Facebook posts: 3/5/2012

For those who need the reminder, this blog has a public Facebook page.  It now also has a easy-to-remember URL:  http://www.facebook.com/snowedinblog. 

Since I've gotten more in the habit of posting links to my Facebook page (articles that interest me but about which I do not have time to write a decent entry), I figured I would compile those links here for your benefit (along with the comments I posted on the FB page).  And I'll also include further cajoling to like said Facebook page, or maybe hit the tip jar, or something.

On Rush Limbaugh, Sandra Fluke, and selective outrage:

• Rally for Rush:  This isn't about a personal attack (or these same people would be concerned with similar personal attacks by liberals toward conservative women); this is about a coordinated effort to destroy Rush Limbaugh.
• A little discussion on my wall:  A question to those who are bent on getting Rush off the air: were you similarly upset when Ed Schultz called Laura Ingraham a slut, or when Bill Maher repeatedly called Sarah Palin the c-word, or in many, many other similar liberals-insulting-conservative-women situations
• The left's respect for women: a look back:  Language warnings apply.
• Where's My Presidential Phone Call?  "The media played up a carefully orchestrated story designed to shield the President from criticism that his health care mandate was a violation of religious freedom. Why is that not a story? Because if the Obama campaign slips and allows this election cycle to refocus on the economy, he will lose." Dana Loesch nails it.
• AOL Drops Rush for “Slut” Remark, But Allows This? Hypocrites.  More selective outrage.

Various and sundry other stuff:

• The Vetting, Part I: Barack's Love Song To Alinsky:  "President Obama subscribes to radical leftist philosophies? Who knew?"

Be sure to like my page, so you can see these links when I post them.  Thanks.

Andrew Breitbart, 1969-2012

Like most ardent followers of American politics, I was completely shocked to hear this morning of the very sudden death of Andrew Breitbart.  Love him or hate him, you can't deny that Mr. Breitbart had an impact on the American political scene. From his early days with the Drudge Report to now, he had a hand in shaping the conversation.  Now, I certainly did not agree with everything he said or did (two quick examples:  dancing on Ted Kennedy's grave, even if he seemingly left a woman to die; and his habit of retweeting every piece of hatred directed at him), but to say that he did not make a difference would be silly.  One only needs to look at all the filth and vileness spewed by some people since the announcement of Mr. Breitbart's death was made to see that he had an impact.

And what was that impact?  For many conservatives, it was the inspiration not to sit back and take what some on the left have been dishing out for so long (aided and abetted by certain media outlets, of course), but to speak out for what is true and what is right.  While he will be missed, he has left more than a few people ready to step up to continue where he left off.

As an example of how he inspired many is his CPAC speech from just three weeks ago, courtesy Mediaite (h/t The Right Scoop) (language warning applies):



While I never met him, many people I have met online considered him a friend as well as an inspiration, and my thoughts go out to them, as well as his wife and four children.  Godspeed, Mr. Breitbart.

Bristol gets real, again

Per The Hollywood Reporter (hat tip to Lisa Graas):

Bristol Palin is filming another* reality show, this time for the Lifetime network (which, up to now, has been known to me mostly for Golden Girls reruns, men-are-evil movies, and Denise Austin).  In it, viewers will see the life of a non-glamorized single mother raising her three-year-old son, Tripp.

(Bristol Palin, image courtesy The Hollywood Reporter under Fair Use clause)

Lifetime announced Wednesday that Bristol Palin: Life's a Tripp will see a 10-episode run on the network later this year.

Focusing on the former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin's daughter's life as a single mother with son Tripp, the series will follow the young Palin's new life in her native Alaska after brushes with fame on Dancing With the Stars.

Good for Bristol.  I'd certainly be willing to watch this show (if I got Lifetime, that is).

