I’m at home suffering from an adverse reaction to pollen, but duty calls. I’m scheduled to do a blog round-up today at 5:20 p.m. EST on Connected Coast to Coast.
Leave a comment/trackback or shoot me an e-mail on what you think is hot right now in the blogosphere. I’m going to pitch the Marty Minto firing, but it might be too controversial. Did I just write that?
I may also talk about blogger reviews of Brian C. Anderson’s new book, South Park Conservatives. He sent several bloggers a copy of his book, myself included, and I plan to review it sometime this week. The big bloggers are writing about the book, but I want to hear from smaller bloggers. Ideally, I’d like to have your links by 2:30 p.m.
Update: Tentative topics for the round-up: South Park Conservatives, Ann Coulter on her distorted TIME magazine cover photo, Tom Delay, John Bolton…
On a side note, this issue has been taken care of. Thanks, techie-readers!
Update II (5:56 p.m.): I was terrible. That was the worst performance so far. You’re supposed to get better at these things, not worse. Oh, well. My excuse: I have a splitting, allergy-induced headache, I’m doped up on allergy medicine, and my RSS feed is not working. (I’m preoccupied with a feed, for crying out loud).
For today’s round-up, I talked about Tom Delay and the so-called ethics scandal. Sites selected were House of Scandal and Alpha Patriot (He links to American Spectator, but I thought I saw American Prospect, which is what I said on the air. Ugh.).
I also mentioned Brian C. Anderson’s new book, South Park Conservative. I chose Lorie Byrd’s review at Polipundit and Gene Healy’s post at AFF Brainwash.
Michelle Malkin and Atrios blogged about Ann Coulter and the distorted photo. As I said on the show, Atrios complained about the article, which he calls a “love letter.”
And the video.
Update III (6:48 p.m.): I’m having some issues with the pop-up comments, too. You can still leave a comment, but when you hit “Post it,” you may get an error message. Just close the comment box, re-open it, and your comment will be posted.
{ 5 trackbacks }
{ 31 comments }
In case any of you receive obscene or derogatory comments at your blog purporting to be La Shawn’s response to your comment at this blog, it is a hoax. Someone is posting obscene comments at other blogs in response to these comments here, and typing La Shawn’s name at the bottom.
The party of tolerance strikes again.
This is another example of #7 from the list of MSM/DNC bias categories.
USA Today has an article about “Bloggers going legit”. What? We’re not legit? that’s news to me…
Anyway, it’s about bloggers getting book deals. Naturally, they focus on a woman who blogged briefly about her sexual conquests in Washington D.C.
Anyway, the story does list some other bloggers who are getting published. You might find a little fodder there.
Here’s the link:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2005-04-17-blogger-book-deals_x.htm
If you go on freerepublic.com, any thread on coulter is full of leggy pics.
Ms. Barber: Not sure if this is the right comment section for “Connected” suggestions. However, last week’s extensive blogfest on the Minuteman Project and the exchanges on how best to secure the border seemed to strike a lot of sparks.
HEKTOR
The NYT had an article yesterday about the papal candidates entitled “Cardinals Align as Time Nears to Select Pope” by Laurie Goodstein and Ian Fisher. The Times’ use of adjectives is interesting… and predictable:
Cardinal John Ratzinger, who the Times indicates is the odds-on favorite or at least the most influential cardinal: “hard-line”, “old”,
“uncharismatic”, “rigid”, and (by insinuation)
“authoritarian.” He would like to “impose more doctrinal discipline, reining in priests who experiment with liturgy or seminaries that permit a broad interpretation of doctrine.”
Cardinal Dionigi Tettamanzi and his chief supporter, Bishop Carlo Maria Martini: “offers a
little something for each flank”, “has not ruled out changes to priestly celibacy or the bans on
contraception and on women serving as deacons”, “thinks that if the church does not move on in terms of doctrine, it is condemned to lose the content of Christian truth”, and represent the “progressive bloc.”
Hmmm… Think the NYT is playing favorites?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/17/international/worldspecial2/17rome.html?ex=1114315200&en=3e4d5e4cc02ad063&ei=5065&partner=MYWAY
If Will Femia’s within slapping distance, feel free to slap him for the “Ug” comment on the Carnival of the Cats.
Apropos of “Marty Minto Fired for Sharing the Gospel”: Doesn’t the employer have an absolute right to define what is acceptable and what is not in the workplace? Just as La Shawn Barber has final say on what gets said on her blog, the bosses of WORD-FM have final say there, and if Marty Minto doesn’t like it, he can find some other radio station, or start his own. Isn’t that what conservatives think?
