Dennis the Peasant

Such A Difference...

Perhaps you've noted the journaistic catfight that broke out this week between Paul Krugman, David Brooks and (oy veh!) Bob Herbert over the claim that - *gasp!* - Ronald Reagan really was a racist. It's a perfect example of why newspaper circulation is in a freefall, and why the New York Times seems hellbent on leading the whole pack of 'em, lemming-like, over the cliff of their own irrelevance.

The last time I checked - which was earlier today - we were at war in the Middle East, flirting with some potentially serious economic turbulence, and in need of some common-sense solutions to a whole series of policy issues ranging from taxation to energy to immigration. Oh yeah, and Ronald Reagan was still dead.... And had been for over three years.

But instead of having three of the nation's (supposed) leading public intellectuals, who are published by two of the nation's (supposed) leading newspapers, providing us with insight and thoughtful discussion of - well - issues, we've been treated to a multi-day, multi-column argument about whether a dead president has been conclusively proved a virulent racist by the use of exactly two words in a speech delivered over a quarter of a century ago.

Riveting stuff, eh?

Yeah, I'm on the edge of my seat as well. Was Ronald Reagan really a bad guy? I mean, what could be more important? Well, to start with, a whole lot of things are a whole lot more important. But you'd never guess it by reading those three boobs. That's because the key word in all this, of course, is the word "suppose". As in, "These are supposed to be leading public intellectuals with supposedly prestigious newspapers who are supposed to be writing something of import about the issues, one supposes, we are supposed to actually care about."

Right.

Bottom line? Bob Herbert's dumber than a potted plant. He's the personification of journalism's Peter Principle in action. Paul Krugman is one of the finest economists of his generation, although you'd sure-as-shit never know it from his columns in the Times. That none of Pinch's editors has told Krugman to stick to economics or shut the fuck up is simply one of many reasons why investors not named Sulzberger can't unload their Times stock fast enough. And then there's David Brooks. He thinks John McCain - the John McCain of Keating Five and McCain-Feingold fame - has lately acquired the status of secular saint. Enough said 'bout David.

Given how gratuiously stupid and irrelevant the Krugman-Brooks-Herbert circle jerk is, you'd think it would provide the political blogosphere a perfect opportunity to demonstrate its' claimed intellectual superiority by spending time on weightier matters. Right? I mean, New Media is what matters in the 21st Century because it, rather than Mainstream Media, can deliver the sort of intellectual range and depth regular journalism can only dream of. Right?

Well... Not really. What the political blogosphere is actually busy demonstrating - yet again - is that when faced with the choice of thinking for itself or following a mob of half-assed journos, it chooses to run with the mob. Then again, for a whole lot of bloggers, the ugly and not-so-secret truth of the matter is this: The only worse than being a Mainstream Media journalist is not being a Mainstream Media journalist. Evidently half an ass is better than no ass at all.

I suppose on some intellectual level an argument about Reagan and racism could be considered interesting. And I suppose there is some sort of forum where discussion and debate on the issue would be considered appealing. But as one who resides outside the Chattering Classes, my immediate response is simple:

I don't give a fuck.

That I don't give a fuck isn't due to any lack of intellectual curiosity. Nor is it due to any desire on my part to avoid examining - for good or bad - some of the political choices made by Ronald Reagan is fashioning his political coalition. Not at all. I don't give a fuck because what Krugman, Brooks and Herbert are offering has nothing to do with analysis - either political or historical - of Ronald Reagan or his presidency. Krugman and Herbert simply want to brand Reagan, and by extension, all Republicans, as racists so they can indulge in a bit of liberal self-loving. Brooks, on the other hand, doesn't want to admit that neither Reagan nor the Republican Party were above racial politics when it came to moving conservative Democrats into the fold.

Note to Paul, David and Bob: The Republican Southern Strategy was discovered a while ago. It has been discussed. Honest.

Beyond that, I don't give a fuck because it's way down on my list of things to care about. My daily worries revolve around far more fundamental issues: War, immigration, taxes, health care and the economy. And what I really need out of someone - and I don't give a shit which of the two Medias gives it to me - is clear, complete, intelligent and unbiased analysis of the issues and the policy alternatives for dealing with those issues. All I've learned this week is that neither Paul Krugman, David Brooks or Bob Herbert have the horses under the hood to deliver anything other than dimwitted partisan hackery.

Bottom line? Fuck 'em. All three of 'em. And fuck their little circle jerk as well. I just couldn't care less.

Of course, it could just be that my expectations aren't realistic. Spending lots of time and energy on grappling with complex real-world issues can be an unrewarding business, as many bloggers have discovered. That's because very often serious blogging about weighty issues is every bit as much work for the reader as it was for the blogger. Let's face it, for a lot of folks who consider themselves thought leaders or whatnot, that sort of thing is a no-no. They're under the impression they're thought leaders because they dick around at political blogs. Reality seems to be somewhat different, however, to the adults in the room...

So for all the hoo-ha about the superiority of the political blogger and his readership, it appears that neither seems to have actually demonstrated said superiority in practice. You really don't have to put in all that much time at any of the most popular political blogs - either Conservative or Liberal - before the simple-minded partisanship of both blogger and reader becomes obvious. It's also hard to ignore that many of them are painfully uninformed about the issues upon which they boviate.

It's hard not to be cynical about the political blogosphere when you have Michelle Malkin squawking about "Arabs buying our ports" when ports aren't sold, or when Josh Marshall discovers a "secret Bush plan" to bankrupt Social Security in the text of a public speech. Both suggestions are infantile and ignorant... But what is important is that neither blogger is, evidently, worthy of scorn for their foolishness. In the real world, and by that I mean outside of the world of the two Medias, someone as silly as a Malkin or Marshall would simply be laughed out of the room.

In the final analysis, the fact that there is no real penalty for being half-assed is the one great distinction that does not exist between Old Media and New. Journalism allows it, and so does blogging. Until political bloggers decide differentiating themselves from - rather than being incorporated into - Mainstream Media journalism is the order of the day, the power of New Media and the political blogosphere will remain the chimera it is.

An Aside: It is worth noting that the real growth in the political blogosphere appears to be over. Despite whatever hucksters like Roger Simon might say about growth of readership, it is apparent that the political blogosphere's share of internet traffic is either static or contracting. Take a look at these two graphs of some of today's most popular political sites:

Notice anything striking? How about this: In terms of "Reach" (the percentage of global internet users who visit each of the graphed sites), present levels are at about the same level as early 2005, and in nearly all cases are well below late 2005 to mid-2006 levels. Yes, to an extent the 2006 mid-term elections can account for such behavior, but that doesn't fully explain why Reach levels are now at or below the levels of early 2005... It appears real growth has ended. I would argue that lack of content is the culprit.

Sinner Number Five: John Hindraker - The Bore

I've tried writing this no less than five times… and fallen asleep no less than five times. However, as Powerline manages nearly 60,000 unique visitors a day, either they've tapped into the boring folk demographic in a big way or they're causing sales of No Dōz to tank. As far as I am concerned, as the three bloggers who run Powerline - John Hindraker, Scott Johnson and Paul Mirengoff - seem to be largely indistinguishable from each other, I'm justified in having arbitrarily chosen to single out John Hindraker for abuse.

Hindraker's selection is entirely the function of his having proclaimed, after Paul Mirengoff pulled ambush interviews on Senators Dick Durbin and Ted Kennedy, that said ambush interviews constituted what might be a "watershed moment" in the history of internet Citizen Journalism… largely (or so it seems) because Pajamas Media shelled at around $1,000 to give Mirengoff a camcorder to use during the interviews. When you have the sort of temperment I have, how can you pass up slinging shit at someone for saying that sort of thing?

