Obama Negotiators Claim They Have Super Plan to Guarantee Incredible Transparency in the Iran Deal-- But That Plan Will Have to be Kept Secret from Both the Iranian and American Publics
I don't know why I expected that sentence would end any other way.
Eli Lake & Josh Rogin:
Important details of the nuclear agreement President Barack Obama says would bring unprecedented transparency to Iran's nuclear program will themselves be shrouded from the U.S. and Iranian publics, according to nuclear experts.
Officially, negotiators in Vienna have not made any decisions on what parts of the agreement would be released openly and what elements will be briefed to Congress but not publicly disclosed...
Richard Nephew, who served as a U.S. negotiator in the talks until February and is now the head of the economic statecraft program at Columbia University, told us that he didn't expect that large sections of the agreement would be secret, but he anticipated that there would be some interpretations of the text that the administration would share only with Congress.
"Will there be carefully worded sections that seem odd? That will happen," Nephew predicted. "Will there be some wholesale manipulation of what is agreed to? I don't think it's possible. In the end most of this stuff will be public. There may be a few things withheld or interpretations made clear in classified interpretation."
"Some aspects of the annexes may not be made public, which is different than being secret," Daryl Kimball, the executive director of the Arms Control Association, told us.
Oh my God.
Just put this country out of its misery now, huh?
Since Obama has started "negotiating," he's simply given up all previously-stated critical US goals and embraced wholly the Iranian position, which is the Judge Smails position: "You'll get nothing and like it."
One week before the June 30 deadline for a nuclear deal with Iran, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei made a series of demands about the final terms. Among them: He called for an immediate end to all United Nations Security Council and U.S. economic sanctions on Iran; he said Iranian military sites would not be subject to international inspections; he declared that Iran would not abide a long-term freeze on nuclear research; and he ruled out interviews with individuals associated with Iran’s nuclear program as part of any enforcement plan.
The New York Times headline read "Iran's Supreme Leader, Khamenei, Seems to Pull Back on Nuclear Talks." That’s one explanation. The more likely one: Khamenei understands that Barack Obama is desperate for this deal and will agree to just about anything to make it a reality. In private remarks caught on tape, top White House foreign policy adviser Ben Rhodes likened the Iran deal to Obamacare in its importance to the administration. And on April 2, the president held a press conference to celebrate the preliminary "historic understanding with Iran" that, he said, was "a good deal, a deal that meets our core objectives."
But the impending deal is not a good one. It legitimizes a rogue state, shifts regional power to the world’' most aggressive state sponsor of terror, strengthens the mullahs’ hold on power, and guides Iran to nuclear threshold status. Those are not our "core objectives." They are Iran's.
And here's why I not only quit the GOP but now cheer its coming demise: The GOP, thinking it was clever, which it is not, has already approved this treaty, whatever it turns out to be.
Corker proposed it, but then they all went along with it. Including our Senatorial presidential candidates.
This piece of shit, whatever it turns out to be, is already US law.
Corker's was the last sell-out straw that broke this camel's back.
After Corker, I just said: "I'm done."
We need a third party and frankly we need a second country.
And yes, I support Mike Flynn: Because we need someone on the inside who will not put up with this shit.
Racist, Confederate-Flag Sporting Ex-CNN Reporter's Racist, Anti-Government White Hispanic Husband Kills Innocent Home Invader in Hotel Room With Racist Gun With One of Those Parts That Goes Up
Well, I assume they're racist anti-government neo-confederates who just want to kill minorities. The media has assured me that's the only reason a White, or White Hispanic, would want to own a gun.
A road trip down old Route 66 led to a Wild West-style motel shootout for a pioneering CNN anchor and her former-soldier hubby.
Lynne Russell -- the first woman to ever solo-anchor a primetime network news show --and Chuck de Caro, 65, had stopped at a Motel 6 for the night in Albuquerque when an intruder slipped into their room as Russell went to grab something from the car around 11:30 p.m. Tuesday.
"I opened the door and he materialized out of nowhere; he was inside," she told The Post. "And he pushed me into the room and onto the bed and closed the door."
De Caro, who was in the shower, emerged completely naked and tried talking to the gunman, who was demanding the couple fork over their money and valuables.
Naked, but he quickly clothed himself with a rakish .35 caliber gun,* which is really all the fashion a man needs.
Caro shot the shit out of him, and then had to be watched by police, he says, to keep him from "kicking the shit" out of the wounded, bleeding-out man.
