We’ve long known that if we want eye candy, we should turn to Fox News Channel and avoid flipping over to MSNBC or CNN, but John Hawkins’ latest effort at pointing out the pleasing aesthetics of conservative commentators online has me eager to point out that our ladies on the Right are not only better looking, they are also more modest.

If you check out the links to commentators on Hawkins’ Top 20, you’ll find that most run blogs or have websites that make little to no use of their images, at all. Those that do include a photo or two almost always limit such images to face shots. I’ll note this is in sharp contrast to certain female bloggers on the Left who relentlessly force their images on us… while occasionally posting about the evils of “objectifying women.”

I wonder if this modesty has anything to do with how respected many of these women are within the conservative new media crowd as thought leaders. Hawkins’ included photographs of each, but also linked to their content rather than additional photos and anyone familiar with conservative media online with recognize that bloggers frequently link to or cite each of these women as authority. In fact, I’m having trouble coming up with the name of a “hot” conservative blogger who isn’t taken seriously by conservative men across the web. I wonder what the Obama Girl would have to say about that? Wait a second, no one cares what she says, anyway…

We’re also proud that one of the three women we suggested for honors in an earlier survey made it this year. There’s no telling why the other two did not. Maybe we should put together our own list.

Who else should have been on this year’s list?

Last summer, Democrats went back to their districts to hold “health care” town halls. The attempt was a thinly disguised effort to try to sell their constituents on health care legislation that their constituents had already decided they didn’t want. I might call that leadership from a Democrat who sincerely believed in the necessity of government interference after devoting years to research and advocacy on behalf of health insurance regulation, but what we saw from Democrats at town hall forums last summer was evidence that they had never bothered to become fully versed in what ObamaCare was and the consequences it held for their constituents. On the contrary, the folks in the audience were very often better versed than the Democrats who showed up to lecture them. The message that Democrats sent at the town halls was clear: “We’re holding a townhall to convince our constituents to support what is good for our party and not to listen to them provide input as to what is good for our country.” That’s not leadership, that’s a rather shocking revelation of where these representatives true interests lie.

Congressman McCarthy, a young member of the GOP leadership, has long understood that leadership also requires listening. At his health care town hall last summer, he gave a relatively brief discussion of his research into and tentative conclusions about ObamaCare being bad policy before spending the bulk of his time listening to people from across his district discuss their ideas and concerns. The town hall was one of the largest in America that summer and at the end of the discussion McCarthy looked exhausted, but his constituents had every reason to believe they were heard and not merely lectured to.

In the same spirit, this year, McCarthy is holding an “America Speaking Out” town hall forum. There’s a lot of populist rage going around these days, but there are also a lot of people who are eager to participate with new ideas and insight. McCarthy remains one of the best — if not the best — Republican in Congress at working his district. His knowledge of the district and its internal networks and individuals is encyclopedic and other Republicans (and Democrats) would be wise to send a staffer to video tape the event in order to learn how to do it the right way. Here’s the press release:

“To engage the American people in a conversation about the challenges they’d like Congress to address, Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Bakersfield, will host an America Speaking Out Town Hall June 2 at the Icardo Center at Cal State Bakersfield.

The town hall is part of a new initiative to involve the public in a discussion that will, in time, lead to a governing agenda. It’s from 6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.; the doors open at 5:30 p.m.

“As we heard America say no to a government takeover of healthcare and the continued debt being left to our children, Washington continues to ignore the voice of the people,” McCarthy said in a statement. “Enough is enough. Our voices deserve to be heard in government.”

Interested individuals may RSVP for the event — but are not required to — by calling McCarthy’s district office at 327-3611 or e-mailing Bakersfield.townhall@mail.house.gov.”

Deputy Whip Kevin McCarthy knows how to listen to and work with his constituents back at home better than just about any other elected official we’ve heard of. Sure, McCarthy is gifted with a natural ease with people, but when it comes to his indisputable work ethic and attention to the pulse of his district, there’s a lot that other members of the House without McCarthy’s talents would do well to try to emulate.

