Like I couldn’t have guessed it

I was shocked — SHOCKED — to find out that Leftists are behind the big push for Net Neutrality. [/sarcasm]

Documents made public yesterday by Judicial Watch describe extensive collusion by Federal Communications Commission officials with a left-wing advocacy group in a campaign to expand government regulation of the Internet.

The documents, obtained by Judicial Watch in a December 2010 Freedom of Information Act request, were created after Democrat appointees solidified their 3-2 control of the agency in March 2009.

The coordination between FCC officials and Free Press, the advocacy group, supported a proposal for the agency to regulate access to the Internet as if it were a public utility, in the interest of ensuring “Net Neutrality.”

Proponents said doing so would assure equal access for all Internet users by barring companies from offering preferred rates for higher delivery speeds. Other users, especially in communities with limited Internet access, would be forced to accept poorer service.

But critics said the proposal would actually give the FCC a tool to regulate content, and they argued that the FCC has no authority over the medium in the first place. It would be akin to forcing FedEx and UPS to treat all packages the same way the U.S. Postal Service does.

Anyone with half a brain knows that (1) any effort to regulate the interwebs, regardless of stated purpose, is an attempt to regulate content, and (2) Leftists are the primary movers and shakers behind any effort to restrict speech.

Next thing you know someone will report that Leftists are behind efforts to ban handguns, or some other piece of obvious information.

>The Echo Chamber Effect

>One of the reasons I have concern for the future of our world is a little something known as the echo chamber effect. Briefly, this is the tendency of people to gravitate towards sources of information that will reinforce their own beliefs regarding events or topics of interest to them.

The echo chamber effect is hardly a recent phenomenon. In what perhaps may be an apocryphal quote, Pauline Kael is supposed to have said regarding the landslide victory of Richard Nixon over George McGovern in 1972, “I can’t believe Nixon won. I don’t know anybody who voted for him”.

New media gets accused of fomenting echo chambers, but old media has them as well. Fox News is a comfortable echo chamber for people with Neocon leanings. MSNBC is a comfortable echo chamber for those who feel that King George the Dim is the cause of all the world’s problems, as well as for those who think that Big Dick Cheney is the cause of said problems.

But new media – particularly blather radio and blogs – are especially susceptible to the echo chamber effect.

I started to ruminate on this subject late last week because of my recent experiences over at Caput Penitus Culus. Talk about your echo chamber!

There are basically three types of people at that site, besides the loathsome reptile who hosts it: female authoritarians who want to force their worldview on others; bigots; and the willfully stupid (yes Stamp, that would be you). Each of these archetypes enters the blog with a worldview they desperately want to reinforce. Each comes away with exactly what they wished for – EXCEPT when some “troll” like me comes along questioning certain aspects of their beliefs.

Troll. It’s an interesting concept. The textbook definition of a troll is someone who shows up uninvited at your site to argue for the sake of arguing, a disruptor, an agitator. What a troll is in practice is someone who shows up at an echo chamber with a different viewpoint than that of the denizens of the site. You can tell a lot about a site and its proprietor by the tolerance shown to alternative viewpoints; at Caput Penitus Culus, FLDS Texas, and other like sites, you’re likely to have your comments deleted and your access to enter comments blocked.

Partly because of my libertarian political leanings, but also because I’ve seen it demonstrated masterfully at Vox Popoli during the 7+ years I’ve been reading that blog, I think I’ve managed to a large extent to avoid hosting yet another echo chamber. But (and this is an important concept to grok) I can’t be the judge of that; only those who read this blog and other blogs with differing viewpoints can accurately say whether I’ve been successful on that count or not.

Okay, what’s the point, Vulture? The point is this: our nation used to have a tradition of tolerance for opposing viewpoints. Now, with the echo chamber effect, we’re not inclined to hear, let alone respect, differing viewpoints. This is unhealthy intellectually, and it’s unhealthy for the continuing health of a Constitutional republic.

But what do I know? According to the Caput a Palos, I’m not too bright. Then again, considering the source, I might just be an effin genius…

>Mr. Wilson goes to Washington

>At last there’s someone in Washington who’ll say what we’re all thinking! Joe Wilson, come on down!

