Rowan Scarborough has an interesting piece at Human Events about how PETA has "become a corporate animal."

Its websites are full of invitations to corporate America to form partnerships, and in the process, cut PETA in on some of the profits. How else has the Washington-based group grown to a $34 million budget and displayed help-wanted ads for more employees in the time of a deep recession?

Its websites are full of invitations to corporate America to form partnerships, and in the process, cut PETA in on some of the profits. How else has the Washington-based group grown to a $34 million budget and displayed help-wanted ads for more employees in the time of a deep recession?

The hypocrisy of the left continued...

PETA has gone after VISA's major competitor, MasterCard, on the sponsorship issue. PETA uncovered the abuse of elephants by the Ringling Brothers Circus. Using the phrase "NastyCard," it launched a national campaign in 2003 to force the company to cut ties with Ringling, which it ultimately did.

Corporate partner VISA promotes horse racing and beef, yet is immune from such PETA campaigns.

I suppose it matters what company you can scare the most. It would be nice to see a federal prosecutor invoke the RICO Act against PETA someday.

The Republican Primary for the the 16th Congressional District of Ohio took an interesting detour recently when prominent Ohio blogger Matt Naugle posted a Toledo Blade article from 2006, showing Republican Matt Miller advising liberal Democrat Ted Strickland on how to defeat Republican Ken Blackwell for governor in 2006.

Toledo Blade, March 26, 2006

A young man walked up to Ted Strickland shortly after a candidate forum this week in Canton. He identified himself as a Republican, shook Mr. Strickland’s hand, and delivered a quick but harsh message. “You’ve got to add details to your answers,” said the Republican, Matt Miller, who is an Ashland County commissioner. He added: “You could win this.” This is life for Mr. Strickland, a congressman from southern Ohio and the Democratic front-runner in the governor’s race. Democrats and Republicans alike say they want more answers from him. Many also call him the favorite in the general election.

As Naugle goes on to write,

Apparently, Miller was part of the cheering section Ted Strickland- The same Gov. Strickland who has seen unemployment double in Ohio to 11.2% and the same fiscally irresponsible governor who tries to balance budgets through questionable gimmicks like unconstitutionally taxing food, using tobacco settlement money, and shoving gambling down the throats of the same voters who have voted against gambling repeatedly. If Miller is such a conservative, then why would he actively support the opponent of the most conservative candidate to ever run for Governor?

Fortunately for conservatives, Matt Miller has a long history of losing elections.  He has previously run for Congress twice, and has never raised more than $90,000.  

CQ Politics is reporting:

The political action committee for the conservative Club for Growth on Monday endorsed two 2010 House candidates who are each competing against multiple Republicans in open seat races: state Sen. Tim Huelskamp in Kansas' 1st District; and state Rep. Tom Graves in Georgia's 9th District.

The endorsements offer each candidate a boost from the right as they battle many GOP challengers in pursuit of their party's nomination in Safe Republican seats.

"Both candidates are proven conservative leaders with strong records in support of pro-growth fiscal policies," the Club for Growth said in a statement.

In my estimation, these are both terrific candidates.  While I don't know Graves personally, conservatives in Georgia have said great things about him.  Huelskamp, of course, is a well-known and popular conservative leader in Kansas and someone my relatives in Kansas think very highly of.  

As the Club for Growth's website says,

"Tim Huelskamp stands out as a champion of limited government and economic freedom," said Club President Chris Chocola. "Unlike some of the other Republicans in this race, Tim has compiled an impressive record and demonstrated the leadership skills necessary to fight for free-market policies in Congress."

Huelskamp has previously received a ton of endorsements from individuals and groups like Kansans for Life, Concerned Women PAC, and the Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund. The Club for Growth endorsement is, without a doubt, the largest and most significant endorsement a conservative Congressional candidate can receive.  