Case in point: McCarthy has been the driving force behind a Republican effort to amend House rules to allow video conferencing with constituents. The effort resulted in a persuasive letter to the House Democratic Leadership, yesterday. Here’s McCarthy’s rationale:

“More Americans every day are using video to communicate, yet the House remains tied to outdated rules that make video conferencing difficult and expensive. The fact is we don’t need to sacrifice cyber security to open new lines of communication, like with Skype and other similar technology. If members of the House are to effectively represent the will of the people, we must keep pace with secure 21st century communications tools.”

As a technical matter, he’s probably correct in stating that videoconferencing services outside the Congressional intranet can, with adequate precautions, be used with very little security risk. He’s definitely correct in assuming that many of those services will be convenient for constituents.

So, what’s the real difference between ordinary press releases and audio conferencing and video conferencing? Meta messages. Basically, people take in considerably more information with a visual channel available to them… including information that helps them determine whether a speaker is lying or uncomfortable with what he or she is saying. Social scientists have just begun documenting what this means in the last two or three decades and you can read more about it by searching for research into micro-expressions and NLP’s congruency theory, but if you’ve ever found that a joke or comment doesn’t work over email or a message that would have been clear face-to-face somehow got lost over the telephone wires, then you’ll have a good idea of why adopting video conferencing technology should be a no-brainer for politicians who want to communicate accurately with their constituents. In the end, more video conferencing may very well allow communications that are less general, stilted, and filled with safe phrases than the typical congressional press releases we read today… something we can all enjoy. But McCarthy’s not just a talker, he’s a good listener, and he understands that part of the future value he’ll receive from being an early adopter of video conferencing will be seeing more of his constituents and learning more about who they are and the seriousness or emotional power driving their concerns.

Note: Video blogger Ryan Dixon, a supporter of Kevin McCarthy’s, was an early adopter of Skype technology in running his popular, but now defunct, live streaming video show, YoungRepublicans.tv. Apparently, McCarthy’s team actually walks the walk on technology. That’s an extra +1.

Vocalist Heather Powers has toured with pop groups from Amy Grant to Huey Lewis and even done vocal work for Warner Brothers’ film adaptation of the stage musical, Rent.

We didn’t notice her until we stumbled upon a new website she has launched with Bill Zankich called RepublicDefender. The website, which is built on the Ning platform with some wrapped WordPress, seems like it has potential. It’s introductory text says: “Join us as we fight liberal ideology, bloated bureaucracy and an out of control administration bent of turning this nation into a socialist utopia. Together we can take the republic back…”

We’ll have to keep our eye on the website as it develops, but we’ve got to admit, it isn’t Heather’s decision to voice her political opinions that triggered this post, it’s her pop vocals. Here’s a link to her performing on something called the “Dino Show,” which may mean something to contemporary Christian music fans. Warning: The interview segments are difficult to watch because the interviewers are not particularly skilled (at interviewing) and subjects like rape and sexual abuse are discussed awkwardly in a way that I’m guessing will annoy or offend many. So, with the advice that you should skip to 3:15 in the video below to take in the performance, here’s a clip of Heather Powers, singer-songwriter turned conservative blogger.

Yesterday, we received a message from a reader via our contact form:

Is factcheck.org a conservative or liberal website? I recently had an online conversation with a person who thinks that FOX news does not tell the truth and that noone should watch it. He stated that USAToday is what you should be reading to find out the news, which is not true at all. Anyway, he said that I needed to watch Glenn Beck and check it by factcheck.org, and then recant my statement about how FOX news tells the truth and that it is a good channel to watch. Anyway, I’d appreciate it if you could let me know about that website. I looked at it, but couldn’t really tell. Thanks!

We wanted to respond publicly rather than write back via email because the question highlights something that we believe will probably interest many of our internet advocates, namely, the absence of a good, non-partisan, fact-checking organization.

The short answer to the question above is that factcheck.org isn’t particularly sympathetic to those who believe in free enterprise and individual liberty. It’s regrettable to have to admit this, but generally speaking, when a group is organized within a major university, as factcheck.org is within the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School, it’s a pretty good clue that you’re dealing with a crowd that just can’t help show a liberal bias no matter how hard they try.

