him runs out — Romney’s campaign has launched an intense, late scramble for the cash to fend off his conservative challenger.

Well, how ’bout that? Small donors like you — folks who have given Rick Santorum $25, $50 or $100 — are collectively more powerful than the GOP Establishment guys who have ponied up thousands each. And if you haven’t contributed yet, what are you waiting for?

UPDATE: Before letting myself get distracted today — and not just by short skirts and post-punk musical allusions — I intended to post the newest ad by Rick Santorum:

That’s pretty clever: Pre-emptively warning voters about Romney’s (so far successful) tactic of burying his rivals with multi-million-dollar negative ad blitzes, so that when Team Mitt attempts to repeat that tactic, Romney’s negative ads become the subject of news coverage. Now Santorum just has to raise enough money to run that ad in every state.

UPDATE II: From a Santorum campaign press release, here’s the script of the ad they call “Rombo”:

Visual: Series of shots of a Romney trying to fire a mud gun in the direction of a Rick Santorum cutout. As the spot progresses the Romney character becomes increasingly frustrated with his inability to hit Rick Santorum with his mud-firing gun. The final visual show the gun backfiring, and covering Romney in his own mud.

Voice Over: “Mitt Romney’s negative attack machine is back on full throttle. This time Romney’s firing his mud at Rick Santorum. Romney and his Super PAC have spent a staggering 20 million brutally attacking fellow Republicans. Why? Because Romney’s trying to hide from his big government Romneycare, and his support for job killing cap and trade.

(Type on Screen): Romney Advisor Admits Romneycare Was Blueprint for Obamacare.

Voice Over: And in the end Mitt Romney’s ugly attacks are going to backfire.

(Type on Screen): Romney’s Negative Ads Could Cost Him With Voters.

Rick Santorum: “I’m Rick Santorum and I approve this message.”

The press release quotes Santorum spokesman Hogan Gidley:

“At this point, Mitt Romney’s act is old, tired and wearing thin with voters. In every primary state, Gov. Romney’s strategy has been the same: hide from his own record and instead, unleash his well-funded DC attack machine to destroy his opponent. I think it’s very telling that Gov. Romney refuses to talk about his own record and why someone should vote for him and instead chooses to tear down Rick Santorum.
“Maybe Gov. Romney feels entitled to the Republican nomination but regardless, his actions and those of his SuperPAC are sad and desperate. The American people deserve more than the negative, false and misleading attacks Mitt Romney is dishing out. The choice is clear and the people are rejecting a candidate like Mitt Romney who only wants to attack his opponent, but one like Rick Santorum who focuses on building up all Americans and restoring this country to greatness.”


Category: Election 2012, Hot Air, Polls, Rick Santorum
« 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