Fred Branfman, author, blogger and early contributor to the current California economic miracle under Governor Jerry Brown, has written a very long apologetic about Noam Chomsky, or more accurately a standard screed against US imperialism and capitalism using Chomsky as a prop. Presumably he thought that invoking the grand old man’s name would somehow spur the faithful to actually read through this door stopper, but I’m not sure the unearthed memoirs of Lenin could have done that. This is very much a “throw everything at the wall and see what sticks” kind of piece and Branfman clearly hopes that if nothing sticks at least his readers will succumb to exhaustion and boredom before realizing it.

He needn’t have gone to so much trouble. The basic theme can be summarized in two sentences (spoiler alert for those of you actually thinking of navigating this tome):

• America is really, really bad.
• Communism will fix it.

In fairness, Branfman’s innovative variation is “I think America is very, very bad and Communism will fix it, and look Chomsky agrees with me!” but the basic approach remains the same. This is a patented two-step and Branfman pays close attention to the painted feet on the floor.

On the first point, demonizing America is reasonably straightforward as long as you remember to cherrypick the facts you don’t actually make up, and frame your questions with careful dishonesty. Branfman appears to have this down. Consider:

Which nation’s leaders since 1945 have murdered, maimed, made homeless, tortured, assassinated and impoverished the largest number of civilians who were not its own citizens?

I have asked this question of Americans in every walk of life since I discovered the bombing of Laos in 1969. It’s a simple matter of fact, not involving judgments of right and wrong, and I remain astonished at how most answer “the Russians,” “the Chinese,” or just have no idea that their leaders have killed more noncitizen civilians than the rest of the world’s leaders combined since 1945.

They have no idea because it isn’t true. Apart from the dearth of evidence to support such a claim the sophistry here is so obvious it’s like watching a third rate magician not quite able to get that red hanky into his sleeve. The qualifier “not its own citizens” conveniently excludes “the Russians” and “the Chinese” (proving conclusively that the Americans he talked to were smarter than he was), to say nothing of Pol Pot, Castro, Kim Jong Il and any other half-dozen dictators you could pull at random from the Communist Who’s Who. Among them, these “agrarian reformers” have killed more people on an off-day than the US would contemplate in a decade, but never mind; it’s just their own citizens.

By thus ignoring the Tiananmen Squares and killing fields of history, Branfman takes the apples and oranges fallacy one step further by denying the existence of the orange altogether.

Not that he understands the apples any better. Words like “murdered”, “maimed” and “tortured” are designed to evoke images of the Sopranos, not the unavoidable, if obviously tragic, consequences of war he is actually talking about. The US has, for all practical purposes, undertaken the defense of the free world since World War II.  It is therefore not surprising that it would inflict more civilian casualties in wars and police actions than, say, France—which like the rest of Europe reserves the right to be self-righteous about US military power while at the same time relying on it for protection.

Rendered of its fat, that’s all he’s got, which among any rational audience should provoke a vigorous “And so …?”

To which Branfman might then reply, “Wait guys, don’t go, you haven’t given me a chance to inflate the numbers yet!”

These would include the huge proportion of civilians among the 3.4 million Vietnamese that Robert McNamara estimated were killed in Vietnam (over 90 percent by U.S. firepower), Laotian and Cambodian civilians felled by the largest per capita and most indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets in history, the 1 million to 1.5 million Iraqis estimated by the U.N.‘s Denis Halliday to have died from Clinton’s sanctions “designed,” in Halliday’s words, “to kill civilians, particularly children,” and the hundreds of thousands killed as a result of the Bush invasion. The total number of civilians killed, wounded, made homeless and impoverished by U.S. leaders or local regimes owing their power to U.S. guns and aid—in not only Indochina and Iraq but Mexico, El Salvador, Israel/Palestine, the Dominican Republic, Panama, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Egypt, Iran, South Africa, Chile, East Timor, Haiti, Argentina, Ecuador, Brazil, Bolivia, Venezuela, Cuba, Jamaica, the Philippines and Indonesia—is in the tens of millions.