Anyway, if Hindraker and the rest of the Powerline boys are guilty of anything beyond unsubstantiated self-regard (you'd think they'd be with Pajamas Media, given that), it's the sin of being able - despite Ivy League educations, professional distinction and worthy careers - to bore the paint of a Boeing 767. These are exactly the sort of folks who were, once upon a time, supposed to be the vanguard elite of the political blogosphere… drawing upon vast wellsprings of education and personal experience to bring unique perspectives to current events. That was the theory, at least…

What we've ended up getting - as "original content" - is the twin (endless) sagas of Problems at Dartmouth and The Liberal Weenies at the Star Tribune. Maybe I'm hard to please, but elections and Dartmouth and bad journalism at the local paper don't seem to be satisfactory replacements for either Beowulf or Real Live Citizen Journalism. Beyond The Sagas, just about everything else is a link to the same mainstream media publications everybody else links to with less than 100 words of the same sort of "opinion" stitched to it that everybody else stitches on their mainstream media links. For all the huffing and puffing about Citizen Journalism, these fearless Citizen Journalists would be lost without either the Star Tribune or the New York Times to rag on…

So let's face it: Paul Mirengoff's interviews may not have been a "watershed moment" for the internet, but they certainly were a unique moment for Powerline. They represent the only bit of truly original Citizen Journalism I've ever seen on that site. Beyond that, neither Hindraker nor the rest of the boys manage to pack much in the way of insight into what they do write about. They are reflexively pro-Conservative/Republican and anti-Liberal/Democrat, and there is never a deviation into the wilds of non-partisan thought. Even the airport toilet frolics of Larry Craig brought nothing more initially than a stern reminder that no matter how perverted Republicans might get these days, Democrats are even more perverted… Disapproval of Craig only came later - when it was safe. In their own way, Hindraker and Company are every bit as banal as either Pammycakes or Da Raj.

Not to put to fine a point on it, but the sort of complacent banality Powerline peddles is exactly the sort of thing that will keep the Republican Party out of power and the Conservative movement increasingly in the hands of the right-wing fringe… A prospect that troubles the Powerline Boys not a jot. Let's face it, for all their vocalized concern about the State of the Nation, Hinderaker, Johnson and Mirengoff are the 21st Century personification of The Country Club Republicans that kept the country, for the most part, Democratic throughout the '60s and '70s. But hey, when your web site gets you invited to Republican groupthink gabfests, what's the upside to rocking the boat with original, critical thought? Who wants to miss out on the free martinis?

The Powerline Saga? Stay conventional. Stay safe. And by all means... Be dull!

Sinner Number Six: Roger L. Simon - The Fraud

Who else?

You know, one of the dangers of the blogosphere is that of being taken in by those who aren't quite the person they pretend to be. Tell me about it. But before you run screaming from your computer, thinking I'm going unleash yet another recounting of my short, unhappy association with Roger L. Simon (aka Da Raj), let me assure you that I don't intend any such thing. Christ, it's way past the point of boring even me. Rather, looking at Roger L. Simon and his blog are worthwhile if only to remind all of us that when reading the blogs of people we do not know, we must always - and I do mean always - have our bullshit detectors set on "High", for there are those who would snooker us had they the chance. And not always for money.

First and foremost, Roger L. Simon operates in a world of fantasy. This world of fantasy, a product of his overweening pride, is the fundamental element upon which all of his various frauds rest. Simply put, Roger couldn’t resist the siren call of his own ego; an ego that apparently couldn't allow him to admit there were things he simply was not equipped to do well. He saw his own considerable success in the blogosphere as confirmation of some sort of overriding genius, and then decided that he could single-handedly reinvent journalism - a trade and an industry he knew absolutely nothing about. So off he went, leaving a trail of broken promises, memorable gaffes and one of the most pathetic (and laughable) attempts to challenge the mainstream media we have yet to see.

For this you could accuse him of the sin of being amateurish, except that his ego prevented him from either admitting to or learning from his own mistakes. His sin is not that of The Amateur, although his efforts certainly have been amateurish. Rather, his is a sin of pride. The dreadfulness of Pajamas Media is, and has been, obvious to all. Yet Roger carries on as if all his most outlandish claims have come true. There hasn't been a significant upgrade to the site in a year. Recruitment of truly talented and original bloggers seems to have ended (wasn't that the purpose of the whole thing?), and when "new talent" is added, it amounts to little more than the sort of professional journalists you can find at a couple of dozen mainstream media outlets. Yet, taking Roger at his public word, Pajamas Media is - and always has been - some sort of paradigm shifting journalism venture that all mainstream media will one day copy… when they all get smart like him.

It is important to remember that upon announcement of Pajamas Media, Roger L. Simon had built up a considerable amount of goodwill within portions of the blogosphere. In addition to that, he was offering bloggers something they didn't have - a paying outlet for their talents. And, had he conducted himself with a certain amount of modesty in this venture, or displayed a certain amount of self-effacing humility about his missteps, I'm sure a lot of folks would have been inclined to cut him far more slack than they actually did. But modesty and humility don't enter into the equation here; here the equation centers around the fraudulent claim of infallible genius. In short, Roger has never simply come out and acknowledged any of his mistakes in a way that folks would feel inclined to forgive and forget. So he sacrificed everything, including his credibility, on the alter of his ego.

But the pretense that Pajamas Media is a ground-breaking, quality product is only one of Roger's fraudulent constructs. He has also, in purely business matters, conducted himself in a manner that has brought widespread derision. Even with me and my misadventure out of the equation, one need only look at the phony New York office fiasco, the Open Source Media debacle, the uninviting of 230 of Pajamas Media's first 300 bloggers, or his undercutting of any number of Pajamas bloggers - Jeff Goldstein being only the most prominent - to see a pattern of less than sterling business dealings. As a business owner I understand only too well that the business world can be harsh, and at times we have to make decisions we'd rather not. Nevertheless, there is a special place in Hell that reserved for those business people who attempt to cover their nut-cutting with a layer of pompous sanctimony. And it is in this area, at present, that Roger really excels…

Start with his new found penchant for being Ye Old Lofty Moral Scold. I wrote in January, 2006 that his call for a boycott of the "new Axis of Evil" (Microsoft, Yahoo! And Google) was nothing more than a bit of self-serving moral flummery, and so it was. But who could have imagined that within a year of calling for such a boycott, Pajamas Media would be deriving a significant portion (if not all) of its' revenues from a commercial venture with Google itself? Not even I would have imagined that. And what has Roger had to say for himself? How has he justified his actions? Well, he hasn't. Evidently the "new Axis of Evil" simply went away. Perhaps Roger willed it to go away, and so it has… At least to him. I guess that's how fantasy worlds work. The rest of us, however, just sit and gaze in wonder at the audacious stupidity of it all.

Now his target is Starbucks. Are any of you prepared to bet your life that Roger didn't have a freshly brewed latte from You Know Where in his paw when he called - with all duly appropriate moral outrage - for a boycott of Starbucks? Me either… To do so calls for that special sort of heroism I've never possessed.

Anyway, enough about that. You get the picture. If Roger L. Simon is anything, he is the personification of all that is fraudulent about the political blogosphere. Because so many of the top bloggers seem to live in some sort of hermetically sealed World Of Their Own, they seem to have not noticed - or chosen to ignore - the fact that much of the heady promise of the political blogosphere as an irresistible agent of change - especially "for the good" - has turned out to be just so much hype. Most of us have noted it and corrected our view of the blogosphere accordingly, but for The Frauds any suggestion that their power is largely illusory, or that their actions smack of hypocrisy, draws the most childish of all reactions… A miffed, scornful silence. Nothing must disturb their universe… Especially reality.

Bloggers like Roger L. Simon, having presented themselves as that which they are not, now have nothing to fall back upon. So, at each point in time when it becomes obvious (yet again) that the political blogosphere has significant limitations and little real power, The Frauds draw their tattered cloaks about them, puff out their chests, and act as if it was still 2003. They wear the emperor's new clothes, and they do so through the force of their own will. Amazing, but true.