One of the most persistent conservative concerns about health care legislation is that it will provide health care to illegal immigrants — and the heated claim spilled onto the floor of President Obama’s address to a joint session of Congress this evening, where one Republican member called the president a liar for denying it.

“There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false – the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally,” President Obama said.

A loud voice from the Republican side of the hall answered, “You lie!” — my colleague Glenn Thrush reports it was Rep. Joe Wilson (R – S.C.) — drawing a second “It’s not true,” from Obama and a shake of Nancy Pelosi’s head.

Team Elephant leadership: take notes and take note. THIS is how you battle radicals like Il Duce. Not by acting like prissy parliamentarians. Not by playing by the Marques de Queensbury rules. No, defeating Saul Alinsky tactics takes Saul Alinsky tactics.

>Banks, Automobiles,…the Internet?!?!?

>Megalomania (from the Greek word μεγαλομανία; megalo-, meaning large, and mania) is a historical term for behavior characterized by an obsession or preoccupation with wealth, power, genius, or omnipotence – often generally termed as delusions of grandeur or grandiose delusions.
From Wikipedia.

---

Has there ever been an individual outside of Hitler, Stalin, or Bonaparte who fit the profile of megalomaniac as completely as Il Duce? Wait until you hear about this latest attempted power grab before you answer that questions.

CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

The new version would allow the president to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” relating to “non-governmental” computer networks and do what’s necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for “cybersecurity professionals,” and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.

The passage of this bill, coupled with the FCC imposing the “Fairness Doctrine”, would create an environment wherein the President could shut down the dissemination of any information he deems “threatening”, which, no doubt, would include criticism of him and his administration.

One more thing. What exactly are the “cybersecurity professionals” going to be charged with? Will they be informers to the government as to who might be a potential “threat”?

Obama may not be the worst President we’ve ever had (give him time, he’ll get there), but he’s clearly the most dangerous.

>Wiener of the Week

>Jane Velez-Mitchell has issues. And, no, I’m not referring to the dopey name of her insipid show Issues with Jane Velez-Mitchell. And it’s not just the fact that she SCREAMS throughout here entire show (xfloggingkylex says you can hear her even after you press the Mute button). Nor is it the fact that her show is a formulaic ripoff of Nancy Grace’s show, which, itself, after a fine start, gradually because a formulaic stultifying nightmare.

No, the issues to which I refer have to do with a failure to think.

The evening after that loser in Pittsburgh shot up a gym (Deadeye’s comment to me was, “See. That’s why I don’t work out.”), Jane hosted a panel of guest “experts” to discuss this heinous, cowardly act.

There were positive moments in the exchange, mostly provided by criminal profiler Pat Brown, who correctly categorized the shooter as a sociopath, NOT a psychopath. And Velez-Mitchell scored a correct answer when she categorized his attitude as “[A] victim mentality…Everybody’s to blame but him. OK, he is not to blame.”

But the rest? To quote my Jewish brethren, “Oy, vey!”

The following are excerpts from the transcript.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Apparently, he was using — Jeanne, he was using 30-round ammo clips that were illegal before the assault weapons ban was lifted in 2004. And those ammo clips allow you to kill a lot of people very quickly, right?

Translation: 30-round clips – once illegal – make it “easier to kill people”, so we should ban them again.

If this statement alone isn’t worth of a WotW, I don’t know what is! Bringing back the ill-conceived (and unconstitutional) Assault Weapons ban wouldn’t have saved those people, you stupid cow!

[Dr. Judy] KURIANSKY: … then guns are often that kind of a sexual acting out, because a gun is like a sex organ. And when men are extremely frustrating and frustrated, they can end up taking all that aggression out with a gun.

Translation: Guns are a substitute sex organ, and shooting them off relieves aggression just like an orgasm.

Again, a statement worthy of a WotW on it’s own merits. This is quack pop psychology at it’s worst.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Brad, you`re the defense attorney. Do these women who were injured and the families of the dead have a lawsuit, and if so, against whom?

[Attorney Bradford] COHEN: It`s definitely — it`s something that they should consider. And it`s probably against L.A. Fitness for some sort of lack of security. He went there once before, and he was fully armed. I don`t know, in terms of what kind of security they have, if there is that kind of appropriate security that`s in place. But I`m sure, believe me, with civil attorneys around, there`s definitely going to be someone who`s going to be filing a civil lawsuit.