Now, of course, this will bring out all Bristol's detractors yet again to waste inordinate amounts of time whining that Bristol isn't a star, or that she's a publicity hound (the actual term they would use is not suitable for this blog), or that her family is stupid (the perennial fallback insult), or whatever.  But Bristol, I think, has proven that she can handle her detractors just fine, and I don't think things will be any different now.  And it isn't as if she's just been waiting for someone to offer her a reality show; she's been working a regular job, as I understand it, and I'm sure this offer was unsolicited and probably welcome in that it will certainly help with raising her son.

And besides, what were you going to watch?   I guarantee you will see a better program watching Bristol than you would watching, say, mom-to-be Snooki.


* There was a previous show that she was filming with Dancing With the Stars competitor Kyle Massie, but apparently it was shelved.

Who Are These People?

It is common knowledge to this blog's dozens (half-dozens?) of readers that there are rather few comments posted here.  What is less commonly known (or cared about, really) is that many other comments having nothing to do with the topic at hand (which might, at any given time, be music, Palin, Austin, Palin, politics, or Palin) are also left here.  These comments are filtered by Blogger as spam, for which I am eternally grateful.

Most of the spam comments follow what one might expect:  a lot of gibberish, or a paragraph having nothing whatsoever to do with anything, followed by a link to a website, almost 100% of the time located on another continent, selling something I don't care to promote on my site.  (Those things I do want to promote are in the ads that do appear, and your humble host would very much appreciate it if you do all your St. Patrick's Day shopping through those links.  And thanks.)  That seems normal enough in today's internet.

What I do not understand are the spam comments that have no links to anything.  They are always left by "Anonymous", which obviously doesn't link to any sort of webpage (unlike, say, Blogger IDs), so I really don't know what the point of posting these comments is.

Maybe you can make sense of why examples such as the following are ever generated in the first place:

• Nice site!  I've just shared it on Facebook.  (Sure you have...)
• As a web site owner I think the material here is really magnificent.  I appreciate it for your time.  You must maintain it and keep it up forever!  Excellent work.  (I'm blushing...or not.)
• hi there every one - hope yous had a good christmas - pity we didnt get snow was all prepared wi sledges kids loving it any ways , all the best for the comming year - mick b  (This, perhaps, is the result of a newbie to the internets, so it may not fit in with the rest of these comments.)
• The above writing was excellent.  I stumble on it very exciting and I will certainly forward this to my buddies on the net.  Anyway, thanks for sharing this.  (I'm gonna guess that English is not this writer's first language.)
• Thanks for your review!  Actually I have never seen anything that cool.  (This was posted on a five-year-old, not-very-cool article.  I really don't get it.)

And here's my personal favorite:

I was impressed with the way you expressed your thoughts about Blogger:  Snowed In - Post a Comment.  I can not believe that somebody can write an amazing story like thet about I love Blogger:  Snowed In - Post a Comment.

Maybe the answer is the simplest explanation that comes to my mind, which is that some spammers simply aren't very web-savvy.

Last-second addition before publishing:  It has come to my attention before this entry was published but after I wrote all of the above that I am not the only one thinking along these lines today.  Randy Cassingham (of "This Is True" fame) also had something to say about spammy comments.  Though it should be noted that his spammy comments are signed, which means his is obviously a more advanced group of spammers.

Is it open season on Sarah Palin or something?

"Hey, let's go after Sarah Palin...it's what all the cool kids are doing!"

Enough already, people.

I have no idea why so many on the right, in an attempt to be relevant (which I have almost never been, politically speaking), have decided that the best way to do so is to attack Sarah Palin, who, you may recall, isn't presently running for anything.  But this behavior appears to be encouraged, based on the way some of it gets promoted.

Case in point:  Eddie Scarry, who writes for Mediabistro's FishbowlDC and The Blaze.

