Blogging Blue

Just last week, one of my favorite anonymous bloggers took the step of “outing” himself during an appearance on WUWM’s Lake Effect with Jane Hampden. Shortly after “outing” himself, the illusory tenant - also known as Thomas Foley - found himself on the receiving end of a couple of particularly nasty personal attacks, one from James Wigderson and the other from Jessica McBride. What I find to be particularly galling about Jessica McBride’s attack isn’t simply the ferocity of the attack, but also the hypocrisy of the attack. Quoted directly from her blog, McBride said (emphasis mine):

People ask me why I don’t blog much anymore. There are a lot of really good bloggers out there. However, it’s sad what the blogosphere has degenerated to in other corners, and I don’t want to be a part of it. At least not with as much frequency as I did before.

Having read that, I wanted to commend McBride for taking the high road, that is until I read the very next passage of her blog entry:

To be blunt: I have more important things to do than debate repeat drunk drivers (3x) on the Internet who, just over two years ago, were in the House of Correction.

So McBride says she doesn’t want to be part of what the blogosphere has degenerated into, only to turn around and write the very same kind of insults and personal attacks that she seems to loathe. That strikes me as more than a little hypocritical, but the hypocrisy is compounded by the fact that Jessica McBride of all people has little room to attack folks for bad or questionable decisions they’ve made in their past, considering some of the decisions she’s made in her past. Sure, she probably didn’t do anything illegal, but people who live in moral glass houses don’t strike me as being in a great position to start throwing stones at others.

Earlier today, it was announced that Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporter Dave Umhoefer won the Pulitzer Prize for Local Reporting for his investigation detailing pension deals for county workers. This is the first Pulitzer ever awarded to a member of the staff of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, while its predecessor the Milwaukee Journal won five Pulitzers.

Congratulations to Dave Umhoefer on his win, and hopefully this will put to rest claims by some that the MJS isn’t a quality local paper. Sure, it’s far from perfect in all its reporting, but hopefully this Pulitzer win will serve as a starting point for the paper improving its quality from top to bottom.

And curiously enough, as I browsed the list of Pulitzer winners and finalists, I neglected to see any mention of Charlie Sykes or Jessica McBride.

It’s no secret Jessica Buch…McBride isn’t a fan of comments on her blogs that dare to dissent from the opinion she’s espousing. In fact, I’ve always found it a little odd that someone who purports to be a “journalist” would be so opposed to free speech in all its forms, instead choosing to censor comments on her blogs that dare to point out the fundamental flaws in her often weak opinions on the issues of the day. I’ve often thought journalists would be some of the strongest proponents of free speech, given they make their livings from the expression of free speech.

As pointed out by capper over at whallah!, McBride has taken her censorship to a new level, this time going so far as to delete comments I made in response to a post full of inaccuracies and flawed legal analysis over at her new election blog. Apparently McBride has a thin skin, because that’s the only reason I can see for why she’d choose to delete perfectly innocent comments that simply pointed out the flaws in her arguments. This kind of behavior is a perfect example of just how intolerant some folks on the right are when it comes to any opinion that differs from their own narrow views of the world.

Ultimately, I’m most disappointed not because McBride has a thin skin, but because she’s a journalist, and as such she should never discourage or prevent free speech. Shame on her for turning her blogs into speech-free zones where the only opinions that matter are her own, but then again, if I were wrong as much as she is, I suppose I’d want to limit dissent too.

…or has anyone else noticed how fond some folks in the right-wing blogosphere are of moderating their comments? I mean, to each their own, but it’s funny to me to see so many folks on the right resort to moderating their comments in order to screen what gets said. It seems like all the cool kids are doing it…Jessica McBride’s doing it, as are Fred Dooley, Kevin Fischer, and the folks over at Badger Blogger.

I suppose these folks moderate comments just in case one of us libs makes a point that they have no rational response to, which certainly seems to be the case with Mr. Fischer, who’s shown a serious proclivity towards removing posts of mine on his blog. Like I said, to each his (or her) own, but like my momma always said, “if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”

So now that former Assembly Speaker Scott Jensen’s three felony convictions have been overturned on appeal, Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen is calling for Jensen’s case to be resolved without another trial. Predictably, Jessica Bucher is on board with Van Hollen’s recommendation, going so far as to say that if allowed to plead to a series of misdemeanors “He’ll be punished far more severely that way than any of the other legislators over the years who did the same thing and skated.”

Now someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but Jensen won’t be punished “far more severely” than Chuck Chvala and Brian Burke, both of whom did the right thing by accepting responsibility for their roles in the same criminal behavior Jensen engaged in and accepting the punishments meted out. Apparently, Jess Bucher seems to think Jensen should be held to a lesser standard, making me wonder why that could be. However, I’m sure it has nothing to do with Jensen’s political affiliation, because that’d expose Jess Bucher as nothing more than a conservative shill…oh wait, too late.

(cross-posted to Whallah!)

Who can forget the case of Scott Jensen, former Speaker of the Wisconsin State Assembly who was convicted of three felonies? I haven’t forgotten, and I haven’t forgotten the fact that despite being convicted in May of 2006 to serve 15 months in Wisconsin State Prison for his three felony convictions, Scott Jensen has not served one single day in prison.

