As I noted there are those like Joe Scarborough who are shocked, Shocked that the Democrats are arguing how bad the Obama years were on stage.
But consider, if the Obama years had been good, if they had been prosperous, if they had advanced the future of Americans everywhere, then Hillary Clinton would have won 35 to forty states without blinking an eye.
the truth is Barack Obama won re-election for two reasons.
1. The GOP ran the worst possible candidate against him in 2012 (Mitt Romney)
2. Black Americans turned out in droves because even they could not bear the thought of the 1st black president losing re-election because he sucked so bad.
Every single democrat on that stage knows this.
—————————————-
I’m starting to figure out why Snoops is going after the Babylon Bee, I read my wife the two headlines from this post at Instapundit and asked her to guess which is the parody and which is the real one
She guessed wrong, and remember in my opinion she was, other than Donald Trump of course, the biggest winner in the Debates this week.
Yesterday was Baseball’s trading deadline and there were a bunch of blockbuster trades made, particularly by Houston that bolstered an already impressive pitching staff.
The Red Sox on the other hand took my advice and did nothing.
While sports radio was screaming bloody murder they also quoted a stat that to me explained why any such deadline deal was stupid. The Red Sox are 8-14 when their ace Chris Sale (5-10) starts, 9-11 when David Price (7-4) starts and 13-9 when Rick Porcello (9-8) starts this season.
With those numbers anyone who thinks for one minute a last minute one sided deal to add a bullpen arm is going to allow those three guys to lead them to another title this year is delusional. Much better to see if their incredible offense can carry them, put it down to a bad year for the pitchers (everyone has them occasionally) and shore up the bullpen in the off season where they can get much more bang for the buck without dismantling the team.
That’s what a GM who recognizes his job is to give his team their best shot to win each year does as opposed to keeping loud voices on the radio happy.
Finally here is an update on the blog situation.
You’ll notice that there IS some new posts going up on the old site, a few were scheduled posts but some are new. I’ve found a work around that allows me to post there but I can’t put in any links, add images or even embed tweets, it’s plain text only.
So here is the plan. While I price my alternatives (likely between $500-$1000 up front at least) to preserve the old blog at an alternate location without taking a week off from work to do it I’ll be posting at both sites. Anything that needs linkage I’ll put here. If I can get away with just text then it will go there, and perhaps I’ll kill a photo or two from my gallery to free up some space for an image or two.
As I recently did a direct non-public fundraiser (that fell far short of my goal but did pay for pintastic coverage and provide a cushion thanks all) I’m not really in a position to do it again just a few months later, but if anyone wants to kick in to help pay for this stuff. Datipjar on both sites DOES work.
As for my writers they can either post there sans links and graphics or post here during the transition or if they want they can take a few days off and wait for everything to work again. I’ll leave it entirely up to them..
Harvey Weinstein image by DAvid Shankbone via Wikipedia
At first glance it’s looks like the Harvey Weinstein story, from a journalistic standpoint seems more and more like the John Edwards Story, where liberal journalists were uninterested in telling a story that might harm their allies
An explosive scandal had been kept out of the press for months at a time when the man at the center of it was an important player in national politics. Why? Young thought it was because the Edwards camp so tightly controlled information that journalists weren’t able to find sources to corroborate the Enquirer’s reporting. Perhaps that was part of it. But the fact was, many editors and reporters just didn’t want to tell the story. They admired Elizabeth Edwards. They saw no good in exposing John Edwards’ sordid acts.
Journalists saw no good in exposing the sordid acts of a former, senator, vice presidential and presidential candidate.
And while there is certainly a bit of that in the Weinstein story the more I think about it the more it seems that this was all about capitalism in the Tina Brown vein.
About five years ago I did a series of piece of Tina Brown at Newsweek and Salon and her ability to coax millions out of liberals for magazine empires that never seemed to make a buck:
Unless I’m missing something all that happened is an attractive blond managed to convince some man into spending a lot of money to stake her in a business, she used said business to enhance her reputation and when she proved unable to succeed in it dumped it on the first sucker willing to take it off her hands.
It looked a lot like liberal were willing to throw away money to advance liberalism
Alas, there’s only one Tina and probably lots of would-be media moguls out there with millions of dollars to throw away on glitzy media operations. Send me an e-mail and we’ll do lunch.
But if you decide instead to hit Vegas and blow your millions on blackjack and hookers, I’ll understand.
A while back a few of us thought that if liberals were willing to play angels to advance liberalism conservatives should think about it too:
Jimmie has calculated — and I agree with his calculations — that you could run a pretty spiffy little conservative New Media operation for $500,000 a year if you knew what you were doing. But the problem is connecting (a) people with $500,000 to (b) people who know what they’re doing in terms of online news.
If you grant that Jimmie and I are correct about this estimate, do the math yourself: For the $4 million that the permatanned RINO Charlie Crist collected during that single three-month span of 2009, you could fund eight spiffy little New Media operations for a year (or four such operations for two years). And FEC contribution limits do not apply to people making “investments” in news operations, so that the rich Republicans would not be restricted in their generosity toward New Media, as they are toward political candidates.