So racist. I can't even.
By the way, even though this is obviously a dramatic, media-friendly story not only involving a celebrity but one of the media's own-- they're not covering it. Fox and the NYPost cover it, but the liberal media won't.
Because their official policy is that Guns Are Bad, and, as Buzzfeed Ben would say, there is only one side to that story.
* Hey yeah I know that's a weird caliber, but that's what the article claims.
I don't know.
Donald Trump And Acela Republicans
Yesterday we got more polling confirmation of something we already knew...Republican voters are desperate, at least at this stage of the campaign. The proof of this is the fact that in what should be one of the deepest and most appealing GOP fields in, ever, Donald Trump is in 2nd place nationally and in Iowa. Now, he's only at 12% of the vote and most of those people won't really vote for him when push comes to shove but jokes like him and Ben Carson should be background noise.
So why are so many Republican voters flirting with a crazy loudmouthed liberal? I think it's mostly because of the 2nd thing...loudmouthed.
The Trump bubble is what you get when a significant part of the GOP is tired of being lied to and screwed over. They want to be heard and they want to see their values (in this case anger, which is an emotion not a value but it's a reasonable stand in at this point) reflected in a candidate.
(And if you think he's going away anytime soon, you haven't noticed that he's already paying a price for running. There's no advantage in pulling out now. Bridges are going to be burned.)
The mostly mealy mouthed response to the resent Supreme Court ruling from most GOP candidates (certainly the "acceptable" types) does not match the anger a lot of conservatives are feeling. It seems the candidates think the anger is at gays when it strikes me it's much more at a process conservatives feel is rigged. There's almost no recognition by candidates that people feel something important about America is slipping away. They aren't seeing that being acknowledged by Jeb, Marco or even Walker.
Conservatives helped deliver historic GOP wins last year in the House and gave the party the Senate back. What exactly do they have to show for it? An amnesty cave, more deficit spending and an Obama legacy building trade package that they aren't too sure about. Oh and soaring approval ratings for Obama now that he has vanquished the GOP "hostage takers".
Funny, but I don't recall that being what the GOP was selling last fall.
And then we see the GOP putting up hacks like Darin LaHood and pulling out all the stops to beat a conservative like Mike Flynn. Ever notice that the even though the GOP keeps billing itself as a conservative party, the insurgents are always the more conservative ones. Shouldn't a supposedly conservative party be the ones finding, developing and promoting conservative candidates?
If the system is breaking down and no one is part of the system is willing to respond, then going outside the system with someone who reflects that anger (even if he doesn't really believe it) is not a crazy choice.
There's a lot of populist anger to be harnessed and led within the GOP but most Republican candidates are unwilling or an unable to do so. Nature abhors a vacuum and so...the Trump bubble.
But what does the GOP generally offer up in contrast to Trump's shtick? "Acela Republicans" for the most part. GOP consultant Rick Wilson explains why that works out as well as you'd expect.
Acela Republicans hate Republicans. There are three kinds of people who hate the Republican Party: liberals (for all their usual, tiresome reasons), hard conservatives (who value purity over winning anything, anywhere, ever) and Acela Republicans. Acela Republicans hate Republican voters, particularly primary voters, because they’re embarrassed by them. They don’t want to talk to them, for fear some of their proletarian nature will rub off. They either sit silently or join in the chorus when their friends in the media display their dripping, venomous contempt for anyone who lives outside coastal metros or was educated somewhere outside the Ivy League.
The Underpants Gnome Theory of Republican Campaigns
Acela Republicans play fantasy-league politics. “If only the rest of my party was pro-spending, pro-abortion, pro-gun control, loathed these religious bumpkins and their backward sky god, embraced a carbon tax, read the Times each morning and wanted to level the economic playing field with a bulldozer…then we’d start winning” is the lament of Acela Republicans. They fundamentally misread the electorate in both the Republican primary and the general election, time and again, and conflate contempt for pragmatism and smart politics.
I take exception to one thing Wilson writes here. "Hard conservatives" don't simply prize "purity over winning", we prize doing something with the wins that happen. "Hard conservatives" didn't make up the idea of fighting executive amnesty, the GOP ran on that last year. Same with controlling spending. It was the GOP leadership that then caved on amnesty in a heartbeat and passed the deficit hiking "doc-fix". "Hard conservatives" didn't come up with "a dollar or more in savings for every dollar we hike the debt ceiling". That was Boehner and it was Boehner who then broke that promise as fast as he could.