Credible estimates put Vietnamese war dead at 3.8 million, over a span of 43 years (which for you history buffs includes the French and other combatants)—2.3 million if you exclude those who died by assassination, forced relocation, labor camps and various civil uprisings in that period. (For an example of someone who’s actually done his homework see R.J. Rummel: Statistics of Democide, Chapter 6.)

So I stand corrected, the French will occasionally shoot somebody if sufficiently provoked.

A greater canard is the Iraq number.

How Branfman’s can present Denis Halliday (anti-Israel flotilla activist and former head of the UN’s wildly successful Oil for Food program) as a credible source, without kicking the dirt and avoiding eye-contact, is a testament to his chutzpa. As Reason Magazine’s Matt Welch points out the sanctions were administered by the UN, not the US, and the civilian numbers were grossly exaggerated. What interest Halliday could possibly have had in ginning up the numbers–beyond providing poster children for his program and an exit strategy when he needed it—is anyone’s guess.

I don’t know about you, but even if we throw in Canada and the Virgin Islands (the only two countries he doesn’t seem to think we’ve decimated) I don’t know how he gets to “tens of millions.” But then again, he’s not expecting  anyone over at TruthDig to check. Just keep nodding and smiling boys.

Branfman then goes on—and on, and on—in this fashion, trying through sheer volume of prose to make the case that America is the source of all evil in the world.

His solution is a shocker.

Chomsky thus argues that human survival requires changing the system, not merely periodically replacing those running it.

[…]

The real choice, Chomsky makes clear, is not free enterprise versus statism, but state capitalism for (A) the few or (B) the many. The latter would include breaking up the banks, a focus on job creation and safety net expansion where needed, single-payer health insurance, higher taxes on the wealthy, far lower military spending, public members on corporate boards, greater employee workplace control and, above all, a new public-private partnership to see America become a leader in a clean energy economic revolution.

Got it. Apologies to Branfman and Chomsky for incorrectly believing they were dragging us down the road to serfdom once again. If it’s got the word “capitalism” in it, it must be good, right? Just like the word “democratic.” Since I know for a fact that Communists have never appropriated words to conceal their true intentions I know I’ll rest easy.

One wonders if Newsweek will soon come out with a “We’re All State Capitalists Now” issue.

Will Folks

When shady South Carolina blogger Will Folks claimed he had an affair with SC gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley, I said we’d need a little more time to determine whether he was telling the truth,

So, here’s how I’m looking at the story. There will be some hard evidence if this happened. Nikki Haley didn’t thank him one day for writing a nice column about her and then ask him to meet her in a hotel room. If they slept together, Folks has emails, texts, and IM messages that will prove it. That’s what he’s claiming, right? If he really has them, they’ll be released within a few days time and I’ll believe something happened. Until then, I think Haley deserves the benefit of the doubt. So, unless we see something solid from Folks by Friday, I’d say SC Republicans should assume that Folks is lying. In any case, lying or not, he’s obviously a world class douchebag.

That was a week ago. So, has Folks ever delivered the proof?

No.

He produced some phone records that showed he and Haley spent a significant amount of time on the phone together when he worked for her campaign. He’s also continued to flog the story endlessly on his blog.

Yet, he hasn’t produced anything that shows they had an affair. There are no texts, no IMs, and no emails proving her guilt.

Continue reading at Right Wing News.

1. A certain writer claims that I plagiarized his work. He presents no direct evidence (i.e., textual comparison) to support his claim, and that is because he cannot do so: I have not plagiarized his work, or anyone else's.

2. A certain blogger claims that Pamela Geller and I were responsible for the removal of a video taken at our FDI event at CPAC in February and appropriated by another blogger for his own use. The latter blogger's entire video channel was taken down, an unfortunate event he attributes to our alleged complaint. There is just one problem with this scenario: neither Pamela Geller nor I ever complained about his use of the video, or ever asked anyone to take it down from anywhere.

In the fuzzy fantasy world of the progressives – every issue, statement, article is a very personal  affront.  How nice to live in a land where everything is about “me”!

