Blue Virginia rips off Bearing Drift
By Alan Moore | Thursday, June 10th, 2010 | Catch-AllWe all know liberals are unimaginative and often hypocritical (i.e. criticizing the tea party movement at every turn even after their failed and utterly unoriginal “coffee parties”) but there for the most part there has been professional courtesy in the Virginia political blogosphere. That is why it is pretty sad that Lowell Feld over at Blue Virginia would steal a picture from the hard working patriots here at Bearing Drift. Notice the picture of Pat Herrity, Keith Fimian, and a lightning bolt in his latest drivel:
I noticed it right away because I was the one who created it, using pictures of candidates that each campaign had given us permission to use. It was featured in this story on June 3rd.:
(Picture is a bit cut off, but you can see it. Full photo is here)
It’s pretty funny that Lowell’s self-proclaimed awesomeness and his constant attempts to diminish Bearing Drift don’t stop him from stealing our work.
Maybe it’s a minor matter or perhaps it’s something more. Maybe it’s indicative of the whole liberal movement, if “movement” is an accurate word for something that really only amounts to annoying chatter on extremist websites like Blue Virginia, Daily Kos, and the Huffington Post.
Liberals, by nature, do not have original ideas. They use the same tired ideology that failed with FDR and the New Deal and is failing President Obama as he drives our country towards bankruptcy. That unoriginality takes form on every level: from major public policy decisions to the simplest of blog posts.
The irony in this that the post in question ridicules the tea party movement for attempting to drive out liberals in the Republican Party while ignoring that their own blind allegiance to the Democratic Party is exactly why the American people are fleeing to the right.
Obamabots like Lowell will follow their leadership off a cliff before stopping to ask, “maybe this isn’t what I want from my party?”
Or perhaps I’m just overreacting and stealing a picture is nothing more than a low class move by someone who lacks an ounce of professionalism.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Alan Moore is a conservative activist and public relations expert in NoVA. Follow Alan on Twitter: @SecPress
Comments
30 Responses to "Blue Virginia rips off Bearing Drift"
Burn!
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Bearing Drift, Timothy Watson. Timothy Watson said: Everyone already knows that @lowkell is a hack, but sheesh. RT @bearingdrift: Web: Blue Virginia rips off Bearing Drift http://bit.ly/ddUOkb [...]
I have had several blue blogs (including Lowell) rip off photos I took and use them on their blog. Eric Cantor seems to be a favorite to steal. One photo in particular (with Dr. O’Bannon) made the rounds on several. I suppose one ripped it off from me, and the rest ripped it off from each other.
When it is just a photo, that is irritating enough. But when I use photoshop to create a special effect or graphic, it takes a lot of time.
It just shows the general lack of respect on the left wingers part. Perhaps a huge lawsuit would send a message.
In the meantime, a small text or graphic logo on the picture might put a stop to it.
The thing of it is, I would probably say yes if they asked.
There is a Copyright at the bottom of this blog, and my blog as well.
Wow, I agreed with you at the start, but then you started to be a dick. Way to squander an opportunity.
Yeah… point valid.
Much like Obama is ripping off Bush’s Katrina policy with his handling of the Gulf oil spill.
BS. Point not valid. It was still a ripped off image, Waldo, with no citation to the original source. The only thing “dick” about this is not asking for permission to use the image or citing the source.
I think he meant the piling on liberals, Obamabots, etc etc etc
If that’s what he meant, I kind of agree with him
We definitely should have been cited for the image and Alan’s work in making it
Totally agree, D.J. Not the first time it’s happened with either a blogger or a MSM outlet, either.
It always sucks when someone uses work that’s been put out there by someone else without attribution. Unfortunately, under the fair use doctrine, there’s not much you can do about it. Chances are a lawsuit would waste your money, even if you win.
It’s still a pathetic move. At the very least a note about using the picture would have been good. The Virginia blogosphere is pretty small and we all read everyone else’s sites. He should have known it would be seen and recognized.
But we all know Lowell’s more interested in making money off his site and blogging in general than worrying about niceties.