Mr. Scarry apparently took issue with a piece Gov. Palin wrote for Newsweek Magazine, an increasingly leftist-slanted magazine which very recently spotlighted an article by Andrew Sullivan, noted expert on Sarah Palin's uterus.  (I commented about that in a Facebook note, which is what I do sometimes when I don't have time to blog about things.  Of course, the dearth of posts on my Facebook page doesn't speak well for my use of my time either.  But I digress.)  In her note (entited "Life With Trig: Sarah Palin on Raising a Special-Needs Child"), Gov. Palin paints an almost-idyllic picture of the blessing her son Trig has been to her and her family.  (Note to readers:  You might want to follow my example and not read the comments...as usual, some of Newsweek's readers have displayed what appears to be a typical (for them) hatred.  Yes, I did read a couple of comments, and then I forced myself to stop, as they all appeared to be coming from a hive mind afflicted severely with Palin Derangement Syndrome.)

An example of what seems to have set Mr. Scarry and a bunch of angry commenters off:

God knew what he was doing when he blessed us with Trig. We went from fear of the unknown to proudly displaying a bumper sticker sent to us that reads: “My kid has more chromosomes than your kid!”

So, what in the world could someone who writes for a conservative site such as The Blaze have against Sarah Palin gushing, as any decent mother would, about her young son?  Well, Mr. Scarry got it into his mind, somehow, that Gov. Palin was supposed to be writing about Rick Santorum, who has his own special-needs child.  She wasn't, but Mr. Scarry based his four-paragraph rant (entitled "Somehow, Santorum’s family troubles relate to Sarah Palin") on this incorrect premise.  Hey, why fact-check this stuff when you can score cheap points against Sarah Palin, right?

A sample of his comments:

For more perspective, the names “Rick” and “Santorum” appear three times total and are all found in the first paragraph. The word “my,” in reference to Palin herself, appears 15 times throughout the rest. I didn’t bother searching for “I” and “I’ve.”

Thankfully, many people tried to correct the record about the reasoning behind Gov. Palin's piece.  Notable among these was Stacy Drake:

Now, while this blog does not care for the last term of endearment Ms. Drake used, it certainly did not deserve Mr. Scarry's response (courtesy Big Journalism, since Mr. Scarry has since whitewashed the following tweet):

(there used to be an image of a tweet calling Stacy Drake "whore" here, but it has since disappeared from Big Journalism's site)

I wonder how The Blaze's founder, one Glenn Beck, feels about that response.  I'm hoping he's a bit upset about it, but at this point, who knows?

Regardless, of course, Ms. Drake was right, as evidenced by the Huffington Post piece she linked:

[A] Daily Beast spokesperson says the Palin piece was assigned last week following the news that Rick Santorum's daughter, Bella, had been hospitalized and he was briefly leaving the campaign trail.

"We asked Sarah Palin if she would like to share her personal story about life with a child with special needs upon learning about Senator Santorum's decision last week to place his campaign on hold to be with his daughter," the spokesperson emailed. 

I couldn't sum up the issue any better than John Nolte at Big Journalism:

In other words, in the wake of what happened to Bella Santorum, Newsweek reached out to Sarah Palin — and I’m going to repeat this carefully for the Beck-impaired — to… share… her… personal… story… about… life… with… a… child… with… special… needs…

So what is Sarah Palin guilty of here? Writing the piece she was asked to write.

But what is The Blaze guilty of here? Again, telling a lie of omission and, just like Wonkette and Andrew Sullivan, using Palin’s family as a weapon against her. After nearly four years, this tactic is well-honed and easy to spot. Anytime the Governor writes about or speaks of or is seen with her family, some bottom-feeder weaponizes the event, weaponizes her own family, to beat her senseless with. And that’s exactly what The Blaze did.

As it turns out, though, Mr. Scarry has now added the following to his rant, which he left untouched otherwise:

UPDATE: Many Palin supporters have read this post and taken issue with the fact that it does not mention Palin was actually asked by “Newsweek” to write about her experience raising a special needs child. She did not approach the publication and that is a crucial piece of information that should have been included for BLAZE readers.

