Friday, February 23, 2007
A few days ago Scott pointed out that Online Integrity is dead. Now, I think there's plenty of actual integrity online, so that's good. But the Online Integrity of the sort sponsored by our good friend Tacitus, aka Josh Trevino -- well, that's gone and buried, done and over. And that's even better.
As any number of people picked up on at the time, last May, the big problem with the "OI" project was that the person who was pushing it, this Trevino fellow, himself lacks integrity, in the same rather spectacular negative fashion that the Sun lacks ice cream. Oh, he talks about "honor" all the time, like he's Worf or something. But when he says "honor" he says it like you'd phonetically pronounce a word in a foreign language that you don't understand.It was, and is, too rich: here was someone wanting to primarily define "integrity" as "respect for a person's right to anonymity online," who had been notorious for stunts like this. And the incident where he coquettishly let slip Billmon's last name. And other nonsense. The record shows that Tac sees anonymity or pseudonymity solely as an opportunity to whip out a cudgel against someone he doesn't like, because if you can "out" them, oh boy, you've got one over on them! What a mighty little fellow you are! Have a biscuit! Hence his addiction to using real names whenever he can, even when he knows full well that the other person is known online by a pseudonym. And even when it's pointless because the target doesn't really care. (The purpose is to insult, as in the infantile usage, "The Democrat Party." Bonus insulting points in that he doesn't say "fuck" so he's still one "civil" little Fauntleroy!)
So for Tac to start up an "Online Integrity" project where everyone would swear not to out people, well, that was like the Ted Haggard Crusade Against Meth n' Gay Hookers. Just too funny. So my initial response, once I heard it was him behind it all, was to make fun of it. And to complete the joke, this Online Blogintegrity site that began as a parody is still in existence, and indeed about to evolve (more on that soon).Indeed, from our vantage point right now, it's pretty clear just what exactly Online Integrity always was: the bouquet of flowers the abuser buys in order to prove -- mostly to himself -- that he's... not an abuser. Witness Tac's behavior in this recent Sadly No thread. It's been going on for days now. (Scroll down to the end for the real fun, where Tac reveals the nickname of the sports teams at the CC where I teach, immediately after he has accused Scott Lemieux and HTML/Retardo of being "obsessives" because they read and criticize his blog posts.)
Integrity consists in holding to a principle because it's a principle. If you have respect for the legitimacy of anonymity or pseudonymity online, then you do not under any circumstances violate that principle.So much for Tac's "principles." He's right now in the process of violating a principle he once launched a public campaign to champion.
I think that's super.(Crossposted to Whiskey Fire)
Monday, February 19, 2007
Rust in Pieces
In case you haven't heard yet, Josh Trevino's Online Integrity is no more. (Take that any way you want it.)
I'm sure it's only a matter of time before someone accuses us of pulling their plug. (That should be taken in a technological sense, not the... y'know... other sense.)
More to come, as the inebriation... err... story develops.
Update: By ¡EGN!
Well, hees site may be no more, but Treviño remains active online, holding fast to the principles he set forth een hees now defunct leetle pledge. We can see a primo example of thees een the comments section of thees post over at Sadly, No!
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Context: ¡Zombis Mentirosos!
(Context: Lying Zombies)
Practically anyone who has read political blogs for any amount of time has met the seemingly undead weengnut talking points. Eef joo run afoul of these horrorosos, joo can rarely free jourself from their steenky embrace merely through the use of logic, reasoning, or appeals to one's better nature.
Over a year ago, Azul Grande labeled them ¡las Mentiras de las Zombis! or Zombie Lies! and rightfully so. Multiple debunkings appear to have no effect on these tweested leetle fairy tales.
The only sure tactic appears to be massive applications of ridicule, and even then, the strongest Zombie-Lies are only marginalized.