Hard conservatives won't get the sun and the moon from the GOP but don't be surprised that people tune you out when you promise something and fail to even try to deliver on it. You can only lie and cheat someone so many times until they walk away.
The GOP always wants to run on policy papers and 78 point plans because that's what the media and donors like to hear. They continue to ignore the emotional element of politics because they don't like it and they aren't any good at it.
Like it or not, people are swayed by their emotions and it's easier to move someone that way than it is to argue them into supporting a position they don't currently hold. People on the right are mad but also scared about what's happening to this country.They want to know that a candidate shares those feelings, that they "get it". If the GOP won't offer that candidate, it shouldn't be surprising that when one comes along who at least seems to "get it", people are intrigued by him.
Essentially Friday Morning News Dump
- Sorry Chuck Todd, But Reporters Are Not The Referees Of Politics
- A Field Guide To Acela Republicans
- 11,000 Australian Dental Patients May Have Been Exposed To HIV And Hepatitis
- Sanders Gaining On Clinton
- Hillary Begins Oppo Research On Bernie Sanders
- Apple Watch Selling Worse Than Thought
- Obama Admin Likely To Block The New Redskins Stadium
- Worker Killed By Robot
- So-Called Anti-Gay Incident In Utah Was Staged
- Having Solved The World's Problems, Obama Weighs In On Guacamole Debate
Overnight Open Thread (7-1-2015)
By that point, Helmsley had fully dropped the 'blueblood snob' gimmick, appearing in T-shirts and leather jackets. During this period, his ring name was shortened to simply Triple H. Even after the DX versus Hart Foundation storyline ended, Helmsley continued to feud with the sole remaining Hart family member Owen Hart over the WWF European Championship. This ended in a match between the two at WrestleMania XIV, with the stipulation that Chyna had to be handcuffed to then-Commissioner Sgt. Slaughter. Helmsley won after Chyna threw powder into Slaughter's eyes, momentarily 'blinding' him and allowing her to interfere in the match.
-- from the Wikipedia article on Triple H
Let's sweep away the lies and just say it out loud:
90% of the left's attempts at social control are simply attempt to outlaw behaviors they perceived as favored or engaged in by 'traditional" "conservative" "old-school" "white" etc. people.
Thus, a liberal can simultaneously demand that cigarettes be outlawed but marijuana be legalized.
Why? Because (in their conception of social reality) marijuana is a leftist intoxicant favored by the "counter-culture" while nicotine is a right-wing intoxicant favored by the "dominant culture."
"The Man" smokes cigars. "The Rebels" smoke weed.
That's all there is to it.
...It's absolute juvenile revenge fantasy, leftover from the '60s. That's all it is. The younger generation of activist are automatons acting out the revenge fantasies of their professors.-- Zombie
He picked the wrong former anchor alright.
[Former CNN Headline news anchor Lynne] Russell - a licensed private investigator and former Fulton County, Georgia, sheriff's deputy with two martial arts black belts - told NBC station KOB that she and her husband had stopped in Albuquerque for dinner with a friend and were planning to get up early because they were traveling." A man with "a 40-caliber big shiny silver handgun" pushed her into her Motel 6 room just as her husband was coming out of the shower . . .
He'll survive but the same thing isn't true of an average person who dares to say the same things that Trump has said.
For Israel. Also the world.
A lot of excuses, some plausible, some less so but still no real refutation of the claims in the report.
Machine guns and rocket launchers for me, no semi-autos or 3D-printers for thee.
Enough so that it's kept a lawsuit against it going for 26 years even though it now resides on private property.
n. a recurring thought that only seems to strike you late at night-an overdue task, a nagging guilt, a looming and shapeless future-that circles high overhead during the day, that pecks at the back of your mind while you try to sleep, that you can successfully ignore for weeks, only to feel its presence hovering outside the window, waiting for you to finish your coffee, passing the time by quietly building a nest.
And here we go: Polygamist Family Applies For Marriage License
Second look at old school LDS?
And cue the fake anti-gay hate crimes.
I used to be like you then I discovered these.
News You Can Use: What Is The Best Thing To Do When A Grenade Is Thrown At You?