The  NYT interviewed long time Slate blogger Mickey Kaus this morning about his quasi-candidacy in California’s  Democratic Senate primary.  I will leave the legitimacy of Kaus’ run for others to dissect.  Amusingly though, all that WashPo blogger Ezra Klein could tweet today was:

Mickey Kaus gets his big NYT break and his campaign strategy is to…whine about my blog. http://nyti.ms/cpvnEe

Newsflash “E”:  twasn’t all about YOU at all.  Kaus, who observers describe as a classic contrarian actually raises legit questions about the current state of and slate of democrats.

NYT: You’re known as a conservative Democrat who likes to fulminate against the party’s sacred cows, like labor unions, the welfare system and amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Kaus: I recently ran into four or five people in the space of a week who are Democrats but who think the teachers’ unions are wrecking the schools. Most Democratic politicians think it’s just suicidal for them to say that.

NYT:   you’re planning to challenge Senator Barbara Boxer in the Democratic primary in California in June. What led you to get into politics?

Kaus: I’ve been a blogger since 1999, and it hasn’t done the job. In California, the Democratic Party is worse than it was when I started. The only thing left is the interest groups. It used to be a functioning party independent of labor, and now that has atrophied.

Now, I will grant you that some ten questions later, Kaus does indeed make a comment about the progressive party-line spouting  Klein’s  high “irritating” factor and describes him as a gullible cheerleader. But those 5 measly sentences out of the entire interview could hardly be described as Kaus having squandered his “big break”.  C’mon Ezra, really?

Kaus practically pioneered blogging,  and publicity in his apparent candidacy can’t be far from his mind.  But an actual reading of his interview indicates that the allegedly illustrious Ezra Klein and his bitter blog IS out of sight and out of mind.

TGIF fellow tweeters and hum this…Toby Keith’s fun little country ditty that has become the progressive anthem:

I wanna talk about ME!
Wanna talk about I
Wanna talk about number one
Oh my me my
What I think, what I like, what I know, what I want, what I see
I like talking about you, you, you, you, usually, but occasionally
I wanna talk about meeeeeeee

“You’d be surprised how many conservative talk show fans there are here in the Deep Blue Hot Tub,” writes SFGate politics blogger Joe Garofoli.

I know I was. I still can’t believe Michael Savage lives and works in San Francisco, for one thing.

Now a shakeup at KSFO has Bay Area listeners wondering: was veteran morning host Lee Rodgers unceremoniously fired after pressure from “ultra-left and pro-Muslim groups?”

That’s what Rodgers claims. In an open letter to fans, he said:

I was seriously considering retirement at the end of my contract in early July, and I certainly wouldn’t have left without saying goodbye.  Instead, within one minute of the conclusion of last Thursday’s show, I got the word that it HAD been my last one; cut with no notice, in violation of my contract. (…)

I WILL tell you, in all candor, that thanks to [CEO Farid] Suleman’s Citadel management, I could no longer proudly say that the company had never told me what to say or what not to say.  There was an obvious cave-in to some ultra-left and pro-Muslim groups, making it unlikely that I would have ever renewed my contract with the company, anyway.

Getting fired, sometimes abruptly, is a way of life for talk radio hosts, especially when they venture into “politically incorrect” territory. In Lee Rodgers’ case, he made Media Matters‘ “Most Outrageous Comments of 2009″ list for saying that, should a terrorist attack occur, a “few million dead Americans” will “wake up” public “to the fact that they have elected an anti-American President.”

Rodgers also earned the wrath of the George Soros Steno Pool for calling Obama “the most corrupt” president in history, and an “incompetent, Muslim-sympathizing fool.”

So did these and other controversial outbursts really get Lee Rodgers’ fired? If so, why would KSFO replace him with someone like Brian Sussman, who promises to “give the Left a major headache” by spending “four hours daily on one of America’s most successful radio stations to expose” the “shenanigans” of “global warming, government tyranny [and] fiscal insanity.”

Speaking of which: Citadel — the nation’s third largest radio broadcaster — has troubles of its own, having filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in December. Like Rodgers, broadcasting industry watcher Brian Maloney has nothing good to say about Citadel CEO Farid Suleman, who he says has “overseen the complete destruction of this once-promising company”:

Under Suleman’s rule, the company’s left-wing political bias became so unbearable that it convinced Sean Hannity to move his program to another syndicator.