Translation: Can they sue? You’re damn right! Let’s start looking for deep pockets right now!

I thought my head was going to explode at this point. Are you kidding me? You’re talking lawsuits? For WHAT?!?!? It’s a gym, asshats! You don’t have security at a gym! Nor should you! Memberships are expensive enough as it is! And the idea that the gym is responsible for a sociopath shooting up the place is absolute nonsense. This exchange alone is grounds for tort reform!

DAVID SCHWARTZ, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: You know what the bottom line is, Jane? What are we going to do to prevent this in the future? You know, there needs — we need to spend more money as a society on mental disease and defects. This is something very serious.

Translation: MORE GOVERNMENT SPENDING!!!

That’s right. We’re already blowing out unrepayable debt into the third and fourth generation of our grandchildren. Let’s spend some more money on…what? What exactly are you going to do? Screen for sociopaths? Who will do it? The government? Oh, THAT’S not a recipe for persecuting political enemies of Der Staat or anything! Assclown!

SCHWARTZ: We need more — the insurance companies also…

Translation: Make the insurance companies pay!

Not content with mere government spending, Mr. Schwartz wants to FORCE insurance companies to spend more money on…what? Again, the act of spending more money does not a solution make.

KURIANSKY: No question that in this — in this whole time of health care…[crosstalk]…we need to pay more attention to mental health care here. And there`s another important issue that`s very psychological that has to do with bystanders. Because there have been real-life bystanders who stand by when people get murdered and don`t want to get involved. And now it`s turned to the Internet and the responsibility that people have to notice what people are blogging about. And who are they going to report to? That`s what we need to pay attention to now.

Translation: Anyone who suspected this act has to pay!

So…if someone read the rantings of this loser prior to him going on a rampage (which, it turns out, wouldn’t have been possible, since he posted the entire “diary” just prior to the event), they are guilty, too? What is this, the USSR? We’re supposed to rat out people based on rantings?

I’ve spent a lot of time around teenagers. They go off on rants where they say they’re going to do this or going to do that. If you’re not familiar with teenagers, you’d be alarmed. If you are familiar with teenagers, you’ll shrug. Why? Because it’s all bluster. There are exceptions to be sure, like the Columbine teenagers. And that begs the question: if you can’t separate the bluster from real threats, and you’re “required” to “report threats”, how long will it be before every little childish threat becomes a crime?

DAVID SCHWARTZ, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Jane, it does take an intervention. I have had plenty of cases where there have been psychopaths who have had this intervention.

This guy went 49 years without killing anyone. There needs to be an intervention; it does take a village sometimes. And I guarantee you the writing was on the wall. If you sent Tom Ruskin out there to that gym to do an investigation, I guarantee you in five minutes he would find people that would come out and say that the writing was on the wall in this particular case.

Translation: It takes a village. Sing Kum Ba Ya everyone.

No further comment necessary.

Megapoints to criminal profiler Pat Brown for this scathing comeback to an insipid Velez-Mitchell comment.

PAT BROWN, CRIMINAL PROFILER: Well, I would agree with you Jane, if I believed that this was actually necessarily true.

But the part about getting help; again psychopaths do not seek help because they don`t think they need any because it`s everybody else`s fault. You cannot help them. They wont — they will lie to their therapists and that won`t go anywhere.

What we need to do is work with children who are small. To teach them that they`re not entitled to everything that — the selfishness that they`re being brought up with where they just get everything they want and think they can have everything.

No. You have to bring up children to realize that you have to earn things and that sometimes it takes time. You have to wait for things. And this guy apparently didn`t grow up with that, so he thinks that he should get what he wants and he`s is not willing to do the work.

In other words, he could probably get a lady in his life if he treated them nicely. If he stopped looking for a cheerleader type of 20-year-old instead of perhaps a nice 50-year-old librarian, a little overweight, who he was sweet to. He could have somebody in his life. But he has chosen not to do that.

Pat Brown, you’ve made a fan of me.

But Jane Velez-Mitchell? You’re the Wiener of the Week.

>Bad Law – Update

>I received an email from a gentleman named Simon Owens who runs a blog called Bloggasm. He pointed me to an article he wrote in which he interviewed one of the lawyers who is defending four of the anonymous commenters (see previous post) whose identities Der Staat is attempting to subpoena.