Soros has figured this out. Rich Republicans have not.
But all the arguments that folks like us were a better investment than a Tina Brown presumed that the motive for such investments were to advance ideas rather than sheer capitalism. For the establishment a guy like Strange was an investment in keeping the gravy train, a very capitalistic motive and as Stacy McCain noted yesterday the whole “liberal angel” thing with Weinstein seems to be all about capitalism too. (emphasis mine)
Rebecca Traister of New York magazine recounts her own confrontation with Weinstein’s violent abusive behavior — her called her an epithet and shoved her boyfriend down the steps at a party in 2000. She tries to explain why Weinstein’s behavior was never previously reported, including the fact that “there were so many journalists on his payroll, working as consultants on movie projects, or screenwriters, or for his magazine.” Talk magazine, with Tina Brown as editor, was published 1999-2002: “The cover story of the debut issue was an interview with Hillary Clinton.” In less than three years, Talk lost an estimated $50 million. This was simply another aspect of Weinstein’s power. He was willing to throw away money on a slick magazine with a big-name editor in order to buy influence among journalists. And guess what? It worked. Contrary to their own smug opinions of themselves, the journalistic elite aren’t the most ethical people on the planet.
That fifty million makes a whole lot more sense now. Apparently this wasn’t a question of spending money as a “liberal angel” helping the cause of women, gays and the left, it was paying the price for being a “lecherous devil” buying off journalists who readily decided their silence was worth it for the job, the office, the prestige, the access , the parties etc etc etc all the while telling themselves they were fighting to save the world from the evil conservatives who were trying to oppress women et/al.
This was sheer unadulterated Capitalism and apparently Mr. Weinstein got his money’s worth for decades.
Update: accidently put a gallery from a previous post at the bottom and fixed two sentences with redundant words.
As I have no sexual secrets of rich liberals to keep for a price I have to make my buck by going places and doing interviews all the time hoping people like it enough to pay for it.
If you like the idea of new media on the scene at for these time of things and want to support independent journalism please hit DaTipJar
The 4th Doctor :“You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don’t alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.”
Doctor Who: The Face of Evil Episode Four
Stan:I want you all to call me “Loretta”
Monty Python’s Life of Brian 1979
In the course of my reading yesterday I came across this piece at The Other McCain concerning the ongoing war between Radical feminists and Transgender activists.
I wish Brennan and her radical feminist allies could be strategic enough to realize that there is a huge majority of people who would be willing to support them on this one point — that “woman” is a biological category, not a “gender identity” — if only they realized how important this issue is. The fact that the people being targeted now are my ideological antagonists is not irrelevant to my concern. If hardcore feminists can be targeted this way, what do you think is going to happen when the Tranny Totalitarians target conservatives?
While I find the fight between this em “interesting” groups of people quite amusing there was a rather clarifying moment within this post. This was a tweet from a “transgender” person by the name of Sophia Banks and a response by a person who goes under “SugarPuss” that neatly encapsulates the actual reality here:
Now before we comment on this tweet there is one thing that needs to be clarified. There is, in fact, a tiny amount of people who are born with the sexual organs of both sexes and or an abnormal production of hormones. If a person is in such a situation one should respect whatever decision said person makes at the age of decision in terms of choosing to define oneself as either (or no) sex. None of what follows applies to a person with said medical condition.
Now back to that tweets, The bottom line is with the exception I just noted above there is a simple fact that can not be disputed:
Women do not have penises.
Or as Nursie once explained in Black Adder Series 2
Women do not have penises, Women have never had penises and baring an incredible advance in genetic modification and manipulation or transplant surgery women never will have penises any more than men will have wombs.
Now there are a statistically insignificant amount of men and women who have for whatever reason chosen to have their bodies physically altered, via surgery and or hormone treatments to resemble the opposite sex and who have chosen to live as such. The recognized term used for such a person is “Transgender”. In some countries such alteration is recognized by law, however this doesn’t change the actual reality any more than laws claiming a woman’s testimony is worth half of a man’s under sharia describes an actual mathematical ratio of eyewitness validity.
Now if that tweet said “Transgender woman” rather than simply “woman” I would have no problem with it as it acknowledges the objective reality of a person choosing to physically or chemically altering themselves in a way recognized by law. Nor do I have a problem with a person such as Sophia Banks choosing to live as a woman, function as a woman etc etc etc. Whatever my opinion of the wisdom or sanity of such a decision it’s not my life and therefore not my business. Nor would I have a problem is a person meeting “Sophia” chooses to use female pronouns in discussion, particularly if they had no acquaintance with Sophia before the alternation. Two of the three “transgender” people I know I only met after their “transformation” therefore I find it convenient to use feminine pronouns particularly if they do not wish their previous status disclosed.
