The Other McCain

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

Let’s Talk About Sex, Professor

Posted on | February 16, 2012 | 30 Comments

Professor Glenn Reynolds talks a lot about sex, but he’s actually thinking about politics:

I’m not much of a Santorum fan — to me, he seems like Mike Huckabee without the charm or political talent — but it’s hard not to notice the narrative jiu-jitsu here.

The “narrative jiu-jitsu” involves something I explained yesterday: It is actually a libertarian position to defend the Catholic church in this ObamaCare fight over mandatory contraception coverage. Liberals are accusing conservatives of wanting to ban contraception because conservatives are against forcing Catholic institutions to pay for contraception.

As far as the professor’s disdain for Santorum as “Huckabee without the charm”:

A. Santorum’s got a law degree. He’s never been a Baptist preacher (or a Baptist anything else);
B. Huckabee never led Ohio by 18 points; and
C. Nobody in Megadeth ever endorsed Huckabee.

Also, Huckabee never promised to make me the first U.S. Ambassador to Vanuatu, which is kind of important.

Update (Smitty): linked at Daily Pundit. I’ll reply on Stacy’s post that for those who are truly grasped by Christ, preaching is about the highest possible calling. I happen to worship in a Baptist church. Thus I’ll allow that, while it is not by any means impossible that Huckabee is in fact carrying out God’s will (and I certainly can’t judge that) the whole politics/entertainment thing strikes us knuckle-dragging fanatic Baptists as just a trifle odd. No one in the New Testament became an un-Disciple. Except Judas.  I view with skepticism any ordained person who segues into politics or entertainment, or, in Huckabee’s case, both.

Category: Celebrities, Contraceptive Culture, Instapundit, Rick Santorum, Sex

Separated At Birth? Stacy McCain/Dave Mustaine Edition

Posted on | February 16, 2012 | 22 Comments

by Smitty

The news today that Dave Mustaine, who may or may not be a loyal reader of this blog, endorsed Rick Santorum today came to me via a print copy of the DC Examiner while attending to a private, non-work-related matter at my job site.

Isn’t the resemblance striking? But I think the resemblance goes deeper than superficial:

  1. Talks to God every day? Check.
  2. Goes to court when he has to? Check.
  3. Nothing better to do than be prompt at work, broke due to clearing his bills? Check, check, write that frickin’ check!

Guitar case closed, my friends.

a thousand thank-yous to Belvedere for photo support.

Category: Election 2012, humor, Music, Politics, Rick Santorum, Video

Usually, ‘Demonizing’ Your Opponent Is Metaphorical.
Rep. Maxine Waters, Though, Talks Shedu

Posted on | February 16, 2012 | 12 Comments

by Smitty

This is actually an important point. Sure, Maxine Waters ranks in the Toolbox right up there with ‘Gentleman’ Jim Moran. Look at her go:
A crucial point here is that Waters is playing straight for the fear/hate. Hers, and, well, none of the arguments excreted by the Left anymore, have much rational basis.

If I were Boehner and Cantor, I would make a point of praying for Maxine, and then sincerely and publicly forgiving her for making such an inexcusable remark. While we view the Left’s emotion-based, irrational plays to propaganda with contempt, we take the first step toward becoming like them if we go down the road of hate.

Maxine: you’re in a leadership position of the American people. Please behave less despicably henceforth. If anyone is impressed by your talking shedu, they self-identify as part of the problem, not the remedy.

via Hill Buzz

Category: Democrats

Got Your Back, Ali Akbar

Posted on | February 16, 2012 | 20 Comments

Maybe you don’t know Ali Akbar, but he is one of the most effective New Media operatives in the conservative movement. Along with Melissa Clouthier, Ali was a driving force behind Blog Bash.

Love him, hate him, it doesn’t matter. The guy makes things happen, and when there’s a fight online, you want him on your side.

Trust me on that. He’s not as scary as Dan Riehl — who is? — but Ali’s scary enough that you wouldn’t want to be on his enemy’s list.

It was therefore shocking to me today to learn that a mutual friend was badmouthing Ali on e-mail lists.

Are you kidding me? Are you crazy? He did you a huge favor, at my request, and you pay him back like this?

Uh-uh. I’m with Ali, period.

Category: Blogging

SooperMexican: Dana Milbank Apologist?

Posted on | February 16, 2012 | 14 Comments

by Smitty

Did I type apologist? I meant adversary. First day, new fingers. SooperMexican is having none of Milbank’s critique of the GOP’s ‘insufficient’ pandering of the Latino vote (emphasis original, epithets ironic, as only conservative white males are capable of raaaaacism):

Today leftist halfwit and pasty white gringo Dana Milbank wrote a column decrying the GOP’s lack of pandering to the Latino community. Of course, the Obama administration has such a fantastic record of promising everything to Latinos, and giving us nothing.

You can tell that people on the right care little for Latinos by Marco Rubio’s poor performance at the CPAC straw poll for making it on the GOP ticket this November:
Did I say poor performance? Look at that: Rubio blew away both of the next two hopefuls by nearly a 4:1 margin.

The only way Milbank is even remotely correct is that the Ruling Class GOP never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity to support liberty and follow the Tea Party spirit. Could the GOP piss down the backs of Americans of Latino extraction this fall? I wish I could argue persuasively in the negative on that one.

Category: Blogging, Marco Rubio, Republicans

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
« 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