Just last month, Citadel admitted that the loss of [#2 rated] Hannity caused it to lose millions in desperately-needed revenue.

So here’s where we stand:

Progressives and/or radical Muslims have tried, and failed, to take down big name talkers like Glenn Beck, Dr. Laura, Don Imus and Rush Limbaugh. Assuming Rodgers is being candid about why he was fired, are AstroTurf activists now setting their sights on more vulnerable local conservative pundits?

While monitoring threats to talk radio coming from “above,” (such as FCC “localism”), we need to watch for leftist AstroTurf campaigns, and worry about implosions caused by ideological incompetence — from within the industry itself.

I guess the price of liberty (and conservative talk radio) really is eternal vigilance.

Writing for Right Wing News, conservative blogger Warner Todd Huston notes that Seattle radio host Brooke Fox recently said on Twitter that she’d like to punch out Ann Coulter and a host of others who dare disagree with her (political) views:

On her Twitter feed on February 17, Miss Fox asked the question “Fill in the blank ‘I would be willing to go to jail for the opportunity to punch out ____!’” The next day she answered the question by posting a few names of celebs she apparently wouldn’t mind punching out. That list included Zach Efron, Ann Coulter, Kanye West, Octomom, Kate Gosselin, and John Mayer.

How nice: once again we meet a leftist who dreams of committing violence against conservatives (and others she dislikes).

Can you imagine the outrage from the mainstream media if Fox would have been a conservative instead of a radical progressive? They would’ve fallen all over themselves in an attempt to make this today’s lead story in every major newspaper and on every single network. But because she’s a leftist, they ignore her sick dreams to focus on, well, the latest joke at Governor Sarah Palin’s expense.

As Warner put it rather succinctly:

But our Miss Fox is a left-winger, so she gets a pass. For her the Old Media is silent. Just more of the double standard the Old Media employs.

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Like, whatever.

It’s hard to think of the utterly unaccomplished blogger Meghan McCain, who blathers on about things she knows little about in her Valley Girl voice, as an intelligent, well informed person. Glenn Beck went even further on his TV show Friday, calling the self-described progressive Republican a “useful idiot.”

Beck spent time mocking McCain, daughter of fair weather conservative Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), for her observations on the tea party movement. Her thoughts happened to be both incredibly dumb and useful to the left.

Beck rolled tape of ”The View” on which McCain the younger bought into the hateful leftist characterizations of Americans’ nationwide revolt against President Obama’s socialist healthcare scheme and Big Government in general:

It’s innate racism and I think it’s why young people are turned off by this movement. And I’m sorry revolutions start with young people, not with 65 year old people talking about literacy tests and people who can’t say the word vote in English.

Apparently McCain was responding to statements made by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) at the recent National Tea Party Convention in Nashville. In his speech, Tancredo said people “who could not spell the word vote or say it in English” elected a “committed socialist ideologue” because the country does not require a “civics literacy test.”

But McCain doesn’t seem to understand that Tancredo’s statement isn’t necessarily racist and isn’t actually representative of the tea party movement per se. Concern about illegal immigration and the woeful state of civics literacy in America isn’t anything new. Many tea party supporters may happen to share Tancredo’s concerns, but the movement arose out of growing concerns that the government is spending the nation into oblivion.

Meghan McCain just doesn’t get it.

Sometimes the leftist bloggers have a “unique” brand of humor.   The kind of “unique humor” that makes most everyone else cringe.   Earlier today the liberal blogger Atrios, aka Duncan Bowen Black of Media Matters fame and formerly of the wildly unsuccessful Air America tweeted:

cnbc is only fun to watch when the market is tanking

Nice to know that when the market closes at 3-month lows, it does at least provide a high amusement factor for those folks with a liberal bent.  And while stocks plunged today over big concerns about tomorrow’s January jobs report and overseas debt issues, Nero continues to fiddle.

Are the rest of us having fun yet?

Previously today NewsReal ran a Point/Counterpoint between Janet Levy and myself regarding Governor Sarah Palin’s endorsement of Rand Paul for Senate.