Please check out the linked article; excerpts don’t really do it justice.

And Simon: thanks for the heads up. The more people aware of this miscarriage of justice the better.

>Bad law (and the Culusotti who love it)

>I’m sure that the crowd over at Caput Penitus Culus will love this one. Or not.

A Nevada newspaper says it has been served a federal grand jury subpoena seeking information about readers who posted comments on the paper’s Web site.

The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported Tuesday that its editor, Thomas Mitchell, plans to fight the request, which the newspaper received after reporting on a federal tax fraud case against business owner Robert Kahre.

The subpoena seeks the identities and personal information about people who posted comments on the story. The newspaper said prosecutors told the judge in the case that some comments hinted at acts of violence and the subpoena was issued out of concern for jurors’ safety.

Mitchell said anonymous speech is “a fundamental and historic part of this country.” The newspaper would consider cooperating if specific crimes or real threats were presented, he said.

If the Review-Journal is unsuccessful in fighting this unquestionably unconstitutional request, it spells curtains for the entire concept of protected free speech. Because, as you know, Der Staat can find just about ANY reason to justify ANY action once “precedent” (or case law) has been established. Right, Culus?

On the one hand, you would think that the law fetishists at Caput Penitus Culus would be overjoyed at the prospect of law being defined. It’s how they get their jollies, apparently. But there’s a small problem with this particular issue: everyone, from the Caput a Palo to the n00biest commenter, posts at that site under cloak of anonymity (or at least pseudonymity). The lame-ass excuse offered by the Caput a Palo himself for not associating his real name with his blog was that he was afraid of the FLDS. Seriously? I’m MUCH more afraid of Culus and his proto-authoritarian jack-booted Hitler youth than I would EVER be of the FLDS. What are they going to do? Bore me to death with Book of Mormon readings?

Object lesson, Culusotti! Just because something becomes case law doesn’t make it right, just, or constitutionally valid. Perhaps having a legal issue decided in a way that harms your precious anonymity might open your eyes to that fact.

Eh, probably not. They’re not terribly bright over there…

>In case you needed further proof

>“The terrorists hate us for our freedoms”. That was King George the Dim’s favorite saying. What a putz! The LAST thing we are is a free people.

Don’t believe me? Then check out how San Diego deals with that pesky 1st Amendment.

A local pastor and his wife claim they were interrogated by a San Diego County official, who then threatened them with escalating fines if they continued to hold Bible studies in their home, 10News reported.

Attorney Dean Broyles of The Western Center For Law & Policy was shocked with what happened to the pastor and his wife.

Broyles said, “The county asked, ‘Do you have a regular meeting in your home?’ She said, ‘Yes.’ ‘Do you say amen?’ ‘Yes.’ ‘Do you pray?’ ‘Yes.’ ‘Do you say praise the Lord?’ ‘Yes.'”

The county employee notified the couple that the small Bible study, with an average of 15 people attending, was in violation of County regulations, according to Broyles.

Okay, let’s review, shall we?

• A small prayer meeting held weekly in a private residence.
• They pray. They say ‘Amen’. They praise the Lord.
• San Diego County wants to shut them down.

This is the sort of thing for which we (rightly!) condemn Communist China. Only now it’s happening — openly — in Police State Amerika.

Remind me again about those ‘freedoms’ we’re hated for…

>A racist, anti-freedom horror show

>Judge Sonia Sotomayor is Il Duce’s nominee for the Supreme Court to take the place of that moron David Souter. As one would expect, only the finest legal expert, selected on the basis of merit, not quotas, would be Il Duce’s first Court nominee. NOT AT ALL.

Sonia Sotomayer represents all that is wrong with our judicial system. Her demeanor in the courtroom is that of a tyrant and a bully. She is anti-freedom, ruling against both freedom of speech and the Second Amendment.

But the one thing about Sotomayor that stands out? That would be her racism.

Oh, come on, Vulture! You really can’t use one throw-away paragraph in one speech to label a person as a racist! But that’s the thing: I don’t. I couldn’t care less about that speech. When I speak of Sotomayor as a racist, I’m talking about more important, more substantial things, like this:

As an undergraduate at Princeton, this nominee to the Supreme Court wanted the government to require the school to hire more Hispanic faculty members. At Yale Law School, she bemoaned a court ruling against racial quotas. She hasn’t seen nearly enough affirmative action to please her, and as a judge has repeatedly cited her own special understandings as a Latina as a reason for putting more Hispanics on the bench.