It is worth noting, as an aside, that it is clear that Roger has grown quite bored with blogging itself, which is a fact I find quite amusing. There was a time, years ago, when Roger put energy and thought into his posts, given his considerable talents, what was produced was both interesting and original. But you'd never know that from reading his site these days. He spends most of his time scolding others for their transgressions or passing off vapid judgments on usual news cycle events as informed commentary. He's mailing it in, and there's no doubt in my mind he'd have quit blogging a while back had it not been for the lure of Uncle Aubrey's filthy lucre. So now The Fraud is a prisoner. Which, like I said, I find quite amusing.

Sinner Number Seven: Pamela Geller - The Amateur

In all honesty, I had to debate long and hard with myself about including Pamela Geller (aka Pammycakes) of Atlas Shrugs in my list. This reluctance was born of several factors. First of all, she does seem to have a sense of humor about herself. Or at least she does when it comes to me. She hasn't abused me or threatened me or claimed I'm stalking her or slapped me with a cease and desist order. Given the state of the political blogosphere these days, that counts for something. Ashamed as I am of myself, I've got to admit that I've developed a bit of a soft spot for ol' Pammycakes.

And no jokes about my soft spot in the comments section, please (that means you, Richard and Peter). You know very well what I mean.

Secondly, in terms of site traffic, Atlas Shrugs isn't in the upper echelon of political blogs. So the argument can be made that she isn't a big enough internet player to act as the representative of sinning of the magnitude I am talking about. A New York Post reporter once emailed me, stating that Pamela Geller was the Anna Nicole Smith of New York City journalism: She was indeed famous, but nobody was quite sure why. To be harsh about it, that criticism kind of carries over to Atlas Shrugs... because it does have a ring of truth.

Irrespective of where Pamela Geller stands in the blogosphere pecking order, I include her because she does, with almost uncanny precision, act in a manner that is the personification of how amateurs approach just about any endeavor. As a CPA, one phenomenon I see often is that of people getting that "bright idea" that is going to bring them fame or fortune or whatever. And, blinded by the pure white light of willful stupidity, they hitch up their pants, take a deep breath, and march resolutely into the cauldron of complete disaster. These are the people that got into rental real estate back in the '80s, stock market day trading in the '90s, and are now "flipping houses" - or trying to blog for a living - here in the New Millennium.

There are exactly two elements that separate The Amateur from The Professional in any endeavor. First, The Amateur lacks both the expertise and experience to succeed at the given task. Secondly, The Amateur lacks the grounding and sophistication to avoid working at cross-purposes. For example, the vast majority of people jumping on the "house flipping" band wagon are doing so without any specific knowledge of either home construction or real estate markets.

In such cases, because they lack expertise, they will overlook problems they should have anticipated and detected, and because they lack experience they will fail to set realistic - and therefore achievable - goals. On top of that, because they are (almost always) working without proper amounts of capital and time, they end up having to hurry up to complete at the precise moments when they should be slowing down to reassess, which constitutes working at cross-purposes in the worst possible way.

On the other hand, the professional has the expertise and experience to accurately assess what needs to be done, how it needs to be done, and how much time and money it will take. The professional will be adequately capitalized, and will be sophisticated enough to build in reserves of time (and money) to cover contingencies. Which is why the professional can survive the occasional mistake and live to profit another day. The professional's efforts work in harmony towards the goal. Which now brings me to why Pamela Geller represents The Amateur in the political blogosphere…

Fundamentally, Pamela is The Amateur because she lacks expertise and experience in her chosen area of endeavor - political blogging - and because she insists in undermining what credibility she might accrue via her efforts by presenting herself as some sort of sex object. Not that I have any meaningful objection to wimmen reducing themselves to sex objects for my pleasure. Far from it. It's just that once they've done so, it's going to take more than reciting the Gettysburg Address to get me to view them as anything other than a conglomeration of T & A.

Pamela obviously views her sexing up her image as a function of marketing, and in a sense it is, but as is the case with The Amateur, that effort is working at cross-purposes with her attempts to present a blogging product good enough to be taken seriously. You cannot start with a statement like this, which happens to grace the header of her blog…

Western civilization hangs in the balance. This blog is part of the solution, the cure. Get your heads out of the sand and Fight the Great Fight. The Jew may be the canary in the coal mine, but you my friends will be the next. If you are not part of the solution, you are the problem. …..Changing the World, One Word at a Time….. Citizen Journalist, Citizen Soldier

…And expect to be taken seriously when vlogging in a bathing suit or trying to sell cheesecake cleavage shots in a calendar. Pamela's above statement of intent is so portentous as to verge on parody in and of itself, but combine it with her marketing and before you know it you find yourself spontaneously singing the lyrics to Frank Zappa's "Jewish Princess".

Much of this might be forgivable if the content of Atlas Shrugs occasionally rose above the banal, but in fact it doesn't. What we get, rather than original citizen journalism, is largely a compendium of mainstream media links establishing that (a) Islam is evil, (b) Muslims are evil, and (c) Hamas and Hezbollah are evil. The problem with this is (a) it provides no particular insight or analysis to the political problems identified, (b) it suggests solutions to said political problems that aren't grounded in any sort of political reality, and are therefore useless, and (c) a shitload of bloggers are doing the exact same shtick, and many of them are doing it a whole lot better.

What is called for here is not cleavage, but a seriousness of purpose. And thought. And research. And judicious consideration. If the purpose of Atlas Shrugs is serious punditry, that is. If it is to be viewed as political entertainment, then more entertainment in the writing itself is required. Humor helps. So does original, quality content. And as far as being the next bitch-goddess to set the Wingers-a-wanking, well, Ann Coulter's been there and done that. Trying to sell a combination of politics and sex is neither new nor original. Which is just one element in separating The Professional from The Amateur: The Professional does it first and reaps the rewards, The Amateur does it last and chases the scraps…

The Six (Seven, Actually) Deadly Blogging Sinners

Over at Hog On Ice last week the estimable Steve H. once again reiterated his discontent with the present state of Conservatism (and by extension, the Republican Party). You should go there and read it, for it will nourish your soul. As part of this reiteration, Steve railed on a number of so-called conservative pundits, bloggers and entertainers for their unthinking, untalented and unproductive hackery. While doing so, he made an excellent suggestion:

We need a bunch of us to form a committee and make a list of embarrassing conservatives and start a fund to pay them to disappear.

I couldn't agree more. And in that special sort of cooperative spirit I am renowned for, I am going to spend the next week or so listing out those "Conservatives" how make me want to break out my big wooden club and start into the process of fool-killing. However, as you cannot pay me to listen to talk radio or watch anything on Fox News, I am going to stick to listing the blogosphere's seven worst right-wing bloggers. And believe me, the names I came up with literally leapt off my computer screen.

Beyond that, though, I intend to use my list of bloggers to illustrate what I consider to be the Six Deadly Sins of the political blogosphere. Each selected blogger is, in my opinion, the very personification of the sins themselves. Understand, however, that these transgressions are by no means unique to the bloggers I am presenting here. Nor are they the sole province of right-wing bloggers. What they are, in my opinion, is a set of sins that are slowly herding the political blogosphere towards the sort of intellectual irrelevance one associates with the Jerry Springer Show.

Let's face it, when you end up with a boob like Chris Dodd defending a boob like Markos Moulitsas to a boob like Bill O'Reilly on a piece of shit TV program like The Factor, the idea that the upper echelons of the political blogosphere constitute a paradigm shifting marketplace of serious opinion and analysis cannot be defended with a straight face. At least not by anyone with an IQ that exceeds the Amanda Line.

In any event, here's what you're gonna get…

The Amateur (the sin of being amateurish),
The Fraud (the sin of pride),
The Bore (the sin of being self-absorbed),
The Well-Meaning Fathead (the sin of being simple),
The Outrage Artist (the sin of being unthinking),
The Bigot (the sin of unreasoned hating), and
The Apex Predator.

Can you guess who is who?