3. The Fortress Resort and Spa, Fortress Stilt Fisherman Indulgence Dessert - $14,500
The Fortress Resort and Spa in Sri Lanka really likes to take care of its guests. On top of giving them high-end amenities and world-class service, the place also offers a dessert that's made for a king, thanks to its presentation and taste that costs $14,500. Made with gold leaf Italian cassata and flavored with fruit-infused Irish cream, this handmade chocolate also comes with a 80-carat gemstone. Like a few others on this list, it must be ordered a day in advance.
The Group knows your sins but doesn't care.
Tonight's post brought to you by sooo many questions about this:
Notice: Posted by implicit authority of AceCorp LLC. Please post your tips and complaints on the subway walls and tenement halls. Prepare your sacrifices - the conjunction of Venus and Jupiter has begun.
Close it up
Bill DiBlasio Vs. Mike Flynn on Freedom and Humility in Government
Bumped. The election is Tuesday -- this Tuesday. I'm trying to gin up one last moneybomb to get the campaign more district-workers and GOTV. I think we are right on the edge of pulling this off.
Contribute if you can, and if you can't, please volunteer to make calls in the district, and spread this post around.'
Updated: Ed Morrissey interviews Mike Flynn here, on the Hugh Hewitt show.
New Yorkers may soon not be able to smoke in their own homes, if Democratic New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio gets his way.
The New York Post reported on de Blasio’s new initiative to partner with health groups that will "pressure landlords" into banning smoking in apartment buildings.
"“That means smokers would be barred from lighting up in one of their last sanctuaries: their own living quarters," the paper said. "Smoking is already banned in public places, including bars and restaurants, workplaces, sports venues, and parks."
I keep saying this, but quitting smoking is the best decision I ever made, apart from eating that rib-eye a half hour ago. I would strongly urge all smokers to kick the habit -- you don't need it, just as a junkie doesn't need his drug, and you will be a better person -- healthier, more present in the moment (not thinking about your next nicotine jones), better at sex (everyone enjoying reduced lung capacity?), and richer.
Your life will become better almost immediately-- within, I'd say, about four days. Sure, three days of (some mild) withdrawal, and then just every day better and better for the rest of your (longer) life.
And I'll do what I can to help you.
But the way to persuade people is to actually persuade them.
Not to bully them.
DiBlasio begins with a truth -- smoking is bad -- and then turns it into a lie by not recognizing the most important truth of all:
A free people is only free if it is permitted to do the WRONG thing, as well as the right thing.
In Nazi Germany, you were always free to do the "right" thing (as defined by the government) of supporting the Party and hating the Jews.
It is not freedom if you are permitted to do what a collection of social-climbing, sexually-bent, bullying idiots have decided is the right thing.
It is only freedom if you are permitted to do those things that collection of social-climbing, sexually-bent, bullying idiots think is the wrong thing.*
But don't listen to me.
Let me quote Congressional candidate Mike Flynn -- dare I say the front-runner? -- explaining his definition of what conservative philosophy is.
We are all children of God, and we are all touched by the divine. And because of that we are unique, and we are all individuals. Conservatism is a humility in government, that we do not know what's best for you. That we would not try to define what's best for you. You go, with your divine spark, and pursue [your dream]. Conservatism is freedom -- within responsibilities, we enter into a social contract through the Constitution to protect those rights we have so that others do not infringe on them, but at that point Government should largely go away. And let us live. As conservatives -- I've said it before, and it amazes me, but we are selling freedom. And if we can't sell freedom, we do indeed suck.
By the way, check out his great answer on how to change the tax code-- towards the flat tax -- at 44:22. Even if you're against the flat tax, listen to his answer-- you'll be impressed.
And then check out 53:20, where he offers the idea of "regulatory budgeting," an idea implemented in Canada -- if a regulatory agency implements a new regulation costing $100 million, they must offset that by taking a regulation worth $100 million off the books.
Have you heard another politician talking about this?
One of the things Flynn said to me, personally -- this hasn't been introduced into the campaign yet -- is that he wants to implement, as far as school reform, the Dutch System.
By the way, I forget the actual country. It may not be the Netherlands. This is my several-year-old memory.
What's the Dutch system? Well, the government gives each parent a check to pay for school, and the parent can use that for any school -- including religious schools. There is no church-state question because the decision is up to the parent. All the state did was cut a check and say "Do what you think is best."
Mike is very fond of referring to this as "the Dutch model" because he knows that the liberal media is overly-smitten of ENLIGHTENED EUROPEAN WAYS OF DOING THINGS. So he always says, "Well, of course, I favor the Dutch model. Obviously, you know?"
