FRIDAY 'ROUND-THE-HORN.

Comin' to D.C. March 29. Looking forward.

Beautiful day, let's play two! Kia found this one.

•  The latest thing among those eternally-whining wingnuts is that Twitter is censoring them via something called "shadowbanning," by which self-promoting men's-rights activists and people who use "cuckservatives" unironically allegedly "have their posts hidden from both search results and other users’ timelines." Evidence: an "[unnamed] source inside the company, who spoke exclusively to Breitbart Tech," whose "claim was corroborated by a[n unnamed] senior editor at a major publisher." Good enough for alt-journalism! According to Breitbart's Milo Yiannopoulos, Twitter seeks "to interfere in the 2016 presidential election by muffling conservative voices on the platform," so if Trump loses the nomination by a handful of Tweets, you'll know the reason why. One preponderator of this story blames "Twitter’s recruitment of radical feminazi Anita Sarkeesian to lead its censorship board, I mean, 'Trust & Safety Council.'" Sigh, girls spoil everything, don't they? At least this guy has some dim awareness that Twitter is not a public trust but a private company that can have whatever terms and conditions it likes, and so lays off the ridiculous "censorship" yap in favor of some free-market fist-shaking:

On Twitter as on Facebook, the deck is stacked against countermoonbats. A lucrative opportunity awaits whoever can create a social media outlet that does not impose an oppressive left-wing political creed.

Get ready for Conservapedia: The Social Network!

•  In another fartful post, Jonah Goldberg starts with what may look like a startling admission:

We get it already. The Iraq war was a mistake.

Indeed, on this point pretty much everyone agrees.

But he's done this before. Nine-and-a-half years ago, Goldberg said, "The Iraq war was a mistake." Of course he didn't want to leave -- he wanted to stay in: "A doctor will warn that if you see a man stabbed in the chest, you shouldn't rush to pull the knife out," his reason-fart echoes down the years. Some paragraphs later, he added, "I think we should ask the Iraqis to vote on whether U.S. troops should stay. Polling suggests that they want us to go. But polling absent consequences is a form of protest." Sounds like he was feeling cornered, and rightly so -- the American electorate was days away from returning Congress to the Democrats. Now he's confessing error again. I wonder what's worrying him this time? (BTW: This seems as good a place as any to recall Conor Friedersdorf's roundup of conservative slurs against those of us who were against the war before they were.)

•  I get what some people say about Bernie Sanders' electability problems, but I also see that conservatives absolutely do not know how to deal with him. We've seen, God knows, plenty of Sanders=Trump bullshit, but even rightbloggers seem to be getting sick of that. The other popular shtick is "Socialism = Stalin, vote Bernie and get the gulags," a ploy which depends strongly on explaining away European socialism -- usually by pretending Scandinavian countries with universal health care are Reaganite laboratories of unfettered capitalism -- and hoping nobody tells the voters about the "sewer socialism" under which millions of Americans once cheerfully lived without being hassled by the Secret Police. But Jazz Shaw at Hot Air has come up with an interesting new angle:

Sanders really seems to have it in for money and you have to wonder where the grudge comes from. 

In an editorial at Investors Business Daily, we get a glimpse of one possible source of Bernie’s unrelenting war on dollars: he’s never really had many of them.

Yes, the argument against Bernie Sanders is that he never made a lot of money. Well, at least that'll kill the Sanders=Trump thing.

As IBD notes, he never really earned a steady paycheck until he was in his forties and even then it was from the government when he was finally elected mayor. Before that he ran up debts, failed to pay his own utility bills and was known for being perpetually broke.

It's almost like something was more important to him than money! I imagine Shaw hearing the Gospels and going, "Pfft! Who is this loser?"

This is the guy who now wants to oversee the management of all of our collective money in the federal government?

Part of me wishes they'd run with this -- "Poverty Sucks, Vote Alex P. Keaton" -- but maybe there's some appeal here for a certain type of Republican voter -- the kind who really worries about whether his neighbor's car is nicer than his, who likes to brag about what a killing he made on the market or by only ringing up two of the three cereal boxes he got at the Safeway, and who is less outraged by human suffering than by a welfare recipient who got to eat fresh fish instead of gruel. You know -- assholes.