Janet expressed strong concerns regarding Paul’s foreign policy views and argued that “the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree” in reference to Paul’s notorious congressman father.

I pointed out that while Janet’s concerns about Paul’s views were legitimate, it appeared as though he did not foster the anti-Israel impulses of his father.

Well, upon further research into the matter it looks like we have a reason why Rand at least looks different from his Pops.

From the great blogger Sultan Knish who unearths a Rand appearance on the radio show of the conspiracist lunatic Alex Jones:

“You’re basically what I would call a chip off the old block. Your policies are basically identical to your father, correct?”

“I’d say we’d be very very similar. We might present the message sometimes differently.. I think in some ways the message has to be broadened and made more appealing to the entire Republican electorate because you have to win a primary.”

In other words Rand Paul is basically a Paulastinian Alinskyite. He’s going to be much smarter than his Dad at hiding his true views so that he might stand a better chance at achieving positions of power to implement the policies he supports. It’s his way of utilizing the Alinsky tactic of boring from within.

So from my vantage point Palin should not be considered an enemy of Israel because she fell for Rand’s deception. Agree?

Yes, that's right. Yours truly, anti-jihad warrior, was ordered to hop to it (apparently, I wasn't moving quickly enough for her taste) by a "security" official who displays her devotion to the sharia worldview for all to see; someone who, though she may not agree with Abdulmattalab's exploding gotchies modus operandi is in synch with its religio-ideological underpinnings. Hijab gal is supposed to keep us infidels safe from the likes of BombPants.

Best Film of 2009

As joyous a year as 2009 was for me — I got married and started working for the Freedom Center — there does remain a regret: I had to give up being a film critic. My former employer’s budget got cut and I simply did not have the time for it with all that NRB was demanding in order to make it the publication it’s become today and will grow into tomorrow.

My friend and fellow NRB blogger Chris Yogerst has his list of top 10 films of 2009 up at Parcbench, the conservative pop culture website where he serves as editor of the film section. (Click here for the full article featuring trailers and his comments.)

Here’s his list:

1. Inglourious Basterds
2. The Hangover
3. District 9
4. Taken
5. The Stoning of Soraya M.
6. Watchmen
7. (500) Days of Summer
8. Funny People
9. Adventureland
10. Gomorrah

Given that Chris and I were frequently fairly combative over the course of the year it’s somewhat surprising that we have so many similarities on our lists. He and I locked antlers often over reviews. (I still have not forgiven him for his friendliness to the racist abomination “Transformers 2″ and the boring “Public Enemies.”)

My principle critiques of his list are: A) “The Hangover” is ridiculously overrated at #2. B) “Watchmen” is not high enough. C) I think Chris is only putting “Gomorrah” on so that he can have a foreign language film and appear artsy and sophisticated. (I’m only half-joking on that last point, Chris. Don’t get offended.)

My list:

1. Watchmen
2. Inglourious Basterds
3. Julie and Julia
4. Up
5. The Stoning of Soraya M.
6. Star Trek
7. District 9
8. Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs
9. Adventureland
10. Where the Wild Things Are

I’m not particularly satisfied with my list. I’m usually not when I write it this soon after the year ends. It usually takes me a few months to catch up with all the films that I missed. (Not that I’ll really have time to do that with NRB on my plate…) I also have a bit of an independent/foreign language/arthouse deficiency in my choices. I no longer live as close to an arts theatre as I once did so I did not get to see as many of those films as I usually like. (I cut my cinematic teeth working at an arthouse movie theatre in high school and college.)

What an odd coincidence that Cyrus Nowrasteh’s “The Stoning of Soraya M.” comes in at #5 on both mine and Chris’s lists… We saw that film together at Restoration Weekend.

Midnight Snack is one of NewsReal’s occasional apolitical features in which NRB writers discuss nonpolitical subjects. It’s the younger sibling of NewsReal’s Lunch Break feature.

Related posts:

1. 2009 Satellite Award Nominations – "The Stoning of Soraya M.": Best Motion Picture, Ten Best Films of 2009
2. Midnight Snack
3. Big Hollywood: The Greatest Christmas Films

The NewsReal Blog has some very reasonable obscenity restrictions.  Those restrictions will force me to edit the Ana Marie Cox tweet about Pat Robertson this morning.  The blogger formerly known as Wonkette suggests a reaction to excerpt from CBN about Haiti being cursed.  Suffice to say that her verbiage rhymes with duck and is repeated 4 times.