Which is Pure School Choice -- the government's role is to deliver a check, and the money follows the student to whatever school his parent wants.
That's why I'm saying he's a genius. He's not just smart, and he's not just right on policy.
He's a little crafty about things.
He knows how stupid the liberal media is, and he eagerly wishes to exploit this.
You know what to do.
* I'm convinced they're sexually bent. No one getting his rocks off nice, no one who still has animal spirit in his blood, goes about this stupid, pointless, sport-for-fat-weaklings busybodying.
Close it up
In Britain, Teachers Are Running "Lunchbox Inspections," Searching for, Confiscating Food Deemed "Unhealthy"
They'll lay you down in a muddy ditch and shoot you in the back of the head before they let you make any unhealthy decisions that might risk your good health.
Teachers are free to take - and keep - any item from pupils' lunchboxes if they think they are unhealthy or inappropriate, the government has said.
Parents were outraged last month when it emerged children had scotch eggs and a Peperami confiscated under health eating policies.
Now ministers have backed the move, giving staff freedom to 'confiscate, keep or destroy' anything deemed to break school policies and setting out the procedure for carrying out lunchbox inspections.
Vikki Laws, of Colchester, said her daughter Tori, six, was not allowed to eat her Peperami sausage snack, which was confiscated and only returned at the end of the day with a note from teachers.
She said another parent was also told her child was not allowed to have scotch eggs in her lunch box.
This is, of course, coming to America, courtesy of La Obama.
Someone once wrote a Letter of Complaint about this sort of behavior:
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
New York Times' Public Editor: Maybe We Didn't Tell the Truth About Our Reasons For Not Publishing the Charlie Hebdo Cartoons, But That Doesn't Mean We Were Dishonest
Orwell laughed -- darkly.
By the way, the LA Times, which also embargoed the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, just tweeted this:
35% of Americans Would Expatriate
As the Fourth of July weekend looms and Americans prep their grills and ready their fireworks, some citizens are packing their bags.
A recent online poll of more than 2,000 adults by TransferWise, a peer-to-peer money transfer service based in the United Kingdom, revealed that 35 percent of American-born residents and emigrants would consider leaving the United States to live in another country.
This percentage greatly increases for those age 18 to 34. More than half of millennials, a whopping 55 percent, said that they would consider leaving the U.S. for foreign shores. Among them, 43 percent of men and 38 percent of women noted that a higher salary would be a factor in their relocation decision.
While a high percentage of Americans would entertain the idea of expatriation, only .001 percent of the population actually renounced citizenship in 2014.
You guys keep asking me why I'm studying foreign languages.
Here's a better question: Why aren't you?
Viacom Removes "The Dukes of Hazzard" Reruns from TVLand Schedule, Because Urge to Purge
Some time ago, Bill Quick attacked me, claiming, wrongly, that I was inconsistent to support a baker's right to not make a gay wedding cake when of course I would be fighting, racistly angry about a Muslim who insisted on Islamic dress codes in his own store.
I am republishing this essay because it's directly on-point.
America is in a dark chapter of its existence -- we have faced worse external threats, but not worse internal threats.
The threat now comes from within.
There are those who are insistent that we shall all have the same bland gray vanilla corporate non-culture culture, and that we shall all bow to the strange gods of the left.
As Andrew Breitbart once said:
Below, my essay on what America is, and what is not, and how cowards, idiots, weaklings, and cuckolds want to turn America into a dark perversion of itself.
He quotes me:
The New Intolerance: We Are Now Required To Embrace Just About Everything, Except the Gutter Religion Christianity
Incidentally– Are there any beliefs on the left which have not been sacralized?
That is, do they have any beliefs which are open to question without inviting their typical full-spectrum punishment regime, from group coordinated stigmatization to pursuit in the courts?
Then he asks, rhetorically, because people with few answers like to believe they know all the answers:
So, Ace: You okay with Muslim owned businesses refusing to serve women not “properly” covered -- ie., bagged in a burkha, because Religious Liberty?
By the way, I could end the post here, because he will now yammer on for a few hundred words assuming that my answer must be "no," and why that's terrible.
But the answer is "Yes."
This is an easy one. What the fuck do I care? A shop owner has the right to set a dress code. Especially if this were a store geared towards Islamic identity -- an Islamic bookstore, say, or a restaurant -- this one isn't even a question.
