Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Welcome to their world of waterboarding

Welcome to the bizarre world of Paddy Mac and his admirer Jessica Mac, in which waterboarding is something you might do at Tommy Bartlett's place in the Dells:

McBride says this is Patrick McIlheran, resident Journal Sentinel warmonger, "at his best." McIlheran, she says, "skewers the left on waterboarding" when he writes:
The usual retort is, “Would you want it done to you?” Well, no. Then again, I wouldn’t want to be locked up in jail at all, nor subjected to the good-cop, bad-cop routine. I do something to avoid those perfectly legal fates: I avoid committing crimes. If I weren’t a U.S. citizen and lived outside this country’s protection, I’d avoid making war on it. That’s a good way to not have it happen to you. But in any case, whether you’d find something unpleasant, even extremely so, isn’t the criterion for torture.
Actually, that's not the usual retort.

The usual retort is that waterboarding is inhuman, brutal torture -- something our nation should never consider using on any human being.

McIlheran says Congress ("the law") decides what torture is:
Mukasey’s explanation — and it’s a reasonable one; read it here (pdf) -- is that doing something to make someone feel like he’s drowning is awful, “repugnant,” even, and that, in his best legal judgment, it isn’t torture. The law says what is torture: “Whether a particular technique is torture,” Mukasey writes, “would turn principally on whether it is specifically intended to cause (a) severe physical pain or suffering, or (b) prolonged mental harm resulting from certain specified threats or acts.”

Or maybe it’s “cruel, inhuman or degrading” -- that’s illegal, too, he points out. When he’s AG, he’ll get briefed on classified interrogation the CIA does and decide, based on the law.
The Department of Defense has banned waterboarding. It can't be used by the military. But Congress hasn't specifically told the CIA to stop.

That makes it OK? Hardly.

You don't need Congress to tell you it's torture. You know it when you see it. And even the CIA knows it's torture.

This from an ABC News report:

Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.

According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess.

"The person believes they are being killed, and as such, it really amounts to a mock execution, which is illegal under international law," said John Sifton of Human Rights Watch.

The techniques are controversial among experienced intelligence agency and military interrogators. Many feel that a confession obtained this way is an unreliable tool. Two experienced officers have told ABC that there is little to be gained by these techniques that could not be more effectively gained by a methodical, careful, psychologically based interrogation. According to a classified report prepared by the CIA Inspector General John Helgerwon and issued in 2004, the techniques "appeared to constitute cruel, and degrading treatment under the (Geneva) convention," the New York Times reported on Nov. 9, 2005.

It is "bad interrogation. I mean you can get anyone to confess to anything if the torture's bad enough," said former CIA officer Bob Baer.

The question is not whether you'd like to have it done to you. The question is whether it should be inflicted on anyone. The answer is obviously no.

UPDATE: From thursday's NY Times editorial:
Waterboarding is torture and was prosecuted as such as far back as 1902 by the United States military when used in a slightly different form on insurgents in the Philippines. It meets the definition of torture that existed in American law and international treaties until Mr. Bush changed those rules. Even the awful laws on the treatment of detainees that were passed in 2006 prohibited the use of waterboarding by the American military.

And yet the nominee for attorney general has no view on whether it would be legal for an employee of the United States government to subject a prisoner to that treatment? The only information Mr. Mukasey can possibly be lacking is whether Mr. Bush broke the law by authorizing the C.I.A. to use waterboarding — a judgment that the White House clearly does not want him to render in public because it could expose a host of officials to criminal accountability.

... The administration’s standard is dangerously vague, invites abuse and amounts to a unilateral reinterpretation of the Geneva Conventions. Would Mr. Mukasey approve of a foreign jailer using waterboarding on an American soldier? Mr. Bush’s policies increase the danger of that happening.

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

McBride's comments remain a free-fire zone for homophobe John!

The Brawler understands that when he was recently out of town a blogger on the left used a bad word to describe Jessica McBride. This resulted in denunciations from Charlie Sykes, who memorably likened Jim Doyle to racist southern segregationists in a TV ad, outrage from McBride and curious claims that critiques of McBride were motivated by sexism.

Lefty bloggers apologized and mused on whether rhetoric was getting out of hand. The Brawler's only thought was: Given all this concern about abusive language, would Jessica permit most favored commenter John to spew his homophobic broadsides.

For all you John aficionados, rest easy. Jessica, who denounces anonymity and personal attacks, still decides, after reading John's post, that they add to the level of discussion on her blog and lets them through.

Check out this recent, an unusually incoherent, gem in response to a post about the whole Miller San Francisco thing (Brawler's bold to highlight the terms one typically associates with elevated discourse):

Jessica, this is American business as usual.Miller and their limp
wristed flack
don't get it.Now they've done an EXHAUSTIVE STUDY of their "DISTRIBUTORS" rules and methods.These bastards are complete ass-hats.Jessica, they aren't interested in keeping You, nor Paul as their customers, they are interested in this controversy going away, and keeping, morons as their customers.They are talking in blah blah blah language, and their corporate spokesmodel is a dunce. All of that doesn't matter. What matters is whether the general public eats the pablum.Let's call it the Britney Spears principle.Britney is completely VOID of any real talent. I could teach a monkey to dance, sing and whore like Brit. But could I sell Chim Chim to the pablum eating public?The public buys this crap lock stock and tattoo.

Clearly, John -- who amazingly posted this not at 1:30 in the morning but at 6:57 p.m. on Oct. 28 -- is a member of the hate left.

Put Paddy Mac in the pro-Iran War camp

Apparently unhappy with the war we already have in Iraq, the Journal Sentinel's Patrick McIlheran is signaling he wants one with Iran as well.

That's the only way to read some recent posts from Paddy. Just the other day he praised Norman Podhoretz's "World War IV: The Long Struggle with Islamofascism," a book he was reading as he dispensed candy to trick-or-treaters. The book -- as does Podhoretz in speeches and interviews -- calls for a conflict with Iran before it goes nuclear. "Truly frightening" Paddy says of the book -- and the Brawler agrees, albeit for what he suspects are different reasons.

And on October 29, Paddy approvingly quoted Mark Steyn who said this:

The difference between the old Indian territory and the new is this: No-one had to worry about the Sioux riding down Fifth Avenue ... But Iran has put bounties on London novelists, assassinated dissidents in Paris, blown up community centres in Buenos Aires, seeded proxy terror groups in Lebanon and Palestine, radicalized Muslim populations throughout Central Asia — and it's now going nuclear.
Of course, Paddy Mac -- who has a nasty habit of conflating differing groups of people in the Middle East (including some who hate each other) into a monolithic Islamofascist threat -- has hyped the Iranian threat before. And he's intimated, without coming right out and saying so, that he wouldn't mind a tactical nuke or two thrown at Iran. Back in January, Paddy wrote:

“The Israelis believe that Iran’s retaliation would be constrained by fear of a second strike if it were to launch its Shehab-3 ballistic missiles at Israel,” writes the Times: That is, the Israelis feel they have the threat necessary to make Iran accept that it can’t actually do what its president says he will, wiping Israel off the map. ...

Yeah, we’ve heard the arguments that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad doesn’t really mean it or somehow doesn’t count, despite being Iran’s president, and despite the other big power in Iran, supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei, also calling for Israel to be nuked -- one simply needs to state these arguments to see them as nonsense.

Hmm. Some people don't think these arguments are nonsense -- and some think going to war, or "merely dropping bombs" on Iran -- is a horrible idea.

Like this guy:

Any attempt to disarm Iran through the use of military options would in all likelihood damage America’s interests in the region. While a military option might inflict significant damage on Iran’s infrastructure by damaging or destroying its nuclear weapons program, disrupting its regional ambitions, and possibly serving as a deterrent to future proliferators, the likely costs would far outweigh the benefits.

First, any military action against Iran would send seismic shocks through global energy markets at a time when the price of oil is already at record highs. ...

Any direct military action against Iran could also have a significant impact on America’s war on terrorism. Such action would only serve to confirm many of Osama bin Laden’s statements that the United States is at war with the world of Islam. This charge would be difficult to counter, given the fact that the United States has looked the other way for years with regard to Israel’s nuclear program, accepted India as a legitimate nuclear-state, and is negotiating with North Korea regarding its nuclear ambitions.

Any military action against Iran would also undermine America’s nation-building efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, due to possible Iranian retaliation in both countries. While Iranian efforts toward stabilizing these two states have been sporadic at best, and purposively obstructive at worst, there is little reason to doubt that Iran could make achieving US objectives in Iraq and Afghanistan far more difficult.

Military strikes against Tehran would also undermine Washington’s long-term goal of seeing reform movements succeed in Iran. If the history of military incursions and the Iranian nation teach us anything it is the fact that intervention is likely to solidify
support for the current regime. The idea that the Iranian people would react to a military strike by advocating the overthrow of the existing regime is delusional.

Moreover, any preventive attack, no matter how effective, is only a temporary fix. First, such a campaign will eliminate only that portion of Iran’s nuclear program known to intelligence agencies. Even after the extensive bombing campaign of the 1990-1991 Gulf War, subsequent inspections discovered large parts of Iraq’s unconventional weapons programs that were previously unknown.

More importantly, even if such an attack succeeded in eliminating significant facets of Iran’s nuclear program, it would do little toward discouraging Iran from rebuilding those assets. Thus, even after a fully successful denial campaign, the United States, in a number of years, would likely face the prospect of having to do it all over again."
The author is Christopher Hemmer, who currently serves as an Associate Professor of International Security Studies at the Air War College and has studied and written on the Middle East. The article was published in the Autumn issue of Parameters, the Army War College quarterly.

Of course, in Paddy's world, a guy like Hemmer has less credibility than ideologues such as the Podhoretzes and Steyns of the world.

Sunday, October 28, 2007

Jessica McBride and the politics of shoddy journalism

What do you want to do if you're trying to turn a man with a dark past into a plaster saint?

If you're Jessica McBride, you denigrate his detractors!

And so it goes with McBride's article "Cloak and Dagger" in the November issue of Milwaukee Magazine. It tells the pathetic tale of a group of Hmong-Americans and expats who plot the overthrow of the government of Laos only to be nabbed by the Feds. How pathetic was this alleded coup? So pathetic an alleged ringleader turned to Gary George for advice!

In the article McBride comes thisclose to saying that the U.S. government should turn a blind eye to a terrorist plot being hatched on its shores because 30 years ago we supported Hmong guerrillas.

She also does her best to turn Gen. Vang Pao, who led a CIA-backed Hmong army, into a hero. This despite credible tales of his corruption and his involvement in a drug trade that pumped heroin into the arms of American GIs.

Not the easiest mission. To accomplish it, McBride does what comes natural: she attacks. In this case, the target is UW-Madison history professor Alfred McCoy, author of the 1972 book, "The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia."

From McBride's story:

For some, there was a dark side to the almost legendary tale of the
Hmong warriors. UW-Madison history professor Alfred McCoy published a
1972 book making the controversial claim that Pao was a warlord and a heroin
trafficker. McCoy says he interviewed French intelligence officials and traced
smuggling trails.

Other scholars - notably the author Jane Hamilton-Merritt
- dispute his findings. She says the Hmong used opium as a medicine, but
didn't have the technical knowledge to turn it into Heroin. Hamilton-Merritt
interviewed more than 1,000 people - Lao, Hmong, French, Americans - and says
"no one could provide any evidence to support McCoy."

Reading this, it's difficult to reach any other conclusion than that McBride did not read The Politics of Heroin.

First off, the Brawler's not aware of any serious dispute that Vang Pao was involved in the production and sale of opium -- opium that was "turn(ed) into heroin" by others. Moreover, McCoy didn't say that the Hmong had the technical knowledge to manufacture heroin. When he discusses the heroin lab Vang Pao allegedly opened in 1970 at Long Tieng, McCoy says it began when "a foreign Chinese master chemist arrived at Long Tieng to supervise production" (p. 281 of the Brawler's 1972 edition). Finally, McBride fails to mention at all the charges that the CIA was involved in this drug trade. Would Jack Bauer have done that?

But McBride's -- and Milwaukee Magazine's -- biggest malpractice is in describing McCoy's sourcing and footwork: "McCoy says he interviewed French intelligence officials and traced smuggling trails."

Given the obvious depth of McCoy's research to anyone who's read the book, it's difficult to see that description as anything other than a willful mischaracterization of McCoy's sourcing (indeed, by saying "says he interviewed" McBride is arguably insinuating McCoy did no such thing; Hamilton-Merritt's claims don't warrant that qualifier).

For instance, McCoy's claim of the Long Tieng drug lab is attributed to an "interview with Chinese merchants" (footnote 134, p. 428). And his claim that Vang Pao was buying opium that was being picked up by Air America UH-1H helicopters that were "probably destined for heroin laboratories in Long Tieng or Vientiane, and ultimately, for GI addicts in Vietnam" (p. 263) is attributed to interviews with "local officials, opium farmers, and soldiers who confirmed Air America's role in the local opium trade (footnote 71, p. 425)." Moreover, McCoy and his co-authors visited Long Pot district, an opium growing area, from August 18 to August 23, 1971.

McBride could challenge the veracity of McCoy's claims head on. Instead she tries to undermine them by mischaracterizing their underlying support -- even blaming it on the French! This is a flagrantly unethical act - one that would, at a minimum, result in a stern talking-to by an editor at any credible newspaper.

That said, it's possible that this characterization is an editor's fault.

Either way, the Brawler suspects that Milwaukee Magazine owes McCoy an apology.

(Capper offeres his thoughts on the article here.)

UPDATE! The story is now online here.

Sykes forgets rule No. 8

Milwaukee Magazine, of which Charlie Sykes is an editor emeritus, offers a quickie review of "50 Rules" in its November 2007 issue, by Lisa Holewa:

Charlie Sykes' 50 Rules Kids Won't Learn in School is based on his list of 14 rules that took on a bizarre Internet life as an e-mail attributed to Bill Gates. The original 14 were thought-provoking, clever and mercifully brief. But the book ... well, what's really the difference between Rule No. 1: "Life is not fair. Get used to it," and No. 22: "You are not a victim. So stop whining." Each rule is followed by a curmudgeonly lecture, and the effect is simply exhausting. When it appears Sykes had a secret that made it worth slogging through 150 pages -- Rule No. 46: "Check the guinea pig in the basement" -- it is just a reminder to call your grandmother. The book has some worthwhile insights, but feels so repetitive and tedious, numbingly self-centered and indulgent, that you want to remind Sykes of Rule No. 8:" Your navel is not that interesting. Don't spend your life gazing at it."
More on 50 Rules here.

Saturday, October 27, 2007

Time (And Money And Publicity) Heals All Wounds

It was just three short months ago that McBride took umbrage with a piece that was in Milwaukee Magazine. She was upset because they gave one of her arch-rivals, Eugene Kane, a chance to get a shot in at her, without offering her a chance to rebut Kane's remarks. (Gee, that sounds a lot like the Fairness Doctrine, and we know that can't be good. Wink, wink.)

She was irked enough to even write a letter to the magazine to express her displeasure.

Now, in the November issue of Milwaukee Magazine, there is a feature story about Lo Cha Thao. (The magazine is available at a store near you, or you can go here, to see if they've put up the new edition yet, which they hadn't done at the time of this writing.)

If you haven't already guessed, the piece is called Cloak & Dagger, and was written by our own McBride. I guess they have made up and there are no more hurt feelings.

I am not going to go into a full critique of the article, especially regarding how accurate it may or may not be. If the gentle reader wishes, they may read it and research it for themselves. I would imagine that it is fairly accurate as far as the facts go.

However, there are three specific items I would like to point out. One is where she she has the following paragraph:

It was a "shocking" story, some news accounts suggested. There is talk of getting Clint Eastwood interested in a movie. And some are now calling Thao the "Hmong Jack Bauer," alluding to the heroic counterterrorism operative in the TV series "24."

Given McBride's acclamation of Jack Bauer, it would be interesting to know who the "some" are that refer to Thao thusly. (And not everyone finds Bauer "heroic", but that's besides the point.)

The second point is when she describes State Senator Dave Zien as "madcap". (I had thought of making a quip about taking offense at the phrase madcap [get it, mad cap-capper], but will pass on it given recent events). In the technical definition of the word, madcap might be appropriate. But others might feel the term to be a bit light-hearted for the reality.

The third, which I doubt McBride is personally responsible for, is the biographical blurb of McBride that they have in the front of the magazine, in which they have listed among her accomplishments of being "an award-winning Web commentator." The only Web award that McBride had listed on her site would be the one from Blognet (which had been #1, then #11, and now has been removed from her site).

As I said, I doubt this was McBride's doing, but the work of a lazy intern. But I would also like to point out that Whallah! is a Pulitzer Prize Nominee. So there.

Broken Promises

Over the past several weeks, Charlie Sykes has been leading every segment of his show with an audio of Governor Jim Doyle saying:

Going forward, my mind will be open to every solution -- except one. We should not -- we must not -- and I will not -- raise taxes. Wisconsin's problem is not that we tax too little. It is that we spend too much.

This was picked up and parroted by almost everyone on the right, from PaddyMac to McBride to various bloggers. There is just one problem with this. They make it seem like Doyle made this statement recently, say, as a campaign promise in last year's election.

In reality, it came from his 2003 State of the State Address. Even the slowest on the right should have figured out that was almost five years ago. But no. They still use it to hammer on Doyle as they carp about the 2007-9 budget. They complain about how high taxes are going to be, complete with the obligatory hair-pulling, teeth-gnashing and frothing at the mouth.

Too bad they weren't a little more selective in the speeches they chose. If they raised the same ruckus about the real lies told in 2003, they could have saved the country hundreds of billions of dollars, thousands of American lives, and the integrity of the nation. All they had to do was call out Bush for the lies he told on January 28, 2003 in his State of the Union Address.

But they didn't. They chose to do the "right" thing, instead of the proper thing.

UPDATE: A commenter on McBride's side brought up the fact that the quote that she and others on the right are using was from Doyle's 2003 speech. She and her followers respond with a "So what? He lied other times too," type of response. Again, it is a shame that they choose to focus on the "right" thing, instead of the proper thing, and holding the true liar's feet to the fire.

Friday, October 26, 2007

Is It a Full Moon Thing

I've been doing some commenting at McBride's Media Matters. And while I applaud her opening up comments more and more, she still applies a selective brush. All of my comments are respectful, and yet she will accept some, and not accept others ... generally not accepting a comment so as to give her side the last word.

It's funny how she and other commenters from her side have this inability to read comments in their entirety, instead selectively jumping on a word or phrase here and there and then ranting nonsensically.

It must be genetic, or massive insecurity. I've no explanation.

Crazier Than Thou

Jessica the Prolific makes this job easy. Just hang around the tree and the fruit sorta drops.

Case in point is her post contrasting the Republican presidential candidates vs the Democratic contingent on the "threat" from Iran. She of course credits those throwbacks from the fabulous 50's on the GOP side with strength on this ginned up issue.

Never mind that the good order takers that the Republicans are, they are tumbling over the cliff while their Pied Piper George Bush calls the tune. The trouble is they want to take the rest of us with us.

Been there done that. The American people are not as twitchy as they were in the year following 9/11 (I can feel John McAdams heading to the keyboard already), so the public won't be spooked into supporting another bogus reason to invade or in this case bomb a country as with the Iraq screw up. In fact one could bet that pulling this antic would doom the GOP to minority status for a generation -- if we survive Armageddon.

This one has disaster written all over it. Bush, Cheney and their mesmerized crowd of followers are scream that the Iranian leader Ahmadinejad -- the guy who looks like a restaurant car hop -- needs to be feared despite the fact that he is no where near a nuclear capability (sound familiar), is in fact not really in control of his country's military and that his destroy Israel rantings are simply playing to his base. Nothing original here.

And of course they will dial it up with the Hitler comparisons. But there really are none since Adolph represented a real threat, not a conjured up one.

Yes, we should keep an eye on that country's nuclear capabilities, as we should with all countries that want to enter the nuclear club. But since this cruise over the cliff is so appealing to Jessica, let's point out how supremely stupid it would be to make real this juvenile rhetoric.

Our economy already is starting to sour. As an example one US dollar now buys only 97 Canadian cents. Not to long ago a buck would get you one loonie and 40 cents.

We disrupt the delicate balance in the Middle East with some cowboy excursion and the price of oil will soar. Oddly enough when you have the former head of the KGB thinking that the saber rattling here is nuts even though they would greatly benefit from the rise in oil crisis than you have an idea how crazy -- and those who support it, truly are. That is just picking one reason out of the dozens why moving militarily on Iran would be senseless, from an administration that does neither perspective nor rationality very well.

Fortunately for her someone replied to the post who is even crazier, maybe. The reply is so out there that one wonders if they guy is doing a parody of the GOP.

Thursday, October 25, 2007

As The Blogging World Turns

As many of you know, there have been some issues raised this week. To recap: McBride makes an off-handed comment regarding the murder of two people in the inner city. Whallah! calls her on it. So does the Illusory Tenant. Unfortunately, in the comment section fo IT's post, he or she uses a derogatory slur towards McBride. She jumps on that, pointing out the egregiousness of it. She is right in this, IT's choice of words was way over the line.

IT then exasperates the problem, by trying to rationalize his use of the word. Charlie Sykes, using his radio show, and James Wigderson, using his blogsite, come to her defense and also points out how bad the word is. (At least James addressed the reason IT made that comment).

IT sees the terrible error he, or she, has made and offers an apology for the offensive word. The apology is directed to McBride and anyone else who was pained by the use of the slur. Other bloggers offer their opinions on the situation, both on their blogs and in the comments sections of James's site, IT's site, and Whallah's site. Some point out the inappropriateness of IT's and the left's (guilt by association, I guess) comments. Some come to the defense of the comment. Some point out that some on the right are also guilty of making grievous comments. McBride accepts the apology.

All is well, right? Unfortunately, no. The immaturity has to continue.

One of the commenters on IT's site made another personal attack on McBride and her family. This again is inappropriate, unnecessary and egregious.

McBride sees this and puts the commenter's personal information on her site, and expresses her outrage at the commenter's bringing her kids into it. Which would be a normal response--for most people. Her words:

What kind of a person drags someone's children into it?

What kind of person indeed? Maybe someone like Jessica McBride? (Unfortunately, McBride's original post was lost when 620TMJ dumped her blog, after they terminated her. Hence, the link pointing out her original post.)

So what does all this prove? Nothing that wasn't already known. Neither side has the high ground when it comes to respecting those on the other side. That neither the left, not the right, have a corner on hypocricy. For every affront committed by a liberal, another affront is committed by a conservative. And vice versa.

For the record, Whallah! will continue to monitor and confront the inconsistencies, the incongruities and the untruths told by the right, including, but not limited to, McBride. But as in the past, Whallah! will continue to try to keep things germane to the topic at hand, and not to the person.

Polling Question

The latest discussion at Wigderson's site has brought an issue that I have been mulling over for a few weeks to a head. I wasn't going to put up this post for a few more weeks, but well, might as well strike while the iron is hot.

Whallah! was created and is devoted to point out and rebut the poorly though out statements and the wrong-headed positions that is offered by McBride. Some people categorize Whallah! as a sexist site, as that McBride is a woman. Whallah! doesn't care about her gender, as it is her ideology that is so offensive and needs to be addressed. (I wonder what their position would be if McBride was a man. By throwing her gender into the issue is sexist in itself. Much like they decry someone on the left for playing the race card.)

While Whallah! is not sexist, per se, it has been neglectful. There has been only the occasional foray into covering the person who helped bring McBride to the forefront, Charlie Sykes. There has been little, if any coverage of the new McSykes, the McBride replacement, Charlie Lite, or Mark Bellowing. All of these people are able to be just as egregiously disingenuous as McBride, and do not allow the same type of access that most blogsites allow. A voice is needed to counter these people. Should Whallah! become an aggregate of counterpoints to these people?

My question to you, gentle reader, and Team Whallah (unless the only readers are the same as those on Team Whallah!, which would make it redundant) is whether Whallah! should continue its sole devotion to correcting McBride, or should it expand to cover all of the right wing public media: Sykes, Belling, Harris, PaddyMac et al? Please note that it would only be to these public media figures, and not to the entire right side of the blogosphere. There are other venues for those people.


James Wigderson is a conservative blogger, a columnist at the Waukesha Freeman, and a friend of McBride's. He has also taken umbrage with Whallah's posts about the whole La La Brown murder and McBride's poor response to it.

James is a fairly intelligent person, with a good sense of humor. But in his post, he inadvertently points out the errors that McBride has made. He argues that one should not judge a book by a cover, but that there are generalities that one can use. He points out that it would be likelier that a recording studio in the inner city would be used for gangsta rap than for country or classical music. This is probably true, but it is also a stereotype. While most young black people probably do listen to rap or hip hop, not all do.

This kind of thinking leads to stereotypical thinking, which can lead to racism. He even commits the same error, in wondering if the fact that Whallah is dedicated to correcting McBride's wrong-headed comments and positions, makes it sexist. It doesn't matter what McBride's gender or color is, wrong is wrong. To think otherwise, is sexist in itself.

For another rebuttal to Wiggy's post, take a walk to the Other Side.

Addendum: It must be pointed out that the La La Brown incident wasn't a single event for McBride. She has developed a discernible pattern of focusing on issues involving minorities and treating these issues in a dismissive manner. That would easily give to the fact that there appears to be at least some latent racism occurring.

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Stereotypes And Racism

Over the past few days, Whallah! has been on McBride's case about her post regarding the death of two young people in Milwaukee. It was pointed out that she was immediately dismissive of the murders because the people who were murdered had a recording studio in their home, and quipped that she wondered if they were recording gangsta rap. It turned out that the young woman was actually an up and coming R&B singer.

Instead of offering an apology, McBride threw this update on her post:

Update: Guess they didn't. R and B. Later stories now show it might be a burglary of the studio that led to the deaths of two up-and coming individuals, one of whom was going places in the R and B music world. Yes, Milwaukee's in a crisis. How many young people like this are we going to lose before we stop tolerating it as a community?

When I hear about these somewhat makeshift recording studios, the "Funkhouse" is usually what comes to my mind first. Sounds like these young people were far removed from that world.

Instead of a mea culpa, we have a spin trying to deflect the attention from her error in making the original statement. Then she compounds the error, by linking to an article she wrote for MSJ several years ago, about a gang of kids that were eventually brought up on murder, and their relationship with an innercity house/recording studio.

Some people could perceive her defense as a racist statement: That is when she learns of a house in the inner city, with a recording studio in it, she automatically thinks of a gang of murderous thugs.

I don't believe that it necessarily does. defines racism as "the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others". The same website (via American Heritage Dictionary) defines stereotype as "a conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image".

Some people could very well argue that racism is just another word for ethnic stereotyping, and be correct in that argument. But I seriously doubt McBride has a white robe and hood in her closet. Nor have I ever heard or seen her to come out and directly say that the crisis is due to the racial make-up of the inner city.

I think that McBride is making some very broad generalizations and is using racial stereotyping to make these statements, which do border on the verge of being racist. I don't know whether she is making these statement out of maliciousness, which would definitely make it racism, or out of general ignorance, which would be more like stereotyping, or latent racism, if you will.

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Talk Radio's Ineffectiveness

As one would expect, now that the state legislature has passed a budget that contains increases in taxes and fees, the right is caterwauling like there's no tomorrow. McBride is adding her shrill screech to the rest of the howlers.

But McBride's howling may seemed a little muffled to the observant. That is because she has once again put her foot into her wide-open mouth. She tries to explain why so many Republicans voted for the proposed budget by saying that they were out of earshot of talk radio, and didn't hear the uprising of the groundswell of displeasure amongst their constituents. She even made a little map, showing where the Republicans that voted yes are from to try to prove her point.

Too bad that she is lying, or at the very least mistaken. A quick Google of radio stations in Wisconsin, and Whallah!, there is a list of radio stations in Wisconsin, at least 20 of which are identified as talk or news/talk stations in the northern and central parts of the state. Now, if one looks at the map again, a good third of the legislatures are within easy range of WTMJ. Some of the other talk radio stations are located in Wausau, Green Bay, Superior, Wisconsin Rapids, Marshfield and Eau Claire. That pretty much covers all of the other Republicans as well.

This makes McBride's premise look as ridiculous as most of her premises are. The reason why the Republicans voted for the proposed budget, even with the hikes, could probably be more realistically explained by the Other Side.

We're Still Waiting

On Saturday, McBride posted what I'm sure she thought was a cute little pun, mocking the death of two people, who were murdered in their own home, which doubled as a recording studio. Whallah! took her to task for that, pointing out the similarity to the stunt that cost her her radio talk show.

It is now Wednesday. Not only has a commenter at Whallah's original post, but also Illusory Tenant, pointed out the identities of the people who were murdered, and that they were far from being "gangstas", as McBride implied. But, perhaps realizing that McBride may not read Whallah! or the Illusory Tenant, Other Side and Grumps point out her lack of good judgement and suggest she apologizes.

Not only were there these sources, but there was today's Milwaukee Sentinel Journal, which we know she does read, as she is frequently criticizing them, which ran a front page story about the murdered couple.

Despite all this, there is nothing from McBride. This leads to a number of questions. Does she think that the murder of two people is as funny and mock-able as the death of a little girl? Or does she just not care? Would she care if the victims were white? Is this the kind of person that should be working at UW-Milwaukee, allegedly teaching journalism, on the taxpayer's dollar?

Monday, October 22, 2007

No Longer Number One

Last month, it was noted that McBride was designated by Blog Net News as having the most influential blogsite. Of course, McBride, being the less than humble soul that she is, prominently displayed this ranking on her website.

Now BNN has done a new poll. McBride's ranking plummeted to No. 11, which is still too high, but, whatever. It is comical to note that she still has her "award" prominently displayed, but with 11 instead of 1. It makes one wonder if she hasn't noticed, or if she is still proud to even be ranked.

Whallah! would like to take some credit for alerting people to her inanity, but the truth is people can probably recognize it for themselves.

But Are They Fair And Balanced?

Most conservatives would probably say that they get their news from Fox News or talk radio. Neither are very reliable sources of accurate information of course, but that is to what the conservatives tend to be drawn.

Probably because she doesn't feel them to be conservative enough, McBride apparently shuns these sources and goes for a real conservative site for her information. And the worst part or her is they are better journalists, in English, than she is. But, then again, who isn't?

She Just Doesn't Get It

There is a popular adage that defines insanity as doing he same thing over and over, in the hope of getting different results. If one takes that bit of folk wisdom as a truism, then McBride needs some serious psychiatric services. Either that, or she has an extremely long learning curve.

Apparently, getting terminated from TMJ radio for mocking the death of a black child wasn't enough of a wake up call for our dear McBride. She decides to continue to mock the violence and murders that are occurring in the city of Milwaukee. Linking to this story on TMJ's radio's website, which tells of the murder of two people who were found in a home that happened to be also a recording studio, McBride offers this pithy little statement:

Think they recorded gangsta rap?

This is coming from the same person that complains about conservatives being portrayed as being racist. She is truly insane, or, at least, just not very bright.

UPDATE: Illusory Tenant has identified the woman killed, and it was not a gangsta rapper. Rather a respected local R&B singer. Still no apology from McBride.

Thursday, October 18, 2007

Memo to Jessica

McBride claims to know all about journalism, and she's not shy from telling others what she thinks they should be doing when it comes to journalism. And that's fine, as she purports her site to be about media matters. But then she gives this little critism:

Reporting Gov. Jim Doyle's sky-is-falling claims and then reporting the Republican responses to them is not reporting. It's stenography.

Someone needs to tell Jessica that linking to other sites, without substance added, isn't blogging. It's cyber-stenography.

Money Quote

At least she is starting to be honest with her readers:

I don't know why I'm posting on this.

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

McBride Is A Liberal?

In the previous post, it was pointed out how 'entertaining' the frequent commentator John can be. He outdoes himself again with this blurb:

i jeff:
Extremely good question.
The answer:Jim Doyle.Of course the liberal media has completely crawled into bed with Doyle. (not that there's anything wrong with that), but those who seek Media as a career path are generally idealistic liberals who are fed liberal pablum from Journalism 101, upto and through their, senior "internships"
Lines have been drawn before the first skirmish. The reporters and those who "dispatch them" are already liberal. You don't get the job without going through LIB schools and applying before LIB decision makers.
Long story short. Doyle is Governor, even though the media sucks his @#$$, Doyle is the one who uses them and does ANYTHING that keeps himself in power.

So, if one is to interpret these ramblings correctly, it appears that he is inferring that McBride is really a liberal, is in bed with Governor Doyle (we presume figuratively speaking), and kisses Doyle's butt. This is counterintuitive to anyone that has followed McBride's storied career, but since she moderates the comments on her site, she must have read it, not found it to be hateful or abuseful or untrue, and allow it to be posted, it must be true.

Tuesday, October 16, 2007


Sometimes, it isn't McBride's postings that are the most outrageous things on her website. Sometimes, it is what other people put in the comments section that is worthy of being noted on Whallah.

An obvious fan (and possibly student) of McBride's is John. He is also apparently on a mission to be as much like his hero as possible, at least when it comes to the written word. In one of her posts, the subject is the ongoing failure of the state legislature to pass a budget. The post in itself is unremarkable, just a link to someone else that thinks like her. But John comes through with this comment:

First, we've know all along the Doyle is not an honest ethical man.
One word. Potawatomi.
We've also known he rewards those who bankroll his campaign or vote in blocks. Unions, minorities, teachers, gays, trial lawyers etc.
What is disturbing is that Doyle said the stuff about "I will not raise taxes". Doyle said the stuff about being open to all ideas. All ideas except one...raising taxes. Then he proposes the largest tax increases in U.S. history. And the left isn't disturbed at his lies, because they expected his pledges to be lies. They have no moral compass.

In one fell swoop, he has managed to insult the Potawatomi tribe calling them unethical, unions, minorities, teachers, gays, trial lawyers (does this include Paul?), and the left (he seems to have forgotten "juvenile, abuse blogs"). That must have brought a tear of joy to McBride's eye. The only thing missing was playing the martyr card.

Almost, But Not Quite There

McBride does a rather lengthy piece on JB Van Hollen and his handling of the crisis in Crandon. McBride pleasantly surprises us with a fairly rational and level-headed critique, pointing out legitimate flaws, making constructive criticsisms. Whallah was quite impressed, especially when one would have expected McBride, in her normal mode, to try to shred the winner of last year's Attorney General election into little pieces. This fear was reinforced with the title of "I hate to say I told you so, but..."

That was until the end, when the McBride we all know and love (OK, not quite love) comes through to sink the whole piece:
Quick. Someone get this guy a crisis manager. He's now getting beaten up by Sykes, Belling, AND USA Today, not to mention Badger Blogger, Freedom Eden, and Texas Hold 'Em, but he thinks everything went smoothly. Not a good day.
I don't know how to tell McBride this, but if these are the only people he has to worry about criticizing him, that is a good day. It means he probably is doing something right after all.

Monday, October 15, 2007

She Should Talk?

Barack Obama was in Madison today. He allegedly made two gaffes in a speech that last the better part of an hour. Of course, McBride jumps all over those two gaffes.

She must think he is a slacker, because she can do many more than that in a single posting. Indeed, that is why Whallah even exists.

Jawohl, Frau Bucher

Frank Rich, a columnist at the New York Times, took things too far by using irresponsible rhetoric, comparing the Bush administration to the Nazi Gestapo. While Whallah is no fan of Bush, his administration, or any of his policies, such as torture, it would be more conducive to fight those issues on their own merits, without the hyperbole.

McBride, as did many others, took offense to the article. But it is not clear if it was due to the offensiveness of the article, or professional jealousy. Not only did she rightfully criticize the article, but she took it too far herself, by comparing those against Bush's administration to the Nazis. And let us not forget that it was Frau Bucher herself that compared Democrats to bin Laden, for which she has yet to apologize.

Sunday, October 14, 2007

Another Victory For McBride

First, she posts that she will be participating in a debate with Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisolm.

Then, she puts up a post titled

My debate with John Chisolm

Then starts out with admitting she didn't debate Chisolm, but an unnamed assistant district attorney. (First, Eugene Kane, then getting fired from her talk show, then getting stood up by Chisolm...What does it take for her to understand no one wants to talk to her?)

She regales us with how she used her sophisticated vocabulary and understanding of the real world to verbally thrash this unknown person, as well as a unnamed teacher who had the audacity to also stand up to her.

Besides, the misleading title of the post, the lack of verification of her version of the events, and the innate controversial nature of gun control, there were two things that stood out. The first was her put down of the teacher for not using statistics to back up her points. This stands out due to McBride's habitual tendency to commit the same mistake.

The other was the line

...I forgot to ask her whether her argument meant that she thought we could disregard the entire U.S. Consitution. (sic)
McBride never seemed to mind when Bush disregarded the constitution, so why would it bother her now?

UPDATE: As usual, Illusory Tenant has the legal aspect of the case nailed down in elegant fashion.

Saturday, October 13, 2007

Does Anyone Know What Day It Is?

In a rather rambling and confusing post, McBride shares a story of an encounter with a former coworker. The former peer (when McBride was, you know, a journalist-supposedly)wished Jessica a Merry Christmas. This is what prompted to McBride to question why someone would say this to her, and assumes it was meant as an insult. (SIDENOTE: Does she get insulted so often that she presumes everything is an insult, or is it just paranoia?)

McBride showed her rapier wit by yelling back, "Happy Halloween".

This leads to the question, if she is wishing someone joy for a pagan holiday, is she and Paul back to drinking Miller Lite?

Just The Facts, Ma'am. Just The Facts.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court recently rendered a decision allowing a large settlement in a civil case against the Milwaukee archdiocese and its insurance company. McBride, weakly presents an argument that this is why Justice Louis Butler shouldn't be re-elected to the bench next year, based on another blogger's opinion. McBride takes the position that the driver that caused the accident was a volunteer of a separate group that just happened to hold their meetings at a church. She even compares it to someone who might be attending an AA meeting and ponders if the church would be responsible for that person's accident.

Unfortunately for McBride, a real journalist reported in today's MSJ:

On March 25, 2002, Hjalmer Heikkinen's car was struck by a car driven by Margaret Morse, a member of Christ King Parish in Wauwatosa. She was transporting a statue of the Virgin Mary to a family in a different parish as part of a program conducted by the Christ King Legion of Mary, the parish's branch of a service organization. (emphasis mine)

In other words, the driver that caused the accident was a volunteer for the church's social organization, not someone that just happened to be at the church for an unrelated program.

One would think that McBride, being the world-renowned journalist, would have understood the importance of getting the facts to a story. Again, the question needs to be asked: She teaches journalism? Why?

Vengeance Is Mine, Sayeth the McBride

Tim Cuprisin, a real columnist at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, has posted a couple of items about McBride's role model, Ann Coulter. Coulter, following in the footsteps of Bill O'Really and Rush to the drug dealer Limbaugh, has come out with an indefensible smear, this time against Jews. Here, via Mr. Cuprisin's blog, are the videos and the transcript of Coulter's outrageous statements.

Surprisingly, McBride doesn't rise to the defense of Coulter. What she does instead is seek out a chance at revenge my mocking Mr. Cuprisin. In case the gentle reader has forgotten, Mr. Cuprisin is one of the people McBride has blamed for her downfall from hosting a squawk radio show. His sin was not defending her indefensible lack of taste.

It's good to see that McBride doesn't hold grudges and has moved on with her life.

Thursday, October 11, 2007

Giving Credit Where Credit Is Due

Jessica McBride can be a very perplexing person at times.

Earlier this year, she added a comment moderator to her blog. She claimed this was due to the abusive, "anonymous trash talkers" who were so mean to her. Now she has an open comment thread regarding an aspect of the Crandon tragedy. How can there be an open comment thread when she is moderating the comments?

That bit of confusion aside, McBride does deserve full credit in the sense that it appears that she is allowing all comments to be posted, even the admittedly "snarky" ones. On the negative side, she is also continuing to allow "John" to leave his comments, like this one from a different post:

john said...

Obviously Jay is a nutroot, but seriously folks, why don't you libs try to make an honest case rather than playing the "RACE CARD" or the "WE LOVE CHILDREN CARD"?The LEFT trotting out the FROST family was just plain stupid.Imagine MEDIA MATTERS was RIGHT LEANING and the Libs trot out the FROSTS. The problem here is that libs believe, even after further review, that the FROSTS are VICTIMS and deserve, MY TAX MONEY to supplement the BAD CHOICES they have made. Libs believe raping and taxing THE WEALTHY more, will solve these problems without ANY REPERCUSSIONS to how the ECONOMY WORKS.

October 10, 2007 11:34 PM

A Lesson For McBride

Earlier this week, McBride tried to take columnist Gregory Stanford to task for a column he wrote regarding the apparent inherent racism that is in the GOP.

The sagacious Brew City Brawler, in this post, gives the teacher a lesson she would do well to take to heart.

It's All Clear To Me Now

In journalism, it is important to be able to convey your message clearly and without any chance of confusion...or so one would believe.

The ever-observant Illusory Tenant has found an example of McBride's version of clarity, which stems from a comment thread from this post:

Remember, McBride is allegedly a teacher of journalism, reports that she has a master's degree in the field, and claims to have won numerous awards on the local and national levels. It's absolutely terrifying to think that, someday in the future, we will have to rely on her students for accurate information.

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Is There A Linguist In The House?

As noted repeatedly, McBride's command of the English language is questionable at best, and she should really just stay away from French. But it now appears that McBride is inventing a new language- McBridean French.

An example of this new language is Limbaugh'd. It's been many years since I've studied French, but the best that I can figure out, is that Limbaugh'd is the McBridean French word meaning "Confronted with the truth and/or reality".

Is there a linguist in the house that could confirm or correct this?

Let This Be A Warning

Sometimes, the hardest part of writing for Whallah, is picking which parts of McBride's postings need the most attention. One of McBride's postings about the tragic event in Crandon is one of those times.

After all, the title alone should be addressed:

Memo to Crandon tragedy law enforcement

Even though she supposedly teaches journalism, and supposedly in English, this headline makes it seem like Crandon takes their tragedy laws pretty seriously.

Then their is the memo itself, showing that McBride failed preschool, due to her counting skills. (Note to McBride, most people put a 3 between the 2 and the 4.)

But the most obvious part that needs to be addressed was done by Grumps at the Happy Circumstance, shown here in its entirety:

You've asked what she teaches her students. I'll tell you what she teaches her students.

Don't demand that the media not talk to people or families anymore or ask community members to stop talking to the media. You'll just end up ticking off the media, and they're the ones writing the follow-up stories. Trust me. The media tend to retaliate in print.

Especially against former employers. Trust her.
It should be pointed out that besides former employers, the list includes former coworkers, former political opponents of her husband, liberal bloggers and political consultants, and, of course, Whallah.

Let Them Eat Cake

UPDATE: The august Brew City Brawler has another profound view on McBride's inner Marie Antoinette. Also, The Hippie Perspective takes on Malkin and the rest of the right-wing smear machine.

McBride, and her soul(less) sister, Michele Malkin, are apparently channeling their inner Marie Antoinette. They are up in arms about the bipartisan desire to expand S-chip, an insurance program for children. To prove their point, they try to demonize a 12 year old boy, who has suffered severe brain trauma in an accident, and his family.

You can read Malkin's blatant disregard for the truth here, and the fact of the case here. Or to save your time, you can get read Jay Bullock's comment to McBride's post:

The rest of us can't even debate the merits of the issue without being slimed as

Going after the family--a family that the State of Maryland had determined in good faith was eligible for a program--on shaky and, it turns out, entirely false grounds is hardly debating the merits of a program. Trying to sneak photos of the inside of a private home (and then mistaking a concrete countertop for granite!) is hardly debating the merits of a program, either.

I have no problem debating the merits of SCHIP. I have a big problem stalking a private family.

Are we talking about the poor helpless 12 year old who attended the $20,000 per
year private school?

Fred, we're talking about the kid who almost died in a car accident; whose brain stem was so badly damaged he had to learn to walk again and still cannot speak clearly; whose parents determined he could get better services at that private school--on scholarship--than in Baltimore's public schools; whose little sister was nearly killed in the accident; whose family had to refinance their house to make modifications to accommodate the newly-disabled children; whose family had been turned down by at least three insurers because of the pre-existing conditions.

If you feel no sympathy--not even a little bit of concern that Malkin and her vultures would attack the family so--then I can't help you. You may be beyond help.

Of course, McBride is upset because those darn lefties (and several righties) want to help those undeserving little brats. Because in McBride's world, taxpayer funded subsidies and entitlements should only go to those most needy and deserving: Halliburton, Blackwater, Big Oil, Big Pharma, etc.

h/t krshorewood

Tuesday, October 9, 2007

She Doesn't Like Fox Commentary

One could only hope that it was commentary on Fox News that she opposed, but alas, McBride is upset with the commentary by former Mexican President Vicente Fox. She offers the first two paragraphs of an Associated Press article in which Mr. Fox is promoting his new book, and tells Mr. Fox to worry about his own country. What she doesn't tell you is that he is worried about his country, which is probably why she doesn't provide a link to the article. But, Whallah, here it is.

One cannot be sure, but the part of the article that probably upset her the most was when President Fox is quoted:

"To be so repressive isn't democratic or free ... to be putting up fences, chasing Mexicans, that isn't right," Fox said. "The U.S. needs better answers than repression, weapons and violence."

That counters all of her favorite talking points, and would leave her nothing to say. No wonder she is so angry with him.

SIDENOTE: In the comment threads, a McBride fan (and/or possible student) carries on in the proud McBride tradition of making wild accusations that are nowhere near being based in fact, nor to be found in the article.

Which Came First, The Chicken Or The Egg?

Or another way to phrase that question would be: Which came first, McBride's bitterness towards MSJ, or her xenophobic paranoia regarding illegal aliens?

In a posting titled "What today's slanted Journal Sentinel story on illegal immigration didn't tell you", McBride goes to town about an article reporting that Milwaukee Police have a policy in place that basically states that a federal civil offense is not a high priority for the police, who have other things to worry about.

The title of her posting alone would make you wonder why Jessica apparently feels that she is 'fair and balanced' when a more accurate description would be 'fairly unbalanced'. She even gets into the habit of spastic capitalizations and bold typing which seems to be common among the more loosely-wrapped right-wing bloggers. The only things she's missing is the changing colors throughout the post.

But then she gets really irate when the article quotes Hispanic social advocate Anselmo Villarreal, who supports MPD's approach. McBride claims:

This is a misrepresentation of Villarreal's past stand on this issue.

Unfortunately for McBride, the reporter isn't reporting on what Mr. Villarreal's position was in the past, or whether or not he was duped into making a commercial for her husband's unsuccessful attempt at the Attorney General position. The reporter is quoting Mr. Villarreal's opinion at the present time, on this specific subject.

Either McBride is still stuck in the past, or her hatred of immigrants is so strong, that she cannot accept what is in front of her.

Crandon, Part III

After having two fairly reasonable postings on the Crandon tragedy, we get our old McBride back, full of her usual professional standards, or lack thereof. Here is her entire post:

The new media narrative on Crandon

"The shooter was too young to be a cop and possess a gun! It's the fault of the system!"

How old do they think the soldiers in Iraq are?

Who else but McBride could make such an irrational assertion, offer no proof, and then tie in one of her favorite objets d'obsession. Oh yeah, her former mentor and BFF.

Monday, October 8, 2007

Crandon, Part II

In her second posting regarding the Crandon tragedy, McBride again strives to take MSJ to task on their journalistic skills. This time her beef is that the story didn't focus on the timing of the 911 calls to the final confrontation between law enforcement and the gunman. She feels that this aspect of the story should be the gist of the story, and wants to know why there was such a delay by the authorities.

However, if she read the article, she would have gotten at least a partial answer to her questions. The police were unfamiliar with the terrain, they were unsure of the situation except that a person who just shot seven people, killing six, was held up in a home full of potential hostages. Maybe McBride has been watching too many episodes of "24", and doesn't realize that the cowboy approach usually only works in the movies and TV.

Furthermore, as an alleged teacher of journalism, and supposedly covering stories of this nature when she actually worked, she would recognize a developing story in progress and realized that sometimes it takes time to put all of the pieces together. Oh, wait a minute, she almost does:

Maybe the full printed version of tomorrow's story will have more.

But then still goes on with her critique. Sigh.

UPDATE: In the morning MSJ, there is indeed an editorial raising the same questions about the response time to the 911 calls. At the time of this update, there is no acknowledgement of this by McBride.

Crandon, Part I

In her first posting about the tragedy that occurred in Crandon Sunday, McBride takes MSJ to task for printing the names of the victims before they were released by the authorities. She states that this is "VERY wrong" due to the risk of the families finding out this way. While she would be correct under normal circumstances, and there have been documented cases in which it was the reporter who ended up being the one to notify the family of a tragic death, it could be argued in this case that MSJ wasn't that far out of line in this story.

The MSJ report wasn't filed until late that night, and it was reported that the names came from families and friends. This shows that the families were aware and were identifying their loved ones. Secondly, perhaps McBride forgot what living in a small town is like, but the news travels much faster informally than through official conduits, so it is likely that the family was already aware of what occurred, long before the paper or even law enforcement knew the identities.

The Point Is What?

In a rare terse posting titled Miller filters out content it sponsored, McBride simply states "How indecent", with yet another link to Michele Malkin's site, where she is posting, yet again, on the Fulsom Street Festival.

What is unclear is what McBride finds indecent. Is it that Miller won't allow graphic pictures or postings on its website? Is it the Fulsom Street Festival (again)? Is it homosexuality? Is it that Malkin is posting on this (again)? Is it Malkin?

We may never know.

A Lesson From McBride

In a posting that is supposed to be a rebuttal to an article by Gregory Stanford, McBride shows some classic maneuvers of McBride and her fellow right-wing squawkers when they are wrong on any given point. Mr. Stanford presents a brief and very general history of the relationship between the GOP and minorities and how the two sides became so estranged. Here are parts of her post and the corresponding strategy:

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel columnist Greg Stanford has a lengthy column in Sunday's newspaper that essentially argues that Republicans are racists.

First strategy: Change the intent of the writer (or speaker) into a twisted version of the original, to make it easier to argue. It does not matter if the 'interpretation' is completely different than the original piece.

The problem with his column: It is long on conclusion, yet short on evidence. In otherwords, he never backs up his point. He goes into a lengthy historical analysis of how Republicans supposedly developed a racist strategy, yet he never provides a scintilla of evidence that they are actually racist. His main piece of evidence seems to be that some GOP candidates didn't attend some debates relating to minority issues. This is hardly evidence of systemic racism. Likely, they didn't want to get peppered with leading and biased attack questions by media folks like Greg Stanford.

Strategy Two: Deny a point, even when admitting it. This is evidenced by her stating that he went into a "lengthy historical analysis", but says he didn't prove his point.

Strategy Three: Never be satisfied. McBride's argument is that Stanford didn't prove his point because he did not provide a specific example. But if he had, she would have only argued that it was anecdotal and did not prove anything.

This is typical. If he actually tried to provide evidence, the falsity and simplicity of his argument would be exposed. What's racist about GOP policy? Is it that Republicans prefer social policies (like school choice and W-2) that empower minorities rather than patronizingly assuming they are destined to a life of perpetual government dependency? Is it that Republicans would like the rule of law enforced and greater border security rather than an open borders policy that is neither rational nor defensible in a post 9/11 world?

His opinions are also extremely generalized. (...)

Strategy Four: Play the victim card while attacking the other person. This is shown with her arguments about all the "good deeds" done by the GOP, and painting themselves as simply misundersood. At the same time, she is demonizing any and all who oppose GOP policy, making it easier for her and her ilk dismiss any arguments against their agenda.

The reader can play along and see how many times they can see these recurring strategies in McBride's ravings, or those holding a similar worldview.

Thursday, October 4, 2007

What Does She Teach, Again?

Apparently not everyone in the world reads Whallah, otherwise Sky News TV would never have done this.

Despite the very real risk of McBride causing an international incident, there is something to be said about the title of her post:

It's amazing how the media work

Um, isn't she supposed to be an award-winning journalist and a lecturer in journalism? One would think that she should already have a clue about how the media works (and how to use spellcheck).

She Doesn't Know Jack...and Diane

We all have heard about the racially charged incident that happened in Jena, Louisiana. However, our favorite intrepid journalist, showing off her in-depth investigating skills and artistry with the written word, spews forth the following post:

He does know that the case is about a white guy who was jumped and beaten unprovoked months after the despicable noose incident he had nothing to do with... right?

Actually, he DOES know that (watch the beginning), and then watch what happens next.

Yes, Jessica, he does know. However, McBride apparently doesn't know what happened, per which states:

Racial tensions remained elevated throughout the fall. On Monday, December 4, 2006, a white student who allegedly had been racially taunting black students in support of the students who hung the nooses got into a fight with black students. Allegedly, the white student was taken to the hospital treated, released, reportedly attended a social function later that evening.

The Tale of Two Media: The Real World and McBride's World

McBride again asserts her authoritah, when she posts about her challenge to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on why they haven't done enough, in her opinion, to cover her latest fetish, the Folsum Street Festival.

If one can get past the poor syntax, grammar and spelling, it comes down to the point that the journalist extraordinaire (although she was never a pulitzer prize nominee, like Whallah) feels that she should be the final word on what consists of being news-worthy.

It doesn't matter if the event was held 2,000 miles away, and that almost no one but McBride and a handful of conservative squawkers even care about it, that is was in fact covered by the paper, both in the business section and an editorial blog written by Patrick McIlheran. It also doesn't matter if the Last Supper is the most imitated and parodied piece of art in the world.

All of this would only matter if it was true in McBride's World.

Wednesday, October 3, 2007

Missing The Point

On Tuesday, the MSJ ran this editorial discussing why Madison is doing better at drawing businesses to its area than Milwaukee.

McBride, of course, misses the gist of the column. As one well-spoken and sensiblecommentator (obviously not one of McBride's students) points out:

Actually, that's not exactly what the article is saying. Rather, the editorial is making a point that many profs, deans, and other higher-ups at UWM have been making for years: Because UW Madison is the state's flagship research university, it is able to attract top notch researchers, lots of big grants,lots of state funding, etc. in a way that UWM or Marquette is not. As a result, more tech and other businesses come to Madison because the research infrastructre there (as a result of UW Madison) is the best in the state. And the more Madison grows as a center of private and university research, the more grants it will attract, the more funding it will receive, and the more businesses will want to move there.

But it is necessary to point out, UW-Madison is smarter that Milwaukee in one sense-They didn't hire McBride.

Tuesday, October 2, 2007

At Least She Recycles

McBride may not be very good at what she does (whatever that really is), but she makes up for her lack of talent with a lack of originality.

After defending fellow conservative loudmouth Bill O'Really, she rises to the defense of another squawkbox, Rush Limpballs. She uses the same argument as she did for O'Really, with only dropping the word race out of her argument.

Apparently, just as she thought blatant racism would offend few people, she feels that disparaging America's fighting men and women would also offend few people.

The question has to be asked: Ms. McBride, why do you hate America?

Bullock's Monster

As previously noted, McBride got all snarky about Jay Bullock becoming one of the latest community bloggers at JSOnline. She took on the assumption that Jay was sought out.

In the comments, Jay corrected her thinking by pointing out that he simply filled out the application. McBride responded with this:

I don't agree with you much, but I think you're good at what you do and the manner in which you do it.

I didn't realize that you signed up, as opposed to them recruiting you. I wonder if they allow anyone to do that or if they narrow down the applicants. Interesting.....

This does make it seem that McBride is now considering using this information as either a way back into the limelight with the Journal Sentinel, or as a way to set herself up as the martyr of MSJ's supposed liberal bias. Either way, Whallah will be diligent in its continuing mission of monitoring her nefarious schemes.

Monday, October 1, 2007

This Is Progress?

In McBride's world, Bush can do no wrong. That is why, in this post, she considers two American Soldiers and 33 Iraqi civilians being killed, every day, as progress.

If you, like the majority of Americans, don't see this as progress, but as an ongoing atrocity, please click on the "Do Something" link for the Iraq Moratorium, to see how you can help.

Right On The Money

Just this morning, Whallah predicted that McBride would have issues with Jay Bullock becoming a recent addition to the JSOnline Blogworld.

This evening, McBride proves us right. And not only does she give a back-handed compliment to Jay, she also slams the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

She also goes on to ask if MSJ would be adding a conservative blogger. She must have forgotten about this guy. Or is it jealousy?

Sister Christian

Anyone who has followed McBride's postings, are more importantly, Whallah's, has noticed that McBride, besides being a poor writer, a poor journalist, a poor logician, and very poor at French, also has a hard time letting go of things and of going over the line.

Her latest obsession regarding the Folsom Street Festival, has hit that point. Her article in the Waukesha Freeman chastises Miller Brewing Company to repent their sins and to apologize to Christians.

Before McBride gets on her soapbox, perhaps she should review a few Bible passages herself, like Exodus 20:1-17 (the ten commandments), Leviticus 19:33-34(for illegal aliens) and most of all Matthew 7:1-"Judge not, that ye be not judged".

It Was Bound To Happen

Just yesterday, it was observed that McBride was seeking out validation by linking to Michelle Malkin linking to her.

Today, we have McBride linking to Malkin linking to McBride linking to Malkin linking to McBride. These two women really need to expand their horizons.

Poetic Justice

Jay Bolluck, host of the site folkbum's rambles and rants, and frequent critic of McBride, is now a member of the JSOnline blogging team. For the two or three people who didn't know, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel also owns WTMJ-AM, McBride's former employer, and terminated her earlier this year.

This will probably make her spitting mad. Whallah is looking forward to the show.

And congratulations to Jay...we think.