Archive for April 4th, 2009

April 4, 2009

My Wife Loves to Bash American ‘Cuisine’

by Smitty

For what reason, I know not.
Who wouldn’t love the choco taco?

Doesn’t it make the perfect desert to chase the mighty Taco Town taco?

Women: can’t live with them, can’t live with’em.

April 4, 2009

Of Course the Government Must Control the Interclouds

by Smitty

Little Miss Attila was thinking the other day that it would be awesome if some central authority controlled the shinytubes. She notes

they are handling the economic situation and international diplomacy so well. What, as the boys would say, could go wrong?

but this misses the fullness of the point: having conquered such relatively pesky problems as the economy and diplomacy, the ragged glory of the webbynets can no longer be tolerated, lest someone doubt the efficacy of the Temples:

We’ve taken care of everything
The words you hear, the songs you sing
The pictures that give pleasure to your eyes
Its one for all, all for one
We work together, common sons
Never need to wonder how or why

We are the priests
Of the temples of syrinx
Our great computers
Fill the hollowed halls
We are the priests
Of the temples of syrinx
All the gifts of life
Are held within our walls

Look around this world we made
Equality our stock in trade
Come and join the brotherhood of man
Oh what a wide contented world
Let the banners be unfurled
Hold the red star proudly high in hand


April 4, 2009

What Instapundit is linking . . .

. . . instead of linking us:

Maybe you’re starting to get the picture here. Attempting to reverse-engineer the Insty algorithm is a favorite parlor game among conservative bloggers and I’ve been SOL the past 10 days or so. How pathetic am I? Today I got excited about a TrogloLanche. (I mean, that dude’s from Wisconsin. It’s practically Canada.)

So if you’re a blogger sitting around depressed because you’ve blog-whored Insty with your six latest vicious rants and still no linky-love, join the crowd. Meanwhile, if you happen to find a news story involving space, robots, terrorism, Chris Dodd and electric cars, let me know.

Maybe if I linked Attila more often . . .

UPDATE: Headline on major news story:

Binghamton Gunman Felt
‘Degraded and Disrespected’

Dude, I can so relate to that. OK, so he’s a Vietnamese immigrant who slaughtered 13 innocent people. But it says here “Jiverly Voong was angry about poor language skills and lack of job prospects.” Exactly like a blogger with no linky-love.

I feel lower than a hypoallergenic dog that’s been run over by an electric car . . . driven by Chris Dodd Cthulhu.

UPDATE II:I’ve designed in a randomness component just to foil the reverse-engineering efforts.” As the man said, “Heh.” Welcome, Instapundit, readers! This is what’s known as a PityLanche, but . . . well, here are some of the things I’ve been flogging lately:

Browse around. Check the blogroll and headlines. Bookmark me. Add me on Twitter. Hit the tip jar.

UPDATE III: A commenter notes the Professor’s “timely” link to an article about narcissism. Actually, I don’t believe the world revolves around me. But that doesn’t mean the world wouldn’t be a better place if it did revolve around me.

For starters, I’m the guy who explained the principles of advanced blogwhoring (Rule 1) and reciprocal linkage (Rule 2) to the conservative blogosphere. In a single post, “How to Get a Million Hits On Your Blog,” I thus jocularly* solved a mystery that had baffled all the conservative “Internet gurus”: Why is the Left side of the ‘sphere bigger and more effective than the Right? Two basic reasons are these:

  • We don’t cooperate. People on the Right side of the ‘sphere tend to place a high value on personal independence and integrity. Very good. But the flip side of this is that it’s very hard to get everybody on the same page, pulling together as a team.
  • Everybody wants to be a “pundit.” One reason that small bloggers don’t become big bloggers is that they can’t resist the temptation to pontificate, to analyze and comment. But the real value of the blogosphere (and Insty demonstrates this every day) is in aggregation: Collecting together a distinctive mix of links to news, research, information and entertainment, and then contributing the “value added” of your own knowledge, you own experience, your own personality.

If you’re going to tell me what I should think about Afghanistan or the federal budget, please demonstrate why I should care about your opinion. What special knowledge or experience do you have about these subjects? American Spectator managing editor J.P. Freire says that the Right needs fewer Bill Buckleys and more Robert Novaks: More reporting, less commentary. He’s absolutely right. But too many conservatives seem to have turned their disdain for the news media into a contempt for reporting.