First we find out he’s a racist and now this. Crazyness.
What is a worse crime? A conservatives opinion on the failures of liberalism or the theft of intellectual property?
DJ – Sorry I hurt your feelings but come on man, toughen up!
Waldo – Pretty typical: When libs like you don’t have substantive counterpoints they resort to personal attacks. I suppose I hit a little too close to the truth?
One last point: Nothing that I said was as lowbrow as some of the horrendous things coming from the left.
For example, Accusing Sarah Palin of getting implants, referring to the tea party as “teabaggers,” ridiculing Laura Bush for a death in an auto crash, calling anyone who opposes Obama a racist, picketing a Bank of America employee’s house with his kid in there alone, calling climate change skeptics “stupid” and “flat-earthers”, intimidating workers to join unions, accusing pro-lifers of being “radicals,” publishing a “conservative women I’d like to hate-F*** list,” calling proponents of traditional marriage “hate-mongers” and “bigots,” and attacking tea party protestors.
If what I wrote was “piling on” then give me a break and reevaluate which side you’re on.
Alan, I think what Waldo meant, and I agree with him, is that you’d made a prefectly valid and telling point about Lowell ripping off the artwork without credit. You diverged into a screed that didn’t have anything to do with your original point.
It’s called message discipline. Learn it. Use it. Your causes will benefit greatly from it.
That’s not criticizing your for attributing Lowell’s failing to all liberals. That’s a dishonest way to argue, but it’s commonly accepted on both sides in politics so there’s no point calling anybody on that.
Well I certainly appreciate all the free advice on persuasive writing, but seriously, it’s a blog post, not an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal.
I have to stick with Alan on this one. First, he was right to call BV on using the picture with no credit. That’s just courtesy.
Second, it’s always appropriate to heave some snarks at the left. But even if you disagree, that does not invalidate the first point.
Still, I’m baffled that in all this conversation no one has pointed out the distinct similarities between Waldo’s profile pic and Jack from “The Nightmare Before Christmas.”
I’m just sayin’…
“The irony in this that the post in question ridicules the tea party movement for attempting to drive out liberals in the Republican Party while ignoring that their own blind allegiance to the Democratic Party is exactly why the American people are fleeing to the right.” -taken from this article
I think the Tea Party should stop going after Liberals in the Republican party. Neither the Republicans nor Democrats appreciate it. No need to butt into such bi-partisanship.
All officials in our state and federal governments are sworn to faithfully uphold our Constitution. If we cannot trust them to do that then they are either incompetent, reprobate or both. Recall by indictment is obligated by statute – those opposing indictment becoming complicit in felony.
Going after those official who trespass against our Constitutions and its duly authorized law is not *butting into bi-partisanship* it is a by-statute-required-duty of all law abiding citizens.
“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” – Barry Goldwater’s 1964 speech
His speech is so filled will profound, well-balanced truth that I had to look at the bottom of my feet to see if they had goose bumps also.
You may read Goldwater’s speech at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwaterspeech.htm
Russell, I hear a lot of the Tea Party folks saying similar things. While I agree that we should elect people who will faithfully uphold the Constitution, the question that never seems to get answered is how they do that. The Constitution is open to interpretation – it’s been interpreted by presidents, by Congresses, and by the Supreme Court. It’s been interpreted by state courts. It’s been interpreted by lawyers, by Democrats, by Republicans, by independents. Which interpretation should be considered the definitive one?
At some point, those of us on the center-right need to get together and decide on which interpretation we are going to accept. I have yet to see that argument be made.
All of those interpretations have their good points and they all have their bad points. In a document that was written ambiguously on purpose, there’s always going to have to be a way to clarify what the founders meant.
It’s easy to just say anything you don’t like is unconstitutional. But that doesn’t make it so.
Brian, in most cases it’s easy.
No state would’ve ratified a Constitution that was ambiguous in practice, with its meaning to shift with the wind on the say so of at least 5 appointed judges.
At the time of ratification, and for decades and decades after, the meaning of the words were quite clear.