May The Circle Jerk Remain Unbroken…

Well, well, well…

It seems probable, now that the John Edwards/Amanda Marcotte "scandal" has reached the Main Stream Media, that we'll see John dump Amanda in the near future. Given that every Conservative/Republican blogosphere heavyweight (and jerk-off) from Michelle Malkin to Charles Johnson is in a state of grandiloquent outrage over Amanda's various sins, and given that John Edwards' lean to the Left is as phony as a three dollar bill, it seems to only be a matter of time before the plug is pulled and Amanda is back peddling her shrill shill at Pandagon on a full-time basis.

I can only hope that this parting will be both loud and bloody. As well as very, very drawn-out.

And not because I'm a Conservative and a Republican, either.

There probably isn't too much to worry about on that score. Various Lefty dimwits (a la Glenn Greenwald) are already working up their measure of suitably grandiloquent outrage over the Right's outrageously unfair grandiloquent outrage, so that I'll lay good odds that real soon this will degenerate into the Political Blogosphere's first major circular shit-fling of the year.

The reason I'm hoping that John's break-up with Amanda is essentially a more spectacular version of the Hindenberg Disaster is that if it isn't long, loud and bloody, the Political Blogosphere could be in deep trouble.

Here's why:

Way too many people have been getting into political blogging over the past several years for all the wrong reasons. Reasons like wanting to make money. Or get themselves a new career. Or acquire some measure of fame and influence. Or whatever…

Once upon a time, the beauty of the political blogosphere was that there was a group of individuals who simply spouted about whatever interested them. In some cases, folks actually had something interesting to say… often this had to do with the fact that they were in possession of training, experience and/or facts that were absent from the Main Stream Media coverage of certain events. In other cases, it was simply a matter of finding a blogger who had a funny or entertaining take on things.

But now - now - what we have is a Political Blogosphere dominated largely by genuine on-the-make phonies. From half-assed journalists a la Malkin to half-assed political operatives a la Markos Moulitsas, what matters is cash, traffic and one-upmanship. And you know what? That's the primary reason the vast majority of the big-time Political Bloggers suck out loud. They're locked into the gravy train, and what the gravy train demands is more of the same old same old. You can only listen to Michelle get her frilly panties into bunch so many times before that "who gives a flying fuck" feeling sets in… The same goes for Markos and his shtick.

And let's make no mistake here, the Right Side of the Blogosphere's outrage over Amanda Marcotte's swearing and Amanda Marcotte's bitter bleats is all part of that same tired blah, blah, blah.

The beauty of the Blogosphere is that you are afforded the opportunity of Free Speech… The opportunity of reading someone spouting off - of relieving tension - about whatever it is that, in turn, either excites or pisses them off. And you know what? If the writer is not agreeable to your taste in terms of decorum or political affiliation or whatever, all you have to do is go somewhere else…

Given that, what is supposed to actually give with all the perpetual outrage back and forth? I suppose Michelle Malkin will gain some sort of currency with certain folks for getting lathered over Amanda Marcotte, and I further suppose Glenn Greenwald will gain the same for doing the same over Michelle, but in the final analysis is this what the Great Promise of Citizen Journalism boils down to? One asshole chasing another asshole across the information highway?

I don't think so.

Let's face it, nobody who is busy interjecting themselves into this mess really gives a shit about Amanda Marcotte or what she says. The Edwards Campaign didn't buy her because she's talented - largely because it's obvious she isn't - they bought her because they wanted to acquire her audience. And her audience doesn't seem to be put off by swearing and the usual Lefty lunacy. Besides, it isn't like she's going to move her version of the Vagina Monologues to the Edwards' blog anyway. Everything she has done, and will continue to do, at John's site is going to be basic, deathly dull , by-the-book P.R. flackery. Big.Fucking.Deal.

In addition, let's remember something important here. Part of what made the Political Blogosphere great was that it provided a forum for each of our voices… Our authentic voices. Whatever faults Amanda Marcotte might possess, being inauthentic at Pandagon cannot be counted as one of them. And to me, authenticity gets a nod of respect even if it is distasteful… It is an essential part of what has separated bloggers from the careerist hackery so pervasive to today's Main Stream Media.

Anyway, here's hoping that Amanda gets her ass canned... eventually. Then, hopefully, Glenn Greenwald can get some goof over at McCain's blog fired. And so on. And on. And on. To where it gets to the point that, very, very soon, that no candidate in his right mind will hire an established blogger to work on his campaign for fear of being the victim of the next big Totally Manufactured Political Blogosphere Scandal…

Come to think of it, let's all do our part to ensure that no political blogger we dislike or disagree with ever has the chance to do blogging that's paid for by the political infrastructure. Then, maybe, just maybe, we can rid the Blogosphere of some its hacks.

A Weighty Tome on Money, Politics and the Blogosphere...

During the last week the estimable Steve H. of Hog On Ice decided to pop his cork about the unwillingness of Republicans to back their own. There's enough goodness in his post to warrant selective reproduction:

"Take One For The Team"?

What Team?

Ann Coulter is really on fire today, which is not unusual. I don't want people to think I endorse her wholeheartedly, since she made those "camel jockey" and "fag" remarks, but even though she can be an embarrassment to the GOP, she is still right 95% of the time.

Check this out.

"Conservatives often ask why so many Republicans go native when they get to Washington, D.C. The answer is: Because you don't defend them when they come under relentless attacks from liberal hatchet men.

[el snip-o]

But the bigger point, which Ann is right about, is that conservatives abandon their champions. Sometimes it's because the right is more principled than the left, and while the left will proudly stand up for a Jane Fonda or an ABSCAM payee like John Murtha or a mayor who helps drown several hundred people after a hurricane, the right won't back a scumbag like Randy Cunningham. But more often, it's because we're disloyal, backstabbing wusses looking out for number one.

The message hit home with me, because as all my readers know, I refuse to write political humor on a regular basis, simply because conservatives will never do anything to support or defend me. Yes, some decent individuals will be in my corner, but on the whole, I can expect much more help from liberals. The perverse likelihood is that if I ever have a real career as a writer, the majority of people who advance my career will be to the left of center. And so far, the only folks who've made a point of ignoring me are on the right.

I don't think I'm alone, either. Far as I know, Jeff Goldstein is still starving, and Allahpundit is second banana on an Internet video site kept on life support by Pajamas Media member links. Scott Ott and Frank J. are nobodies and will probably remain in that position until they expire. Nobody even knows Noel exists, even though he's brilliant. I don't know if Iowahawk or John at Wuzzadem are getting anywhere, but I would be very surprised. Seems like if a new writer doesn't have boobs and a willingness to shove them in front of a camera, he or she can expect squat from the GOP. Meanwhile, the left generously subsidizes borderline-challenged hacks like Ollie Willis and Markos Zuniga and the former Skankette.

[snip the second]

The left recruits and nurtures and PAYS new talent. The right ignores or even attacks it.

[snip...]

Ann is right; we abandon our own. And the problem is self-exacerbating. If conservative commentators were getting the promotion their talents merit, there would be newspaper columns and magazine articles galore, humiliating the hatchet men and character assassins of the left.

[snip!]

They even subsidized Air America.

The GOP lost me, and my money says it's going to lose Goldstein and Allah and Ott and Frank J. and all the others. Very, very soon. People have to eat, and you can't make a living from BlogAds.

Congratulations, Democrats. You still own the media, and you deserve to have it. You didn't beat us. We got down on our bellies and begged you to keep it.

Now, the focus of mine own tirade is not Coulter's contention that Republicans go to Washington, and end up shielding corrupt Democrats to protect Congressional prerogatives and/or accepting bribes from defense contractors because voters don't offer the necessary support to get through the emotional ravages of a Maureen Dowd brainfart. Picking that apart is just too damn easy to be worth the time and effort.