Some can lay dormant for years, awaiting only the barest opportunity to once more raise their lumpy, toothless skulls, break free of their tombs, and terrorize a feckless, fawning Sociedad de las Frotacionados Profesionales into once more repeating their unholy brain-sucking mantras:
"Aaah-braaamofff gaaave mOo0ney to bOo0th parrrtiesss"
"J0oOeee Willllsuhnn 0oOuted hisssss Oo0wnnn wiiiiiife"
...and so on, and so forth, eh?
Joo would need an army of Bruce Campbells to even make a dent een the sheer numbers of these infernal just-so-stories.
Regarding the ongoing Spocko Saga, the most noticeably unquiet of the current clutch of mouldering ghastly untruths ees the one most easily overlooked. Wheech ees no suprise, as eet appears weetheen the pixelated hyper-spew of vociferously expressed neuroses wheech appears under the unfortunate title "The Cat Call."
(I weel no provide a link) Here ees the URL:
h t t p ://melaniemorgan.com/TheCatCall.html
Let us glance at a sample of the caterwauling that thees "Cat" does, eh?
During his debate on Reliable Sources, Stark used specious arguments to defend his buddy, an anonymous Star Trek-obsessed blogger, Spocko, who used out-of-context quotes from KSFO radio talent in an effort to turn away advertisers and, thus, squelch the 1st Amendment Rights of the radio personalities.Thees
"...Spocko, who used out-of-context quotes from KSFO radio talent..."Here eet ees again, back from the dead. Thees particular chunk of ambulatory stupid has been debunked at least once already. However, like the brainless zombi, thees moronic whine about "context" climbs back out of the grave to stalk the overcrowded tubes of outer-wingnuttia.
Well then, merely for the sake of finding a more accurate target for our ridicule, let us look more closely at the "context" of one of the controversial statements from SNUFFRadio560am's "talent". Thees ees from the "talented" Lee Rodgers:
"Now you start with the Sears DieHard, the battery cables connected to his testicles, and you entertain him with that for a while, and then¿Of whom ees Rodgers Speaking? ¿A terrorist?
you blow his bleeping head off."
¿A serial killer?
¿Maybe a republican pedophile?
No, no. Rodgers ees speaking about one Kevin Holder.
LINCOLN, Neb. Aug 15, 2006 (AP)— Kevin Holder's rap sheet is 43 pages long, dating back to 1980, and he just got another entry his 226th arrest. Police say they caught him Sunday morning after a brief chase and found burglar tools in his possession.Oooooooh... thees sounds like a dangerous hombre, no? I wonder what sort or horrrrible deeds he has been up to?
"He's very well-known to Lincoln police officers," Police Chief Tom Casady said.
Holder's convictions include criminal mischief, marijuana possession, violation of protection order, assault, resisting arrest, assault on an officer, possession of cocaine.What? No charges of "Shot a man just for snoring"?
Many were misdemeanors, but he also has been sentenced to at least three prison terms for felonies, including a four-year stretch starting in 1996.
Now, I am no advogato, yet I am fairly sure that assault on an officer ees a felony, and possession of cocaine can be a felony, depending on how much joo are carrying, and for some reason what form the cocaine ees een, and the color of the possessor's skin. (the story does no specify).
Ciertamente, thees man ees an habitual criminal and drug addict. He obviously needs drug rehab, and probably weel do jail time (the article suggests that thees ees likely).
¿¡But wait, that's all!?
¿¿I mean, really, that's eet??
¿¿Breaking and entering, resisting arrest, punched a cop while on cocaine, and for that Rodgers wants to electrically torture the man's genitals, then "blow his 'bleeping' head off"??
Eet seems as eef Lee Rodgers ees no so much interested een justice, as he ees een dispensing violence to pipples that he doesn't like.
To wheech I can only reiterate the thoughts of mi compañerro Thersites, when he handled thees matter briefly.
(Monday, January 22, 2007)
Now, this may come as news ... but when you say (paraphrasing) "let's look at the context in which he said 'let's hook his dick up to the battery cables,'" you have just lost any claim to the moral high ground. No, seriously. Even Michelle Malkin's guest posters get this simple point.