Yet there’s something else even uglier at work on the Right: Envy. Why do so many conservative wannabe pundits routinely bash Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter? If it ain’t envy, I’d sure as hell like to know what it is. Success should be admired, praised and emulated. It doesn’t matter whether you agree or disagree with Limbaugh or Coulter. They must be doing something right or else they wouldn’t be successful. But some people always envy rather than emulate, and the negative attitudes of losers like that will inevitably destroy morale and make teamwork impossible.

People have sometimes called me a suck-up because of my enthusiastic praise for successful people, including successful conservative bloggers like Insty, Michelle Malkin, Allahpundit and Ace of Spades. In an atmosphere poisoned by the negative spirit of selfishness and envy, sincere praise is a rarity, and backstabbing criticism becomes the norm.

“For want of a nail, the shoe was lost,” and for want of blunt talk about the problems of the Right, we have President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid. Some small bloggers — including blogs that didn’t even exist two months ago, as well as a certain pathetic Wisconsinite — are now operating according to The Rules, especially the reciprocal-linkage Full Metal Jacket principle of Rule 2.

The spirit of teamwork has resulted in growth for these little bloggers, as Instapundit and others (including blog-fu master Moe Lane) have rewarded them with linkage. So as always, we express our gratitude to the man who inspired it all, Gunnery Sgt. Hartman, who now has a few words of cheerful encouragement for you:


Well, at least I’m not the only one. . . . Maybe I go about it the wrong way.

Tell me about it. Smitty rocked a ‘Lanche with his second post. Talk about humiliation. And then there is this clever fellow:

“But you are erroneously assuming the flux capacitator is calibrated for this type of environment. I would re-think the whole matter.”


UPDATE V: She Who Must Be Linked:

Of course, Insty kept my traffic at its normal bad weekend level, rather than letting it sink into the realm of “abysmal,” by linking R. Stacy McCain, who essentially badgered him into doing it. Fortunately, there are “good karma” links to me all over McCain’s page. We likes that.
Here’s the dilemma, though: if Insty keeps giving in like this, that dis-incentivizes the showing of restraint; Professor Reynolds is essentially subsidizing bad behavior, no?

See, here’s my theory of why you don’t get ‘Lanched, Attila: Dr. Helen is insanely jealous of you. So Insty can’t link you, or his wife would get suspicious. (She’s got a kitchen drawer full of knives, and he’s got to sleep sometimes.) This is why you’re the Kharma Queen of the Blogosphere. Bloggers who link you regularly get more traffic, because ‘Lanching them is Professor Reynolds’ way of satisfying his unrequited bloglust for you.

Ah, but it works both ways, you see. Maybe you haven’t noticed that Dr. Helen hasn’t linked me in forever, but . . . Heh. (Shhhh! Don’t say a word, Chris Muir!)

*”Jocularity” I prefer to explain these things by joking, because I don’t want to help the Left figure out what I’ve figured out. If there’s one thing we know about the Left, it’s that they can’t take a joke. I just flew in from Cleveland, and boy, are my arms tired!

April 4, 2009

Anybody want to fisk David Brooks?

(Via Hot Air Headlines.) I’m thinking the caller on this C-SPAN segment is a liberal troll who’s actually calling from Media Matters headquarters, but ignore him and focus on Brooks.

UPDATE: The Paco-Lanche:

[E]ven Brooks’ facial expressions annoy me. As he sits there listening to the caller’s question, his plump face congealed into a half-somnolent complacency, he puts me in mind of a fellow who’s just settled down with his opium pipe and is waiting for the pleasant dreams to kick in.

Since Insty’s not linking anything lately except electric cars and Chris Dodd, everybody else who links here today will be celebrated with the ‘Lanche suffix.

April 4, 2009

Attention, police: Arrest Will Wilkinson!

No, not because he’s living in sin with the beauteous Kerry Howley (he is not worthy! ) but because he’s a scofflaw dopehead:

[T]he casual pleasure marijuana has delivered is orders of magnitude greater than the pain it has assuaged, and pleasure matters too. . . . That’s why tens of millions of Americans regularly take a puff, despite the misconceived laws meant to save us from our own wickedness. . . .
We’ll make real progress when solid, upstanding folk come out of the cannabis closet, heads held high.
So here we go. My name is Will Wilkinson. I smoke marijuana, and I like it.