My guess is that this Club for Growth endorsement will finally push national conservatives to fully coalesce around Huelskamp, just as Kansas conservatives already have.  You see, while Huelskamp has received overwhelming backing from a diverse collection of conservative groups, ranging from Kansans for Life and the Club for Growth, a few DC conservative 'insiders' have been working against him.  For example, Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List has recently endorsed -- and even personally donated money to -- one of Huelskamp's opponents.  Frankly, the person she is supporting does not have a prayer, but her endorsement has created confusion amongst a small number of conservatives who do not live in Kansas according to my family members.

The real danger, of course, is that if conservatives -- even DC conservatives -- do not immediately rally around TIm Huelskamp -- who, if there was ever a doubt, is now the clear conservative front runner for this seat -- liberal Jim Barnett may win.  As I have noted before, Jim Barnett is a liberal self-funder who previously ran for Kansas governor and is personally close with HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius - not resume material for conservatives by a long shot..  

Thank goodness that the Club for Growth is out there getting behind solid conservative candidates such as Huelskamp and Graves in the primaries!  If history is any indication, we can expect these two men to win.  I have a feeling 2010 is going to be a good year.

An editorial in today's Washington Times highlights David Michaels -- President Obama's nominee to head the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA).  As the Times describes Mr. Michaels, he is "a virulently anti-business
epidemiologist" who "is one the nation's foremost proponents of allowing junk science to be used in jackpot-justice lawsuits."

You might remember that a couple months ago I wrote about BPA,  an innovative chemical for plastics which radical environmentalists have unfairly targeted.

Well, it turns out David Michaels was also one of the zealots behind
the anti-BPA junk-science scare campaign which has cost Americans untold numbers of jobs -- and has lined the pockets of trial lawyers with millions of dollars from the pockets of hard-working parents who bought into his fear campaign.

The Senate must reject David Michaels' nomination to head OSHA.

I have often been disappointed in comments posted to blogs.  Those of you who are frequent readers probably have noted that I will sometimes even wade into the comments section, myself.  Unpleasant comments, of course, are not exclusive to Townhall -- most websites have problems with irascible commenters and liberal trolls.  

However, I was impressed to see that, before they degenerated into the normal shout-fest, the first several comments for my latest post about RealDVD were actually very thoughtful and helpful.

One commenter named "reset" made a very good observation when he/she wrote of Hollywood:

They want to make you pay for your products over and over again so that they can continue to cash in on movies like Harry Potter long after they are released.

Even though they are selling you a product, the studios still feel that they are legally entitled to prevent you from being able to watch their movies if they so choose.

This is not how retail works. When you purchase a product, you now own that product. George Foreman is not going to come into your kitchen and tell you that you've used up your trial version of his grill and now have to pay a $10 monthly fee, but this is the direction that the Hollywood studios want to go.

Another commenter going by the name "Jackpine Savage" noted:

When home cassette recorders hit the marketm, the music industry spent millions trying to block their sale, because they figured no one would buy records of they could tape off the radio.

When the VCR forst hit the market, the movie industry screamed that no one would ever go to the theatre if they could watch movies at home.

Now they make more money from sales of dvds than they do from the theatres.

The movie industry is basically that Parody of conservatives tat liberals believe we are.

Change scares ... them.

These comments were helpful, inasmuch as they 1). discussed the topic at hand, 2). did not degrade into name-calling or personal insults, 3). provided a thoughtful and logical critique of the situation, and 4). actually added new information and insight to the points I was trying to make.

Interestingly, my argument in favor of Hollywood embracing RealDVD (and similar technologies) is that modern consumers crave interactive entertainment -- and that you deprive them of that opportunity at your peril.  By engaging in this thoughtful discussion on this blog, Townhall commenters have essentially proven my point.

In the past, I've written about the counter-productive and heavy-handed efforts of the big Hollywood movie studios to kill an innovative technology called RealDVD, a product which would allow consumers to save a personal copy of a movie onto their computer's hard drive.  