Wasn’t your comment longer than this? I was fiddling around in the Admin section with my wireless, which may have truncated your comment. Sorry about that. Feel free to re-submit. – Admin
…what you think is hot right now in the blogosphere??
Well, of course it’s Mad Mikey….;) [/being completely silly]
My trackback above is to the update I added to the book review post which links to the video feed.
La Shawn – stop being so tough on yourself. You do a better job than many of those who have been doing this for their entire careers. I hope you are feeling better soon. The pollen is giving me fits, too.
Thanks, Lorie.
I’m embarrassed to say it, but I am a South Park Conservative. lol
“and (by insinuation)
“authoritarian.”
He was in the Hitler Youth.
You’ve got guts, little gal. I missed your performance today, but no matter. You are willing to take risks, and you will prevail!
Actus: “He was in Hitler youth”
And your point is?
If you knew the history of Hitler-Jugend, then your bringing it up in this context is moot. Almost like saying JP2 grew up in Communist Poland, therefore…?
Certainly, you don’t intend to tell us that Ratzinger would be good, because, like JP2, he saw and lived under evil 1st hand?
[To set the record straight, JP2 was too old to have "grown up" under communism and the overwhelming pressures to join Young Pioneers. Just being rhetorical, since Actus is once again rhapsodizing w/o knowing diddly]
I wouldn’t worry about looking at the laptop too much. Since you mentioned last time, I notice that others do the same.
I’m wondering why they don’t provide a telepromnpter and just leave that laptop as a prop?
On second thought, why don’t they plant a a small hi-rez camera, a la web cams, on top of the screen so that you’re looking at the camera as you read/navigate?
In any case, I’m still waiting for your own 1/2 show
“If you knew the history of Hitler-Jugend, then your bringing it up in this context is moot”
More “insinuation.”
La Shawn,
Your poor appearance on MSNBC was clearly caused by bad karma as a result of your ignoring the subjects of the two trackback links from The Unalienable Right blog above. Just kidding. You’ll get ‘em next time.
insinuated, insinuating, insinuates verb, transitive
1. To introduce or otherwise convey (a thought, for example) gradually and insidiously. See synonyms at suggest.
2. To introduce or insert (oneself) by subtle and artful means.
============================
Look in your mirror.
Since I have one degree of separation to Herr Axmann, I’d much appreciate being enlightened as to the subtle significance of a 14 year old H~J from a persecuted family. Or perhaps you would rather expound on the insidious import of a teenaged draftee manning anti-aircraft guns?
re: your errors on the comments page:
those sometimes happen in wordpress when there are any spaces or new lines outside of your (php?) tags. open the files, and erase all the spaces and new lines at the begging and end of the file.
Depending on his station in life, Hitler Youth could have been a life-saver. A friend in graduate school told me that his father was part of the Hitler Youth. His father’s family was so poor that they couldn’t afford shoes so his father didn’t go to school because he was ashamed. He joined the Hitler Youth, got shoes and a uniform and three square meals a day. Also, he got to go to camps with other young people where they sung inspiring songs, etc.
All in all, I would say that being part of the Hitler Youth in Germany then would not be as damning as joining, say, the KKK in America as an adult and never renouncing it.
why not see what bloggers are saying about the screening tactics at Bush “rallys”?
Even some ultra conservative corporate venues are beginning to finally report on it:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,153720,00.html
and then start asking questions about what is happening to free speech.
I like Ann and I liked Time’s ‘caricature’ of her. I don’t understand why she is making such a fuss over it.
I would be more interested in how they treated her inside the pages. I don’t read Time and just saw the cover.
I don’t like the NY Times trying to pick the Pope. Can’t they just report the news instead of make it.
Was John Ratzinger in the Hitler Youth? I have not read this, though I confess that I don’t know much about his biography. It seems unlikely that the NYT or the rest of the BM would have overlooked it if he was. If he was in the Hitler Youth, it seems to me that this would not only disqualify him from the papacy, but from being a cardinal.
My point in posting the article was to demonstrate (as if further evidence was needed) the bias of the self-styled “unbiased” media.
RE: Screening tactics
For an “ultra-conservative corporate venue”, I thought Kelley Vlahos’ article at Fox News was pretty even-handed. Critics and supporters of the White House actions were given their say. This is how it should be.
As far as “screening” audience members, this is hardly new. Anybody recall this past DNC convention in Boston, where protesters were confined to areas well away from the actual site? Both sides make efforts to control the audience to guard against embarrassing instances that might be caught on camera.