Thersites ees correct, for, over at Malkin's site, we read thees, from one See-Dubya:
Sheppard thinks this proves something:When joo are so out-of-bounds that a Malkinite backbencher can see eet, buddy, joo got a beeger problem than lack of adequate context, no?
It’s a bit different when you find out that Rodgers and Morgan were discussing a felon that had been arrested 236 times, and were thereby using the Sears DieHard image to mock the justice and penal systems for his continued presence on the streets. Wouldn’t you agree?
Um, no. No, I most definitely wouldn't. I don't care if the guy had two thousand felonies, I don't want the state shooting people for property crimes. Battery cables on the testicles and summary executions may be cool within the Mahdi army or Chi-Com dungeons, but not here in America. There's nothing conservative about that sadistic, statist fantasy and as a conservative myself I don't like being associated with it.
To sum up, we see een thees seengle example how learning the context of these statements can reveal that the statements themselves are more offensive than previously thought.
Thees ees enough to make one wonder about the contexts of other statements by KSFO personnel. So, I theenk that we shall be looking at the contexts of more of "SNUFF Radio's greatest hits" een the days to come, eh?
[Rip adds another layer of context] -
"Now you start with the Sears DieHard, the battery cables connected to his testicles, and you entertain him with that for a while, and then you blow his bleeping head off."
I wonder if this is the standard for employee conversation at ABC/Disney corporate offices. I've done some white collar time and, at least in the multi-national corporations I worked at, that quote would be grounds for a quick trip to the HR office and an asterisk on your merit review.
Perhaps ABC attorney, Enid Karpeh, could enlighten us. Or perhaps Jack Swanson could provide some clarification. We'll wait...
Monday, February 05, 2007
Liars, Thieves and Hypocrites
First, some background I put together before the San Francisco Thousand Watt Circle Jerk© on Jan 12th.
Morgan and Coulter love attention from Liberals
('It makes us a bigger bullseye for the Left - and that's always a good thing')
Morgan and Rodgers love to hear from Liberals
('Please keep the hate mail coming. We enjoy it immensely - We want to offend you')
As you can see and hear, Morgan and Rodgers have no problem with attention from liberals or Teh Left – they enjoy it! So keep it up, kids!
From Melanie's site:
Re: Sussman and the “halfrican” comment:
I want to officially correct the record regarding false allegations made against me by those on the political far Left, who are always quick to distort what I say for their own polical aggrandizement.The "halfrican" clip
During an on-air discussion, I made reference to his using this term, and thereafter I let Mr. Sussman know that I did not approve of it. Terms that needlessly make reference to race or ethnic makeup are in poor taste.
First of all, what were these false allegations made against you? I’d say the focus was on Brian Sussman, since he made the comment, but enjoy your status as a self-styled victim, Melanie.
Second, you’re clearly laughing in this audio clip, then the topic changes to Hillary Clinton. So, when did you “let Mr. Sussman know that [you] did not approve of it”? As you said, you brought it up, but I don’t hear any protestation or chastisement in this audio clip. If it was so offensive to you, why would you bring it up for public consumption on your radio show? You could very easily have mentioned your disapproval to Brian in private and let the issue be forgotten. In his apology (see below) Brian even mentions that you looked “uncomfortable” as he continued his dialogue – why didn’t you say something then, on the air?
Tell you what – you send me a clip wherein you tell Brian you disapprove of the term “halfrican”, and I’ll issue a retraction. Until then, I can only assume you’re covering your ass.
As for Brian’s apology, this makes for an interesting segue to a related topic. Again, from Melanie’s personal site:
And here are Brian's own words about the subject in this audio link.I’ll give Brian credit and acknowledge that it was a pretty decent apology. But here’s where the other topic comes up. Remember what actually turned this into a big ordeal? An attorney for ABC (KSFO’s parent company), Enid Karpeh, sent Spocko’s hosting company a C&D letter regarding copyrighted materials on his website, and his site was pulled, Fair Use be damned!
