Response to a troll

CalJim, aka CaJim, Jammin, and "Guest", takes umbrage to comments I made in response to comments he made (re-read it - it'll make sense on the second pass). For those of you who don't know about good old Jimmy, let me introduce you.

• Old Jimmy is a butt-buddy of the Caput a Palos
• Old Jimmy is a prominent voice for the FLDS persecution club (FLDS Texas)
• Old Jimmy still refuses to believe that Greg Prickett is the Caput a Palos
• Old Jimmy thinks that the Vulture is guilty of journalistic malpractice
• Old Jimmy has reading comprehension issues
  

Let's address old Jimmy's gripes, one by one.

I have never called you a pedophile nor even inferred it, your need to broad brush many topics might work for you but don't accuse me of such simple minded thought processes. Come on Vulture admit it, I never called you a pedophile.

You, Jim, may not have ever called me a pedophile. But how would I know, since so many of you over there at FLDS Texas and the (thankfully) dead Caput Penitus Culus post as "anonymous".

But that's not even the point. I said, "Your side categorizes my side as being pro-pedophilia." Your side != you personally. There's that reading comprehension problem again.

Your preoccupation with 'Due Process' I've criticized, especially now in the light that minor children brought to the YFZ Ranch from Canada definitely were sex trafficked from British Columbia.

Really? Children brought to the YFZ Ranch from Canada were sex trafficked? See, I did a Google search under "News" (so as to filter out wild accusations from bloggers like little Greggie), for "FLDS sex trafficking Canada" and I didn't get a single hit. Not one.

That's how your side works. Some blogger repeats gossip and it's fact to you, because it's what you want to believe. Legitimate news operations risk lawsuits if they print wild accusations. That's why there's no mention of any of that under "News" on Google. Even Big Media (the BM for short) wants no part of allegations that might get them sued.

You, however, stay mute on anybodies rights other than FLDS Church Priesthood men and their Prophet. Howze that? The women and children of this fanatical sect are look upon by their tenets of faith as literal property but you somehow clam up on that topic. Does equality stop at the MENS room door for you?

First, it's "anybody's", not "anybodies". Do try to be articulate when you write.

Second, you want to talk about a "broad brush"? The very idea that my interest in Due Process starts and ends with the FLDS is ridiculous on its face. See the right hand column, where it says "Labels"? See how it starts with various amendments, includes categories such as "bad law", "constitution", "crime", "Das Überwachenden", "Der Staat", "DHS", "F'ing lawyers", "Free Speech" - I could go on and on. The FLDS? Child please! They're way down on my list of priorities. I've spent way more time railing about cops, prosecutors, and politicians who violate the public trust than I have on the FLDS - and a lot of the FLDS posts were to defend myself against the likes of you and your execrable cohorts.

Tell me, when I write about black men who spent decades in prison because of planted evidence, prosecutors hiding exculpatory evidence, or other malfeasance, does that mean I don't care about white men in the same situation? Or do you simply choose to only see what you want to see? I suspect the latter.

Scott Ledbetter republished your opinion pieces and his 'Ye Olde Journalist' blog fancies itself as a mainly journalistic site fighting yellow journalism and you allow him to pass off your writings as news content and it has never been labelled as editorial nor opinion column.

For the love of Pete! This is the exact same argument he raised months ago when Greggie's story appeared in the UNT student newspaper. Apparently old Jimmy expects Ye Olde Journalist to adhere to some kind of high standard of journalism, like The Washington Post or The New York Times. As if! Jimmy, those fishwraps regularly print opinion masquerading as news! Virtually every story about Global Warming is nothing but propaganda and political posturing slathered on like mustard on a ball park frank, masquerading as legitimate "news". What's the difference between Dana Milbank of The Post writing a Page 1 "news" article that says that Republicans are obstructing "progress" and me writing - well, anything? Get a clue, son. There is no "pure" journalism. Stop whizzing on Scotty. He can put anything he wants in his blog because....wait for it...it's HIS BLOG.

You're nothing but a troll, Jimmy. I don't know why I wasted my time responding to you. Nobody gives a rat's stinking tuchus what you think about anything. Your own mama doesn't even listen to you. Give up. Please.

Death Knell Part IV: Climategate

Global Warming - A theory popularized by lying politicians to scare the living hell at of all of us.
From The Urban Dictionary.

---

It would appear to the rational that the wheels have fallen off the cart for the Global Warmists. Ah, but do not underestimate the power and resiliency of this powerful neo-religious movement!

