Tag Archives: Conservative Opinion

Skeptic Conservative Podcast for this Saturday


Hey, look at that!

Half hour show for Saturday July 11th, 11:00 AM Pacific Time

So this is going to be a very tight show. Yes, it’s been forever, I know. That’s what this post is for, but before I get into that, here’s the related reading for the show, both from Ace of Spades HQ:

You’re Not Going to Believe This, But the Easy-Bake Media Is Once Again Focusing on a Trivial Issue Which Is So Easily Understood That You Need to Have Exactly Zero Outside Reading to Opinionate Passionately About It

Fed Up Conservatives Plot Measures Against Boehner

I’ll remind everybody that website is written with a great deal of fire, but on these issues I sympathize strongly with the blunt takes.

Now, as I mentioned in my last post, rebooting the show is a priority of mine. I can’t say to what extent I can guarantee content release, but I’m going to see how well I can do with Saturday morning quick-takes, the goal being to get something out there while I pursue deeper options.

My intention is to have the podcast be a more rapid-fire affair OR focused on one or two issues/angles. I need to get back into my groove, and while I am very interested in engaging with you, the audience, at this time it’s in my best interests to have those discussions take place here on the blog. Fortunately for you, this means the shows will have either no breaks or only one break in the middle!

At any given time, my priority is to focus on the audience that I have at any given moment. I know for a fact there’s a fair number of you who keep tabs on this site as well as Blog Talk Radio for any blips, and these coming shows will be focused on you.

Please comment and ask questions. I’m considering how to approach what’s been happening lately, and we have a delightful mix of long range things to discuss mixed in with the short-term. Expect to see more writing posts similar to last week’s, at the very least.

Cheers,

Doug

A Reminder to Be Skeptical


Credit goes to The Blaze for bringing this story from the New York Times to my attention.

Now, I know what long time followers will say: Doug! You’re linking the New York Times, bastion of progressive hedonism! What happened?

For once, the New York Times committed actual journalism. I won’t focus too much on the article itself, The Blaze has already done a fine job summarizing the article which is very much worth the read. In brief, an agency from Russia committed an elaborate hoax of a chemical plant explosion in a small american city. Said hoax included staged video of supposed ISIS terrorists claiming responsibility for the attack, hundreds of twitter accounts posting faked photos and video, and duplicate versions of authentic websites meant to trick the unwary.

The main reason I bring this is up is to share my experience as an old hand at consuming news, and in our era of always evolving news reporting there has been a universal constant:

First reports are always wrong.

That doesn’t mean you disregard breaking news. It means you view it with a critical eye. Always, no matter the source. Even when youtube came out, even during the aftermath of the Boston Bombing in which Twitter was the most reliable information source and absolutely creamed the mainstream media in reporting, any self respecting news analyst, amateur or otherwise, took to heart deep down that you always double check, you always triple check, and you verify your information through third parties.

And no, citing twitter and then citing a news story citing twitter doesn’t quite count, that’s ontological sourcing. What first reports are useful for are leads. The broad gist, the smoke in the room that one might chase down in order to find a possible fire. Or, in this case, a foreign country sponsoring a group of professional trolls blowing a tremendous amount of smoke.

I have always encouraged my listeners and readers to do their own homework, and, by and large, the list of websites and broadcasters I draw the majority of my information from encourage their audiences to do the same thing. In the example of the Columbia Chemical hoax, those initially caught up in the thrill of the moment would have verified the non-event by checking CNN, the local radio affiliates, drudge, ABC, state authorities.. the list goes on and on.

Yes, the problem of a legitimate website being ‘duped’ with a fake exists, and took place in that example. But for an event as serious as the one the hoax was trying to push – a major chemical plant explosion on September 11th – you treat those cases with extra scrutiny and make sure they look really good before firing the broadsides of everybody panic!

There are people out there who want to cause mischief. There are cases where they are willing to go to tremendous lengths to do so. Sometimes, those actors are countries, or sponsored by countries. Whatever major conflict happens next to humanity will almost certainly involve informational warfare, and, arguably, one could call this incident a major test-case. It’s in no way my intention to scare or fear monger or anything of the sort.

Merely, this is just a gentle reminder: When you see that sweet juicy story full of blood and guts splattering the windows, make sure the big and little dogs out in the wild actually have something in their jaws. Which you should have already known to do, anyway.

I’ve said in the past that twitter is a decent means of getting a feel for the ‘pulse’ of a current event. By and large, it still is. But now more then ever, if a current event is highly controversial while its unfolding, you’re going to want to take extra time to ensure the tweets you’re following come from verified, trustworthy people. And even then…

Cheers,

TheDougem

Minor housekeeping note:

I am currently exploring options for rebooting the podcast, favoring blogtalkradio but willing to consider other venues. While I would like to reach out to other conservative folks out there I kind of need to earn my street cred back, and what I really need to do is actually start commenting on news articles again, in addition to writing posts about them, on the sites I frequently mention here. (Like Legal Insurrection, Instapundit, and Ace of Spades). 

I’m torn between whether I want to focus on California politics, or my usual schtick of a focus on national issues with whining about California sprinkled in between. Realistically, my entry back will be the short, frantic half hour weekly shows where I don’t have to pay for a BTR subscription, but we’ll see. I am guilty of sometimes overthinking this stuff.

As always thoughts and comments are appreciated.

Skeptic Conservative for November 5th


Welcome to the show prep topic! I’ll update this later on in the day to reflect the post show Follow-up.

Listen live Today at Patriots Freedom Network 2pm to 4pm Eastern Time!

Topic for Today: Scattershot Skeptic! May not hit all points, but I have a great number lined up:

Goal for today is to make sure I do my back-up recording and to follow up with back-end production reposting of the show. Stay tuned for details regarding exactly how that will happen, I still have some technical snafus to clean up.

Questions? Comments? Topic Suggestions? Fire away!

Skeptic Conservative Show — 1/13/2012


Listen to
internet radio with TheDougem on Blog Talk Radio

That was a fun show! Far less attendence then the previous one (8 live) but I am not unhappy with this – I’m used to spikes in attendence and frankly it’s normal.

Show notes and thoughts after the jump.

Continue reading

The Occupy Movement – A Critique of the Message


Well, this has certainly been long in coming. Last friday – October 7th – I went in person to observe the Occupy San Diego protest. I haven’t been able to do any follow up since, but I’m planning to drop by Civic Center Plaza sometime this week to take note of crowd sizes, and most especially how the message has evolved since day 1.

Before I went down, I had several questions buzzing around my mind. We already had two weeks of the Occupy movement taking place, varying in attendance from city to city, but with a few common themes – the 99% argument, a general attitude of anti-corporatism, and anti capitalism that seemed to have socialist sympathies. It was being sold as a noble movement – the oppressed, the homeless, the foreclosed, the unemployed lower classes rising up against the rich to call for economic fairness. The leftist version of the tea party, if you will -a  comparison that has been made many times – usually by those commenting from the leftist sphere of opinion.

Continue reading