To this day, Scott Jensen is still free while he appeals his conviction, and I’m willing to bet many a criminal in Wisconsin would love the same treatment Jensen is receiving. I’m also willing to venture a guess that if there were another thrice-convicted felon who hadn’t served a day of his imposed prison sentence more than a year after he was convicted, conservatives like Young Jessica McBride would be gnashing their teeth at “liberal activist judges” or some such nonsense. As Speaker of the Wisconsin State Assembly, Scott Jensen wielded a tremendous amount of power, and he chose to use that power to engage in illegal and highly unethical behavior. Scott Jensen undermined the credibility of one of our state’s most important political institutions, and he should be held accountable for his actions, and that means serving the sentence that was imposed by his sentencing judge. The fact that he remains free on appeal is an absolute sham.

The fact that Scott Jensen is getting special treatment - treatment that wasn’t given to wrongfully-convicted Georgia Thompson - simply blows my mind. The fact that Scott Jensen still walks the streets a free man after being convicted to serve prison time for three felonies makes an absolute mockery of our legal system.

So now that Senator Larry Craig (R-Bathroom Stalls) has resigned in disgrace, it seems Young Jessica McBride (or YJM as I like to call her) is gunning for Senator Ted Kennedy’s resignation. Now you might be asking yourself what Senator Kennedy has done recently to warrant YJM saying Kennedy’s “next,” and I couldn’t help but wonder the same thing. I can only assume YJM is saying Kennedy’s “next” in reference to the death of Mary Jo Kopechne at Chappaquiddick in 1969, since she referenced him being accused of leaving a woman to die in a previous blog entry.

Now unless I’m mistaken, I thought conservatives were supposed to be good Christians, but apparently their good Christian values don’t include forgiveness. Or maybe YJM is a conservative, but not a Christian. That seems to be the most logical reason for her inability (or is it unwillingness) to show a little forgiveness. Then again, I suppose showing forgiveness wouldn’t be good reading…

I love what some people consider to be a “journalist” nowadays.

Take Jessica McBride for example. Young Jessica is a teacher of young journalists - a molder of minds if you will. The future of journalism is in her hands, a thought that absolutely frightens me to no end.

I happened to surf on over to Young Miss Jessica’s blog, and an entry of hers on the scandal involving Senator Larry Craig (R - Bathroom Stalls) caught my eye. What caught my eye was not the groundbreaking content (there’s not much of that to be found in her blog), but rather the fact that Young Miss Jessica directly contradicts herself in the same blog entry. In said entry, YMJ states:

Enough with the “he’s innocent until proven guilty” stuff and “if he did it” stuff that I’ve been hearing on some conservative shows. Regardless of what he says now, Larry Craig PLEADED GUILTY in a court of law and was convicted. That should mean something. He’s not innocent until proven guilty. He’s guilty.

Then she follows up the whole, “HE’S GUILTY” point with this doozy (I added my own emphasis):

Bill Clinton was accused of raping a woman. Ted Kennedy was accused of leaving a woman to die. They enjoy respect from the Democratic party and the media. Larry Craig was accused of nudging the foot of an undercover cop, and the Democrats want to put him in a stockade in the public square.

Now maybe I dwell in a different reality than YMJ, but in my reality you can’t follow up a statement like, “HE’S NOT INNOCENT, HE’S BEEN PROVEN GUILTY!” with, “He was accused of…” without directly contradicting yourself. I can only hope YMJ isn’t teaching that trick to her students, because it’s bad form to directly contradict yourself when reporting the news.

According to Proof and Hearsay, failed attorney general candidate Paul Bucher is mulling a run for the State Supreme Court seat currently held by Louis Butler. This has to come as good news for Butler, with one Butler supporter saying, “Of course, we’d love to have him run.” In my opinion, another run for statewide office by Bucher - not known for his electric personality - has all the makings of a Butler landslide. Bucher doesn’t have great personal wealth, and he’d probably lag behind Butler in fundraising, given the fact that Butler’s campaign has already raised $165,000 in the first half of this year, with another $155,000 in the bank.

I think a Butler-Bucher race for the State Supreme Court would be tremendously entertaining, and I’d love to see Paul Bucher get beaten badly in yet another statewide election in an election cycle that promises to be just as bad for Republicans as 2006. What I’d like to know is if we can expect to see Mrs. Bucher out on the campaign trail working hard to help her hubby.

In yet another response to the 50+ Things You Won’t Hear on Talk Radio that’s been posted by a bunch of lefty bloggers all across the Cheddarsphere, our old friend Jessica McBride comes up with this doozy. Using her crack powers of deductive reasoning, Jessica says,

Bill Clinton was, at worst, slightly right of center.

Bill Clinton was incredibly popular.

So, if Bill Clinton was slightly right of center, and he was incredibly popular, the liberals are finally admitting that conservative ideals are incredibly popular with the public, right?

There’s a lot wrong with Jessica’s argument, the most glaring problem being she seems not to understand how basic deductive reasoning works. For most folks, if a=b and a=c, then b=c. But not in Jessica McBride’s reality, iwhere if a=b and a=c, then x=y.

folkbum, illusory tenant, and Whallah! have already done a better job than I of debunking Jessica’s flawed logic, but what I’m left to wonder is how Jessica McBride can continue to teach future journalists if she can’t master basic logic and deductive reasoning. She’s still a lecturer at UWM, which leaves me to ponder the following:

She teaches at UWM.

UWM is a publicly funded school, funded through my tax dollars.

Those are my tax dollars hard at work.

Yikes.

I think I want my money back.