And in related news , the Liberal Media™ didn't turn Bill Frist into a Country Club Republican. Nor did it mutate Denny Hastert from Reaganite to Boss Tweed. The Republicans went native in Washington, D.C. because the vast majority of them never were Reaganites, rather, they were on-the-make con artists, using the language and symbolism of Reagan's Revolution to further their careers and line their pockets.

Any other interpretation of the facts, such as that offered by Ann Coulter, is an attempt to sell bullshit by the pound. And it is no accident that this interpretation is offered by the most shamelessly self-promoting (and most intellectually dishonest) member of the Right Wing's media whores. It just doesn't wash.

That bit of nonsense aside, Steve H.'s point about Republican lack of support for GOP bloggers, especially those who write political humor, deserves exploration.

In my own humble opinion, I think the primary reason you don't see the Republican Establishment supporting humor writers sympathetic to The Cause is simply because the Republicans are in a profoundly negative place at the moment. It is hard to see the value of humor when your stock-in-trade is peddling The Apocalypse.

Think about it…

One of the primary themes of the Islam-Is-Going-To-Enslave-The-World-And-Abuse-Your-Granny Apocalyptic Tree House populated by the likes of Michael Ledeen, Charles Johnson or Robert Spencer is that the Christian West is comprised of nothing but frivolous, pleasure loving pussies who are too deluded and/or enervated to defend the values of Western Civilization. It's hard to find the value of humor when your life's mission is centered on being a disapproving scold to the masses.

Similarly, humor doesn't register as much of a priority when you're a member of the Pelosi-And-Her-Type-Are-Going-To-Enslave-Middle-America-And-Abuse-Your-Granny Dinner and Dance Society. How can you laugh about ANYTHING when THEY are out there plotting their plots… doing whatever it is they're going to do to raise our taxes, weaken our resolve and force all to recite the Koran in Spanish? As before, when all you have to offer the electorate is a stern finger wag, as opposed to - say - a coherent vision of principled governance, there isn't any place for a good laugh in this life.

And is there any reason to point out that the Jerry Falwell/James Dobson wing of the GOP might be humor-impaired? They may be up for a round of Coulteresque fag jokes, but somehow I suspect they aren't the sort of folks who tune in reruns of South Park to see what they might have missed the first time 'round. If I were to hazard a guess, it would be that the humor of a Frank J., Jeff Goldstein or even a Steve H. for that matter, would be largely lost on that crowd.

Beyond that, there are other factors that come into play here. Let's remember that this isn't the political blogosphere of 2005. Back in those heady days, it was easy to buy into the idea of Markos Moulitsas' Netroots or Glenn Reynolds' Army of Davids. But now it's 2007 and the events of the past year or so suggests that the optimism about the internet's power to change politics has largely been misplaced. The only clear-cut result one can come up with to hang on Netroots was the crushing defeat of Ned Lamont in Connecticut, and Reynolds' Porkbusters has saved the Treasury all of about $1.98.

Such glory.

Speaking generally, political bloggers tend to hold themselves in pretty high regard, and I would suggest that when one looks at their record of 'influencing' dispassionately, you can come to the conclusion that the political blogosphere is nothing more than an ineffectual circle jerk. You might not agree with such an assessment, but it is an assessment that can be reasonably held. The fact that Democrats are throwing money at hacks like Oliver Willis doesn't necessarily validate the proposition that Republican Party cash needs to be spent on Moxie. Keeping Ollie Willis in doughnuts might lead to Democratic victories in the future, but I find that particular outcome coming to fruition because of his efforts very doubtful.

Which brings me back to my original point: Republicans didn't get their collective ass handed to them last November because they lacked an Army of Coulters in the media. They were crushed by the weight of their own incompetence, greed and insincerity. No amount of media, no matter how talented, tasteful and entertaining, could put a sheen Republican failures in Iraq, or on immigration reform, reducing federal spending and undoing onerous government regulation. Nor could humor lessen voter revulsion over the corruption of earmarks, highways to nowhere and outright bribe-taking. It would be nice to see the GOP supporting the efforts of talented people like Steve H., Moxie and Jeff Goldstein, but it isn't going to happen because, ultimately, the political parties have come to understand their power to influence isn't worth the money that would need to be involved.

Whether bloggers want to admit it or not, the political parties are starting to understand how the political blogosphere works. Now that people like Markos Moulitsas have staked their reputations and their standings with their followers on being able to Get Things Done, they have to come an accommodation with those politicians they are attempting to influence. Markos isn't the only one in the equation who possesses leverage. The political parties understand that now. One need only look at the quite genuine (and hilariously childish) glee of the KOS Kids getting blog entries from Senator Dick Durbin (or more accurately, from a low-level member of Durbin's staff) to see that what a whole lot of folks in the blogosphere crave is 'being taken seriously'. Last year the Kids thought Durbin was a Shit, but now that he's patronizing them, he's A-OK. Don't think the political infrastructure hasn't started to figure out how to use, rather than be used, when it comes to bloggers.

The other problem faced by bloggers attempting to get cash out of political parties is exactly the same problem faced by bloggers when attempting to get cash out of advertisers: Blog readers aren't necessarily the targeted demographic - the decision-makers, as it were. The political blogosphere is populated, for the most part, by partisans. These are not the folks who decide elections. The folks who decide elections reside in the Center, and are people who will vote for either party based on circumstance. Those sort of folks do not populate the blogosphere, and when they do, they tend to be repelled by the level of partisanship they encounter. So, just as the political blogosphere cannot tempt mainstream advertising because they don't reach purchase decision-makers, it seems to me that they cannot get subsidization from political parties because they do not reach the real electoral decision-makers.

Bottom Line? Political bloggers can hold the fort, but that's all they can do… Ergo, it will be a very few that will be able to parlay their talents into a career paid for by the political infrastructure.

Update: Well, it seems Oliver Willis is having an episode.

He somehow taken this statement by Steve H....

Meanwhile, the left generously subsidizes borderline-challenged hacks like Ollie Willis and Markos Zuniga and the former Skankette.

...and come to the conclusion that he's been accused of being on the payroll of the DNC. Oy. No problems with reading skills at Ollie's house, are there? To top it off, he's miffed at me for not correcting the contention that Steve H. never made in the first place here at Dennis The Peasant.

All of this just goes to show just how important, high-minded, serious and intellectual the political blogosphere is. So don't mind my post above. I stand corrected. The political blogosphere is gonna change everything, Baby!

How To Get Mega-Traffic

For all intents and purposes, I quit blogging on a regular basis over half a year ago. Yet, I still am guaranteed 4,500 unique visitors each and every week. It's a given.

For those of you who get about 450 unique visitors in a month, hearing that sort of thing could be frustrating. There you are, blogging 'till your digits bleed about how horrible the Democrats/Republicans (pick one) are, and you can't get one tenth the traffic of some guy who doesn't write anything about anything for months on end…

And now you're saying "What's up with that?"

Well, being that I'm One Helluva Guy, I'm going to tell you what's up… You need a few provacative pictures on your site, and you need Google to have them indexed. Once this has happened, when people around the world do a Google Image Search (with SafeSearch on Moderate), the pictures linked to your site pop up on the first or second page of the search results. Oh yeah, make sure the pictures are something lots of folks would do a Google Image Search on.

That's it. Do that and you are guaranteed several thousands of hits per week, no matter what you do (or don't do).

For example, here at Dennis The Peasant, the vast majority of my hits have been coming from people doing a Google Image Search (with Moderate SafeSearch in the "on" position) on the following word:

asshole

Seriously. If you Google "asshole" under the parameters listed above, you will get a photographic image of, well, assholes. The second asshole image - and a related web site named "www.2and2.net" gets you to Dennis The Peasant. That's because if you click on the link to that site, you end up in my archives at the "Axis of Assholes" logo contest I ran earlier this year. How this all come to be is beyond me, as the photo of the asshole is not one I've ever had up here, and I have no idea of who "www.2and2.net" is. [Note: I just use the internet. I have no idea how it works. - Dennis]

I also get hits from people Googling the following:

Jamie Lee Curtis

And clicking on this photo (9th image on page 1)…

They are directed, once again, to the "Axis of Assholes" logo contest thread. As are those who Google:

Adrienne Barbeau

And click on this photo (10th image, page 2)…

Same logo contest, same thread.

Now you know how to generate mega-traffic. Don't say Dennis never gave ya nothin'

The Dennis the Peasant Blogging System™: Part Five

Part Five: How To Write A Post

Now you’re ready to start writing posts. Or so you think. But sit back a moment and think about it... Do you actually have a Posting Plan in place?

Of course not.

If you are going to post consistently and post well, you have to have a Posting Plan. If you don’t, well, then posting will go the way of just about every other venture you’ve attempted over the past 20+ years. You know what I’m talking about here: The marriage, the first job, the second job, the first get rich scheme, the third job, the second wife, the second get rich scheme...

Did you have a plan for any of those?

How’d it they work out?

Now do you understand why you need a Posting Plan?

OK. Now that that is out of the way, here’s the four elements necessary for a successful Posting Plan:

1. The Topic
2. The Angle
3. The Hook
4. The Con

Element One – The Topic: How To Select An Interesting Topic

Keep in mind that your readers are simple folk. While you will learn, in time, how to give a political spin to just about anything, it is best to concentrate on a fewer, rather than greater, number of topics. Oh sure, you will want to slip in the odd post about some odd item now and again, but that is more of being for effect; of demonstrating your breadth as a blogger. But on a day to day basis, you really want to keep your blogging topics narrowly focused.

Remember: Furrowed brows amongst the readership does not translate into cash.

Given this, your short list of blogging topics are as follows:

1. Why the politic party and/or parties you oppose suck.
2. Why the politicians in that party and/or parties suck.
3. Why the bloggers who support those parties and/or politicians suck.
4. Why obviously insane people are just like your opponents.
5. Why the mainstream media is biased in favor of those parties and/or politicians and therefore sucks.

It is important to remember that you are not blogging for yourself; you are blogging for money. Therefore, when considering the above five topics to write about, be sure to think in terms of what will draw readers to your site. What this means, plainly, is that you must follow the news cycle slavishly. Although your readers will say they want is media without the mainstream, the fact of the matter is that mainstream media is exactly what they do want.

Never forget that.

Blog readers are not interested in intrepid citizen-journalists exposing corruption, righting wrongs or making the world a better, safer place; they are interested in what Maureen Dowd wrote yesterday. This is not to say that you can be up-front about being mainstream... you can’t. A huge part of the foundation of the fantasy world that is the blogosphere is the idea that what you’re doing – and what your readers are doing – is something different and better than traditional journalism. This is, of course, utter nonsense, but your job isn’t pulling people out of la-la land... It’s making money off them while they are there.

Bottom line? Look for daily news items that can be used to create a post that falls within the five topics above. And if anyone asks? You’re not following the news cycle... you’re being current.

Helpful Hint: As a blogger, you must always be ready and willing to attack newspapers, television news, pundits and professional journalists for arrogance, sloth, laziness, ineptitude, ignorance and bias. This is expected of you. You are a member of the vanguard elite that is bringing something new and better to the public. This is especially true of those elements of the mainstream media who hold opinions that differ from your own. For example:

If you are a Democrat and/or Liberal, you could do this:

Why oh why can’t we have a better press corps? Then post about a news item that peeves you.

In the business this is known as the DeLong Whine, after professional economist and/or whiner J. Bradford DeLong.

If you are a Republican and/or Conservative, you could do this:

Why don’t we have a better press corps? Because they’re a bunch of wimpy, half-witted Ivy League pseudo-elites who want nothing more than to pander to anyone opposed to DEMOCRACY. Then post about a news item that peeves you.

This is known as a Hindraker. In fact, if you’re a Republican and/or Conservative, I can recommend no better site than Powerline for learning how to write content-free media bashing posts. Be sure to get your hands on his posts about Powerline’s Paul Mirengoff interviewing Senator Dick Durban. John Hindraker calls it a “watershed moment” in New Media...

Everyone other than Pajamas Media calls it a "hoot".

Element Two – The Angle: How To Select The Appropriate Angle

This basically relates to your blog site theme. You must always be able to tie your topic back to your blog site theme... And you do that by use of the Angle. I know this sounds complicated, but it isn’t really. Don’t get discouraged: Your world view is a simple one – you’ve expressed it in 5 words or less, remember? Having an angle simply means that your post should always compliment your blog site theme.

For example: If your blog site them is hating Republicans and Christians, then the angle for any topic you choose to write about is how awful Republicans and/or Christians are. So, if your topic is that the New York Times has uncovered the fact that a Republican Congressman named Peter Robertson has been jumping boobs at the Kit-Kat Klub for the past three years using defense industry bribes, you write something like this:

It turns out Congressman Peter Robertson has been working his way through D.C.’s strippers... and he’s on the letter “w”. Figures. Probably related to Pat Robertson in some way.

Or, if you happen to know he’s Catholic, you could write this:

It turns out Congressman Peter Robertson has been working his way through D.C.’s strippers... and he’s on the letter “w”. Figures. Peter was the first Pope of the Catholic Church, you know...

See how easy it is?

Element Three – The Proposition: How To Select The Right Hook

This relates the selective use of facts to back up your angle and blog site theme. The simple rule of thumb is as follows:

Only provide facts that support your angle and blog site theme.

There are several benefits to this. First of all, it saves time and effort. You don’t have to bother weighing the merits of opposing viewpoints or sorting out contradictory information. Since you’re only presenting items that bolster your case, you are spared having to write arguments justifying your position. Second, it automatically pleases your audience. Think about it: They are at your site to get the quick thrill of having someone validate their opinions (and therefore, their intellect and wisdom). The last thing they want is to have you sow the seeds of doubt via a presentation of the whole picture...

Element Four – The Con: How To Con Your Audience

First understand that your audience wants to be conned. They are at your site because they have already made up their minds, have an opinion and want it validated. Your job is to pander. Simply put, your job in constructing a con is as follows:

1. Make their opinions sound either
a. Reasonable, or
b. As least not nearly as stupid as it does when coming from their mouths.
2. Validate their world view.
3. Make them feel far more intelligent, insightful and informed than they actually are.

It’s that simple... And the beauty of it? You’re just circling back to your blog site theme!

Conclusion: Obviously there’s a lot more to talk about when it comes to writing posts, but hey, that’s the sort of stuff your going to have to pay me to read about. I am not an United Way agency... I am a businessman. What I will do, however, is provide you with a case study on writing posts using the Dennis the Peasant Blogging System™ and the Four Elements of Powerful Posting™

..............................

Case Study: Michelle Malkin

Here’s a typical Michelle Malkin post:

TAR HEEL TERRORIST: ALLAH'S WILL By Michelle Malkin • March 06, 2006 01:40 PM

***update: Taheri-azar's 911 call: "It was really to punish the government of the United States for their actions around the world."***

Mohammad Taheri-azar speaks:

A suspect who is accused of hitting students with a sport utility vehicle at the University of North Carolina made his first court appearance Monday. Mohammad Taheri-azar, a 2005 UNC-Chapel Hill graduate, smiled and waved before his hearing Monday. Taheri-azar told the courtroom that he was "thankful for the opportunity to spread the will of Allah."

As he left court, Taheri-Azar told reporters, "the truth is my lawyer." When asked if he was trying to kill people, he said yes.

Taheri-Azar was appointed a public defender in court. A young woman believed to be Taheri-Azar's sister did not comment on the case as she left to get into her car.

In court, Taheri-azar did not deny driving a rented silver Jeep Grand Cherokee into The Pit, a central area on the UNC-CH campus around noon Friday. Six people were taken to UNC Hospitals with non-critical injuries, and three people were treated at the scene.

Campus police said Taheri-azar, a 2005 UNC-Chapel Hill graduate, admitted to them Friday that he acted to "avenge the death of Muslims around the world." The Federal Bureau of Investigation is also investigating the incident from Friday.

Can we call it terrorism yet?

Hat tip: Jon Sanders at The Locker Room.

Athena at Terrorism Unveiled, a UNC-Chapel Hill alumna, has exclusive background on Taheri-azar. An excerpt of her report:

After speaking with someone who knew Taheri-Azar, a little bit more interesting details come into view. The guy I spoke with said Taheri-azar pledged his fraternity, Sig Ep, and that the frat "blackballed" him, meaning kicked him out because he was such a recluse and antisocial. They referred to him as "Mo." He said that Taheri-azar was from a wealthy family, a frequent marijuana smoker and "most always high" and that he drank heavily as well. So much for being religiously pious.

My first conclusions were that it's highly unlikely he's related to any type of "cell." First of all, his actions show that he's a complete novice, that he had no operational funding, and that the attack was not well planned (although he did rent the Jeep from Enterprise). Further information continues to corroborate this.
Lone wolf actor - antisocial behavior

The guy I spoke with also said he seemed to have few friends and didn't "fit-in" socially. From this and his actions, Taheri-azar fits well as a "lone wolf" actors that go out and try to do the "will of Allah." Socially awkward and looking for something to legitimize themselves, to make them feel "worth" something---they turn to this type of behavior.

They find a purpose in a religious ideology because they are empty. He had money, he had an education (UNC graduate), he had a job (although it was at a local fast food restaurant--Jimmy John's subs) he turned to this. Once again, this shows that it's not necessarily poverty that drives people to take on these type of causes.

Mary Katherine Ham at Hugh Hewitt has comprehensive coverage of the story.

..............................

Note Malkin’s Use of the Four Steps of Writing a Post Above...

First of all remember Michelle’s blog site theme:

I hate [Muslims and/or Arabs] and [Democrats/Liberals/Etc.].

Step One: Michelle chooses a topic: A young man named Mohammed Taheri-Azar attempts to kill students at UNC by running over them with his SUV.

Note that the topic selection ties directly to the blog site theme – the guy’s name was Mohammed and he’s an Iranian (not technically Arab then, but hey, they all look alike to Michelle and her audience)!

Step Two: Michelle chooses an angle: Mohammed Taheri-Azar must be a terrorist.

Despite the fact that she presents a wealth of information suggesting that Taheri-Azar is most probably suffering from some sort of mental illness or disorder, Malkin’s blog site theme demands that Taheri-Azar be shoe-horned into the “terrorist” box. After all, he’s Muslim and he’s Arab (as far as everyone at her site knows).

Step Three: Michelle chooses the hook: Taheri-Azar said he was doing the will of Allah.

That’s the (primary) hook: A Guy Named Mohammed + Will O’ Allah = Terrorism.

Expressed as in the form of a argument, it goes like this: Mohammed Taheri-Azar said it was the will of Allah that caused him to run over those students. Therefore:

1. If Allah is involved it’s a Muslim Thing, and
2. Because it’s a Muslim Thing,
3. It must be terrorism.

No doubt some of you will note that there is no logic to the hook or the argument. Not a problem. That’s because the hook fully supports the angle and the blog site theme. Malkin has given her audience exactly what it wants and expects. They did not come to her site to be informed; they came to be entertained – by having their world view validated. If you’re the picky type, you could offer secondary hooks to give a more complete illusion of objectivity and thoughtfulness... In this case, the following would suffice:

1. His name is Mohammed, and
2. He’s Iranian,
3. Which is just as bad as being an Arab, and
4. Everyone knows Iranians...
5. Hate us, and
6. Are crazy.

Step Four: Michelle chooses the con: The facts prove Taheri-Azar is a terrorist.

Remember Michelle’s blog theme? What was 50% of it?

Right: I hate [Muslims and/or Arabs].

Given that, what is the con?

Right: The facts prove Mohammed Taheri-Azar is a terrorist.

And notice that for Malkin the point of debate isn’t whether he’s a terrorist, it’s when are the wimps at UNC, the Dept. of Homeland Security and the Bush Administration will SEE THE OBVIOUS and declare Taheri-Azar a Muslim terrorist. This is exactly what her audience wants to hear. Michelle’s our kind of woman... Out there thumping her little chest, BEING SERIOUS ABOUT NATIONAL SECURITY and protecting us from EVIL. They are sitting at their computers thinking, Wow, Taheri-Azar is just like al-Qaeda. They’re all Arabs, or at least look like Arabs, are named Mohammed or Osama or something, and they all think they’re doing the will of Allah. Spooky.

See how easy this is? Now get out there and start posting.

The Dennis the Peasant Blogging System™: Part Four

Part Four: Your Blogging Persona

As you remember, in Part Three, you learned how to develop an effective blog site theme for your blog. The next step you must take is to develop an equally effective blog persona. Do not underestimate the power of a good blog persona. In order to properly sell your blog’s theme, it is essential that your blog persona compliments and enhances that theme. What is a blog persona, you ask?

Well, basically it’s a pack of lies. Lies about you.

Always remember that in the blogosphere, reality is your enemy. Actually, always remember reality is your enemy, period. This is because in reality your 45, 20 lbs. overweight, wearing a bad toupee, dressing in polyester, driving a Chevy Chevette and relying on me to guide you to a fast buck. In real life, teenagers laugh at you, waiters ignore you and local merchants ask if you need directions to Kmart.

The great thing about the blogosphere, though, is that you can be just about anyone you want to be. And as long as you keep your real identity a closely guarded secret, chances are you’ll be able to convince a substantial portion of your readership at you really are 32, winning triathlons, have a modeling career to fill out your free time from the neurosurgery practice, buy Gucci and drive a 2006 Mercedes Benz S500.

Oh yeah, and you’re dating beautiful women.

Beautiful women that you don’t have to blow up first...

By now it should be obvious that the last thing you want to do is present yourself honestly to your audience. One of the keys to blogging for big cash is to convince your audience that you are what they would want to be, if they could be someone other than the loser they are. You cannot do this by being open and honest about yourself: Not that many people want to look like Buddy Hackett, sound like Curly Howard, think like Britney Spears and write like Sean Penn.

Remember: If you were a city, you’d be Cleveland.

Therefore, always keep the following rules in mind when you are “in character”.

Lie About Your Possessions – You may own a monkeyshit brown 1977 Chevy Chevette, but your readers would be all the more happy if you drove something you could never afford in real life. Something like an Audi S4 with the 4.2 liter V-8. It doesn’t matter that you’ve never even seen one of those puppies, what is important is that you give your audience a vicarious thrill by referencing said automobile... Just keep the comments cryptic and no one will ever know the truth of the matter.

For example: Yesterday, you drove to the 7-11 to buy some milk with the food stamps you found under the sofa, and the Chevette gave off a large puff of black smoke, rattled loudly and then stopped running in the middle of the busiest intersection in town.

Now you could write that up factually, but the only thing it might induce in your readers is pity. And you don’t want or need pity from them (you get that from family and friends), what you want is cold, hard cash. So what you need to do is tailor this event to project a certain aura about yourself. To do that, you write something like this:

Yesterday was not a good day. I was doing a cool 105 down I-670 on the way to a sit-down about a major investment opportunity that’s popped up, and wouldn’t you know it, my 2005 Audi S4 throws a rod... and with less that 4,000 miles on the odo. As much as I love that car’s road manners, I’ve got to say it doesn’t seem to be as substantial as some the other Teutonic offerings I’ve owned in the past. I sensed the same thing in the 1999 Mercedes Benz E320 I owned, which is why I went to the S4 in the first place. Oh, to have my old 911 back... Now there was a great car!

See how much more interesting that is? And look how you come off – dashing, sophisticated, and rich – all the things you aren’t. Also note that this is just the sort of post that will generate lots of comments from your readers – all of whom are driving Hyundai Elantras or whatnot. Like you, they all want to appear dashing, sophisticated and rich... and will therefore start commenting about cars they’ve never been in either.

Lie About Your Career – I’m sure you’ve acquired some pretty interesting anecdotes while working as an Assistant Manager on the night shift at the Sioux City Taco Bell, but that’s not the sort of thing that brings profits from the blogosphere. You have two choices in approaching your pseudo-career. Here they are:

1. Be as elliptical as possible about what you actually do, thereby ensuring that you aren’t providing enough information for you readers to come to the conclusion that you work the night shift at a Taco Bell. Or anything else, for that matter. If today’s big adventure was accidently dropping a case of taco shells into the toilet in the employee bathroom, write it up as something like... Today was a toughie. One of my biggest commodities positions took a sharp drop. Unfortunately, I didn’t see it coming and couldn’t unload it before it crashed. It’s going to take some time to clean this one up... See what I mean? Based on that, absolutely nobody could be really sure of what you actually do for a living.

2. Pretend you’re a lawyer. Lawyers think they sit on the left shoulder of God, can’t shut up, and usually don’t have the faintest idea of what they are talking about. You can say all the stupid sort of shit you normally would, and all you have to do is pepper it with a few things like... I can’t believe they gave Alito a ‘well qualified’. Never would have happened if I’d been on the committee – or – You know, if any of the Assistant Attorney Generals had any balls, they’d RICO Bush and Cheney.

That’s all it takes. Just drop a comment here and there, and you can have your readership believing just about anything about what you “do for a living”.

Lie About Your Intelligence – Obviously, this is a no-brainer: You’re trying to make a living blogging. In order to make the big bucks, you have to convince the blogosphere that you Know It All. There are two easy ways to suggest to your readers that you’re much smarter than they are.

The first is anecdotal. Every now and then you write something like this:

Boy, I haven’t been that embarrassed since the time I slipped on the stage, fell on my Phi Beta Kappa key and damn near broke my coccyx. It’s a good thing you can only be a college class president once.

The second is by phrase. By this I mean you invest in one or more foreign language phrase books. Then you can write something like this:

Obviously John Kerry would like to stake out series of stronger positions on National Security than he did in 2004, but post hoc ergo propter hoc, this would just alienate the Far Left.

It doesn’t matter that post hoc ergo propter hoc means “They’re serving horse lips on toast for dinner” in Latin. What matters is that using foreign language phrases suggests you once actually learned a foreign language and are smart enough to remember how to use it.

And remember: Never, ever, ever resort to facts and/or analysis...

Lie About Your Education – Nobody really needs to know that you graduated from the Grapevine, Texas Community College with a 2 year degree in interior decorating and a D+ grade average. For all your readers know, you’re a lawyer. Right? So you need to compliment that illusion with the additional illusion that you were educated at a prestigious institution of higher education...

The great thing is this one is that it is the easiest thing to fake of all. You don’t have write anything other than something like this:

Oh, I see Yale admitted a former Taliban spokesman. They’ll never see another penny from me...

Or this:

Oh, I see the Harvard mafia finally chased off Larry Summers. They’ll never see another dime from me...

That’s all you have to do for your readers to assume that you graduated from Harvard and/or Yale. This that great or what? Just make sure to avoid providing dates... say things like... Well, I started at Yale a couple of years after I healed up from my tour in ‘Nam. It gives people a general idea of when you went there, but leaves you with enough weasel room to fend off inquiries from readers who actually did go to Harvard or Yale.

Not that having Harvard grads reading your site should be a big worry on your part...

Lie About Your Personal Prejudices – Unlike everyone else in journalism and/or the blogosphere, you really are objective. Always assume the loftiest tone of moral infallibility as you can muster. Remember: You take positions based on your knowledge, expertise and ethics... and never just because you hate people who are different than you or because you don’t have a clue as to the issues involved. This is because you must be able to convince your readers that you would never stoop the sort of ignorant, uninformed hatred you decry in politicians, pundits and other bloggers. In the business this is called Doing a Malkin, after the master of this particular technique, Michelle Malkin.

The three rules to a successful Malkin are as follows:

1. Makes sure your ignorant, uniformed hatred is decently shrouded in some sort of faux outrage – call it moral, ethical or whatever – just make sure your bigotry is presented with just enough bourgeois respectability so as to not discomfort your readers.

For example, you do not say this:

We can’t have fucking Sand Niggers and Moose Limbs running our ports because they’re all Ko-ran jabberin’ terrorists who want to kill Christian men and diddle our women.

That’s too crude.

Except if you’re running a Little Green Footballs clone, that is.

Rather, you say:

We can’t have Arabs running our ports because they are demonstrably unreliable as allies. This isn’t about race or religion, it’s about NATIONAL SECURITY.

Oh sure, it really is all about Arabs being Sand Niggers and you never will provide any facts or figures to back this up – which your readers already know – but you’ve given everyone, including yourself, an out...

2. When you are called out by other bloggers for being an ignorant bigot, get indignant. Righteously indignant. Say things like:

Obviously, some people value political correctness over NATIONAL SECURITY.

Or:

How can I be a bigot? People send me emails calling me a ‘Gook’. I’m not a bigot; I’m a fiercely independent and honest minority. And I get called names because of it.

Helpful Hint: If you can get on the right side of the race card, do so. The last thing you want to be is a simple old American WASP bitching about People of Color. To get away with serious minority bashing, you need to lay claim to being at least part SOTW (Something Other Than White), but only if the OTW part is one of the 'good' colors. Yellow and red seem to be hot these days, although among young white males, black is very 'in'. So, if you are not a minority who happens to be on the right side of the race card, then acquire some claim to that sort of racial heritage. If you are unsure as to how to do that, contact Prof. Ward Churchill in Boulder. He has an excellent audio course on the subject that is fairly priced.

Another one you can try is this:

Oh, I see. Now we’re all bigots... Anyone who raises tough questions about NATIONAL SECURITY must be a BIGOT, because the Washington ELITISTS don’t want to deal with the tough questions on NATIONAL SECURITY.

This is the old “If I’m a bigot, then everyone must be a bigot” ploy. If you are female, try to sound like you’re PMSing to the point of being unhinged. Guys, try to sound like the prostate’s been cranky lately. This establishes your deep indignation that anyone would question your moral authority, and saves you the time and trouble of trying to justify the crap you’ve written.

3. Make sure you pick on a minority that nobody likes.

Blogging Tip: It is important to remember that each side of the political spectrum has different rules for indulging in mindless bigotry:

If you’re a Republican and/or Conservative, you can be pretty explicit about hating unpopular minorities. For example, hating Muslims carries absolutely no penalty whatsoever. Same goes with Arabs. If you live in the Southwest, Latinos are fair game. You can still harsh on Blacks, just make sure you do it indirectly... Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are readily available and slow moving targets, for example. Attacks on sexual preferences are purely a personal matter and shouldn’t bother too many folks.

If you’re a Democratic and/or Liberal blogger, remember that you, too, can indulge in mindless bigotry. The key is to do so in service of “the cause”. Normally you should spend about 95% of your time (a) pointing out how bigoted Republicans and Conservatives are, and (b) pointing out how tolerant you are. However, when the opportunity arises for Democrats to score points by bashing groups for their religious affiliation, nationality, cultural heritage, etc., etc., feel free to do so. So by all means, bash Muslims and Arabs when necessary. How about Negroes and Latinos who vote Republican? They’re Sambos and – gasp – Catholics!! Just make it clear to your fellow Democrats and/or Liberals that this could get us votes... That will silence any criticism.

Final Thoughts: As you can readily see, the keys to establishing a successful blogging persona are a combination of deceit and hypocrisy in the service of shameless self-aggrandizement. You can do this.

Coming Up Next: Part Five: Writing Posts

Now that you’ve finished the first four parts of the Dennis the Peasant Blogging System™, you have your subject, your audience and your persona all in place. You are ready to start writing posts. But not just any posts... We’re talking great posts! Stay tuned!