News From the HuffPo ‘Veal Pen’

In 2009, lefty blogger Jane Hamsher used the phrase “veal pen” to describe the way liberals had surrendered their autonomy to the Obama administration.

Lefty blogger Matt Osborne invoked the phrase while describing his decision to delete his archived articles at Huffington Post:

I see the point many of the 9,000 or so unpaid contributors have made about deserving some kind of compensation, even at a token rate per post, as thanks for building the product she has sold for a fortune. But it wasn’t personal avarice that led me to this; I don’t desire any part of Arianna Huffington’s AOL millions, for in my mind that money is cursed. Just ask Ted Turner.
Instead, my participation in HuffPuff — the growing online rebellion against Arianna and her newly-mintworthy media empire that began at the Adbusters website in February — is the culmination of many months of disillusionment and growing disgust. The sale of Huffington Post represents exactly the sort of “veal pen captivation scheme” that firebagging lefties constantly project on anyone with the temerity to question their paranoid conspiracy theories and character assassinations.

Exactly what Osborne intends to signify by the expression “firebagging lefties,” I’m not sure. Obsorne seems to have an overblown sense of his own importance, and his interpretations of Arianna Huffington’s politics are dubious. Nevertheless, Osborne is correct that what Huffington sold to AOL was a readership, including readers of  uncompensated contributors such as himself. Rather than filing lawsuits against HuffPo, however, he has asserted his own autonomy by deleting his previous HuffPo contributions (transferring the posts to his own domain) and encouraging others to do the same.

Let Arianna choke on her ill-gotten gains. Just don’t let her claim ownership of your uncompensated work. Ayn Rand would understand.

Dept. of Bad Analogies

“Last Friday, Kansas legislators approved a ban on insurance companies offering abortion coverage as part of their general health plans.”

This is in itself problematic. I’m pro-life, but I don’t like the idea of government bossing around insurance companies, telling them who and what they should or should not cover. And this description of the rationale behind the bill seems confusing:

If the bill becomes law as expected, starting in July, individuals and employers who want abortion coverage would have to buy supplemental policies that cover only abortion. Supporters of the bill argue that it will protect employers who oppose abortion rights from having to pay for policies that cover the procedures.

But don’t different companies offer different policies? I mean, if an employer didn’t want to provide abortion coverage, couldn’t the employer shop around to find a company that offered the kind of coverage he wanted? There must be some background to this story I don’t understand.

Whatever the policy logic of this law, it doesn’t help the pro-life cause to have it defended by idiots:

Rep. Barbara Bollier, a Mission Hills Republican who supports abortion rights, questioned whether women would buy abortion-only policies long before they have crisis or unwanted pregnancies or are rape victims.
During the House’s debate, Rep. Pete DeGraaf, a Mulvane Republican who supports the bill, told her: “We do need to plan ahead, don’t we, in life?”
Bollier asked him, “And so women need to plan ahead for issues that they have no control over with a pregnancy?”
DeGraaf drew groans of protest from some House members when he responded, “I have spare tire on my car.”
“I also have life insurance,” he added. “I have a lot of things that I plan ahead for.”

“Groans of protest,” indeed. A much better argument: The fee for a first-trimester abortion isn’t so steep as to be prohibitive to the uninsured. It is a relatively inexpensive procedure. This is also a valid argument against taxpayer subsidies for abortion providers like Planned Parenthood: Even if you are enthusiastically “pro-choice,” there is no compelling economic need that justifies such subsidies.

Exactly why the Kansas legislature felt the need to interfere this way with the insurance companies, I don’t know. But spare us the spare-tire analogies.

Never Burn a Source

Nothing is more essential to a newsman’s craft than trust. If your sources can’t trust you to keep a secret, they’re not going to tell you everything you need to know, because sometimes you need to know more than you can actually report. Therefore, to breach confidentiality — to burn a source by reporting what were supposed to be off-the-record conversations — is to destroy the kind of trust that is necessary to the practice of your trade.

At the Daily Caller, Jonathan Strong has done something vaguely akin to burning a source: He published confidential Twitter direct messages between Sarah Palin spokeswoman Rebecca Mansour and someone else.

