Archive for the ‘internet/free speech’ Category

Huffington Post, one in exile and one abandons them

Posted: March 25, 2011 by datechguy in internet/free speech
Tags: , , , ,

The Huffington Post’s decision to ban Andrew Breitbart from its front page for…

Andrew Brietbart’s ad hominem attack on Van Jones in The Daily Caller — right down to calling him a “commie punk” and “a cop killer-supporting, racist, demagogic freak” — violates the tenets of debate and civil discourse we have strived for since the day we launched.

I trust you were not drinking when you read that, otherwise your computer would have shorted out from the water.

Lee Stranahan decided that this is the final straw and has quit the Huffington Post:

…as a writer, this latest move by The Huffington Post of banning Andrew Breitbart from their front page (because of comments he made to a different website) is both unprecedented, arbitrary and deeply offensive to the intellectual openness that Arianna Huffington has purported to believe in.

He also comments on the strategy

One very loathsome aspect of this story is something that Huffington Post editor Roy Sekoff told me in a long phone call about Andrew Breitbart several months ago. Roy knows and worked with Andrew and when the issue of Andrew Breitbart being a racist came up, Roy told me “No, of course Andrew isn’t a racist.”

Roy went on to say that while both he and Arianna Huffington knew that the charges of racism being hurled at Andrew weren’t true based on their years of personal dealings with him that they were in a ‘bad position’ to say anything about it.

.
…however it is a question of their base, evidence about Jones not withstanding they will not risk upsetting the liberals who follow them. As Stranahan has already found dissent from the liberal base carries costs.

Dave Weigel notes the absurdity of the statement:

He didn’t write or say any of that at HuffPo, a site he helped develop in 2005. Is the Huffington Post’s standard that contributors can be to some modified limited hang-out if they use ad hominems in other forums? Boy, good thing Breitbart doesn’t have an army of contributors who can comb HuffPo authors’ published and spoken work to see if they’ve done that.

He is exactly right. The number of examples of this kind of stuff that will be dug up this week will be interesting.

In fact Lee Stranahan has already started and the Daily Caller goes long on ad hominem actually at the huffpo:

It will not matter in the closed world of the left its conformity that matters.

Those Dastardly Conservatives…

Posted: March 23, 2011 by datechguy in internet/free speech, media
Tags: , , , , , ,

Tricking NOW into defending Sarah Palin from Misogynistic remarks. After all as NOW’s rep pointed out:

The National Organization for Women (NOW) refused to comment on Maher’s use of the derogatory term. A rep told FOXNews.com it is a “known fact” that NOW does not correspond with FOX News.

Yeah what a dirty trick of Fox to ask NOW to comment on a story, the next thing you know they might want an actual interview!

How horrible that they were compelled to say this:

“You’re trying to take up our time getting us to defend your friend Sarah Palin. If you keep us busy defending her, we have less time to defend women’s bodies from the onslaught of reproductive rights attacks and other threats to our freedom, safety, livelihood, etc,” wrote Bennett. “Sorry, but we can’t defend Palin or even Hillary Clinton from every sexist insult hurled at them in the media. That task would be impossible, and it would consume us. You know this would not be a productive way to fight for women’s equal rights, which is why you want us stuck in this morass.” …

Yes because we all know a public statement will so disrupt their schedule that they won’t be able to do anything else. Sister ToldJa gives the lie to this nonsense:

Personally, I couldn’t care less about any statement – or lack thereof – coming from so-called “women’s groups” denouncing the sexist treatment of female public figures, no matter their respective party affiliations. In fact, conservative women don’t need any defending by any duplicitous “progressive feminist groups.” But all the same it’s worth pointing out when they don’t. More importantly, it’s imperative to know why they don’t, which I explained above. Simply put: You’re not 100% woman unless you buy 100% into the radical liberal feminist dogma about “reproductive rights.”

Yeah NOW has been busy helping advance women unlike Sarah Palin:

When it comes to politics, who was the one who helped provide a boost to the election of the first female Governor of New Mexico, Susana Martinez, first female Governor of South Carolina, Nikki Haley, or first female governor of Oklahoma, Mary Fallin? It certainly wasn’t NOW. NOW has asserted that they won’t waste their time defending Secretary Clinton or Governor Palin, both of whom stated just last week that it’s time for a female president. Female candidates and women in general can officially say, “women need NOW like a fish needs a bicycle”.

In my opinion the real reason why NOW is so angry about defending Palin from Maher’s remarks is that they agree with Mahar and would love to be able to say it aloud, but that would give away the game.

I guarantee we will be talking about this on our April 2nd show.

Andrew Sullivan at the Mendoza line

Posted: March 21, 2011 by datechguy in internet/free speech, politics
Tags: , , , ,

At least according to Dan Riehl at Riehl world view who recalls an old Sullivan Post per election concerning Barack Obama:

On October 27, 2008, Andrew Sullivan posted: The Top Ten Reasons Conservatives Should Vote For Obama. Given all this playing out today, I thought I’d go back and have a look.

It’s high comedy but let me explain something. It’s my opinion Sullivan’s turn on Bush had everything to do with Bush’s position on Gay Marriage, it was after that point where Sullivan really started changing his tune and it was the (likely correct) belief that Obama was paying lip service to actual marriage during the campaign that made the difference in the other direction.

But as Glenn Reynolds points out the rubes are self identifying, but never fear. As soon a there is an actual Republican challenger to Obama all of our friends on the left who are beating their breasts today will support him, Mendoza line or no.

Update: Stacy Links and comments seem to agree with my Sullivan assessment, Oh and BTW the Mendoza line is a baseball term referring to hitting .200.

Obama Secretly Funds Radical Anti-Gay Hate Group…

Posted: March 17, 2011 by datechguy in culture, internet/free speech, primaries 2012
Tags: , , , ,

…at least that would be the headline at Think Progress if they were 1. Consistent 2. Not multicultural cowards, and 3. Covering this story:

“America is not showing its power it’s showing appeasement, they are laughing all the way to the bank” Nonie Darwish

Personally I’ve got no problem with the fixing the Egyptian sewer system (promote the general welfare and all that) but we need to realize that we are earning no brownie points by doing any of this stuff. I really think the whole funding Mosques overseas stuff is just to get us wound up.

Meanwhile ThinkProgress hits Newt Gingrich for opposing Gay Marriage along with the majority of the country, Stacy notes:

Except, of course, that there wasn’t anything “secret” about the “funneling”: It was duly reported as required by law and, as Think Progress itself notes, Gingrich was outspoken in his support of the effort “to oust three of the nine Iowa Supreme Court justices” who had voted to mandate same-sex marriage in that state.

Is it “hate” to oppose same-sex marriage?

It is “hate” to oppose Obama, “Gay Marriage” is just one club to beat his opponents with, additionally Newt is a particular target because he committed the ultimate sin to them, he converted to Catholicism.

Exit question: Under Think Progress’ definition since no president has ever supported Gay Marriage and until the mid nineties no congressman ever talked about the subject would they all be considered “Haters”? I’d ask if they would call Islam “Haters” for the same reason but that one is too easy.

Older Entries
Newer Entries