Did you check the URL for Sussman’s apology? Let me post it for you:
Yes, Melanie is hosting, not linking, copyrighted material on her personal website. Material that is copyrighted to ABC Radio/Disney. Want more? Sure you do! Again, from Melanie’s personal website:
Hear our three hour special broadcast in which we do the "Ultimate Smack-Down" of pinhead, cheesy cartoon characters with keyboards.Oh, Melanie, you just don’t get it do you? The fact that KSFO forced you to break format and air a special program to deal with the fallout of your homicidal ranting just proves that you and your colleagues got the “Ultimate Smackdown.” Sorry, babe – in the PR world, it was an unqualified disaster.
But, let’s take a look at what Melanie posted. Here are the links to all 3 hours of the San Francisco Thousand Watt Circle Jerk© audio, in WMP and Real Player formats:
That’s 6 hours of ABC copyrighted material - not links to KSFO, but files stored on Melanie’s personal website. Now, raise your hand if you think that Melanie or her hosting company will receive a C&D letter from ABC attorney, Enid J. H. Karpeh.
So, I have to ask: Can you produce a copy of something giving you written permission to store these copyrighted audio clips on your site, Melanie? Something from ABC legal?
CNN's Unreliable Sources with Howard Kurtz takes on Mike Stark, the stalker who chased Senator George Allen out of politics with dirty tricks...Where to begin… Calling Mike Stark a “stalker”? First, Mike is a resident of Virginia and was a constituent of former Senator Allen’s – he had every right to attend functions for former Senator Allen and ask questions. Also, “stalker” is a touchy term – you might want to reconsider your choice of words. Lastly, Mike didn’t chase Senator Allen out of politics, thousands of voters did – it’s called Democracy. There are many books on the subject – check one out some time.
Even more goodies:
...it looks like the Internet stalker and his Vulcan pal who launcheda crusade against KSFO and my co-hosts have some interesting buddies -- Al Jazeera.
See for yourself. Click here
Ok, this is just pathetic. Again, you might want to reconsider using the term “internet stalker”. First, I don’t think you understand the meaning of the word. Second, throwing out terms like that could be grounds for a civil suit. Tsk tsk!
And, Al Jazeera? Interesting buddies? Seriously, how old are you? It’s like you’re stuck in Jr. High and for some reason you think you’re really clever.
Here’s the damning post from Al Jazeera that Melanie’s referring to:
In San Francisco, Richard Gizbert investigates a David and Goliath media story, where one blogger took on a radio station owned by ABC. The San Francisco station's hosts made comments the blogger called Spocko's Brain found offensive. He posted them on his site and informed the station's advertisers, who withdrew their business. That's when the lawyers were called in – and the blogosphere rushed to Spocko's rescue.
That’s it, kids. That’s the entire reference to KSFO and Spocko that allows Melanie to conflate liberals with terrorists. Pathetic. But, hey – as long as we’re playing the “guilt by association” game, let’s see what Melanie’s buddies are up to.
Remember this story from newsbusters? Noel Sheppard did his damnedest to bail Melanie out and change the subject. But do you know what else Noel did? I’ll tell ya.
Noel hotlinked 12 of 13 pictures in that post. That’s right – Noel is stealing bandwidth from other websites. Now, you might think that’s not a big deal – it’s just pictures, right? But any blogger or website proprietor knows that of all the Cardinal sins one can commit on the internets, hotlinking is pure evil. It’s unethical, it’s bad form and it’s wrong. Examples? Sure!
Looks bad, doesn’t it? And, just in case anyone thinks I’m cherry picking pics out of context, here are some more recent examples:
Path to 9/11
I wonder what ABC will have to say about that. We’ll see, I suppose.