No one thought that the Constitution barred states from making abortion illegal. No one thought that the Constitution banned capital punishment.
It’s simple, especially on the most controversial issues, to discern what the Constitution meant on those issues by simply looking at the laws in practice at the time, and for years afterward.
Our process allows for elected legislators to pass laws, and if the Constitution prevents enactment, there is a process to amend the Constitution if so desired.
Our recent history of deciding the Constitution means something new today than it did yesterday has turned our republic on its head.
Brian, I’m a textualist too, so I think we see eye to eye there. However, I don’t think everyone on our side of the aisle is, especially not those who think we should be indicting members of Congress who don’t agree with their interpretation.
I guess I’ll throw something into the mix here, as it bears directly on being a strict constructionist of the Constitution disdussion.
I am a volunteer at the Northern Neck of Virginia Historical Society in Montross. A recent patron dropped in the other day. He was retired Army platoon later. For reasons I don’t remember, the subject of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” came up. He was adamantly in favor of keeping the policy. His reason? Not what you might expect. His reason was simple: to help maintain discipline in the ranks. I guess the best civilian analogy is to keep your personal life out of the office. He went on to recount umpteen episodes of personell problems he had to deal with and summed it all up with “I had more than enough drama with the heteros, and I sure don’t need any more of it.”
Now, with that as background, let’s get to the subject of the constitution and gay marriage. I don’t read anywhere in the constitution about same-sex marriage. In fact, the word marriage is not even in the constituion. By default, this issue is reserved to the states. (This OUGHT to apply to abortion as well). So why all the uproar at the national level about it? The “Defense of Marriage Act” was most mistitled. It should have been called the “Attack on States Rights Act”. Even my most conservative friends at Judicial Watch clearly recognized this as completely unconstitutional, and the worst sort of pandering and demogogory.
Craig: You know there’s an amendment that comes before the 10th. And it says that the rights enumerated in the previous 8 amendments are not to be read as an exclusive list. We have other rights than those explciityly listed in the Bill of Rights. Among those, of course, is the right to privacy, which is the entire point of the first six amendments, that government will leave us alone unless it has a good reason not to. So when you say the issue is reserved for the states, not necessarilly. It could also be reserved for the individual. That, it seems to me, is the more CONSERVATIVE position. State governments, after all, are still governments. Why would conservatives want to empower government at the expense of the rights of the individual?
Kirwin – you are wrong. See Marbury v. Madison from 1803. No one knew the bounds of the Constitution, in fact they weren’t even sure that the Consitution gave the SC the authority to decide what was and was not Constitutional. Unfortunately for you tea bagger types history and its interpreation is not as simple or black and white as you would like it to be.
Consitutional interpretation is hard – and anyone who thinks it ever was doesn’t have a grasp on reality or history. If you want a good lesson – though I doubt you’ll read anything you disagree with – read Justice Souter’s recent commencement address at Harvard.
Russell, you sound like my kinda guy. Quoting Barry Goldwater and everything. Being “extreme” can be tiring and frustrating.
I can get over my preference for the 2nd not being chosen. It happens. I’m just frustrated because many Republicans seemed to be in agreement with the Tea Party and picking up on fiscal conservative issues and small government thinking. I was even considering a return to the GOP, because of it. I even told a few people that.
It has become clear however, that the RPV is not interested in having Tea Partiers join ranks or in having Libertarians return to the fold. We would only end up voting against establishment preference and nobody seems to like that we tend to target “liberal” Republicans. The fact that Republicans and Democrats agree on that in such a bi-partisan fashion indicates that we need to fight socialims/Big Government from outside the tradional structure. If the Republicans and Democrats want liberals in the Republican party, what is the point of expending effort in that arena? Let them have their liberals.
If it was “well, our guy won, let’s get to work”, it would be one thing. Then you join ranks and hope to make a bigger impact later. Instead, after being told to “work from within”, the loser is kicked and mutilated while they’re down. They face an ally against Obama’s agenda (Hurd and the Tea Party) not with welcome, but utter disdain and contempt for daring to “work from within”.