(H/T: Donald Douglas.) Don’t get me wrong: Between 1974 and 1979, I smoked a substantial proportion of the gross domestic product of Panama, Columbia and Mexico. Not only did I smoke dope, I dealt dope in felonious quantities. I eventually saw the error of my wicked ways, married a nice churchgoing woman, and have lived happily ever after without the vicious devil weed.

The statute of limitations has long since expired on the crimes of my delinquent adolescence, and the only reason I never got busted back in the day is simple: I’m not as stupid as Will Wilkinson.

This explains why, despite my extensive personal history with the doobage, I support strict enforcement of our nation’s anti-marijuana laws. There’s a sort of Darwinian factor involved. Anybody stupid enough to get busted for dope is too stupid to be out on the streets, a category that obviously includes Will “Weedhead” Wilkinson.

His idiotic stunt — declaring himself a lawbreaker and urging others to do the same — reminds me of one of those stupid dopehead hypotheticals you hear in your college dorm room in the second semester of freshman year.

You’re in your 17th hour of a Risk game, you’ve just turned in a set of cards, counted out your armies and you’re getting ready to roll for Kamchatka when some stoned-out loser (who got eliminated 13 hours ago, but is still hanging around to watch and smoke your weed) begins a sentence: “Hey, man, wouldn’t it be cool if . . .”

Whatever make-believe scenario comes next is guaranteed to be a loser idea of spectacular stupidity. And that’s what Wilkinson’s idiocy reminds me of:

“Hey, man, wouldn’t it be cool if all the weedheads just came out and said, ‘I’m a weedhead’? Like, a massive kind of civil disobedience thing, y’know. Because, like, they couldn’t arrest us all, right?”

No, you loser, but I hope to God they arrest you, because you’re getting on my last nerve, and if you can’t shut the hell up while I’m trying to conquer Kamchatka, please go somewhere else and mooch somebody else’s dope.

America’s law-enforcement officials now have probable cause to ransack Wilkinson’s car and home, to frisk him and do a thorough body-cavity search, and I hope that the TSA will put his name on their list of known criminals, so that his rectum is rigorously inspected every time he goes through airport security. Frankly, I won’t be happy until Wilkinson is a fugitive from justice profiled on “America’s Most Wanted”:

Our next case involves a real scumbag, “Weedhead” Wilkinson. . . . He’s known to frequent locations where dope fiends play a board game they call “Risk.” So, if you know anything about where this vicious thug is hiding, make that call!

Why do I want Wilkinson put behind bars? Because he claims that it’s “libertarian” to legalize weed. This is so atavistically retarded I don’t even know where to begin explaining how wrong it is, but before I conquer Kamchatka, let me give you the capsule summary:

  • Marijuana becomes legal.
  • Marijuana merchants will be required to become licensed, inspected and regulated.
  • Marijuana will be taxed, to pay the salaries of the regulatory bureaucrats.
  • Major international corporations will get into the marijuana business.
  • Lobbyists for these corporations (“Big Weed”) will then seek legislation that disadvantages small-time dope dealers.
  • Small-time dope dealers who continue to pursue black-market profits will be busted for regulatory infractions or tax violations.
Legalizing weed would only empower Our Enemy, The State, while eliminating the opportunities for illegal entrepreneurship currently available to any clever teenager who can scrounge up the price of a quarter-pound. Wilkinson is like those one of those clueless gay-rights idiots who thinks the aficianados of sodomy were “oppressed” before Lawrence v. Texas. He has no respect for the old-fashioned common-sense logic that some things are so fun they ought to be against the law, and he is therefore a menace to civilization.

I’m printing out a copy of Wilkinson’s confession of criminality and putting in my jacket pocket so that the next time I see him at a cocktail-party reception in Washington, I’ll be ready. Just walk outside and dial 911: “I’ve spotted a notorious dope fiend. Better send the SWAT team right away.”

When the cops show up, I hand them the article (which helpfully includes Wilkinson’s photo) and remind them that Weedhead has also been known to talk about his so-called “Second Amendment rights,” so he should be considered armed and extremely dangerous. “You know how these drug addicts are with their guns. If I were you, officer, I’d shoot first and ask questions later.”

And now shut up, loser. Kamchatka, here I come!

UPDATE: Pundette asks, “Why is everyone talking about legalizing marijuana?” I dunno. Maybe because I just wiped out Kamchatka in three rolls.

UPDATE II: The Attila-Lanche!