For those of you living under a rock, leaked emails from "climate scientists" which openly reveal the fraudulent practices said "scientists" have engaged in has rocked the "climate science" community (read: those charged with ginning up propaganda under the guise of science in order to give world leaders cover for implementing measures that will lead to the "glorious" One-World Socialist Utopia).

One would think that these revelations would put an end once-and-for-all to the charade. One would be wrong.

For starters, there is a media blackout in the United States on coverage of Climategate. Only the Washington Times, Fox News, and the Opinion page of the Wall Street Journal have put any serious coverage into the issue. CNN mentioned the scandal -- but only to dismiss it as a "tempest in a tea cup". None -- let me repeat that, NONE -- of the networks, none of the major US newspapers, NONE of the Big Media (the BM for short) juggernauts have reported jack squat about this.

Oh, excuse me, the New York Times HAS spoken of it...in their Environment blog, NOT on the auspicious gray pages of their daily propaganda rag. Even then, their blogger refuses to post the emails or excerpts from the emails because,

The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye

Oh, THAT'S rich! The assholes who brought us the Pentagon Papers, who published (against the wishes of the Bush administration) details of the methods utilized to track terrorists, and who published excerpts from Sarah Palin's hacked emails, now suddenly have a conscience!

No, it seems that, if one is interested in finding out ANYTHING about this scandal, one has to go to the British press (see here and here for examples) for any sort of honest assessment of the situation.

Okay, so the BM is in the tank with the frauds. What about our ruling class?

Australia has MUCH to be proud of. Five MPs (Members of Parliament) - front bench MPs all - have resigned rather than follow their dopey leadership down the primrose path to ridiculous carbon taxation. To those five brave and distinguished individuals: I salute you.

What about the United States? Predictably, just as the BM has ignored the scandal, so has our political class. James Inhofe has raised a ruckus and called for hearings, but he's been fighting the battle against AGW quack science for more than a decade. The rest of Congress? Queue the sound of crickets chirping.

Il Duce is pressing onwards towards Copenhagen. He has pledged to reduce US carbon emissions 17% by 2020. He's making deals with China and India with regards to carbon capping. In other words, it's business-as-usual in the Duce administration.

And therein is the rub, you see. Climate change was NEVER about any real threat to the planet, any real threat to humanity, any real threat to nature. It was, is, and always will be about pushing towards that "glorious" One-World Socialist Utopia.

That and nothing more.

Playing fast and loose with the numbers

By now you've heard about the big Tea Party in Washington, DC last Saturday. The local media made such a big deal reporting about it in advance that I had no idea it was happening until it was over. Whatever.

I know it is SOP for protest event organizers to try to maximize the count in order to enhance the perception that their cause is highly supported. So it's not surprising that so-called "Conservatives" were reporting turnout in the 1 to 1.5 million range, with some even going as high as 2 million.

Likewise, it's SOP for those aligned in opposition to an event's purpose to minimize the count in order to diminish the perception that the opposition cause is highly supported. Hence the NY Times reporting that "thousands" had assembled in DC, and the Washington Compost reporting that "tens of thousands" were involved in the protest.

Did I just infer that Big Media (the BM for short) is standing in opposition to the Tea Party protesters? Inferring? No. Flat out stating as fact? Yes. More on that below.

Counts have been all over the map. I've seen counts as high as 2 million and as low as 20,000. The National Park Service unofficially estimated the crowd at between 950,000 and 1.2 million. My father-in-law heard somewhere that the "official" tally was 195,000.

Here's the rub. While an event of this type is a step in the right direction in letting our rulers know that we're getting fed up, goosing the turnout numbers is NOT going to help. The Million Man March lost most of its luster once the organizers tried to intimidate the Park Service into confirming that 1 million men were there (the Park Service estimated only around 600,000 in attendance for that event).

Now, back to the BM. The NY Times hid the story on page A37, below the fold. Contrast that with a story on a much smaller rally in Minnesota in favor of the government take-over of health care. That story was on Page A-35, ABOVE the fold. You say: big deal - two pages difference! But in the Sunday paper, two pages and a location above as opposed to below the fold are factors impacting which stories are read and which stories are overlooked. The NYT established plausible deniability because both stories are essentially buried. But the story in favor of Il Duce's excellent adventure will reach a small but significant number of people who won't view the other story.

Rather than duplicate effort, I call your attention to this entry on the NewsBusters website documenting the BM's rather unbecoming treatment of the event. More and more it seems that the BM is pro-Staat, anti-freedom.

