Archive for the ‘internet/free speech’ Category

…is Chronicled is some detail at Gates of Vienna (via lgf2) in a post sarcastically called Becoming the MSM:

Sometimes even prominent bloggers make mistakes. But Rule #1 of blogging is to correct all errors promptly and post retractions. A blogger’s credibility supposedly hinges on such prompt corrections.

To this day, Charles Johnson has not corrected or retracted these two factual errors, nor any of the others.

And, strangely enough, his credibility hardly suffered at all. His star didn’t begin its descent until he picked fights with some of the big guns in the American blogosphere. Now — two years later — he is finally recognized as a retailer of smears and falsehoods.

Funny about that.

It’s not funny at all but the explanation as to why it took so long for him to be figured out is explained in the next sentence.

Charles Johnson made his substantial reputation back in October 2004 as one of the major bloggers who helped discredit CBS, Dan Rather, and the forged “Killian Memo”.

Basically most people here in the states weren’t familiar with what was going on over there. We saw Charles become a 9/11 hawk, saw what he did with both Rather and the Fauxphotography and with those precedents decided that he knew what he was doing. We assumed this was a blog war and figured it was both a bit of a blog war and and to some degree an honest disagreement along the lines of “who do we want as allies”?

I wrote a defense of Charles back in April at the start of his big break with US bloggers and had this to say about some of the people he was talking about:

BTW: I didn’t include the “other side” on the various disputes because this particular post was concerning Charles and LGF. I’ve read and been happy to quote both Atlas and Jihad Watch on various topics and will continue to do so. I would recommend checking out both sites and Charles’ archives if you want the full back and forth between them. I don’t listen to, read or watch Beck so frankly I’m not really interested.

On the Vlaams Belang

(BTW I don’t have a problem with either Geller’s or Johnson’s positions as they are both in my opinion decisions of conscience)

I linked to Pam and I’ve linked to Gates, didn’t have a problem with either as I simply assumed it was a stronger version of the old CIA debate over how pure allies in the war on terror have to be.

Since I had read Charles regularly until other blogs overtook him in my attentions I missed a lot of the banning. It wasn’t until he went after Robert Stacy that I actually saw Or cared what was going on.

So I must confess that I’ve been more concerned with my own situation so here is the link to the Gates Correcting page for LGF. I suggest you read it along with Charles Charges from his archives (while they are still there anyway). It will not surprise you now but it might have before. Gates of Vienna is dead on with this:

He has become the Dan Rather of the blogosphere.

Back in those heady days when political blogs first came into their own, the bloggers promised the MSM that they would “fact-check their a**.”

But what about the major blogs? Who will fact-check their a**es?

The answer, in a word, is: nobody.

I am a very minor blog in the scheme of things but for what it’s worth I’m sorry I didn’t give your situation the attention it deserved.

and actually puts out the McChrystal stuff in full and in context:

As with the leak of McChrystal’s report, observers would do well to exhibit a bit more skepticism and ask a few more questions, chief among them being “Who benefits from these leaks and ugly insinuations?” Clearly it’s not McChrystal: the media are calling for his head on a platter. He’s being treated every bit as badly as David Petraeus was during the Surge, but for the opposite reason: where Petraeus was called a coward and traitor for not speaking truthiness to the American people, McChrystal is being told he has no business speaking truth in public. The real irony here is that neither man did what he was accused of but the Left attacked these men anyway for failing to support their preferred narrative.

Any source who chooses to spread paranoid, unsubstantiated, third hand rumors about what McChrystal or Obama are rumored to have said when transcripts of the General’s speech and Q&A session are easily available should be dismissed out of hand.

The ratings seem to suggest that this is taking place. That would also explain the FCC’s move. Jeff Jarvis is worried:

And there is the greatest myth embedded within the FTC’s rules: that the government can and should sanitize the internet for our protection. The internet is the world and the world is messy and I don’t want anyone – not the government, not a newspaper editor – to clean it up for me, for I fear what will go out in the garbage: namely, my rights.