This is no different than what happens when you copy a song from a CD you own onto your computer or iPod -- yet, instead of embracing this new technolgy as an add-on -- Hollywood studios sued them.

Unfortunately, just last week, RealDVD was dealt a major setback as a judge granted a temporary injunction against selling the product.

But my issue is not with the judge's decision, but rather with the decision of the studios to sue over this.  ... And apparently, I'm not alone in thinking they are unwise.  Over at Big Hollywood, Ken Blackwell has authored a piece saying,


But it is not just entrepreneurial conservatives who are echoing this same sentiment.  In an editorial out today titled, "Hollywood's Control Freaks," the LA Times' editors note that, 

RealNetworks' RealDVD software and Kaleidescape's home servers drew fire in part because they can make permanent copies of the rented or borrowed discs. But people who are so inclined can do that already with tools that are cheaper and less restrictive. More important to the studios, RealNetworks and Kaleidescape add value to a movie collection by making it easier to manage and watch. In so doing, they increase the incentive to own a movie rather than just rent it.

One lesson from the technology industry is that there is a trade-off between controlling products and unleashing the innovation that spurs growth. Just look at how well the iPhone has fared since Apple invited independent developers to create applications for it. Hollywood should remember the principle underlying the case against China: Centralized control stifles a market. Rather than trying to stop potentially disruptive technologies and business models, Hollywood should find a way to harness them.

It is rare to find conservatives like Ken Blackwell and me agreeing with the LA TIMES editorial page, but this is one such occasion.  Clearly the Hollywood studios are out of touch with consumers, who simply want the freedom to own the DVD's we own...

Sebelius' efforts to pass "Obamacare" have made her so unpopular that SHE has now become an issue in Congressional races in her own home state of Kansas.  In this instance, liberal Republican Jim Barnett (whom I've talked about here) is being criticized for his support of "SebeliusCare" ...

In the past, I've written about my support for Tim Huelskamp, who is running for U.S. Congress in Kansas.  I've got lots of family in the state, so I have taken a keen interest in this race.  A late entry into the race has been Senator Jim Barnett, a liberal who ran one of the worst gubernatorial campaigns in state history a few years ago.  

As recently as 2008, Barnett teamed with then-governor Kathleen Sebelius (now HHS Secretary) to push for health care proposals. Barnett is now running for Congress in The Big First district of Kansas, and his first announcement was in Wichita, KS, where he held his first campaign "announcement," which included unveiling his health care coalition (no word if Sebelius was there).

The only problem is ... Jim Barnett is running for Congress in the Big First District -- which does not include Wichita. OOPS!

Honestly, I've heard of candidates for office raising money outside the district -- but I've never heard of them campaigning outside the district.  Could Barnett be planning to run for governor or Senate???  Doubtful.  More likely, he's confused about exactly where the district lines are drawn.  (For future reference, Sen. Barnett -- you can find the map here).

It turns out that liberal Jim Barnett isn't just confused about where the district lines are -- he's not even sure what state he's running in.  (He's in the state of denial, actually).

You see, Jim Barnett recently sent out a fundraising appeal (Click Here) which says, "Please call our campaign headquarters at 816..."  The trouble is that the 816 area code does not exist in Kansas.  Apparently, Jim Barnett's "campaign headquarters" is actually located in Kansas City, Missouri -- far from The Big First in Western Kansas.  I've heard of companies outsourcing jobs, but this is ridiculous!

So just to recap:  Jim Barnett was partnering with Kathleen Sebelius on healthcare as recently as 2008.  His first big announcement was outside the district.  And his campaign headquarters is in another state.  This is quite possibly the most inept campaign announcement I've seen in my many years of observing politics...

The other week I wrote about PETA's pay to play activities .  Several prominent bloggers have picked up on the story since then.  One of them was Andrew Griffin of the top Oklahoma blog, Red Dirt Report.  Griffin, who is now very skeptical of PETA, was once a vegan and a fan of PETA.  As you might imagine, his is a very interesting perspective.  Check it out here.