However a line is crossed from amused disinterest line to outright defiance if any attempt is made to compel me to acknowledge this delusion as “fact” or if one wishes to force such an acknowledgement by law. At that point this goes from a delusion that only harms the deluded to an attempt to impose a blatant falsehood as truth which is wrong. A great parallel to this would be the group of “catholic” women who ordain themselves & others as catholic “priests”. It’s one thing for them to live this delusion, it’s quite another if they demand the actual Catholic Church to recognize the validity of their make-believe orders.
Or think of the character of Teddy Brewster in the Movie Arsenic & Old Lace.
As long as Teddy is simply blowing his bugle and just talking to neighbors his delusion is not a problem or at most a minor annoyance, but the moment he demands secret service protection as an Ex President and insists on attending international conferences being acknowledged as Theodore Roosevelt and takes legal action to secure and compel it, then one would be compelled to remind him of objective reality.
And that brings us to this tweet I put out in response to Stacy’s post that caused so much fuss yesterday.
Not our biz if @sophiaphotos wants to take hormones to play Gidget. That chances if he wants to compel us to play by law @rsmccain#tcot#p2 — Peter Ingemi (@DaTechGuyblog) July 23, 2014
(note typo in tweet should have said “changes” rather than “chances”)
I’ve tweeted a lot over the years and I’ve never seen more uproar and quicker response from any tweet I’ve ever sent out and believe me I’ve sent out some provocative tweets in my time.
The responses I got varied from the simple vulgar expletive:
@DaTechGuyblog Uh huh, ask me the same question I asked you, clever. I’m literally just calling you out on your transphobia. — MicJPM (@Mic_jpm) July 23, 2014
to those suggesting I should be removed from the radio:
— #AnyoneBUTFord2014 (@itsgottobegood) July 23, 2014
I found it all quite amusing and returned tweets for a bit until actual “life” trumped my amusement but as of this writing angry responses continue to enter my timeline. I’m not inclined to block them because I’m a first amendment guy & I generally don’t block an account unless it’s a phony troll one. Contrary to their totalitarian impulses crazy uncles/aunts have the right to their opinion just as I have and I further am confident in the wisdom of my followers.
While flogging this reaction might be good for traffic & DaTipJar there is a more interesting phenom to note in term of both psychology & the net that I’d like to discuss.
Five years ago (have I really been doing this that long?) I wrote a piece called “The Empowerment of Crazy Uncles” where I talked about how the internet empowers the 1% of people who are, shall we say reality challenged.
The problem is with the internet and social networking and the like that crazy 1% or 1/10 of one percent is suddenly empowered. Instead of the crazy uncle at the family gathering that you can ignore, suddenly he has 1000 friends that he can text to rebut and counter rebut all night. He is affirmed and empowered and boy is he motivated, because now there are thousands of people telling him he’s been right all along and is MUCH smarter than everyone thought.
300,000-3,000,000 crazy uncles as individuals isn’t a big deal, but get them all writing e-mails or making phone calls and most importantly AFFIRMING themselves and suddenly you have a potent economic and or political force. Suddenly there is a huge market for a book or 10,000 people willing to pay $20 for a DVD. That’s a fair amount of change and a person can make a good living off of it.
While the net empowers these crazy uncles there is one limiting effect upon them. While they make up a considerable niche market and an excellent activist base in reality they are a rounding error when compared to the actual population. That means if you have constructed your psychological identity based entirely on an illusion and have spent thousands of dollars and years of your time reinforcing said illusion via surgical & chemical alteration the one thing you dread above all else is the person who, without fear, is willing to deny your illusion , to pull back the curtain of the Wizard, or point to the procession and say “but the Emperor has nothing on!”
And if such a person is in any way a public person that might encourage others to do the same the carefully built lie that is one’s life becomes as fragile as a block of flats put up by hypnosis:
You want to talk phobia THAT’s phobia.
But it’s not just those deluded and fearful of reality who are endangered, it’s the people who make their living supporting and enabling such delusions. The expensive treatments, the bestselling books, the political machines who can count on shock troops, the ability to exploit these people financially & politically for their own gain is never more in danger than when people are willing to stand up and bluntly say the truth. And the truth is this:
When your identity & belief system in your life can be summed up neatly in a 3 minute gag from a Monty Python movie.
Then it’s likely a wise move to re-examine that system closely.
It’s one thing to lose a cherished delusion, it’s quite another to lose the gravy train that those people illusions finance. That demands a loud, immediate and even a totalitarian response. That’s the real fear on display for the world to see here, if they did not have this fear they would have ignored me as just some guy on twitter to block.
Two things in closing: None of this nonsense removes the inherent dignity owed a person by virtue of humanity. Furthermore said person remains a child of God and thus the proper subject for prayer as required. Those are the rules.
If one’s goal is to intimidate and silence that last thing you want to see is this:
The amusing & irrational tweets from those outraged by my homage to reality will be the subject of my lead post tomorow. @rsmccain#tcot#p2 — Peter Ingemi (@DaTechGuyblog) July 24, 2014
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.
Da Techguy's (no longer backup) Blog 