F*ck Pat Robertson. F*ck him f*ck him f*ck him: http://bit.ly/7xFz4u

The earthquake in Haiti is a heartbreaking tragedy, we can all agree on that.  But whether you agree with the aging, opinionated and outspoken Robertson or not, the truly sad thing is that Ms. Cox has been retweeted dozens of times all day – in lieu of even slightly more intelligent and reasoned response.

She might do well to thank a conservative for protecting her right to free speech – sophomoric as it might be.

Related posts:

1. NRO’s Peter Wehner Schools Pat Robertson on Christian Theology
2. Haiti: Thousands Dead after Massive Earthquake
3. Haitian Ambassador Lashes Out at Pat Robertson

On his increasingly popular Fox News show yesterday, host Glenn Beck talked about labor unions, “Cadillac Health Plans” and socialists. As usual, Beck explained wonderfully what these people are trying to do and why you should be worried about it.

Shortly after Beck’s show, conservative blogger Bob McCarty published videos he made last year of some of the leftists involved in the scheme to push socialized medicine through Americans’ throats. Be sure to watch them.

The first video shows UAW International Union’s Jerry Tucker talking about what he calls a “Lambourghini Health Plan.” Watch it below the fold:

The next (and last) two videos show National Organization for Women President Terry O’Neill talking about how she wants to use socialized medicine to turn the U.S. into one gigantic abortion clinic:

More here.

What I find most amazing about the above is that modern day leftists aren’t even trying to hide their radical agenda. It’s right there, for everybody to see. The only people who don’t see it are the willfully blind.

Related posts:

1. Video: Leftists Plan to Socialized Medicine
2. Socialized Medicine: Look for the Union Label
3. Russell Brand: The Clown Case for Socialized Medicine

Stop me if you’ve heard this one:

Right-wing fanatics, casting doubt on the loyalty of every President of the United States since Herbert Hoover, are pounding the U.S. people, this Presidential election year, with an unprecedented flood of radio and television propaganda. The hate clubs of the air are spewing out a minimum of 6,600 broadcasts a week, carried by more than 1,300 radio and television stations–nearly one out of every five in the nation…

That’s from “Radio Right: Hate Clubs of the Air,” an article that appeared in far-left magazine The Nation.

In 1964.

Over the holidays, I picked up the 2007 title The Death of Talk Radio? by Cliff Kincaid and Lynn Woolley. As the NewsReal blogger with the Media Matters beat, I was intrigued by the book’s discussion of something called Group Research, Inc., which the authors describe as the “modern equivalent” of “the Media Matters group.”

In a chapter called “History of the Fairness Doctrine“, Kincaid cites Victor Lasky’s 1977 book It Didn’t Start with Watergate. Kincaid writes:

In one notorious case, Lasky noted that the federal Fairness Doctrine was used by the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations as part of a coordinated covert campaign, using front groups and money from the Democratic National Committee, to go after “right-wing critics in the broadcast media,” particularly during the 1964 presidential campaign. (…)

A key part of that campaign was that article in The Nation. Kincaid continues:

[President of CBS News] Fred Friendly confirmed [in 1975] that [Wayne] Phillips, who later became director of News and Information for the Democratic National Committee, had proposed the article and made “major contributions” to its content. (…)

Another key aspect of the campaign was the use of a Washington organization known as Group Research, Inc., which monitored right-wing publications and broadcasters and was run by a long-time Democratic Party aide, Wesley McCune.

Tomorrow I’ll have more about the now-defunct Group Research, Inc., and the long war between Democratic administrations and conservative broadcasters and activists.

Related posts:

1. What year is it again? Media Matters' selective outrage over… Willie Horton?
2. Media Matters channels Homer Simpson: ‘Everyone is stupid except me’
3. The Methodology of Media Matters, AKA Media Antimatter

Jon Rowe: Re the Founding Fathers, while I’ve heard rumors that they grew hemp and even that they smoked it (I have yet to turn to Snopes.com to verify) Washington embraced a pagan Stoicism that would probably caution against such use, Jefferson embraced a pagan Epicureanism that would seem to permit MJ indulgence.