Further proof that McCain is a tool

John McCommie lost the 2008 election the old fashioned way: he earned it. The campaign he ran against Il Duce was Bob Dole '96 redux. But what could he have done differently? After all, when everything is said and done, there's only about a dime's difference between him and Il Duce. If that.

So why bring him up now? Here's why.

Sen. John McCain is lamenting the latest report of a baseball player linked to performance-enhancing drugs.

[...]

McCain sent a message on his Twitter account that read, "David Ortiz tested positive for steroids, 'where have you gone Joe DiMaggio?'"

McCain says the situation in baseball makes him sick. Even more bothersome, he says, is the idea that someone in a laboratory somewhere is trying to develop a substance that tests can't detect.

Pardon me while I projectile vomit!

First, what the deuce is a fossilized tool like McCommie doing with a Twitter account in the first place? Isn't Twitter a vehicle for middle school girls seeking relevance or for fanboys of various ages to chase celebrities?

Second, the whole steroids "scandal" is complete horse-mierda. People have REALLY short memories, it seems. Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa were the kings of the world in 1998, and nobody -- N-O-B-O-D-Y -- gave a rat's ass that they were the size of small planets or bothered to mention that people don't get that large w/o steroids. NOW - only now, because Big Media (the BM for short) has decided that it's a scandal - everyone is shocked - SHOCKED! - that steroids were being used by baseball players.

Everyone turned their backs to the issue in '98 because baseball was trying to recover its fan base after the disastrous strike of 1994-95. Baseball NEEDED the giant men hitting prodigious home runs in unbelievable numbers to win back fans jaded over a strike pitting billionaires against millionaires. Now everyone wants to crucify anyone who ever used or was suspected of using steroids (Note that Mark McGwire has NEVER been linked to a test proving that he used - NEVER. Yet Hall of Fame voters - BM all - refuse to elect the man who is 6th on the all-time home runs list to the Hall simply because "he is linked" with steroids).

Third, and perhaps most importantly, who gives a flying f*** what that old tool McCommie thinks about ANYTHING?!?!? Why is his opinion about a manufactured baseball scandal the least bit relevant?

You want something to Twitter about, you old desgraciado? Twitter about how easy it was for you to sell out your party over a 20+ year Senate career in order to win over your core constituency, the New York Times.

Wiener of the Week

This is yet another example of the unbridled arrogance of the self-important ass-clowns who run Big Media (the BM for short). Ladies and gentlemen, your WotW.

Commenting on the keep-the-Times alive movement, Keller said: "Saving the New York Times now ranks with saving Darfur as a high-minded cause."

The "Keller" mentioned in the quote would be Bill Keller, the Executive Editor of the New York Times.

Notice the unabashed hubris of equating a situation in which thousands of real human beings are being enslaved, tortured, and killed with the survival of a second-rate leftist newspaper! You wanna talk self-important? This guy's the poster child!

Bill Keller, you're a most-deserving Wiener of the Week.

Wiener of the Week

This was one of those weeks when WotW candidates were legion. But, in terms of raw, utterly gratifying, couldn't-happen-to-a-better-bunch-of-a**holes schadenfreude, there was ultimately only one Wiener.

New York Times Stock Now Costs Less Than Sunday Paper

Shares of NYT (NYT) dropped 29 cents today to close at $3.77. The Sunday paper goes for $4 at the newsstand.

Maybe they could save costs by printing the paper on their stock certificates.

Pardon me while I ROFLMAO.

Could there possibly be anyone more deserving of a financial beatdown than the anti-capitalist, anti-free market, anti-American New York Times?

NYT - you're the Wiener of the Week!

McCain turns on his masters

...but in his defense, they turned on him first.

A key senior adviser for John McCommie had this to say when asked about Izvestia...excuse me, the New York Times.

Steve Schmidt, a McCain campaign senior adviser, declared on a conference call with reporters Monday that The New York Times is "not ... a journalistic organization."

His lengthy broadside, prompted by an article Monday documenting ties between the campaign and lobbying for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, was the latest in a series of grievances with the Gray Lady that that aides to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) have aired publicly.

"Whatever The New York Times once was, it is today not by any standard a journalistic organization," Schmidt said. "It is a pro-Obama advocacy organization that every day impugns the McCain campaign, attacks Sen. McCain, attacks Gov. [Sarah] Palin. It excuse[s] Sen. Obama. …

"Everything that is read in The New York Times that attacks this campaign should be evaluated by the American people from that perspective — that it is an organization that has made a decision to cast aside its journalistic integrity and tradition, to advocate for the defeat of one candidate — in this case, John McCain — and to advocate for the election of the other candidate, Barack Obama."