At some point Russell, you just gotta deploy your efforts elsewhere. That doesn’t mean that you stop voting and supporting good conservatives that do get nominated and/or elected. It just means you need to start building outside the traditional structure at the same time.
Steve: The 9th amendment reads “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be contrued to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
This is followed by the 10th amendment which, as you know, says “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
So, it is indeed to THE PEOPLE that anything not reserved to the United States belongs. “The People” is a bit ambiguous, but the only I know of that “the people” have the right to elect and enact their own laws–not by anarchy but through the legislative process of their own state legistlature, through their duly elected representatives.
Now, on the topic of gay marriage, where does that leave us? Which is course why we have had so many referendums on the topic, including Virginia. Never mind that some may view it as denying and disparaging the rights of others as in Article IX.
Hey, it’s a good discussion. I am not an attorney, by the way. Just a former state legislator from Missouri who is lucky now to live in a state whose motto is “Virginia is For Lovers.”
Maybe we should have a constitutional referendum defining the word “Lovers.”
See, Russell? Constitutional Interpretation is too hard for us to grasp. It is a living breathing document open to abuse, corruption, and perversion by anyone in power. Especially, since we “little people” won’t even understand that our rights are being violated.
Further, you, me, and Brian are too stupid to understand the concept of natural rights or what the roles of the three branches of government are. Forget everything you learned. Even if you did go to private school.
True enough, everything in the Constituion is not black & white. Our forefathers did as Steve Vaughn pointed out, admit that listing every right is absurd. That’s why they made the effort to mention that it wasn’t a complete list and shouldn’t be construed that way. It is why they left other powers to the states and the people. And just because states have certain powers, that doesn’t mean that it trumps individual natural rights. I know some conservatives argue otherwise, but I maintain your natural rights can not be stripped without cause(infinging on rights of others).
So, don’t bother thinking. “Big Government” is here and they are here to “help” you.
Capt. Fake name,
What’s wrong? No one thought abortion was unconstitutional until 1973. Death penalties were pretty darn common throughout our history.
Now if all these things had been unconstitutional all along, I’m sure someone would’ve noticed.
Marbury v. Madison established judicial review for constitutionality..that’s it.
My point is that things that no one thought were unconstitutional for 200 years shouldn’t suddenly become unconstitutional because someone decides it should be. For in that case, all it takes is 5 new justices to turn it all back.
Now, after making all these horrible decisions, the leftists on the Court want to lean on stare decisis to never change the things their predecessors changed. I’ll never understand why stare decisis wasn’t so important when they decided cases like Roe in the first place.
That’s the problem – one man’s reliance on stare decisis is another man’s poor excuse to uphold something clearly unconstitutional.
This is one of the reasons why I rarely talk about “activist judges.” Because the definition of “activist” always seems to depend on your political perspective. Liberals love to call Scalia activist. We conservatives love to call Stevens an activist. In the end, both of them are simply doing what they think is right – correcting precedents they disagree with and overruling cases that either have proven unworkable or were actually wrongly decided.
I agree with Craig – the federal government has taken on far too great a role in issues that the Constitution reserves to the states – gay marriage and abortion are just two of them.
I also don’t like that the executive and legislative branches have ceded to the Supreme Court the authority to determine what laws are constitutional and which ones aren’t. I miss the old days when the President would veto bills he viewed as unconstitutional.
The times – they are a changing.
Fimian is now cash even with Connolly – it is now down to the votes.
And the latest polls show Fimian ahead, but don’t let up. We haven’t crossed the finish line yet.
I have lived in the 11th District for over two decades. It is a true delight to see the ever arrogant Gerry Connolly finally on his way out.
The 11th District has, like the rest of the nation, awoken and said “what have we done” and are getting ready to undo this mistake before it gets any worse.
The choice is simple – more of the same nightmare with Gerry (and have no doubt he promises more of the same) or a re-awkening of the American dream and a new begining with Keith Fimian.
11th district it is just a nightmare. It is time to wake up – time to end it. You can do it, but only if you vote on November 2nd.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.