Frankly, I think conservatives have good reason to worry about who gets into the audience. Several conservative speakers – Bill Kristol, Pat Buchanan, David Horowitz – have been pelted with food during recent appearances. I doubt that the White House wants to risk this happening to the president.
And consider this quote from the article:
“Denver attorney Dan Recht, who is representing Leslie Weiss, 39, Alex Young, 25, and Karen Bauer, 38, told The Associated Press that his clients had tickets and were not planning to disrupt anything when they were asked to leave, without explanation, before the March 21 forum.
“The three, who are members of the Denver Progressives political activist group, did have T-shirts tucked under their business attire calling for Bush to ’stop the lies,’ but a plan to brandish them during the program had been abandoned earlier and the shirts never saw the light of day, Recht said.”
The people ejected from the crowd were members of a liberal advocacy group affiliated with MoveOn.org (and was, in fact, formerly called DenverMoveOn.org*) and wearing t-shirts under their business clothing with anti-Bush slogans. Oh, but they NEVER planned to display them. No, sir! This is as fatuous as “I smoked pot, but didn’t inhale.”
I’m a little conflicted about this subject, because it’s a symptom of a broader problem with free speech in our country. On the one hand, the “authorities” define where and when “free speech” can take place, such as designated protest zones during political functions or free speech zones on college campuses. On the other hand, there are those who equate free speech with the right to commit mayhem, such as we saw in Seattle a few years ago. It seems to me that people who want to protest the president – or any other politician or public figure – ought to have the unrestricted right to do so, so long as their “protest” is non-violent and not a thuggish attempt to drown out the free speech of the person they are protesting.
Where to draw the line?
*http://denverprogressives.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=35&forum=1
H~J started out as one of many “Boy/Girl Scouts” type organizations. It started as the “Youth Club of the Nazi Party” in 1922. As Hitler’s fame and power grew, so grew the club, later changing it’s name to Hitler~Jugend . Eventually, by 1939, it became mandatory as a measure of society’s dutiful obligation to the Fatherland. Hitler placed Artur Axmann in charge. Ratzinger would have been about 12 years old by this time.
One of the interesting things about these youth clubs was their emphasis on clean and healthy living, ie abstinance, avoiding alcohol etc. It also gave the city youth the opportunity to get out of their dank tenements and spend summers at “camp” out in the country. Between nature hikes and sports, the youth were also expected to work on farms doing things like tending livestock, building haystacks etc.
Key thing was that Hitler banned all other organizations and made H~J the one and only. You had better have a good reason for not joining, mainly handicapped. In which case, Hitler also had plans for a final solution as part of purifying and strengthening the Aryan stock.
Now wait for the inevitable wailing and gnashing of teeth. “But, but, Pope Benedict was a H~J, shouldn’t that count against him?” I wounder if this is the start of a “witchhunt” for progressive priests?
“I wounder if this is the start of a “witchhunt†for progressive priests?”
he was in charge of the inquisition office.
Wrong! Your saying so does not make it so. But there you go again, proving my point.
He was in charge of defending the faith. It is progressives who are controversial. To wit the wave of socialist priests in Central/South America operating under the Liberty, of which Rangel’s favorite Aristide. As history now shows, Aristide and his posse were no btter than Papa/Baby Doc & the Tonton Macoutes.
What I don’t get with the progressives is if you don’t like it, start yer own club. It’s one thing to work within the system for change, but hey, if the system ain’t buying the song & dance. Don’t cry. Leave.
Bless you for including my site in your segment. You made my year.
I like the way Chrenkoff put it:
“One thing is for certain; the “moderates”, “liberals” and “progressives” within the Church who expected a break from the past, will be disappointed. Ratzinger is not a trendy reformer. I’m sure we will be reminded countless times over the next few weeks that until now, he has been the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the body which in the past centuries used to be known as the Holy Inquisition. Of course, all institutions change over time, and it makes as much sense to tar Ratzinger with burning heretics in sixteenth century Spain, as saying that George W Bush currently holds the office which had once supported slavery. But tarred he will be, because the progressives did not get a Pontiff that “moves with the times”, or at least with “The New York Times.””
Put another way, it makes about as much sense to tar certain modern day African chieftans with selling rival, and weaker, Africans to slavers in 16th century Africa.
Actus,
Did you hear what really happened with Pope Benedict XVI and the Hitler Youth? His father hated the Nazis so much he moved to another town. As all young people were, Pope Benedict XVI was automatically enrolled in the Hitler Youth but wouldn’t attend even one meeting–even when it meant he might lose a partial subsidy for his education.
Actus, you smeared this man and he didn’t deserve it. This is one reason why I tend to skip a comment that has your name under it.
Evon
Comments on this entry are closed.