Legalizing marijuana will not “empower the state,” except financially, which is fine: it’s legit to tax marijuana, just as it is to tax vodka or angel-food cake. What it will do is stop the rationale we are using to put a rather obscene number of nonviolent people in prison.

As I said to Victor in the comments, if you came here for a serious discussion of public policy, you’re obviously reading the wrong blog, or at least the wrong post. Nevertheless, Miss Attila, I’ll bite.

You have been bamboozled by the three-card monte hustler’s patter of liberals, who endlessly repeat that people busted for dope are being jailed for a “non-violent” offense. From which it is reasoned that these “non-violent” people are otherwise harmless and that there is no public benefit from locking them up. Don’t be such a chump.

The liberal argument deceives many nice middle-class people who’ve never watched “COPS.” But in my delinquent youth I hung out with a lot of people who were neither nice nor middle-class, which may explain why I get such a kick out of watching “COPS” and other real-life crime shows on TruTV. I know those dudes!

Cop pulls over a car driven by a loser with his loser girlfriend riding shotgun and two loser buddies in the backseat. The car had a tail-light out or expired tags or the driver failed to signal a lane change. Never mind, the point is the cops now have a legit excuse to hassle some losers.

Being that this is a carload of losers, odds are that at least two of the four people in the car are either on probation or wanted on warrants for “failure to appear” or delinquent child support or something. And there’s a pretty good chance that somebody in that car’s got some dope on him because — maybe you don’t notice this when you’re watching “COPS,” but police patrols are not entirely random — the Losermobile was pulled over in the kind of seedy low-rent area where dopeheads hang out.

The net result is that, because of the notoriously stupid dopehead habits of losers, at least one of these four losers is going to be cuffed and riding to the station in the back of a police cruiser.

Now, the social value of this scenario is what the nice middle-class person doesn’t really understand, but if you spent years hanging out with hoodlums, you’d get it. See, a loser gets away with a lot more crime than he ever gets prosecuted for. Things like breaking-and-entering, petty theft, vandalism, simple assault — stuff that has what the sociologists might call a negative quality-of-life impact on the community, but which goes undetected, is not seriously investigated or is hard to prove or whatever.

CSI: Loserville
Losers commit lots of crime like that, and they basically get off scot-free for most of it. Ah, but let the loser get caught with a quarter-ounce of weed or a couple of rocks of crack and here, at last, the cops have some hard evidence. No witnesses or CSI-type forensics needed. The car got pulled over, the loser got frisked, and this dope was found in his pocket. And since the loser was already on probation (for one of those rare occasions when his habitual criminality resulted in a conviction), this quarter-ounce of weed is going to put him back in prison for a few months, during which there will be one less loser running the streets.

The three-card monte dealers of liberalism are always finding that exceptional case — the Eagle Scout valedictorian doing hard time because he was at the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong people and got busted for dope — and arguing that this exception invalidates the common-sense law-enforcement routine of busting losers.

“We need reform!” the liberals say, pointing to the Cornell honors graduate doing 18 months for a dope conviction. And if you only look at the cases that they cherry-pick for their examples, if you allow them to dazzle you with statistical mumbo-jumbo “research” they’ve ginned up, you might be so foolish as to fall for their “reform,” the net effect of which is always the same: Let’s make life easier for losers.

Well, excuse me, but no. Not just no, hell no. As I said earlier, there is a Darwinian factor involved. Not meaning to facilitate criminal wrongdoing here, but please allow me to explain something that is perhaps not obvious to the casual dopehead. When you’re dealing felony-weight quantities of dope, the scariest moment is always scoring the dope (because you’re dealing with some heavy people who aren’t entirely sure you’re not a narc or a ripoff) and then transporting it back to wherever you’re dealing it, your apartment or wherever.

That ride from the score to your crib, with enough dope in your vehicle to send you to prison for years, is always nerve-racking. And if you’ve done that ride a few times, you can never have any pity for the loser who is out on probation and stupid enough to be caught rolling along with a busted turn signal and a roach in the ashtray. Leave your dope at home, loser.