My friend Jon Rowe, a libertarian blogger and college professor, has written a thoughtful post responding to my debate with Mary Grabar on marijuana legalization, conservatism, and the counterculture.

Over the years I’ve found Jon’s blogging on the founding to be tremendously erudite and engaging. If you haven’t been following his writing then you really should.

Here’s the beginning of his must-read remarks:

I knew Dave Swindle when he was less of a somebody (when he wrote for his college newspapers). He always had nice things to say about my work and still does. Back then he was an enemy of David Horowitz. Now he’s an editor for Horowitz’s Frontpagemag. He still has the same more or less libertarian worldview, but has switched from progressive politics to conservative. For that (libertarian) reason, I’m one of his friends from the past who hasn’t been at all bothered by his move (truth be told, he probably moved closer to where I am politically).

With that, he sent me the following links that relate to his dialog with Grabar (one, two, three).

Not that it need be said, but I think Swindle is obviously correct. I’m tempted to just insult Dr. Grabar’s post with an ad hominem and move on. But I won’t. There’s way too much for me to respond to, so I am going to pick my battles.

Her first passage that stood out:

[Marijuana] is not safe. It has serious health effects. It is addictive. I personally know people who smoke it every day. They started young. One started after being in a motorcycle accident and used it for pain. These are people who are supporting themselves, true. But they are people who are operating way below capacity, who have lost the ability to think logically or to care enough to argue logically. Their emotional relationships are shallow. They have lost initiative and that fighting spirit that defends the idea of liberty.

Why now put the imprimatur of legality on a substance that does this?

This is just refer madness style, meaningless anecdotal citation, making stuff up about pot, hitting and running with it.

Neither she nor her authorities prove MJ is “unsafe” or that is has “serious health effects.” As far as it being addictive, no evidence shows it is in a physical sense (like alcohol is for some, and tobacco, heroin/opiates, for many more). Is it psychologically addictive? For a great many, yes. But ANYTHING can be psychologically addictive. (Think about how much time YOU spend on the Internet.)

As for her claim, “[b]ut they are people who are operating way below capacity,” and the rest of the passage that follows, I could flip every assertion she makes on its head and would have as much anecdotal and empirical evidence from which to draw. But I won’t waste space.

Read the whole thing at Positive Liberty.

Related posts:

1. Grabar Vs Swindle on Weed and Conservatism at FrontPage
2. Marijuana, Conservatism, and the Culture Wars
3. Grabar: Conservatives, End the Apology Tour

CAIRO (Reuters) - An Egyptian court confirmed the four-year jail sentence imposed on an Egyptian student blogger for posting writings critical of Islam and the government, the state news agency MENA said.

Blogger Abdel Kareem Nabil Suleiman, then 22, was arrested in 2006 and charged with publishing opinions aimed at disturbing public order, insulting the head of state and defaming Islam. He was expelled from al-Azhar University, Egypt's most prestigious seat of Islamic learning.

Suleiman will spend only one year in jail as he has already spent three years in detention since his arrest....

'The Mail has manipulated the mainpicture...'

Today, an obscure but telling report out of the UK shows what happens when professional media manipulation and cowardice meets its match, in the form of vigilant amateur bloggers.

Here’s an excerpt from the original story in the Burton Mail:

A Royal British Legion boss says vandals have “dishonoured those who have given their lives for our country” by defacing Burtonʼs war memorial.

Dennis Fletcher, chairman of East Staffordshire Racial Equality Council, said he suspected someone from the far right was responsible.

“Graffiti of any type is terrible but when it includes racist material it has to be considered utterly unacceptable.”

I was taken aback when I read the very last sentence in this news report:

The Mail has manipulated the mainpicture [sic] to remove some of the content of the message.

Well, at least they admitted it.

