One week of a Double Dose of DaTechGuy on DaRadio was fun but DaTechGuy on DaRadio Syndicated. That’s awesome!

DaTechGuy syndicated run begins at a temporary time on the Money Matters Radio network from 1-3 PM EST bringing you Matt O’Brien talking about a new initiative to stop Obamacare in its tracks in our the first hour and in our second hour the great debate. Chris Smitty Smith of The Other McCain on one side and Cynthia Yockey from A Conservative Lesbian on the other with the topic, Gay Marriage!

The call in number is 888-205-2263 the live stream for the Money Matters Network is here and or you can listen live via TuneIn.

So get your DaTechGuy Dose this Saturday Syndicated and talk those Saturday blues away!

Update: You can of course call in at 888-9-FEDORA as always.

Why don’t you want your vote to count?

Tom Lavin Jan 18th 2013

What do you think the Swedes’ll say sir?” he asked, greatly daring. The responsibility was none of his, and he knew by experience that Hornblower was likely to resent being reminded that Bush was thinking about it.

“They can say what they like” said Hornblower, “but nothing they can say can but Blanchefleur together again”

C. S. Forester Commodore Hornblower 1945 p 129

Back in January my liberal friend in NH Tom Lavin was hoping NH would vote on the plan that Massachusettes pushed though it overwhelming democrat legislature surrendering their electoral votes to whoever won the popular vote nationwide.

It led to a long spirited twitter exchange between us two examples:

Because of Course this has nothing to do with trying to neutralize the population outside of urban areas where Democrats have a stranglehold. When he asked about my “vote not counting” I answered

 

But in the end the constitution EXPLICITLY gives state legislatures the right to allocate electoral votes so while I objected…

Well the Plan that I commented on back in December that the GOP was considering in PA is now advancing in several states

In the vast majority of states, the presidential candidate who wins receives all of that state’s electoral votes. The proposed changes would instead apportion electoral votes by congressional district, a setup far more favorable to Republicans. Under such a system in Virginia, for instance, President Obama would have claimed four of the state’s 13 electoral votes in the 2012 election, rather than all of them. Other states considering similar changes include Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania, which share a common dynamic with Virginia: They went for Obama in the past two elections but are controlled by Republicans at the state level.

It’s axiomatic that the closer you get to the electorate the better representation the people have, also note the words in the piece Vast majority of states. Some states already have such a system so naturally the left would have no objection, right?

TPM: NAACP: VA’s Electoral Vote Scheme Would Leave Minorities ‘More Disenfranchised Than Ever’

CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS: Grand Theft Election How Republicans Plan to Rig the Electoral College and Steal the White House

THE HUFFINGTON POST: What The 2012 Election Would Look Like Under The Republicans’ Vote-Rigging Plan

Guess not.

Legal Insurrection makes the logical point:

Award by congressional district is in use in two states, has been proposed many times before elsewhere, and still requires presidential candidates to win elections in congressional districts. It may favor Republicans, or it may not, depending on the state and the presidential candidate. Awarding electoral votes by district may have a positive impact of forcing candidates to campaign outside the large cities and bring a more geographically diverse electorate into the voting booth for them. To equate it to cheating is constitutionally ignorant.

This system would certainly put individual districts in play in states which would mean a presidential campaign would have to focus on the needs of individual districts, and of course to the needs of the local people there. All politics local right? It would also make elections in a state legislature more critical meaning parties would have to be more concerned with the voters as individuals not as blocks.

Now oddly enough the single most interesting response from the left comes from Kevin Drum (emphasis mine)

Democrats don’t have the votes to fight back with anything similar, but they do have another weapon in their back pocket: the National Popular Vote interstate compact, an agreement among states to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the popular vote nationwide. If states with more than half of all electoral votes sign up for this, it goes into effect.