This post was a brief analysis of the perception I, among others, had of Palin contributing to a magazine she regularly criticizes. And though my thoughts on Palin’s column still stand, it‘s also important to acknowledge that Palin’s experience raising her son Trig is a fascinating story and is worth a read in her book “Going Rogue.” –Eddie Scarry, Eddie@theblaze.com

Some of the above does not ring true.  Mr. Scarry devoted one throwaway phrase ("a magazine she loves to hate") in his initial rant to the idea of Gov. Palin writing for Newsweek after having slammed it.  No, Mr. Scarry, the original post was a brief assumption that Gov. Palin had made something all about her when, in your mind, it should not have been.  The problem, of course, is that Gov. Palin's piece was indeed supposed to be about her own family, and you still haven't acknowledged that you were flat-out wrong about it.

But, as has increasingly been the case, facts don't seem to matter to those who want to take down Sarah Palin.  And a lot of the Palin-hatred, unfortunately, is coming from our own side.

Update:  Welcome, Conservatives4Palin readers!

Unfairly forgotten song #11: Erotica by Madonna

I can hear you now:  "Really, Snowed?  A Madonna song?  How can anything by Madonna be forgotten?"  (This may not in reality be what you are saying, but as this is my blog I get to assume that you are in fact saying these things just after reading the title to this entry, and so we'll proceed from that assumption.)

Well, if I were to consider Madonna's career in pop music--and of course this consideration has been brought on by her imminent halftime show performance tomorrow--I would say that the Erotica album/era is in fact the most forgotten portion.

And why is this?  Perhaps it is because Madonna was at that time infamous for making a coffee table book in which she was wearing very little, if any, clothing.  (Now she's just infamous for continuing to dress like she were still that age.)  Or it may have been because the songs from this album were not as successful as singles from other albums of hers.  Wikipedia* reports that no song from the album Erotica charted any higher than number three.  Or maybe the pop-music populace didn't care as much for the songs of that era in which, as Idolator.com says (in a list of the 10 most forgotten Madonna songs--in which "Erotica" does not appear), Madonna "gabbed through tracks rather than singing on them."

In any case, regardless of the reason, I personally do not believe that I have heard the title track on any radio station since its original run on the Hot 100 in late 1992/early 1993.  And this I find rather strange, since it had such a strong debut, per Wikipedia*; it debuted at number thirteen and reached its peak position of number three the next week.  It also reached number two on Billboard's airplay chart (debuting and peaking at that position on October 17, 1992), which makes it doubly strange to me that it now receives, as far as I can tell, absolutely no airplay now.

According to commenter "BLT" at SongMeanings.net, Madonna intended this song to serve as a fantasy of "crazy and nasty things that go through [one's] mind," but are never acted on.

The video, which may presently be found on YouTube, was banned by MTV for content reasons, which, given the high standards of MTV, should tell you a lot.  This video will not be presented here, sorry.  (No, this is not a SOPA thing, this is me not wanting to show it.)  A portion of the audio, however, is presented here for your pleasure through the courtesy of our friends at Amazon.com.



You can also buy the whole album here:



*Note:  some information in "forgotten songs" entries comes from the always-reliable Wikipedia; as such, its veracity may be questionable.

Second note: I get a pittance from Amazon sales through links from this blog.

RIP, Dublin Dr Pepper

As readers of my blog may remember, I mentioned in June that Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. had sued the bottlers of Dublin Dr Pepper.  Sadly, that case has ended with the result that I, at least, expected:  Dublin Dr Pepper is no more.

Per The Dallas Observer:

From here on out, per a settlement agreement just announced in the case filed by Plano-based Dr Pepper Snapple Group in June, the Dublin Dr Pepper Bottling Company will now be known as Dublin Bottling Works Inc. And it will no longer manufacture Imperial Pure Cane Sugar Dr Pepper at its bottling plant.