What was so offensive and inflammatory that the Burton Mail thought it best to “manipulate” their photo? A UK blogger has the answer. Seems to get the full effect, you have to pull waaaaaaaaay back:

Yeah, I’m pretty sure the “racist” “far right” was responsible for that message. After all, radical Muslims in the UK never ever express such sentiments in public.

Good thing the American MSM would never try to pull a stunt like that!

Related posts:

1. Lazy Media Matters Tries to Expose Right-Wing Media Bias
2. Time Magazine Demonstrates Bias In Favor of Media Matters
3. Media Matters Admits Racist Rush Quotes "Were not Necessarily Accurate"

Part of Kate McMillan's "Google Commemorative Logos You'll Never See" series

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

The mainstream media’s malfeasance during Climategate gave the blogosphere two precious weeks to do journalists’ jobs for them: reading the emails, analyzing data and eventually forcing legacy newsapapers and broadcasters to (sort of) cover the scientific scandal of the century.

We bloggers look at such situations, and Rathergate before it, and our newfound sense of power makes us cocky. Bad idea.

Sure, we’ve dealt the old gatekeepers another spectacular blow. But we used a new gatekeeper to help us do it. I’m talking about Google.

So is my fellow Canadian blogger (and accomplished graphic artist — see above) Kate McMillan.

She’s been a key aggregator and analyst of the scandal, but she’s also been monitoring a situation that may have equally troubling implications — Google’s own apparent reluctance to acknowledge Climategate, either.

She writes that “in recent hours they’ve carried out more purges than Stalin,” in terms of sites daring to discuss the scandal. McMillan adds:

As you can see above, a couple of days ago there were over 28 million results for “Climategate”, today — just under half of that. In contrast, Bing’s count has been steadily rising, and currently stands at over 51 million.

Google is also infamous for penalizing the page rank of sites critical of leftist issues (this one included — my page rank was whacked back a couple of months ago, despite the fact that both incoming links and traffic were stable.). Watch for the same to happen to prominent blogs in the skeptic sphere…

There’s nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now the parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight

Related posts:

1. A Climaquiddick email you might have missed
2. Climaquiddick: It's not the emails, it's the data
3. 'Oh, Bennie, card tricks. If I'd known…'

A tweet from leftist blogger Atrios near the conclusion of President Obama’s Afghanistan speech:

haven’t always agreed with obama, first time i didn’t think he believed his own spiel

And here’s what neo-communist Michael Moore (who I aggressively corrected this morning) had to tweet:

President Obama has now officially declared himself a war president. A sad moment indeed from an otherwise good man. More later…

Salon Editor-In-Chief Joan Walsh let one of the most openly-Marxist figures in congress sum up her emotions on Twitter:

Maxine Waters speaks for me: “I’m terribly saddened.”

Why did Obama shun the desires of his base? What could have persuaded him to allow a surge of 30,000 troops into Afghanistan? Is his heart really in this fight in Afghanistan? Is he really a pragmatic politician who isn’t going to lead America off a cliff? Is it all a political calculation in his dance between appeasing the Left and maintaining some degree of centrist support? Or does he really believe in the mission to defeat Islamofascism?

Frankly, these questions are all fairly irrelevant right now. We don’t know the answers and we’re unlikely to find out. So speculation serves nothing.

What does matter: the Left has failed in its continuing quest to sabotage the war against Islamofascism. The Afghan war is not lost and now it’s important in this trying moment that conservatives do not let their distrust of the president prevent them from rallying the country around continuing this all-important fight.

Conservatives are right to be weary of the President setting a timetable. (This does not bother me too much, though, because I don’t imagine it’ll be followed if 18 months down the line we still need to stay.) Bill O’Reilly and Karl Rove were fair in their critique of the far-from-motivating tone of Obama’s delivery. (Though perhaps they were just a tad harsh.)

These are side issues, though. And we need to be sure we’re not missing the forest for the trees. On this particular skirmish the Left has lost. Just look at their tear-soaked tweets. Thus, this reaction seems appropriate from conservatives:

Cartman: "Mm, your tears are so yummy and sweet!... Oh, the tears of unfathomable sadness!"

Every moment at which the Left is depressed that Obama fails to fulfill its self-destructive dreams should be savored. They are few and far between.

Read the entire text of the speech here.