And the Vulture stands and applauds.

Although the message was delivered by an aide and not by the candidate himself, you know that McCommie is behind this counter attack. And good for him! It's about time one of these mealy-mouthed politicians hit back against the Gray Lady and other media outlets that have become propagandists for their lord and savior, Barack "who's sane?" Obama.

BUT.....what make this little item especially amusing to the Vulture is the fact that McCommie, as Senator, served not the people of Arizona but rather the NYT editorial board.

The election of 2008 has served up more irony than the previous 10 combined. You gotta love it.

People agree with me -- by 5 to 1!

This may shock and alarm you, but a survey shows that the American public agrees with me about something -- by a 5 to 1 margin. I know it shocks and alarms ME!

Seven out of 10 voters (69%) remain convinced that reporters try to help the candidate they want to win, and this year by a nearly five-to-one margin voters believe they are trying to help Barack Obama.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 50% of voters think most reporters are trying to help Obama win versus 11% who believe they are trying to help his Republican opponent John McCain.

When even the sheeple have figured out that the national media is in the tank for their Lord and Savior, Barack, it can only mean that Big Media (BM) has lost their ability to propagandize effectively.

It also means that their over-the-top persecution of Sarah Palin (and family!) is blowing up in their face.

They just couldn't leave well enough alone. McCommie is a thoroughly unlikeable candidate, and would have lost this Fall had BM just left it alone. But they just HAD to seal the deal. They just HAD to push, push, push for St. Obama.

Now their guy is (depending on the poll in question) either in a dead-heat with McCommie or trailing in the race. He's flailing so badly that even Michael Dukakis has to be chuckling to himself somewhere.

Reporting the news: good. Trying to influence the course of an election: bad. Americans get that. Too bad ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, and the New York Times don't.

Wiener of the Month

It's time to name February's Wiener of the Month award winner. And who could be more deserving than the New York Times? The Old Gray Lady's cheap shot at John McCommie -- while delightfully amusing to the Vulture, considering the way that McCommie has pretty much treated the Times as his lone constituency for the past 10 years -- marks the low ebb in the continued decline of the Times from The Paper of Record to Pravda of New York.

The McCommie story was little more than rumor, innuendo, and 20-year-old Abscam allegations. This is the kind of stuff that the National Enquirer prints, for crying out loud! The Times deserves all of the derision and criticism it has been subjected to and will continue to be subjected to for this and other similar non-stories (Martha Burk, anyone?).

For becoming little more than a propaganda organ for the Left, the New York Times is my Wiener of the Month.

Wiener of the Week

This week's Wiener is the Washington Post for their roll in the John McCain character assassination piece.

Hold on, Vulture, that story (if you can call a rumor-laden hit job a "story") was broken by the New York Times. Right. And who, within hours of the news of the Times story breaking, was right behind them with a "The New York Times today reports...." me-too! me too! me too! report?

Ah, but it gets better.

NEW YORK The Washington Post, which published its own story about Sen. John McCain's questionable ties to a Washington lobbyist just hours after The New York Times broke the story, was unable to finish its work on the story until the Times broke the news, according to Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr.

"We had elements of the story in story form," Downie told E&P Thursday. "When the Times story appeared on their Web site last night, we were able to talk to sources who gave us further information that made it able to be published today. There were people who talked to us last night in ways that made us able to finish our story after the Times story went up."

What "elements" could you POSSIBLY have been missing? The spelling of "Iseman"? I mean, the "story" was nothing but 9-year-old rumor and innuendo, with some 20-year-old "Keating 5" thrown in for good measure. Are we disingenuous much, Mr. Downie?

This isn't the paper of Woodward and Bernstein any more. This is a poodle, carrying water for the Big Dog, the NYT.

For it's bed-wetting subservience to the NYT, the Washington Post is my Wiener of the Week.

Conservatives really are THAT dumb

Four years ago I left Team Elephant and became a Libertarian. Nevertheless, I still considered myself a conservative. Not any more. Why is the world would I want to align myself, even nominally, with these simpletons?

Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign claimed vindication Thursday night after a sophisticated 24-hour counterattack turned a potentially lethal story in The New York Times into a conservative call to arms.

The piece about McCain’s friendly relations with a telecommunications lobbyist — long-discussed in political circles and planned for weeks by McCain operatives — was the first test of his ability to confront a public-relations crisis since becoming the GOP’s presumptive nominee.