We learn from Ben Smith that the source for Strong’s “scoop” had previously tried to sell this information. Smith says he refused to pay, but wanted the scoop:

“Does Politico pay for exclusives? Cause I’m looking to sell. I have 122 direct messages from Sarah Palin staffer Rebecca Mansour,” the person emailed, eventually sending along sample direct messages identical to a couple the Caller posted. They were forwarded from the account of one improbably named Toki de la Vega, a contributor to some pro-Palin sites, though there was a man’s name attached to one of the tweets as well.
I responded with a counter-offer of lunch and “undying gratitude.”
“Sorry, Ben, but it’s going to take more than a happy meal and a hand shake to get me to betray someone’s confidence. Only freshly printed 100 dollar bills help me get over feelings of guilt,” wrote the emailer, who continued, “Would it violate some fake journalistic ethics and standards to get me in contact someone who does pay? I know that the thought of blogging about this is making your panties wet. The topics range from Chuck Hagel to Ricky Hollywood and everything else in between. It’s a f***ing blogger’s gold mine.”

Good Lord! If I went to press with every unguarded opinion expressed privately to me by political operatives, what untold havoc could I wreak? But that havoc would be short-lived, of course, because once a reporter burns a source, nobody would ever trust him again. Ed Morrissey writes:

Well, having been around a few election cycles, I can attest that every campaign likes to push negative information about their opponents.  I’ve probably received a couple of those types of messages already this morning, and I’m sure I’ll get more by the end of the day, too.  “Leaking damaging information” is what they do.  Being shocked by that, or even considering it news, is approaching Captain Louis Renault territory.

Agreed. And I will add that it has been observed by more than a few conservatives that the only time the Daily Caller ever seems to get a scoop, it is a scoop that damages conservatives.  Continue reading Never Burn a Source →

Christina Hendricks Talks About Her Breasts: ‘They’re So Obviously Real …’

“It was reported this year that there had been a sharp rise in breast augmentation in the UK because British women were longing to look more like Christina, though she says: ‘I hope I’m not encouraging that. If there’s anything to be learned from me it’s that I’m learning to celebrate what I was born with, even though it’s sometimes been inconvenient. Having larger breasts has made it harder for me to shop throughout the years, but I’ve learnt to love it. It’s so bizarre that people are constantly asking if my breasts are real or fake,’ she adds. ‘They’re so obviously real that anyone who’s ever seen or touched a breast would know.’ “
— U.K. Daily Mail, May 24

Because the voluptuous star of Mad Men was the original inspiration for Rule 5, I felt it important to share this news with readers. And if we can take the lady at her word, this probably settles a few bets.

Everybody’s Talking 2012

Instapundit had an uncharacteristically long post about the 2012 Republican presidential field, my favorite reaction being Professor Stephen Clark’s remark:

“Rove and Krauthammer amuse me with their response to Herman Cain. Since when has it become self-evident that a man with the professional accomplishments of Herman Cain is unfit to hold the office of President for not having spent the better part of his life as an elected politician and has, unforgivably, remained unknown to the likes of Rove and Krauthammer? Paging Professor Codevilla.”

Karl Rove is the Architect of . . . what, really? A campaign that squeaked past Al Gore by the barest of margins in 2000, and scored a slim majority against John Kerry in 2004. Looking back on it, Gore and Kerry weren’t the most formidable candidates the Democrats ever fielded, and yet Rove’s reputation as a strategic genius rests on his management of campaigns that just barely beat them.

Rove’s disparagement of Cain, then, is to be taken with a grain of salt. Charles Krauthammer once worked for Walter Mondale. ‘Nuff said. 

Bill Kristol’s pining for the Great Rescuer is, I think, apt to be unrequited. He clearly wants either Chris Christie or Jeb Bush, and neither of them is likely to jump in this late.

Is Sarah Palin in or out? That’s the biggest question mark at this point. The next major televised GOP debate is in August, and I’d expect she’ll give a definite “yes” or “no” by then. But think about this: If Palin waits until August, she’d be spotting her opposition at least a 100-day lead on organizing campaigns in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and other early states. Practically, then, her apparent indecision points strongly toward a “no” for 2012.