One last item… About 3 weeks ago, I commented at my site about Melanie’s claim, on the San Francisco Thousand Watt Circle Jerk©, of a mysterious Gallup poll. Here’s the gist of the post:
Our new friend FGFM posts this video on the YouTube, with
Fair Use commentary on the San Francisco Thousand Watt Circle Jerk©. If you listen closely, you’ll hear Melanie Morgan cite a recent Gallup poll, which states (paraphrasing – listen to the audio) “over 80% of Americans believe that anyone in the media who exposes state secrets in a time of war - and that's what this is, a time of war - should be tried for treason... and that's a Gallup poll!" Wow! That’s pretty damning, and quite the defense of KSFO’s calls for the execution of NY Times editor, Bill Keller.
Well, it would be if the poll actually existed. I spent some time digging around, going so far as to sit through a commercial at the GallupPoll.com site so I could access some of their info., and I didn’t find any such poll. The only Gallup polls I could find that dealt with treason were from 1953, 1978, 1981, 2001 and 2002 (re: John Lindh Walker). [cite]
I even checked at PollingReport.com, a polling aggregator site, and came up empty when checking other polls (in case it wasn’t Gallup). Nothing on the Google re: “Gallup + treason” or “Gallup + treason + media” that referred to Melanie’s alleged poll, either.
So, one is left to wonder, once again, just what the Hell is going on at KSFO. I suppose it’s possible that there was a poll in Melanie’s head, which stated that “more than 80% of America…”, but how the heck am I supposed to refute that? Or maybe KSFO picked up an inside scoop that nobody else was privy to – hey, it could happen!
I don’t know… But, I can assure you – if someone can point me to a specific, recent Gallup poll that accurately reflects Melanie’s statement, I’ll be more than happy to issue a retraction, and maybe even a real apology. Seriously. There’s no love lost between KSFO and myself, but I’d rather be accurate than ‘right’.
[Update] – I did find this, at FOX NewsThese are just some of the findings of the new national telephone poll of 900 registered voters conducted from June 27 to June 28 by Opinion Dynamics Corporation for FOX News. The poll has a 3-point error margin. [I couldn’t find a link to the actual poll, though. Can anyone point me to it?]
The Bush administration asked the New York Times not to publish information about the secret program, but the newspaper went ahead because it felt it was in the public interest to do so. By publishing the story, a 60 percent majority thinks the Times did more to help terrorist groups than the public (27 percent).
More Americans blame government employees for leaking the classified info (51 percent) than the media for reporting it (28 percent).
Furthermore, almost all (87 percent) think the employees who leaked should face criminal charges and two-thirds think the news organizations should. Even so, only 43 percent are willing to call what the media did treason, and almost as many think the organizations that published the information were operating for the public good (37 percent).
Note that more Americans blame the Gov’t. employees than the media, and less than 50% were willing to call the media’s actions ‘treason’.
You want to play Media Professional, Melanie? Act like a Media Professional, not an agenda-driven ideologue who ‘every day for four hours… sits behind a radio microphone’.
As I said – if someone can point me to the poll she’s citing, I’ll issue a retraction.
I checked again, the other day, and I still can’t find this phantom Gallup poll that Melanie is citing. Our friend, Suskind, looked but couldn’t find it, either. I’ll happily issue a retraction if someone can provide the Gallup poll that supports Melanie’s claim. Until then, I can only assume she’s a liar.
(Hoist a pint for our new “interesting buddy”, Bob King, whose post at GraphicTruth.com gave us the Newsbusters scandal. Thanks, Bob!)
So, there you have it, kids. Again, if someone can provide honest refutation or sources, I’ll start retracting like the water’s cold. Until then – to the best of our knowledge, they’re liars, thieves and hypocrites, all...
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Pant-Load in Hot-seat: Spills Beans on Cheese-Eaters
I thought that thees deserved a leetle more play:
Our fearless compañerro Mike Stark, over at hees wonderful,
and muy divertido blog, www.callingallwingnuts.com, has recounted a brief meeting weeth Jonah Goldberg, wherein Señor Pantload makes a startling admission.
I weel no spoil the surprise, she ees just too good to pass up.
¡Vamanos! Go and read eet for jourself.