So what’s wrong with any of this? Nothing, if all she was doing was calling for an end to ethnic, gender or racial discrimination against people who are imminently qualified as faculty members or judges or whatever. Instead, she was calling for preferential treatment on the grounds that there is something better about one group than another, much the same philosophy once used to justify slavery, lynchings, segregation and all kinds of injustices against blacks in this country.

That’s not enough for you? Try this: Sotomayor belongs to La Raza, Spanish for “The Race”. Last I heard, excessive racial identity was a prime element of racism. And La Raza is an anti-American organization as well.

La Raza was condemned in 2006 by former U.S. Rep. Charles Norwood, R-Ga., as a radical “pro-illegal immigration lobbying organization that supports racist groups calling for the secession of the western United States as a Hispanic-only homeland.”

Norwood urged La Raza to renounce its support of the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan – which sees “the Race” as part of an ethnic group that one day will reclaim Aztlan, the mythical birthplace of the Aztecs. In Chicano folklore, Aztlan includes California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and parts of Colorado and Texas.

Hey! I have relatives in Aztlan! And they don’t speak Spanish! [/sarcasm]

And let us not forget Sotomayor’s prominent position in the case of the firefighters denied promotion because no minority candidates passed the test.

With all of the heat generated from that dopey quote from that dopey speech Sotomayor gave in Berkeley, Il Duce’s consigliere was called upon to set the ground rules for opposition.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs issued a pointed warning to opponents of Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s Supreme Court nomination Wednesday, urging critics to measure their words carefully during a politically charged confirmation debate.

“You have a nice face. It would be a shame if something happened to it…”

Face it, Il Duce has produced exactly the kind of Court nominee Team Elephant was screaming about during the 2008 Elections. Of course, in the interest of fairness, I have to point out that McCommie wouldn’t do much better. Maybe we’d get “son of Souter” from him, if we were lucky.

>Wiener of the Week

>This is one installment of WotW that you’re gonna just love. I know I do. It seems that an attempt to smear Christians and supporters of third-party candidates has come back to bite the state of Missouri in the ass.

The Missouri Highway Patrol this week retracted a controversial report on militia activity and will change how such reports are reviewed before being distributed to law enforcement agencies.

The Highway Patrol also will open an investigation into the origin of the report, which linked conservative groups with domestic terrorism and named former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin.

---

[I]t suggested that domestic militias often subscribed to radical ideologies rooted in Christian views and opposition to immigration, abortion or federal taxes. The report also stated that it was “not uncommon” for militia members to support third-party political candidates.

Let’s see. We have “radical ideologies rooted in Christian views” (whatever that means). We have a blanket painting of third-party supporters as militia members (and, as such, as right-wing extremists. What more could we ask for?

The state’s Lt. Governor had more – much more.

Before Keathley’s memo was released Wednesday, Kinder criticized the report for suggesting that only issues championed by conservatives motivated domestic terrorists. The report “slanders” opponents of abortion and critics of illegal immigration, he said.

“Under the guidance of the present director, who apparently must think it is Nixon’s secret service, the Department of Public Safety has taken on the new and sinister role of political profiling,” Kinder said.

Also troubling, Kinder said, the report makes no mention of Islamic terrorists or those who might subscribe to ideologies associated with liberals, such as environmental radicals.

I’d like to second that last thought. Google up ALF (Animal Liberation Front) or ELF (Environmental Liberation Front). These are bona fide terrorist groups – not a phantom menace like Christian supporters of third-parties!

What’s extraordinary about this story is that it took a major s*** storm for Missouri to disavow the report! Their initial reaction was this:

[T]he information analysis center released a statement reaffirming its “regard for the Constitutions of the United States and Missouri” and expressing regret that “any citizens or groups were unintentionally offended by the content of the document.”

Yeah! Don’t get your panties in a ball! We’re protected by the First Amendment, so you can kiss our collective asses!

They’re not talking so tough now, are they? And you wonder why schadenfreude is such a major part of who I am…

So, Missouri: Congrats! You’re the Wiener of the Week.