A poll from New Hampshire seems to show Mitt Romney with a commanding advantage there, but 87% of Republicans there say they have no idea who they’ll vote for, so it’s really wide open.

Can America resist the frenzied hysteria of T-Paw fever? To ask the question is, I think, to answer it. And if Dave Weigel wants Republicans to nominate Pawlenty . . . ?

Eric Cantor wants Paul Ryan to run for president — and who doesn’t like Paul Ryan? I think he’s an obvious favorite for the vice-presidential nomination, regardless of who gets the presidential bid. For any sitting member of the House to run a presidential campaign is, however, a long row to hoe.

Finally, Monday on Sean Hannity’s show, Herman Cain admitted to blowing the “right of return” question on Sunday:

“[‘Fox News Sunday’ host Chris Wallace] caught me off-guard. I didn’t understand the right of return. That came out of left field, out of all the questions I anticipated him asking me, I didn’t even conceive of him asking me about the right of return. I now know what that is.”

Ace was impressed. It’s probably not enough to win over Krauthammer. But then again, Krauthammer isn’t an Iowa caucus voter.

And there’s a new Zogby poll.

UPDATE: Don Surber tells the story of how Karl Rove was unwisely willing to write off West Virginia in 2000.


LIVE AT FIVE – 05.24.11

TOP NEWS
Joplin Death Toll Continues To Climb

A woman cries as she searches for survivors

116 dead, over a thousand injured; seventeen found buried alive in the rubble

NATO Steps Up Attacks On Libyan Loyalists
Smart bombs used on motorpool


Supremes Order 30,000 California Inmates Released
Inadequate healthcare, overcrowding cited in 5-4 decision



POLITICS
Feds Indict Alleged Philly Mafia Boss

"Uncle Joe" Ligambi at his 1989 sentencing hearing

“Uncle Joe” Ligambi, ten others arrested in ongoing FBI push against Mafia in the Northeast

Branstad Warns Romney Not To Skip Iowa




WH Budget Chief Expects Debt Limit Deal To Be Ugly

Senate Passes Patriot At Extension

FBI Reports: Violent Crime Continues To Fall

Democrats Can Blame Themselves For Judicial Nomination Mess



THE ECONOMY, STUPID
European Stocks Open Higher
Feds Sue To Stop H&R Block Purchase Of TaxAct
Asian Stocks Rise As Goldman Advises Return To Commodities
Moody’s May Cut UK Banks’ Ratings
Analysis Of 171 Majors Puts Engineers At The Top
Liberty Media CEO: Barnes & Noble Stores Still Have Key Role
Ballmer: Windows 8 Coming In 2012
Square Launches IPad Point-Of-Sale Service
Kobo Launches Touchscreen Version Of E-reader For $130



SPORTS
Mavericks Win Game 4 In OT As Thunder Choke

OC's Kevin Durant after Game 4

Nowitzki scores 40 as Mavs pull out a win, 112-105

Astros Rally In Ninth To Clip Dodgers

Thomas Robs Downie To Preserve Win For Bruins

Bulls Outgunned By Heat: Not Enough Star Power?

Phillies Clobber Reds 10-3

Mets’ Wilpon Channels His Inner Steinbrenner

Hamilton, Cruz Homer In Triumphant Return To Texas

Offense Fails Yanks In Loss To Blue Jays

Hart Hits 3 Dingers For Streaking Brewers

Late Night At Work: Minor League Game Goes 23 Innings



FAMOUS FOR BEING FAMOUS
Showtime Cancels “United States Of Tara”

Comedy based on multiple personalities finally gets chopped

It was never funny.

Zach Galifianakis: Officially A Jerk

David Schwimmer, Wife Zoe Welcome Daughter Cleo

Schwarzenegger Could Face $200 Million Divorce

Christina Hendricks: “I’m Learning To Celebrate What I Was Born With”

Florence Welch On The Cover Of Nylon

Could Kirstie And Maks Take The DWTS Mirrorball?