It will continue to manufacture soft drinks with pure-cane sugar: Triple XXX Root Beer, NuGrape and SunCrest among others. But Dr Pepper Snapple Group has purchased from from the Kloster family all of its Dr Pepper-related assets, as well as the right to distribute Dr Pepper in the six-county territory (Comanche, Eastland, Erath, Hood, Hamilton and Bosque) previously served by Dublin Dr Pepper. Corporate says the product sold there and elsewhere will continue to be made with pure-cane sugar at the Temple bottling plant, and that "it will still be bottled and canned in distinct, nostalgic packaging." The only difference, says the announcement, is that "it will not reference Dublin on the label."

The good news, I suppose, is that per the information in the Observer article, Dr Pepper Snapple is going to continue to support Dublin's long history with the brand.  But still, for me and, I'm sure, many others, this is the end of an era.

At least for the moment, though, you can still buy Dublin Dr Pepper at Amazon, and for your convenience there happens to be a link right here.*



*I get paid a small commission for orders made through this link.

Unfairly forgotten song #10: Girls With Guns by Tommy Shaw

I'm not gonna lie:  what made me think of this was a recent comment by one Sarah Palin (as quoted by National Review via Conservatives4Palin) in which she stated, "I’m all in favor of girls with guns who know their purpose."

How could this child of the 80s not think of Tommy Shaw?

Tommy Shaw, as most of my readers probably don't know, was the lead guitarist for Styx through the late 70s and early 80s but left the group due to dissatisfaction with the direction in which other members wanted to take the band.  (Meh, go look it up on Wikipedia.)

Mr. Shaw's first solo album, which came to mind after I heard Governor Palin's statement above, was called "Girls With Guns", and its title track was Mr. Shaw's only Top 40 solo appearance, spending a grand total of three weeks on the Top 40 charts and peaking at #33 on November 17, 1984, before falling completely off the charts the following week.

It should be noted that, as I and others (such as "cassiemay10" over at SongMeanings.net) understand it, Mr. Shaw was writing not necessarily about girls carrying actual guns, but about strong, independent women.  (Women like Sarah Palin, perhaps.)

An interesting trait about the video for this track is that it is all one take; there are no cuts, which is quite different from the frenetic editing seen in most videos that I've ever watched.  See for yourself:


(All copyrights acknowledged.  Presented under Fair Use clause, and this was posted before SOPA, may it die in flames, ever passed.)

While I have never heard this song on the radio in the past 20 years apart from Ron "Boogiemonster" Gerber's "Crap From the Past" on KFAI Minneapolis, you can purchase the MP3 right here (full disclosure:  I'll get about a penny if you purchase through this link):



*Note:  most information in "forgotten songs" entries comes from the always-reliable Wikipedia; as such, its veracity may be questionable.

I am resolved

I'm not usually one to make New Year's resolutions.  Really, the most I generally strive to reach when a year begins is to try to write the correct year on all my checks.  (Yes, I still write checks, which may very well make me a relic in 2012.)  I tried actually writing some resolutions down back when I was a child, but they were mostly just habits that I was trying to break.  Such resolutions were generally forgotten by the middle of the month.

Since, thanks to my typically timely posting, it is almost the middle of the month already, there doesn't seem to be any point in writing down any resolutions such as, for example, "I will stop eating junk food every night," particularly since, thanks to our current financial situation, we've already chosen to allocate our money in places other than supporting the junk food industry.

However, I think that a new year is a good time to, perhaps, make a few goals for oneself.  (Really, any time is good for self-improvement, but a new year, like a birthday, gives most people I know a special opportunity for thoughts of how they can live better than they did in the previous year.)  And so I put forward these goals, which are not resolutions and therefore cannot be broken within two days.

• I want to blog more.  (My track record over the fourth quarter of 2011 shows that improvement in this area probably shouldn't be too difficult.)
• I want to spend more time offline.  (This may not seem to jibe with the previous goal, but there is a lot of time that I have spent online in which I was not blogging.  Those who know the real me on Facebook can attest to this.)  My kids want to spend time with their father now, and I owe it to them to give them that time.
• I want to meet Sarah Palin.  (Sorry, I believe that entry belongs in my list of pipe dreams for 2012.)