But they’re losers, so they get busted, and then some non-profit run by clueless liberal do-gooders comes out with “research” designed to make nice middle-class people feel sorry for the losers, and so there’s a panel discussion of “experts” in Washington where I’m sitting there with my notebook — a neutral, objective, professional journalist — and it is only through superhuman willpower that I can resist the temptation to jump up and scream:

You idiots! Show of hands — how many people here have ever possessed so much as a quarter-pound of weed, huh? OK, now how many of you have ever sold a full pound of weed? How many of you people have ever been charged with a felony? Since nobody’s raised their hand, please tell me what the hell makes you “experts” about any of this?

Liberals spend their careers making excuses for losers, which doesn’t help anyone, least of all the losers themselves. Real life, including no-nonsense law enforcement unimpeded by by idiot liberal “reforms,” will eventually confront the loser with a choice: Get your act together and stop hanging out with losers, or resign yourself to permanent loserdom.

How petty criminals hit the big time

Liberals enable losers, but they seldom pay enough attention to the cops-and-courts beat to grasp the real-life consequences of their policies. Over and over, those who commit heinous atrocities are revealed to be ordinary petty criminals who were allowed to walk free once too often.

Read Chapter 7 of Donkey Cons, and you’ll encounter the story of Joseph P. Smith. A habitual offender, mostly for drug offenses, he tested positive for cocaine while on probation in October 2003, and his case came before Florida Circuit Court Judge Harry Rapkin on Dec. 30, 2003. Judge Rapkin let him walk.

Barely a month later, on Jan. 31, 2004, a surveillance video camera at a carwash in Sarasota, Fla., recorded the scene as 11-year-old Carlie Bruscia was abducted by a man with tattoos on his forearms. On Feb. 3, police arrested the man on the video, 37-year-old Joseph P. Smith. His sixth-grade victim had been raped and murdered and, loser that he was, Smith refused even to tell police where the girl’s body was. Her body wasn’t found until three days later.

If I were the kind of “expert” with graduate degrees who could get hired as a “research fellow” by some swanky big-deal non-profit think tank, I might take the time to tell you dozens of stories like that. Charles Manson? Lifelong petty criminal who got turned loose once too often. Matthew Shepard? Murdered by a couple of petty-criminal dopehead losers. Columbine mass-murderer Eric Harris? Middle-class juvenile delinquent.

Famous cases like that are just top-of-the-head examples, the tip of a veritable iceberg of heinous crimes committed by small-time losers who finally made the big time. But I’m not a “research fellow,” just a blogger shaking the tip jar, and I’ve got another for-pay freelance project I’m actually supposed to be working on right now.

However, I know a helluva lot more about real life than some of these “experts” do. As the late Lewis Grizzard sagely observed, You can’t put no boogie-woogie on the King of Rock ‘n’ Roll.

Which is why I’m not going to have any pity for Will Wilkinson when he’s undergoing a body-cavity search at the airport.
April 4, 2009

Feeling Most Jacobite Right About Now

By Smitty
Note that the post title refers to Jacobitism in the loosest of ways, and is not to be mistaken as a reference to the Jacobin Club at all. The Full Metal Jacket Reach Around, brought to you as a public nuisanceservice in support of Rule 2, is now in session.

  • In offering a roundup of the Supreme Court of Iowa, APB noted RSM’s deconstruction of Andrew Sullivan’s notions. A thrashing of Steve Benen earned a link to the Andrew Breitbart post as a note on astroturfing. There was also a Rule 5 mention on an Angie Harmon post. We may need to have the rules committee address the issue of shameless Rule 5 embedding as a means of jacking up the scores. This is serious business. American Power offered an excellent Frum-drubbing, and refrenced this blog’s analysis of along the way. The review of Andrew Breitbart on the Left’s Internet Hooligans was updated to note this blog’s Breitbart admiration.
  • Paco the Enterprising One offered a medium-flame rant on the POTUS, and managed to mention another blog perpetratedvaguely connected to RSM with an ‘indelicate’ title. Sarah the Mail Order Gag Gift earned a hat tip. Again the astroturfing linkage. But what if this post is the Great Wall of Astroturf? The Waldorf Astroturfia? The World’s Biggest Jackastroturfing? Does this make it OK? Paco noted how the POTUS is acting as the nation’s CEO, and linked the Tea Party post. It’s just short of a civic duty to plan to attend one. A Brooks pummeling was linked amidst a post concerning that ‘scrofulous’ crapweasel Harry Reid. Also deemed linkworthy was a pointer to silver spoon snobs
  • Obi’s Sister wants to know if there is a lemon law covering the POTUS. Grits links this blog’s pointer over to Protein Wisdom and a woman who nearly had a When Harry Met Sally moment when meeting said POTUS. In ‘A Dip That Doesn’t Drip‘, Obi liked the Penn Gillet quote about the Community Organizer in Chief. In picking up the Useful Idiot Day tradition, Obi found last Tuesday’s faint praise of Brooks halfhearted. The Breitbart post got more in apposition to Stuff that Makes Pelosi Worry. She expressed mild shock at the inclusion in this humble blog. I gave away some secrets, for those interested.
  • Gahrie (do you pronounce that like ‘Fahv-ruh’ at the end of There’s Something About Mary?) wonders if Paul Krugman has studied David Brooks. Great video at the link. Props to The Rock Cookie Bottom.
  • Lead and Gold noted the Team Spirit post. They also figure RSM has a little Jimi up his sleeve. I can personally attest to his Mack the Knife, even if I sucked trying to film it. They also reviewed the last one of these and offer:

    More fun than reading footnotes and less dangerous than smoking in bed.

  • Monique rogered up for the Tea Party. Hope to see you there! She also demonstrated contrarian flair, finding an allusion to this post in the whole affair. Lastly, she approved of the ransom note method, at least the post on the topic.
  • Dad29 offers up a “good stuff” for the post on the Obama troll army. He joins the chorus of those denouncing the crapweasel takeover attempt of the Tea Party movement, going so far as to link RSM’s Spectator work. As should we all. He refers to the ransom note method in a thrashing of the Greater Wisconsin Committee.
  • No Sheeples Here, besides a very thuggable graphic, mentioned The Telegraph’s long list of societal accomplishments before the one hour dark age last week. They also honored the ransom note post, replete with cool graphic, and a post I did on classical liberal values, springing from the last of these itty-bitty roundups.
  • Cynthia Yockey proposes that RSM be given something like a grant by the conservative poo-bahs, to further enhance his blogging fu. I can’t see why she would consider this suggestion ‘vindictive’ (hilarious Stark Trek still at the link).
    She picked up a site of the day award from Conservative Grapevine (kudos)! Her ear boxing of Faux conservative/twerp vérité Ross Douthat was very nicely done, and she hat-tipped RSM’s Lenten vow. I too caught heat, on Wednesday, for failure to link Obama confesses to treason…, opting instead to link something hinting about a Very Special Relationship between BHO and Gordon Brown. While neither Jewish nor Roman Catholic, I will temporarily suspend my say-no-to-guilt principle and point you to this link. In my defense, I did land the first comment. Sorry, Cynthia!
  • Kathy Shaidle linked the ransom note method. In response to (I think) the shaky status of the Tampa Tea Party protest, she linked the Speedo post. The blog troll army drew notice, as well as the diamond pattern bit. What is it about diamonds?
  • Leading off with some Ann Margaret video, Pundit and Pundette followed by noting the Tea Party protest post. They finish off with a quote from RSM’s Breitbart review.
  • Seymour Nuts may make some time for a Tea Party. Had some fun with his trackback: see update VI. Hopefully he can make an event, as is schedule sounds loaded
  • The Criminally Under-rated Post of the Week award goes to Political Castaway, for having Wen Jiabao call for BHO’s ouster. Brilliant! Combing these links is a lot of fun, but you really turn it up to 11.
  • Ennui Pundit goes for the vanity play:

    Stacy McCain is fond of noting that many movement conservatives neither understand the nature of the battle nor possess the requisite skill to fight the battle.

  • Ed Driscoll asks: What, and give up the ransom note method of selective misquotation?
  • “In this time of darkness, Stacy reminds us of the immortal words of Otter“, said Dan Collins in a great post on Designated Victim Groups. The Ransom Note post also showed up in a delightfully scathing roundup of Gordon Brown abuse.
  • S.Logan has been deemed a heathen. A glance at her blogroll, where she has The Daily Dish “above” (let us choose our words carefully) this blog is but one indication of a rather sorry state of affairs. She’s a trying-very-hard sort of heathen, though, affording this undemanding blog four URLs in the cleverly done Who’s Line… roundup.
  • Moe Lane picked up the laugh track on Harry Reid’s most recent buffoonery. This blog also scored a hat tip for the Breitbart lead.