Dylan Tapes Reveal Heroin Addiction

“We Envision It As ‘Lord Of The Rings’ Except Set In  A World Of Candy”
O_o



FOREIGNERS
Britain Says No Airspace Closures Planned Due To Volcano Eruption
French Say PRC Backs Lagarde For IMF Head
Supportive Congress To Hear Israeli Peace Vision
Contradictions Emerge In Accounts Of Pakistan Raid
Spain: Look Forward In Anger
Yemen Erupts After Leader Refuses Exit


BLOGS & STUFF
Allahpundit: Strauss-Kahn Allegedly Told Maid “Don’t You Know Who I Am?” During Attack
Maggie’s Notebook: Tim Pawlenty – A Time For Truth (Video)
National Review Online: Scott Brown Bails On Ryan Plan
Moe Lane: Tim Pawlenty Comes Out Against Farm Subsidies. In Iowa.
Lonely Conservative: What Could Go Wrong? Supremes Order Release Of Thousands Of Cali Inmates
Nice Deb: Obama Still Poised To Silence Critics
Don Surber: Only 27% Agree With Roe v. Wade Decision
Journal Sentinel Online: Board Orders Recall Election For Wisconsin State Senator, Others Still In Process
Althouse: Kucinich Considering Move To Washington State After Ohio Redistricting

— compiled by Wombat-socho

NY-26 UPDATE: Are 13 Percent of Voters Really Going to Vote for Crazy Jack?

On the eve of Tuesday’s special election, the most recent polls in New York’s 26th District are a good-news/bad-news tale: The good news is that support for fake “Tea Party” candidate Crazy Jack Davis has been cut in half since a month ago, when Davis — who ran as a Democrat in 2004, 2006 and 2008 — was getting 23% support in this traditionally Republican district.

The bad news? One out of eight voters is so stupid they’re still going to vote for that protectionist bozo Crazy Jack — or at least that’s what they’re telling pollsters:

Kathy Hochul (Democrat) . . . . . 42%
Jane Corwin (Republican) . . . . . 36%
Jack Davis (Crazy) . . . . . . . . . . . 13%

Republican Jane Corwin is trailing by 6 points, according to this poll, but we remember that polls last October that showed Democrat Dan Maffei leading by 12 points two weeks before he lost to Republican Ann Marie Buerkle in neighboring NY-25.

This is definitely still winnable for Corwin, despite the Davis candidacy and despite two or three layers of GOP bungling that I don’t even want to get into now. Democrats want to claim this anomalous election as a national repudiation of Paul Ryan’s budget-cutting plan and a harbinger of Democrat victories in 2012. However preposterous that claim may seem, it is nonetheless the spin you’ll be hearing Tuesday night and Wednesday if Hochul wins. A sampling of the latest news stories:

  • Politico: “Republican Jane Corwin badly wants to be the candidate of change in Tuesday’s special election, but the wave that swept 63 new Republicans into the House last November might have passed her by. . . . Corwin finds herself in a race that has largely become a referendum on Medicare and the budget proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.).”
  • National Journal: “Furor over Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) budget and its changes to Medicare have been the driving issue in this campaign. Hochul points to April 15 as the defining day in her campaign — the day the GOP caucus overwhelmingly voted for the House Budget Committee’s plan that would alter Medicare for future seniors.”
  • Time: “The first election since House Republicans passed Paul Ryan’s budget has become a referendum on the two parties’ differing visions of the fate of Medicare and a potential bellwether for races nationwide in 2012.”

You get the drift. Whatever Democrats decide is the big issue in an election, most journalists feel obligated to agree is the big issue, and so the media and Democrats are united in trying to portray NY-26 as a referendum on the Ryan plan.

If the Republican wins? Oh, well, never mind. And as Sam Foster at The Lonely Conservative points out, another poll has Corwin within four points, which is margin-of-error territory. A strong conservative turnout could make the difference. A couple of hard-hitting ads for Corwin:


JANE CORWIN FOR U.S. CONGRESS

PREVIOUSLY: