OK, I’m sitting in the bloggers lounge at RightOnLine in the Twin Cities. If the name tags waiting to be picked up are any indication, it is going to be very well attended. It’ll be interesting to see how different this is from CPAC.
I may attend some of the breakout sessions just to get a feel for what is being pushed by Republicans. Hopefully I’m going to hear a lot about fiscal issues, budget, debt, deficit and spending cuts.
Michele Bachman, Tim Pawlenty and Herman Cain will be speaking here. I’m going to try to live blog their speeches. I’m also trying an experiment with the iPad, using it as my primary means of blogging (a little downsizing).
So … let the games begin.
In another example of how little the NYT knows about blogging (but fervently wishes for the day they’d just go away and the Times could get back to the good old days of deciding what is news or just flat making it up), it reports today that blogs are on the “wane”. Check out this paragraph:
Like any aspiring filmmaker, Michael McDonald, a high school senior, used a blog to show off his videos. But discouraged by how few people bothered to visit, he instead started posting his clips on Facebook, where his friends were sure to see and comment on his editing skills.
“I don’t use my blog anymore,” said Mr. McDonald, who lives in San Francisco. “All the people I’m trying to reach are on Facebook.”
This is the lead for the story. It is clueless.
Some 17 year old who likes to make videos doesn’t use his blog to show them off anymore, but instead uses Facebook – and that sounds the death knell of blogs?
What this youngster wanted to do was show his vids off to a few (tens? hundreds?) friends at most. Facebook is a much better venue for that. In fact, it’s an even better venue than YouTube because your friends have to go to YouTube to find your vids vs. having them delivered to their Facebook page via your posting. It. Makes. Perfect. Sense.
But … it says more about the misapplication of blogging (for what the young man wanted to accomplish) than the demise of blogging.
Twitter – same thing. For some things it’s perfect. For others, a blog is perfect. Depends on what you want to do. Like say anything that takes more than 142 characters. Blogs, Twitter and Facebook are all networking tools that provide an application that helps accomplish what the user wants to accomplish.
The case the NYT is trying to make is blogs will die out as the younger demographic moves to different venues:
The Internet and American Life Project at the Pew Research Center found that from 2006 to 2009, blogging among children ages 12 to 17 fell by half; now 14 percent of children those ages who use the Internet have blogs. Among 18-to-33-year-olds, the project said in a report last year, blogging dropped two percentage points in 2010 from two years earlier.
Well here’s a news flash – I don’t read “children” or their blogs and they most likely don’t read mine. But note the next demo – 18-to-33 year olds – suffered a whole 2% decline from two years earlier.
As of Feb. 16th, 2011, according to Wikipedia, there were 156 million blogs in existence. A two percent drop in two years is simply statistically insignificant. And, blogs aren’t just for “social networking” as the Times would like you to believe. Nor do they require writing “lengthy posts” unless you want too.
Blogs went largely unchallenged until Facebook reshaped consumer behavior with its all-purpose hub for posting everything social. Twitter, which allows messages of no longer than 140 characters, also contributed to the upheaval.
No longer did Internet users need a blog to connect with the world. They could instead post quick updates to complain about the weather, link to articles that infuriated them, comment on news events, share photos or promote some cause — all the things a blog was intended to do.
Phenomenal – I never had to blog to “connect with the world”. Nor was any blog I was a part of “intended” for comments on the weather or to just share photos.
I hadn’t waited on blogs to “connect with the world” – that had been available for years via email, first through bulletin board systems, then through Usenet and Google Groups. Blogs are just another method of doing so and may someday be supplanted by something else. But on the wane because of Facebook and Twitter?
All I can say is if Twitter is now the first choice of someone who was once blogging, they were never a serious blogger to begin with. And, if Facebook is now the choice of a blogger, they’ve greatly narrowed their outreach to only those who subscribe to them. The fact that they’re on Facebook, even with an open page, doesn’t mean anyone is going to read them any more than when they had a blog.
Obviously things are going to change and evolve in the online media and social networking world, but as much as the NYT would love to declare the blog dead and gone, it’s not even close.
And a little note for the editors and publishers of the Times – when blogs have finally gone the way of the dodo bird, the NYT will most likely have predeceased them by a substantial amount of time. My guess is Hot Air has as many or more readers than the Times does. HuffPo just went for 300 plus million to AOL. Point me toward the last major newspaper that sold for that much.
Huffington Post was just sold to AOL for $315 million. Good stuff. An online media effort makes big bucks.
But David Carr throws out some interesting commentary about that and the online culture that does cause me to pause and think about it. The paragraphs that grabbed my attention were:
It will be interesting to see how the legions of unpaid bloggers at The Huffington Post react to the merger with AOL. Typing away for an upstart blog — founded by the lefty pundit Arianna Huffington and the technology executive Kenneth Lerer — would seem to be a little different from cranking copy for AOL, a large American media company with a market capitalization of $2.2 billion.
Perhaps content will remain bifurcated into professional and amateur streams, but as social networks eat away at media mindshare and the advertising base, I’m not so sure. If it happens, I’ll have no one but myself to blame. Last time I checked, I had written or shared over 11,000 items on Twitter. It’s a nice collection of short-form work, and I’ve been rewarded with lot of followers … and exactly no money. If and when the folks at Twitter cash out, some tiny fraction of that value will have been created by me.
He has a point. Maybe not the one he thinks he has, but there is a point to be made here. It’s one thing to labor away at a blog like QandO which is a personal decision and a labor of love. I don’t do it for money nor do I expect to earn a living doing it here. If someone were to come along and offer a pile of money for the place, I’d take it, but it would be money I and the other bloggers earned by developing the place and writing here.
But what about those sites which encourage community, give bloggers access and then use the demographics (which bloggers helped create) to actively sell advertising and raise revenue? And, like HuffPo, what if they sell?
Well, without out legal agreement that your participation is worth x amount in either area (advertising or a sale) you haven’t a leg to stand on. You agreed to whatever stipulations they had in place when you entered your first post, if there even were any.
So what happens now with HuffPo? The paid bloggers/journalists will most likely continue to be paid. But what about the bulk of bloggers/diarists/citizen journalists there? Will they continue to write?
I mean that’s a big change. Those that have helped build that sites reputation now know what their work built.
So will they be willing to continue on adding to its value without compensation? Or will they demand a piece of the pie or withhold their content?
And if they do withhold their content, will others be willing to step forward and take their place.
HuffPo also has the argument that all of the value isn’t to be found in the contributions of the bloggers/diarists/citizen journalists there. And that’s probably true – but HuffPo (and now AOL) can’t deny part of the value must be contributed to them.
The point of all of this is it changes, fairly dramatically, the thinking of many who participate online in a “free” capacity helping build a brand. HuffPo definitely has a brand.
You have to ask then, what are AOL’s expectations for non-paid bloggers? And, on the other side, are non-paid bloggers willing to continue working for nothing but adding value to AOL’s brand?
Interesting questions, interesting times. For whatever reason I keep hearing the “echo” of “union” floating around. Hopefully bloggers will avoid anything like that – a loose federation or association would serve as well, but I have to say, if bloggers are adding value to a site such that a 2 million dollar investment can grow to 315 million, they ought to have an understanding going in that they get a share in compensation for their contribution – or not. Their choice. But there should be a choice. And a smart entrepreneur is going to attract the brightest and best by providing one. And such a site or sites would keep the “feudal” sites from becoming more prevalent than they are today.
Well, thanks to a veterinary issue, the SOTU Liveblog, for the first time in years, is canceled for tonight.
As I observe the "civil discourse" debate, I’ve pointed out the left seems peerless in their ability to be uncivil. And opinions like mine have sent the left scurrying to find some example that would rebut that conclusion – something so outrageous that it would force those on the right, like me, to abandon the premise and admit the right is just as bad.
And yesterday I thought they may have found it. Today, not so much. The subject is a segment by Glenn Beck. Full disclosure – I don’t watch Glenn Beck. I don’t listen to Glenn Beck. So I was open to the argument that he might have said something that would indeed provide an example of the rhetoric some folks on the left were attributing to him.
Here’s the snippet of a Beck segment that some lefty sites have been using to make their claim:
"Tea parties believe in small government. We believe in returning to the principles of our Founding Fathers. We respect them. We revere them. Shoot me in the head before I stop talking about the Founders. Shoot me in the head if you try to change our government.
"I will stand against you and so will millions of others. We believe in something. You in the media and most in Washington don’t. The radicals that you and Washington have co-opted and brought in wearing sheep’s clothing — change the pose. You will get the ends.
"You’ve been using them? They believe in communism. They believe and have called for a revolution. You’re going to have to shoot them in the head. But warning, they may shoot you.
"They are dangerous because they believe. Karl Marx is their George Washington. You will never change their mind. And if they feel you have lied to them — they’re revolutionaries. Nancy Pelosi, those are the people you should be worried about.
"Here is my advice when you’re dealing with people who believe in something that strongly — you take them seriously. You listen to their words and you believe that they will follow up with what they say."
Oh my, Beck is saying "shoot them in the head" (assuming the “them” is the left and he’s instructing his viewers to do so). Well at least on the first quick pass. But then, when you read it for meaning, it just doesn’t quite add up. It is the way it is worded. It seems to be saying what the left claims it says, but not really. You’re left not quite believing it.
Enter Patterico who does what apparently the left wasn’t able to do – or found inconvenient to do: obtain the entire segment’s transcript. Make sure you read it all.
In a word, it provides context. I know, what a concept, eh? And it completely demolishes the contention claimed by the left. They really didn’t want to look beyond the snippet of words they had. Context was inconvenient to their disingenuous claim. In fact, it flips it on its head.
When you read the entire segment, you suddenly realize who Beck is talking about – and it isn’t an incitement to the right to go shoot anyone in the head as the lefty sites insist.
As Dan McLaughlin notes the "you" Beck talks about is the Democratic leadership in Congress. And McLaughlin says:
I’m almost embarrassed for anybody gullible enough that they fell for this one.
Yup. I’m not surprised, naturally. But I’d be embarrassed. And that doesn’t even begin to address those who used this to try to spin it into something it isn’t. In their case it isn’t about “embarrassment” but about their credibility.
Of course I’d be interested to hear the opinion of those who eschewed context in this case to comment on something Paul Kanjorski said. You know Kanjorski – the former Democratic Congressman who had to temerity to publish a piece in the NY Times lecturing the rest of us on "civil discourse" in the wake of the Giffords’ shooting? A few months back, speaking of then FL candidate for governor Rick Scott, he said:
"Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. He stole billions of dollars from the United States government and he’s running for governor of Florida.
The context of the quote is he was upset that a guy who was involved with a company that was involved with one of the largest Medicare and Medicaid fraud scandals in history wasn’t in jail. Legit bitch, but even in that context, does it excuse the language? I mean if you want to be internally consistent and all.
The left? Crickets.
And in the realm of inciteful and violent rhetoric, it kinda makes the Palin cross-hairs map seem, oh, I don’t know, silly in comparison, doesn’t it?
So? So the left remains peerless in the rhetoric realm and are also adding to their lead in the “deceitful claims” department as well.
Bains, a long time commenter here at QandO, and someone who I enjoy reading, put out a rather lengthy comment on the post about the CBS News poll that showed the majority rejected the narrative that heated political rhetoric caused the Tucson shooting. I thought I’d give the bains comment some further visibility because it has some tasty parts that I think deserve discussion. Here’s the comment in its entirety:
I’m noticing something else at play here. A theory of mine that recent events support, perhaps even validate. This will be long so please bear with me.
In 2008 I was in an argument with my father. I was lamenting that if only the media did its job, the nation might have a better idea of just who Barack Obama was, and where he wanted to take this nation. As with many of my friends, and evidently a good number of voters, he would have none of my criticism. Pop was, and still is, mired in a hatred of George W Bush. As such, he entirely missed the point I was trying to make. When news media becomes an advocate for a person, or a position, or a policy, we can not trust that media. It is not just that they are no longer ‘objective’; no, they have become willing disseminators of propaganda. Most here know this.
In a fit, I said that his reliance upon the MSM would come back to bite. All the blowback to the partisan blame-naming that we have seen over the past several days is a good indication of that “bite”.
No, it is not that the MSM is heavily biased leftward (they are). Rather, that those who have studiously ignored, and many have denied, this bent have seriously damaged their own cause. When one agrees with an author, or commenter, or pundit’s point of view, it is quite easy not to call them out on the inaccuracies they use in promoting their cause. And for forty years, the major media outlets have rarely been taken to task for their inaccuracies. That the narrative was acceptable was/is all that is important – facts be damned. And for a long time, this worked: Bork was Borked, Gingrich shut down the government, Limbaugh was responsible for the OKCity bombing, Reagan and Bush’s support of Israel caused 9-11, Humans cause global warming, and evil corporations (supported entirely and only by the right) caused all of our economic woes.
Instead of saying “wait a minute MSM, what proof do you have to make that statement” far too many folks nodded in agreement. Not because of a compelling argument, but because of an overwhelming agreement with how the conclusion could change the course of politics. Bork et al were/are bad solely because their views were/are in opposition to the enlightened, and therefore, brilliant judgments of the political “vanguard” – the Left.
Now what this has led to is a media, and the political left ill-suited to make compelling arguments. All this time, they have been living in an intellectually cloistered tabernacle, only hearing praise for all their illogical and un-provable prognostications. All their “brilliant” arguments are merely juvenile and facile, applauded only because they “proved” the proper position (approved by the ‘right’ cocktail circuits in the ‘right’ locations with the ‘right’ dignitaries approving).
Pundits of this ilk, say Paul Krugman and many others, have been living in a world of masturbatory bliss. Egos massaged, they willingly shelve any intellectual acumen for further gratification. They proudly spout the approved line, support the approved policy, advocate the approved politician, fighting evil in the name of (party approved) decency and Nobility. Hell, a Nobel Prize proves they must be brilliant (and Noble)! But therein lies the (nasty sandpaper) rub. There will come a time when they will not be able to hide their intellectual inadequacies behind a screaming choir.
This is why we see, I surmise, Krugman, his hosting broadsheet, and so many others, going off the deep end regarding the shooting in Tucson. They are loosing their grip on the narrative, and are petulantly lashing out at those who are more and more willing to reject not just the politically motivated narrative, but also those who mindlessly foist that narrative.
Bains’ theory is similar to the thoughts I’ve had (although I’d hesitate to call mine a theory, so ill formed are those thoughts at this moment) about the state of the media. I think bains raises some interesting points. As my brother has said to me, the internet’s democratization of publishing and commentary is as “important as Gutenberg’s invention of moveable type”. The more I observe what is happening, the more I agree. Bains takes that a step further to point out the impact and implications that “invention” is having.
Gutenberg took the Bible away from those who controlled it’s narrative at the time – the Church. It was the beginning of the end of the Church’s power. No longer were they the sole possessors of the written word or the narrative. Now many, many more could directly possess what only the wealthy church could previously possess (since Bibles at the time were all hand made and hideously expensive) and they were also able to offer their own (and competing) interpretations as well.
For a few centuries, the “media” has been – in some form or another – pretty much the sole provider of “news”. It chose the topics, it chose how they were treated and it chose how they were presented, followed up and talked about. Or, as bains points out, they controlled the narrative.
That’s big power. And for the most part, they had no competition except within their own industry. So people like Krugman, et al, became used to having their opinion accepted as “the” opinion and were able to push whatever narrative their ideology demanded as the “common wisdom”.
But there was a true revolution brewing that they missed completely. As Al Gore’s internet stood up in the mid to late ‘90s a challenge developed to the “official narratives” that were then considered conventional wisdom. No longer were the keepers of the narrative unchallenged. The first thing I remember – and this was before blogs or just as blogs were beginning to develop – was the “Tailwind” scandal where CNN’s Peter Arness was brought down over a lie that US troops used poison gas in Cambodia (I believe – this is from memory).
Then came Rathergate, when blogs came into their own and destroyed the story a major news organization was pushing as true and accurate. It wasn’t.
Since then and with the rise of the democratized press, bains theory seems to describe well what has and is happening. Krugman seems to me to be the perfect example of the establishment media’s reaction to the situation.
Certainly there have been vast changes in the media itself. The rise of radio then television. The death of “appointment TV” with the rise of cable news. Etc. But all of those still had an insular media in charge of the narrative and able, for the most part, to do what bains describes.
Not anymore – with the bar to entry lowered so that anyone with an internet account can challenge the big boys and their narrative the monopoly on information deemed “news” is over. The decision as to what is or isn’t “news” is not something the traditional media can dictate anymore. Proof of that are the many stories essentially ignored by the traditional media, kept alive in the blogosphere and finally and reluctantly covered by the MSM.
Anyway, seemed a great topic for discussion – go for it.
Even before the blood had dried in the Safeway parking lot in Tucson, both sides and the media were attempting to paint the tragedy of the shooting of Rep. Giffords and other innocent bystanders in a way that boosted (or defended) whatever agenda talking point they wished to advance.
Politicization of an event – any event – that political advocates, activists or politicians see as useful is almost instant anymore. And make no mistake about it – what has been done from the beginning is to politicize this shooting (and that includes the Sheriff of Pima County AZ). Doing so has almost become standard operating procedure. Well that and demanding the event not be politicized. And then, in the post mortem, arguing about which side politicized it first.
Any long time observer of politics, especially in this day of mass communication, knows the speed by which information and opinion move. They also know that those who try to shape opinion have learned they must move quickly in order to see information shaped as they’d prefer to see it.
Of course, in the case of Rep. Giffords, one meme immediately surfaced – "vitriol" as a generic reason was cited as the cause – as in "political vitriol". The unstated (for the most part, at least immediately) source of that vitriol was supposed to be understood by knowing the political party of the victim. Reports were sure to stress "Democratic" Representative Giffords as the one shot.
This before the shooter had even been identified. And I can promise you, cold-blooded political strategists were sizing up the "opportunity" to see how much political throw-weight it had for their issue, agenda or politician.
One veteran Democratic operative, who blames overheated rhetoric for the shooting, said President Barack Obama should carefully but forcefully do what his predecessor did.
“They need to deftly pin this on the tea partiers,” said the Democrat. “Just like the Clinton White House deftly pinned the Oklahoma City bombing on the militia and anti-government people.”
Note that this operative couldn’t care less if it really was "overheated rhetoric" or the fault of the Tea Party. That’s the farthest thing from his mind. It is a political opportunity to take advantage of a tragedy to "deftly pin" something outrageous on a political enemy. He, or she, obviously counsels taking advantage of the opportunity.
Another Democratic strategist said the similarity is that Tucson and Oklahoma City both “take place in a climate of bitter and virulent rhetoric against the government and Democrats.”
This Democrat said that the time had come to insist that Republicans stand up when, for example, a figure such as Fox News commentator Glenn Beck says something incendiary.
So very quickly, without any proof, this became the equivalent of the Oklahoma City tragedy (something which has yet to be proven to have anything to do with virulent rhetoric – McVeigh said it was because of Waco) and it is the job of Republicans to stop it. Just as Rush Limbaugh was named as a cause of Oklahoma City, the new bête noir of the left, Glenn Beck, is automatically fingered as the reason for this tragedy. Right out of the playbook.
“Today we have seen the results” of “irresponsible and dangerous rhetoric,” former Democratic senator and presidential candidate Gary Hart wrote on Huffington Post. “Those with a megaphone, whether provided by public office or a media outlet, have responsibilities. They cannot avoid the consequences of their blatant efforts to inflame, anger, and outrage.”
Nonsense. There was absolutely no proof at the time Hart wrote his piece that the shooter was motivated by “irresponsible and dangerous rhetoric”. In fact, I’d suggest the most irresponsible rhetoric I saw was from those such as Gary Hart who immediately jumped to that conclusion without knowing much at all about the shooter. Obviously there are responsibilities for those “with a megaphone.” Ironically Hart most expertly demonstrates how not to fulfill those responsibilities and be exactly what he denounced – irresponsible.
Everyone needs to calm down and quit trying to pin the blame on the other side and take the time to find out the real motivation of the shooter before going off half cocked. To paraphrase a famous quote about cigars, sometimes a nut is just a nut. In the future I’d like to see us take a moment, let the information develop and then make conclusions based in fact vs. this new and continuing tendency to jump into something driven by ideology and immediately try to shape the argument to fit the agenda.
It makes those who do that look like the fools they are.
Welcome to 2011.
For those of you who never thought you’d make it this far, I know the feeling – but here we are.
A quick note of thanks to the loyal QandO readers. We rolled past 7,000,000 visitors this last year (that’s a little over a million for each year we’ve been online) and we’re about roll past 11,000,000 page views according to Sitemeter. Our server stats give us much higher numbers, but since Sitemeter is a common to many sites we’ll just mention the numbers it gives.
Although writing for QandO is a lot of fun, I really enjoy the comments and I especially enjoy our loyal band of commenters. It is an excellent community and part of what makes the blog popular. You make my day many times and I appreciate both the fact that you comment frequently and, for the most part, leave well reasoned and many times humorous takes on the posts/topics of the day.
2011 promises to be an interesting year both politically and personally. New opportunities on both horizons make the year promising, at least on the first day. We’ll see how it pans out.
So, here’s hoping you, your family and other loved ones have a great and prosperous New Year in 2011. And again, thanks for reading QandO.
Must be a slow day at TPM. They’ve decided the “latest right-wing freakout” has to do with Obama’s plan to give Manhattan back to the indians.
Apparently this was all spawned by a World Net Daily article which one has to assume TPM feels represents all of the right-wing. Yes, according to TPM:
The outrage began after the President announced on December 16 that the U.S. would reverse course and support the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. The Declaration was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in 2007, but the U.S., under President Bush, opposed it.
Really? Outrage? Hell, I never even heard of it until TPM brought it up. And WND is not exactly a site I read or feel represents the views of most that consider themselves to “right-wingers”. It is sort of the National Enquirer of the right side of the political spectrum.
But hey, what’s a 1,000 words or so in an effort to falsely paint the right as “freaking out” over something that most thinking people know is never going to happen. Give always? Sure – government, especially under a liberal like Obama, is going to try to take from one side (the successful side) and “spread it around”. But come on – give Manhattan back to the indians. Only a liberal would consider that even remotely possible.
And, of course, it is the liberal side of the blogosphere that are commenting on (and running with) the story: Alan Colmes (Liberaland), Dennis G. (Balloon Juice), Ron Chusid (Liberal Values), Alex Parnee (Salon), Zandar (No More Mister Nice Blog) and Joan McCarter (Daily Kos).
Oh, wait, there was one more person, supposedly on the right, who commented. Bryan Fischer. Yeah, you remember him – the fellow who said the Medal of Honor was being “feminized”. Right – he belongs in the same place as WND.
Two mentions by a marginal right publication and personality and somehow the left weaves it into a right-wing freakout and conspiracy theory.
Except it is 7 liberal blogs pushing the nonsense.
Who exactly is “freaking out” here?
No, this isn’t a story about the “War on Christmas”, it’s a story that uses Christmas and its symbols as an example of government overreach.
A bank in Oklahoma was forced by federal bank regulators to remove Christian verses and symbols because the Federal bank examiners thought they were “inappropriate”.
This is the “separation of the church and state” and “non-discrimination” gone wild. Last time I checked, most banks were private enterprises which were regulated by the federal government. Furthermore the supposed doctrine of “separation of church and state” doesn’t apply to private enterprises. It is a prohibition aimed at the federal government. And yes, I know it’s not found in the Constitution per se, but the phrase “freedom of religion” is enough for me to agree that the state should not be promoting a single religion.
That said, it has absolutely no say over what a private enterprise might promote or favor.
Which brings us to “non-discrimination”, which one assumes is the real basis for the ruling by the feds here. The reason for the federal bank examiners decision is a regulation penned by bureaucrats with apparently no understanding of private markets and no concern whatsoever about the impact of their regulation on the real world. And they essentially decided to interpret those regulations any darn way they feel like interpreting them:
Specifically, the feds believed, the symbols violated the discouragement clause of Regulation B of the bank regulations. According to the clause, "…the use of words, symbols, models and other forms of communication … express, imply or suggest a discriminatory preference or policy of exclusion."
The feds interpret that to mean, for example, a Jew or Muslim or atheist may be offended and believe they may be discriminated against at this bank. It is an appearance of discrimination.
BS. Here’s a dirty little secret about private enterprises such as banks – if people feel “discriminated” against, they can go elsewhere. Yup, they actually have a choice. Don’t like bible verses and Christian crosses, bank at a bank that doesn’t have them. There is no requirement for a Muslim or atheist to bank there. None. Don’t like the Perkins County Bank for that reason? Go across the street to the Stroud National Bank for heaven sake.
When did the possibility that someone might be offended become the top problem we face, such that the federal government feels the need to move preemptively to ensure that doesn’t happen.
What’s next, the removal of all pork products from grocery stores because they may offend Muslims? The removal of crosses from church steeples because atheists traveling by may take offense? This is lunacy.
But, to the point of the title – this little story was picked up and blasted around the blogosphere. Guess what?
The small-town bank in Oklahoma will be able to restore its Christian signs and symbols after all, thanks in part to public outcry against the Federal Reserve.
That’s right – the bureaucrats backed down. Why?
The story garnered national attention overnight from bloggers and Twitter users who posted links to KOCO.com’s story.
This is the power of the blogosphere – something that is a force to be reckoned with when riled up and one that people seem to take rather lightly at times. It’s also an example of why even the smallest stories of government overreach should be addressed. In fact, it puts and exclamation point on the saying “the price of freedom is eternal vigilance!”