We don’t want to go so far as to say that factcheck.org is not a real attempt at providing objective fact-checking, we will say that the experiment should have ended long ago with the team drawing the following conclusion: it is really, really difficult to be objective in running a fact-checking organization. There’s certainly room for bias in terms of what stories and statements you decide to fact-check. There’s room for bias in how communicative statements are interpreted, a phenomenon that is particularly true in political speech where metaphor and factual assertions frequently dance together slowly and intimately. There’s also room for bias in terms of selection of expert authority and bias in terms of evaluation of predictive statements.

In order to illustrate some of the biases that make factcheck.org’s claim to objectivity very difficult to believe, let’s take a look at an example. Let’s say, for instance, that Sarah Palin urged opposition to health care legislation on the grounds that a version of health care reform legislation contains language that would create “death panels.” The fact-checker could check a draft of the health care legislation and see whether the words “death panel” appear. If they do not, the fact-checker could report that Palin was inaccurate. But, is that fair? After all, “death panels” is probably figurative language that could mean utilization committees or end-of-life counseling services. The fact-checker could check to see if those things are referred to directly in the draft legislation and if they are not, the fact-checker could report that Palin was innacurate. But, would that be fair? After all, legislation can lead to agency-created regulations implementing things like utilization committees and end-of-life counseling even if those things are not directly mentioned in the legislation and it might be very reasonable to believe that this would happen in the case of health care reform legislation. Ultimately, a person who believes in limited government might predict that a bottleneck on resources and a mandate to increase the number of insureds would have to lead to shortages that would have to be resolved by utilization committees or rationing in some form or another. However, an expert on the Left might counter that the government could simply buy more health care… hopefully at lower prices without “wasteful spending on advertising and other costs of competition.” Which expert do you choose to evaluate the predictive element in Palin’s statement? Many, many statements in political speech are factual in form, but the truth value might hinge on assumptions that are controversial depending on your political background. Did lender laws help worsen the recent real estate downturn and credit crunch? Ask an economist at Cato and you’ll get a very different answer than you’ll get from the Center for Race and Poverty. Our belief is that with a conservative personality, factcheck.org would probably call the statemement innacurate simply because the phrase “death panels” or their interpretation of what that means isn’t expressly included in the bill, but they’d jump through hoops to save an equally controversial statement from a liberal personality.

Don’t get us wrong, we *do* believe there is an absolute truth and that you can become fairly certain about aspects of that truth through research and investigation, but “fact-checking organizations” frequently “fact-check” political statements that are not cut-and-dry and they frequently do so to change public opinion or discredit candidates and personalities. The Left has gotten very good about immediately coming up with “fact-checkers” to slam conservatives with surprisingly few people concluding that these folks are simply contrary opinion providers. Calling their rebuttal objective fact-checking increases their authority immensely and is persuasive. I’ve often wished we had a team of “fact checkers” on our side — hopefully, ones that really do try to stick to clear cut matters more often than not. Brent Bozzell’s team does a decent job of fact-checking the media and their reports are almost always revealing and useful, but up until last Monday, it was hard to find a real “fact checking” organization.

So, in sum, I think you are correct to assume that factcheck.org has a liberal bias and that their opinion shouldn’t discourage you from watching FNC. The opinion on Fox *does* slant to the right and is well-stocked with talk radio personalities. But, FNC doesn’t hide this fact and we don’t believe it should be used to discredit the news division on the channel. It’s often useful to do your own fact-checking. I believe FNC’s old motto was, “We report, you decide.” We don’t think they meant that in terms of factual accuracy, but you ultimately have to be the deciding factor in what you hold to be true… you can’t delegate it to FNC and you certainly can’t delegate that responsibility to factcheck.org.

Here are a few political cartoons for January 31, 2010. To see more great ones, check out: Flopping Aces. They pull together some of the best political cartoons every Sunday.

I wanted to weigh-in briefly on reports that the director of the undercover anti-Acorn videos that racked up record hits and record ratings in August, James O’Keefe, was arrested after some kind of unauthorized activity at the offices of Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu. Andy Brietbart, whose BigGovernment.com site published the vidoes,weighed-in earlier by sprinting to distance himself as quickly as possible from the situation.