So far, only nine states with a total of 132 electoral votes have signed up. But if Republicans continue their patently shameful effort to game the electoral college system, it might spur more states to sign up. That’s what a sense of outrage can do. Republicans might want to think about that as they move forward. If they keep going, the end result might be a system even less favorable to them than the current electoral college.

So if the GOP goes forward with this plan then Democrats will go forward with theirs, that would be a pretty effective argument if it wasn’t for the fact that Democrats have ALREADY gone forward with this plan and will go forward no matter what the GOP does.

If I had one piece of advice for the GOP it would be what I said back in December when this first came up.

One of the things that tends to drive me nuts about the GOP is their unwillingness to take off the gloves, too afraid of what the media and the democrats will say ignoring the fact that the left, the media and the Democrats (who are pretty much the same thing) are going to object no matter what the GOP does.

That being the case the best choice is to ignore them and do what you want to do, or better yet what your supporters elected you to do.

They left can say what they want, if we have the votes then we should just do it. I’ll give the last word to Tom:

James Taylor: I’ll make public opinion out there within five hours! I’ve done it all my life. I’ll blacken this punk so that he’ll – You leave public opinion to me.

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington 1939

I was reading Glenn Reynolds short paper HAM SANDWICH NATION: DUE PROCESS WHEN EVERYTHING IS A CRIME (you can download it here) when something jumped out at me:

“The most dangerous power of the prosecutor:that he will pick people he thinks he should get,rather than pick cases that need to be prosecuted.” Prosecutors could easily fall prey to the temptation of “picking the man, and then searching the law books…to pin some offense on him.”

While Glenn Reynolds make his point (particularly when he references a popular “game” in he US Attorney’s name a famous person and find a crime to jail them with) it hit me this is exactly the same problem one faces with  the MSM.

The greatest power of the MSM is the ability to decide what is “newsworthy” and what is not. To decide say, the death of a Trayvon Martin or a Matthew Shepard is a national outrage worthy of universal condemnation, marches and action while the murder of 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising or the killing of 15-year-old Porshe Foster are local stories of no significance outside of their communities and certainly not worthy of any kind of outrage on a national level.

When the motive for a news organization is profit, the goal is to get the public to buy a magazine or paper, or to attract enough readers to a site or a program to attract high rates from advertisers.

If that was the case, all four of these stories would have been reported nationally and all four of those names would be known at least tangentially known to anyone who reads a paper or watches news regularly

That this is not case.

Instead the Mainstream media chooses its stories carefully, when there is an agenda to be advanced, theirs or their allies agenda an issue.  Take campaign finance reform, for years the media pushed it as a critical issue, the most important thing for any American to consider. The actual importance to the people they are selling this issue is not relevant.  In reality:

In a tape obtained by the New York Post, Mr. Treglia tells his USC audience they are going to hear a story he can reveal only now that campaign finance reform has become law. “The target audience for all this [foundation] activity was 535 people in [Congress],” Mr. Treglia says in his talk. “The idea was to create an impression that a mass movement was afoot. That everywhere [Congress] looked, in academic institutions, in the business community, in religious groups, in ethnic groups, everywhere, people were talking about reform.”

Meanwhile as the big money of the “Democracy Institute” launches what is described as:

a coordinated effort by about 36 different interest groups with reported revenues of no less than $1.69 billion, pledging millions of dollars to work together to attack conservative supporters and organizations, to intervene directly in Democratic politics, to push for filibuster reform to better enable a push through their agenda without any input from the opposition, and expanding “voting rights” and fighting voter registration laws to further grease the skids for their legislative agenda.

That story, gets no press, no attention no pixels in the mainstream media.

That’s why Mitt Romney’s words about Cario can be an outrage but Barack Obama’s & Hillary Clinton’s actions/inaction on Sept 11th is can be ignored. It’s why saying “what difference does it make” to the death of Americans is an “unfair tactic” but unsubstanciated affair Rumors concerning John McCain was part of all the news that’s fit to print at the NYT.