  • …and then there were those who merely linked us once…

  • 36chambers (a street address?) linked to the now-mildly-famous ransom note post amidst an interesting link dump.
  • Below the Beltway celebrates its millionth visitor with a hat tip to RSM and some Charlize Theron Rule 5
  • Bob’s Bar and Grill has the eloquently titled drunk-blog post Blah Blah Blah. I don’t know. It made a good palate cleanser. I had to leave this blog promptly, due to PTSD brought on by that arm tattoo from last week. *shudder*

  • Conservative Infidel, apparently, added this blog to the roll. Thanks!
  • Fear and Loathing in Georgetown liked the ‘classical libertarian values’ post, and offered an interesting exposition of the points at hand. Those points were summarized nicely by Raphael.
    Returning to uncultured barbarian mode.
  • Gateway Pundit picked up some classic RSM from the Old Days (January) in a Breitbart roundup.
  • Fisherville Mike picks up on some ‘foreign’ RSM action that you may have missed. Thank you, sir.
  • Earned a “Quote of the Day” on The Everlasting Phelps for “Here’s a clue for the youngsters: If the New York Times ever offers to publish you, you’re doing something wrong.”
  • Politics and Critical Thinking (PACT) offers a Rule #2 lesson that stands as a fine example of the form. They even linked the Nude Eel post, which I thought a fine pun and oblique innuendo, but went over like BHO without a teleprompter. Responding to

    McCain’s co-writer, or lackey (We still haven’t figured it out yet.)

    my official title is “Porch Manqué” 😉

  • Daniel Larison calls RSM out regarding the a foreign policy point made in this post. We’ll have to let these fellas duke it out. I’m only here to catch javelins, not throw. Much.
  • Capital Research Center picked up the brief post on the GIVE Act.
  • Poligazette pooh-poohs the idea in the Breitbard post that there is any sort of organized anti-conservative effort “established and funded by the Obama administration’s political wing”. All I can tell you is that our favorite lefty commenter, Young 4 Eyes, laughed when I referred to him as our zampolit.
  • Riehl World View comes out stridently neutral on the conspiracy notion:

    Is there anyone out here worth a damn who hasn’t realized this has been going on? And I believe it’s impact is vastly over-rated by AB.

    +5 Insightful

  • Armed Liberal “thought Robert Stacy McCain’s reprise of Jeff Goldstein’s full-throated whine about how unfair liberals are was as lame as the original” in this post. AL concludes

    Someone needs to stand up for liberty, and do it in the context of real societies, not Heinlein’s loonies. It’d be nice to see conservatives take up that mantle.

    But will AL be at a Tea Party in a week and a half?

  • Jeff Barnard also offers some blowback on The Ransom Note Method.

    He had me nodding my head in agreement until he came out with, “…a prominent conservative fighter like Limbaugh or Ann Coulter.”
    Demagogues like Limbaugh and Coulter are not “conservatives”. Not unlike the one person McCain spends the bulk of that post demonizing, David Brooks, these media figures have no real ideology or agenda beyond their wallets.

    Hmmm. They’re certainly both capitalists, and given to saying/writing things to make a buck. I might not always appreciate their style, but I’m not sure what substantial argument exists showing either one has demagogic tendencies.


  • This roundup was compiled by Frequent Commenter Smitty using his army of high-tech clone robots. If you’ve linked us in the past week and are not linked back here, all complaints/requests/death threats should be e-mailed to Smitty, who will either (a) update this post to include you, (b) make sure to give you extra linkage in next week’s FMJ Saturday roundup, or (c) hunt you down and beat you into a coma.
  • To be linked in Rule 5 Sunday, please follow the Official Guidelines, post your cheesecake/beefcake before 9 p.m. Saturday, and e-mail the URL to Smitty.
  • The Other McCain is not responsible for items lost or stolen while reading this blog, and disclaims responsibility for computer damage caused by spontaneous coffee spew.
April 4, 2009

Dear Jeff Bernard

Your link this past week was the final item in the Full Metal Jacket Saturday roundup (which Smitty compiles by deploying his army of clonebots and which will go online shortly). This brought to my attention your criticism of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter:

Demagogues like Limbaugh and Coulter are not “conservatives.” . . . [T]hese media figures have no real ideology or agenda beyond their wallets. It’s the tragedy of the century that true conservatives have had their party hijacked by such loudmouthed jackals.

Well, who are “true conservatives”? And who are the “true conservative” spokesmen who are not “demagogues”? What is it about the “loudmouthed jackals” that makes them offensive to “true conservatives” like yourself?