But my main goal, which is going to receive enough exposition that I am not putting it behind a bullet point, is that I intend to read less comments this year.  Now, while all of my readers are well-reasoned, intelligent people (notwithstanding the amount of spam that gets filtered before reaching some of my older entries), there are some people who appear to do little more than spend their entire day, every day, posting comments on news articles.  And, unfortunately, many of these perpetual commenters are, shall we say, not the most well-informed of people.  And what appears to go hand-in-hand for some of these more ignorant commenters but which also can be found, sadly, even in the more savvy net presences, is a tendency toward rude, boorish behavior toward others with whom these serial commenters disagree.

As an example, simply view comments on any article on Hot Air discussing Sarah Palin.  (Did I mention that I want to meet her?  I did?  Good.  Moving on...)  Now, in this case, many of the people participating in the threads there are well-informed on the issues of the day.  But the rudeness of some people toward anyone who disagrees with them makes reading any comments on that site unpalatable at times.

While we're at it, I'll probably curtail my viewing of C-Span's "Washington Journal" for the same reason.  There are only so many times that I can hear ill-formulated opinions spewed from callers, and I think I'm nearing my limit, at least for the moment.  (This is also why I don't always listen to talk radio once the host starts taking calls, but at least then the host generally will challenge any incorrect statement from the callers, and so the annoyance factor is decreased there, at least a little.)

It's all part of trying to live by one of my favorite writings:

Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. 

(Phillipians 4:8, from the New International Version, copyright 2011 Biblica, courtesy BibleGateway, used under Fair Use guidelines, at least while SOPA hasn't been passed.)

Too often, blog comments, loudmouthed callers, and others are anything but true, noble, etc.  For my spiritual health, I need to move my focus away from them, and put it back where it belongs.  Hopefully that will make for a much better 2012.

Can't we all just get along?

In the last two months since Sarah Palin announced she was not running for president, two factions have formed among those who were (are?) called Palinistas.  One group took the viewpoint that "Gov. Palin has made her decision, and we need to accept it," while the other group recalled a moment in which Sarah Palin, when asked what sort of metaphorical earthquake would be required to get her to change her mind, said, "It would have to be at least a 10.3..." and have sent in lots of postcards trying to convince her to enter the race as part of a group they have named "Sarah Palin's Earthquake".

Apparently, there have been tensions between these two factions.  (Due to family stuff, work stuff, a big vacation, and a general frustration with other tensions between supporters of the remaining candidates, I've stayed out of most of this, though I count myself as one of those respecting Gov. Palin's decision.  I don't have to like it, but I will respect it.)  As I understand it, Sarah Palin's Facebook page's moderators are removing some posts relating to the "respect her decision" viewpoint, while some of that viewpoint have harsh words for the "Earthquake" movement's apparent disregard for the Palin family.

Lisa Graas spoke to that yesterday:

My advice to the “Respect Sarah Palin’s Decision” people is that you try to be patient with the “Earthquake” people. They are acting out of pain, not hatred. They can’t see a way forward unless she runs for president, and these things take time to heal. It’s really important that we all try to give them their space and let them deal with this in their own way and in their own good time.

I have nothing but respect for Sarah Palin. I love her and respect her even though I have strongly disagreed with her. As I always say, there will always be a little Palinista in my little Passionist heart…but I am not Sarah Palin. I am Lisa Graas. Having said that, I can almost promise you that Sarah Palin is cognizant of, and able to manifest, the need for us all to love and respect each other while disagreeing strongly far more than I am able to manifest it. God bless her for what she brings to our public discourse in that regard.

It's a reminder that we need every so often.  It's okay to disagree and yet still respect those with whom we disagree.  Lisa's whole post is worth a read.