It’s important when you engage in activism to avoid using people and being used for political ends. A lot of people, particularly young people, who have strong political beliefs or ambitions end up making sacrifices or choices they should never have made because they believe strongly in a certain matter of public concern and believe they are acting with the approval of authority figures they respect and admire. The Left’s activism during the last 50 or 60 years has been scarred by violence, lawlessness, and the shattered lives and reputations of more than a few true believers.

William Ayers may not have personally put a pipe bomb under some police officer’s car in San Francisco, but if he had a hand in writing the manifesto that convinced someone to sacrifice their conscious and someone else’s life in order to “make the world a better place,” he should feel complicit. In conservative circles, I usually see more subtle forms of ill-advised sacrifices — for example, people putting promising careers on hold in order to spend their time opening mail for the local congressman or students sacrificing their GPA in order to publicly spar with a liberal professor in a battle of words that will be finished only when grades are handed out. However, in the last year or so, subtlety has gone out the window and last night I double-checked to make sure that my writings in the past did not encourage conservative activists to sacrifice their integrity, honor, or freedom. Here’s an excerpt from my previous comments on O’Keefe and Giles that I wanted to clarify given the recent news about the O’Keefe arrest:

“… It is not entirely uncommon for investigative reporters to break the law in preparing their reports. Some legal scholars have theorized that the failure of prosecutors to file against these investigative reporters along with a handful of outlier judicial opinions has created some kind of journalistic privilege to break the law in getting their hands on a story. We’re not convinced. We acknowledge that the application of certain laws in the context of preparing news reports and documentaries can create a kind of tension with the First Amendment, but we just don’t believe that journalists, bloggers, or Boy Scouts are accomplishing any end so important as to give them a free pass to disregard the law in the pursuit of getting the job done.

So, in theory, if the state of Maryland prohibits people from recording others without their permission or knowledge before publicly distributing said recording, John and Hannah should probably have used a different approach in Baltimore or obtained written consent before using the footage in their videos. The statute was probably enacted to protect the very class of people who were publicly humiliated in this case…

However, those are questions for a judge and a jury to decide. The question for us is whether loyalty compels us to support John and Hannah. We think it does. John and Hannah are movement conservatives who were trained in conservative organizations. They created videos that document and communicate what we have long believed about ACORN, but have been unable to show. They are now under attack as a result of their efforts by an organized Left that is seeking to end their young careers in the stigma of a civil judgment and probably bankruptcy. We can argue over the ethics of their approach, but seasoned investigative reporters do the same thing regularly and their colleagues and compatriots in the organized Left rush to defend and embrace them.

Especially among young Americans there is a political and cultural war being waged. By and large, the Right is losing that war because we do not recognize it for the tribal conflict that it is. We believe that conservatives should send a strong message to young people everywhere by supporting the legal defense funds for John and Hannah. The message is that the Right is a community that nurtures, protects, and stands up for its own when they are under attack because of their allegiance to the community. A movement that sends this message may ultimately have an even greater positive impact than the anti-Acorn videos, which created the controversy…”

I think I made it much more clear than other conservative websites that, while I supported John and Hannah, I was concerned about the means through which they accomplished their goals. To clarify, I want to take it one step further today: We need to support the John and Hannah’s of the world by working with them to accomplish their ends without ending up with civil or criminal judgments haunting them. After they’ve made a mistake, we can defend them, but we should do so with the understanding that we aren’t condoning that kind of self-sacrifice. To be a contributor and even a hero in our modern liberty movement, no one has to sacrifice their future… particularly not young children like John and Hannah who may not truly understand the nature of the sacrifice they are contemplating.

Not only is loss of integrity almost always unnecessary to accomplish our goals, we aren’t going to get any stronger in the long run if our leaders ruin their reputations or brand themselves as fringe outcasts, anyway. To be clear, John, I’d much rather work to get you on a podium accepting an Academy Award for beating out Michael Moore someday than to feed your legal defense fund for invading a federal office.

See more great political cartoons at Flopping Aces: Sunday Funnies.