Whatever their faults, Limbaugh and Coulter are successful and popular. Rush is the No. 1 radio personality in America and Coulter is the author of six bestselling books (which are, BTW, much more informative and readable than you’d suspect if all you know is her reputation as a Fox News flamethrower). In a free-market society, successful and popular communicators tend to be rewarded with wealth and fame.

Successful, popular, wealthy, famous — well, one can either admire or resent such phenomena. If you have some specific criticism of the form or content of their discourse, Limbaugh and Coulter are fair game. But to assert that neither has a “real ideology beyond their wallets” is . . . peculiar.

As I have often said, I Write For Money. I am a capitalist writer, and proudly so. Some writers actually get paid to bash capitalism, but that’s a dollar I’ll gladly do without. Capitalism rocks. Washington is full of phonies who collect fat incomes by carefully maintaining their public image as earnest humanitarians devoted to some great cause. Screw that pretentious bullshit. I’m trying to make a buck, pal.

While my shameless pursuit of income-maximization hasn’t (yet) been successful on a Limbaughesque scale, my professional trajectory has tended generally upward, despite my many personal shortcomings and career blunders. Does “talent” explain this? No.

Talented writers are a dime a dozen, and I’m certainly less “talented” than other writers who don’t even write as full-time professionals, but who instead pursue trades more lucrative and secure than freelance journalism. (The blogosphere has gone a long way toward disabusing professional journalists of the delusion that they are the only people who know how to write English prose. Drunkards, morons and lesbians can write, too. Even law school professors have shown a knack for it.)

Yet at a time when New Media competition has driven major newspapers into meltdown mode, when journalists are being laid off by the scores and hundreds, I walked away from a secure newspaper job, staked out a place in the blogosphere, and generated a million hits in my first year of full-time blogging (and a quarter-million more hits since Feb. 13). How does a middle-aged Old Media dinosaur become a promising New Media mammal? Two basic points:

  • Strive for continual improvement — Some guys graduate college as good writers and never get any better. When I started out in journalism, I sucked, and spent the next 22 years trying to get better every day. The same principle applies in blogging.
  • Don’t envy success, emulate success — Failure is easy, and the only thing easier than failure is the comforting rationalization that successful people succeed because they’ve got some unfair advantage. There are pitiful wretches shuffling around downtown D.C. panhandling spare change because of that attitude. And over the past 20 years there have been a thousand Rush Limbaugh wannabes who’ve failed in the talk-radio business, who tell themselves that their failure is somehow unfair and who resent Limbaugh’s success.

It is their success that has made Rush and Ann such big targets for the resentful complaints of other, less successful, conservative communicators. Whatever their real shortcomings — either ideological or methodological — Limbaugh and Coulter wouldn’t be sniped at all the time if they weren’t so famously successful.

And for you, Jeff Bernard, to say that they’re only in it for the money — WTF? Limbaugh does 15 hours a week of the top-rated radio show in America. You want him to do that as a charity, to become the Mother Teresa of Talk Radio? You want Coulter to give away her books like government cheese?

If “demagogues” and “loudmouthed jackals” like Limbaugh and Coulter are offensive to “true conservatives” like you, what’s stopping you from supporting some other broadcast personality or writer whom you like better? For that matter, what’s stopping you from launching your own broadcasting or journalism venture and tapping into untapped market for “true conservative” discourse? The world eagerly awaits the “Jeff Bernard Radio Hour” and the Jeff Bernard weekly column.

Hey, I’ve got it: Why not start a blog?

Oh, wait. You did that already. Let me know when you crack a million hits. And don’t forget where you got the inspiration. We call it Rule 4.

April 4, 2009

‘Give ’em an inch . . .’

“Over and over, we find ourselves fighting what is essentially a defensive battle against the forces of organized radicalism who insist that ‘social justice’ requires that we grant their latest demand. We know, however, that their latest demand is never their last demand. Grant the radicals everything they demand today, and tomorrow they will return with new demands that they insist are urgently necessary to satisfy the requirements of social justice.”

April 4, 2009

Relax, the government will fix it!

(Via Reason Hit & Run.)

April 4, 2009

Conservative Infidel: About That Polar Bear Photo

by Smitty

Here is some Aussie goodness that, well, makes our former Vice President look a total goon for, say, time number 3,632:

May the traffic be with you, CI.