Until there is a price for this type of mendacity the MSM will continue to do it, just like until there is a price for the same conduct by prosecutors things will not change.

Update: Great Example of this on Morning Joe today, all the hits on the GOP were on politics while the praise of Mrs. Clinton was on style (one “Journolist actually called Hillary Clinton “GENUINE” lucky for me I wasn’t drinking anything at the time) while the critiques of Mrs. Clinton (such that there was) were on substance.

That my dear readers is the whole thing in a nutshell.

ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS

George Orwell: Animal Farm 1945

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition.

Alexander Stephens March 21, 1861

One of the first arguments that generally come out of the mouth of a person who supports abortion when confronted by the argument on innocent life is that you aren’t killing baby in abortion.

Not anymore. Mary Elizabeth Williams has decided to go the other way here is the title or her Salon Piece

 

So what if abortion ends life?
I believe that life starts at conception. And it’s never stopped me from being pro-choice

Mary Katherine Ham notes the thinking process:

This was the exact thought process that led me to the exact opposite position. I, too, noticed a distinction between how women approached an in-utero child when they wanted the child and how they felt about it when the pregnancy was unexpected and unwanted. Logically, it made no sense to me that the mother’s disposition should change the biological disposition of the baby. Therefore, it made no sense that it should change the ethics of the situation. But Mary Elizabeth Williams goes a whole different direction

Mary Elizabeth Williams doesn’t just go in a different direction she goes all Comrade Napoleon on us

All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss

Katrina Trinko calls asks the obvious:

By this same logic, isn’t infanticide also fine and dandy? After all, if we’re talking about autonomy, kids aren’t exactly independent as soon as they are born. No infant can take care of themselves. And even later on in childhood, children rely heavily on the adults in their life to provide shelter, food, and emotional support. What about kids and adults who become disabled in life? What about quadriplegics?

Elizabeth Scalia, meanwhile is horrified:

When terrorists flew jets into tall buildings, they believed that those 3,000 lives were “worth sacrificing” for the furtherance of their situation. When Nazis led people with disabilities into gas chambers, those lives were “worth sacrificing” for society. When Herod had all the male children killed Bethlehem, those lives were “worth sacrificing” for his ease of mind.

The utilitarian mindset is a crystalline brutality of efficiency. If human beings of unknown or dubious worth cannot contribute to the comfort of a society, or the success of an endeavor or the happiness of one’s life, they are swept aside and away.

I’m shocked none of these ladies mentioned slavery, the ultimate utilitarian argument, consider these words from Williams…

She understands that it saves lives not just in the most medically literal way, but in the roads that women who have choice then get to go down, in the possibilities for them and for their families.

..and remember the arguments in the past concerning the black man, and the red man and how their subordination allowed the superior the more important to advance and achieve, to give them roads to go down and possibilities for them and their families.

And it also ignores something else, the costs of abortion:

A recent study published by Great Britain’s Royal College of Psychiatrists (H/T Alveda King Blog) includes data collected from 22 studies, conducted over 14 years, involving over 887,000 women, of which at least 166,831 had abortions.  The results? Eighty-one percent of women (81%) who have had abortions suffer an increased risk of severe mental health problems.

All these reactions have merit but they miss the real story of the Salon piece although Elizabeth comes closest…

Were I a cartographer, I would hasten to warn Ms. Williams against this route; I would mark the map, “Here be Monsters.”

Elizabeth Elizabeth Elizabeth you are so close, being kind-hearted you conclude that Ms Williams is taking herself on a monstrous route unknowingly, but observe her argument carefully. This is a place she has been forever, in fact an honest reading of her piece admits the pro-abortion side has been there all along. The only reason she is making this statement in public is she believes it will advance her cause.

In short Ms. Williams is not taking the route toward the monsters, she is the MONSTER and the monster has decided it is strong enough to show true colors. By it being printed in a national magazine publicly it informs others that they can openly discuss this topic without fear.

That begs the question why now? Well that’s a piece is for tomorrow.