But the reaction may have said as much about the mindset of the conservative movement on the brink of the general election as it did about McCain and his team.

“Even if they want to quibble within our own tribe, they’ll circle the wagons when we’re attacked by the Times,” said McCain campaign senior adviser Charlie Black. (emphasis mine)

Are you f'in kidding me? We ARE talking about John McCommie here, aren't we? The same "maverick" of whom you said you'd vote for Hillary rather than him, right?

Is this what passes for THOUGHT in the modern Republican party? The enemy of the New York Times is our friend? If you had any doubts about whether the party has permanently lost its way or not, doubt no more. It's official. RIP GOP.

DW isn't happy with the coverage

The plague of media jackals swarming to cover the McCain scandal has irritated DW.

I am outraged with the reporting of the New York Times piece on McCain. This is another example of Democratic Bias reporting and smear campaign. I don't know if the allegations are true. That is not my point here. My point is the way the media brain washes and the other news agencies jump on it. The way CNN is treating it is sickening. I despise the plastic-headed Barbie with her horse face and bleached hair salivating over this like it was the second coming. You want a third party Vulture? So do I and the first step is to silence the rotten one-sided idiots who lead some of us around by the nads. WAKE UP PEOPLE, you may be the next smear job.

The Vulture can only shrug. They don't call it the Clinton News Network for nothing.

That said, silencing the media is most definitely NOT a Libertarian position. I don't care if the media has biases, as long as they're HONEST about it. Hell, there's no one more biased than ME. But I think the credibility of the NYT and CNN suffers immeasurably from their laughable insistence on declaring themselves "non-partisan". It rings as hollow as a prostitute claiming to be a virgin.

McCain's chickens come home to roost

They say that when you lie down with dogs you shouldn't be surprised when you come away with fleas. John McCain lay down with crocodiles...and now it's bit him in the ass.

Hints of a campaign scandal involving Sen. John McCain and a female telecom lobbyist broke into the open today, with the New York Times running a front-page story that features unnamed McCain aides' suspicions of a romantic relationship between the Senator and Vicki Iseman. Some details of the story reports of an improper relationship between McCain and a lobbyist had appeared on the Drudge Report earlier in the primary season. The NYT story says that in 2000, "waves of anxiety swept through" McCain's "small circle of advisers" because "a female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client's corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself - instructing staff members to block the woman's access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity." After media reports that McCain "had written letters to government regulators on behalf of the lobbyist's client, the former campaign associates said, some aides feared for a time that attention would fall on her involvement." McCain, 71, "and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, both say they never had a romantic relationship. But to his advisers, even the appearance of a close bond with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee Mr. McCain led threatened the story of redemption and rectitude that defined his political identity."

Pardon me for a second, will you?

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

ROFLMAO

For the past eight years McCommie has been the NYT's house RINO, their cute little "Maverick". He's the guy they could point to and say, "this is how Republicans SHOULD be". They loved him, and he loved them back -- saying what they wanted to hear, doing what they would want him to do, supporting Liberal issues/opposing Conservative issues, doing whatever it took to get that positive press from the Times (whose opinions, of course, trickle down through every newspaper in the country that fancies itself a Times wanna-be).

How's that working out for you now, John?

Conservatives and Libertarians can't stand you. Okay, that's too polite. We L-O-A-T-H-E you for your phony-baloney populist persona, for McCommie/Finegold, for the McCommie/Kennedy "scamnasty", for opposing tax cuts, for your sanctimony, etc, etc, etc. But you didn't need us. "Ha!", said you, "I have the Moderates, Independents, and my friends at the New York Times. Look! They even ENDORSED me! They love me! They really love me! I don't need no stinkin' Conservatives!"

Again, how's that working out for you now, Johnny boy? You're cooked, pal.

Note the funny timing of the revelation. Facts dating back to 1999, and already reported, albeit at a 30,000 foot level, by Drudge W-A-A-A-A-Y back in December, suddenly come to light in The Paper of Record once America's own little Pravda has determined that McCommie has the Team Elephant nomination sewed up. Naturally the Washington ComPost and every other commie newsrag in the country is all over it as well. I assume those news outlets have Internet access in their newsrooms and can get to The Drudge Report -- why weren't they on this sooner? Oh, wait! I get it. They had to wait for their cue from "The Big Dog".

I have no sympathy for McCommie nor for Team Elephant. You both got what you deserved.