What I now truly dread is that the FTC is holding hearings about journalism on Dec. 1 and 2. As Star-Ledger editor Jim Willse (full disclosure: he hired me a few times) said in my Guardian podcast last month (full disclosure: I work for the Guardian): the words, “we’re from the government, we’re here to help,” should be met with trepidation.

Hey nothing to worry about, just because these guys admire Chavez it doesn’t mean we will see stuff like this.

Peg (whom I still owe a favor to, I’d better make sure I disclose it to the FTC since I can’t afford the fine these days) talks a bit about this piece on inequality:

Since Ronald Reagan was elected nearly 30 years ago, Democratic politicians have promised that their program could reverse the steady post-1970s growth of income inequality without sacrificing America’s economic dynamism.

But having promised win-win, they may deliver lose-lose.

I think it is ironic that the logical end result of all of this tinkering is what a cultural hero of our leftist friends once sang against:

It brings to mind Ayn Rand and the Incredibles:

Dash is denied the opportunity to play sports because his power of super-speed means that he might excel. When he fights with his mother, pointing out that he is special, she insists that “everyone is special.” Dejectedly, he looks down and mumbles, “then no one is.” Similarly, Mr. Incredible gets in a fight with his wife, trying to intercede on his son’s behalf, and bemoans the fact that the school stages a fourth-grade “graduation.” This, he insists, represents the constant modern-day effort to find new ways of rewarding mediocrity.

I’m with Joe Hartman on this one who points to these two paragraphs in Screwtape proposes a toast to address this:

“The basic principle of the new education is to be that dunces and idlers must not be made to feel inferior to intelligent and industrious pupils. That would be “undemocratic.” These differences between pupils – for they are obviously and nakedly individual differences – must be disguised. This can be done at various levels. At universities, examinations must be framed so that nearly all the students get good marks. Entrance examinations must be framed so that all, or nearly all, citizens can go to universities, whether they have any power (or wish) to profit by higher education or not. At schools, the children who are too stupid or lazy to learn languages and mathematics and elementary science can be set to doing things that children used to do in their spare time. Let, them, for example, make mud pies and call it modelling. But all the time there must be no faintest hint that they are inferior to the children who are at work. Whatever nonsense they are engaged in must have – I believe the English already use the phrase – “parity of esteem.” An even more drastic scheme is not possible. Children who are fit to proceed to a higher class may be artificially kept back, because the others would get a trauma — Beelzebub, what a useful word! – by being left behind. The bright pupil thus remains democratically fettered to his own age group throughout his school career, and a boy who would be capable of tackling Aeschylus or Dante sits listening to his coeval’s attempts to spell out A CAT SAT ON A MAT.

In a word, we may reasonably hope for the virtual abolition of education when I’m as good as you has fully had its way. All incentives to learn and all penalties for not learning will be prevented; who are they to overtop their fellows? And anyway the teachers – or should I say, nurses? – will be far too busy reassuring the dunces and patting them on the back to waste any time on real teaching. We shall no longer have to plan and toil to spread imperturbable conceit and incurable ignorance among men. The little vermin themselves will do it for us.”

Thus I am even more pleased that in her post she rebels against this abominable standard that would have kept us in the dark ages in the best way possible, by excelling!

With my favorite partner, Bill Kent, we won a four session event to get a subsidized trip to Reno next March, along with the right to compete in the North American Pairs event there. We won by an incredible margin of 7 boards (probably akin to winning a football game 63-3) and won each of the sessions with excellent games each time. Our percentage average was over 61%; generally, 55% or 56% will win the event. Am I bragging? You bet!

I don’t play enough Bridge and would love to have the chance to learn to play better from a master. Maybe if our liberal friends address bridge inequality I’d have a chance.

When you lose Day by Day:

Chris Muir chooses sides

The question is will Robert Stacy feel the need to repudiate this strip over his Rule 5 opinion of Maddow?

It’s interesting to note that he doesn’t even give Charles the satisfaction of a reference that could give him traffic.

Update: This is proof that being first doesn’t guarantee that elusive instalance.