But even absent that-- what should I care what the dress code is here, or whom he wants his clientele to be? He doesn't want to serve me, and get this -- I don't wish to be served by him.
How about the Muslim cab driver refusing to transport passenger with dogs or alcohol, because Religious Liberty?
This is trickier because in the case of the store, I have to seek that out. I have to go to the nuisance, as it were. In the case of a cab, I could call for a cab, wait 25 minutes for it, and then, only upon his arrival, be told "Well I'm not going to take you because of these crazy restrictions I never warned you about when you hailed me."
In other words: In the case of the cab, the nuisance comes to me, and that's more of a problem.
But if that one kink could be worked out -- that I could use a cellphone app to summon only cabs that would take me, and would not be punished with discovering, in the rain, that a Muslim cabdriver was refusing to take my fare after waiting 25 minutes -- yes, again, what do I care?
If I hail him, and he does not inform me of his list of silly objections, then yes, in that case, he is bound to take me, because he did not give me his objections before the contract for service was entered into.
But as long as he tells me his objections before that -- Why would I care?
Honestly I'd prefer knowing my driver was a hardcore adherent of a religion which often encourages its faithful to crash vehicles into buildings Because God Hates Vehicular Safety.
Unlike some other Dummies, I'm not really of a mind that we must all Follow the Same Rules and all Subscribe to the Same Bland, Grey, Dead Corporate-Friendly Culture in which no one is really religious or different or odd at all Because That's Bad For Corporate Business.
I think people should have -- and by God, do have -- the right to be fairly different from one another.
That's fucking America.
Did you not know that? That that's what America is?
That America is the right to be different from other people?
I don't see why a store run by a pious conservative Muslim can't demand that women be covered, if that's his bag, nor why a store run by a pious conservative Catholic can't also insist that women cover their shoulders, if that's his sense of what his business should be, of what should happen on property he owns.
Will there be hurt feelings when some are turned away?
And who cares?
What the fuck are we, babies? Is this kindergarten, where everyone must be made to feel welcome, always?
Why the fuck would you think I would even care about this shit? Is it because you care about it so much, that you are so concerned about maintaining a Standard Generic Vanilla Corporate-Friendly Non-Culture Culture everywhere, that the idea of a Muslim religious bookstore which insists on a strict dress code for women is mentally deranging?
To be honest with you, I already assume there already are Islamic bookstops which will demand that women leave unless properly veiled.
And yet I'm not pissing myself about this.
Why would I want to go to that shop in the first place?
A culture without any rough parts, without any Proud Nails that won't be pounded down, without any Strangeness that people just insist upon because it's Their Culture, That's Why, is not a culture at all.
It's a fucking shopping mall. It's a fucking Airport Neutral Palate Color Scheme. It's the gray paste they feed to people in comas.
It's nothing. Nothing.
A lot of people seem to dream of America as a great bland nothing.
And they're winning, too.
There is a strand of thought that is often found among conservatives, which is itself actually not conservative. And that is the tendency towards a fairly pronounced Corporatism.
Let me explain what I mean by that. When you are at work, you are under a series of rules and codes designed to reduce your individuality. Businesses -- Corporations -- do not want the full flower of your individual expression. They don't want you dressing flamboyantly, they don't want you talking about deviant sex or, actually, non-deviant sex either, they don't want you proselytizing, they don't want you arguing about politics, they don't want you offering your views on the relative accomplishments of the various Races of Man.
Let me say: I have no problem with this. This makes perfect sense. When you are in a working environment, you're not there to let your freak flag fly. The business does not want to know you as a Special Snowflake in all your oddball glory.
Someone who insists on festooning themselves with all their cultural/sexual/religious/political signage at work gravely mistakes how interested anyone at work is in learning about them as a person. People at work do not, by and large, want to know you as a person. Some might; most don't.
People at work want to keep this impersonal and polite but not familiar, because impersonal and polite but not familiar is the general code of conduct for not angering strangers one is forced, by circumstances, to be within close proximity to.
Manners, in all their artificiality, do not exist to navigate relations with your close relations. Manners are an artificial code of conduct designed to reduce frictions and any chance of showing disrespect or causing offense among strangers and semi-strangers.
I have no problem with the Corporate Code of Conduct at the corporation itself. When I'm forced to be at work, yes, of course I will abide by the "no hot political talk" and the "no sex talk" and "no cursing" and "no ethnic slurs" rules. Partly because I was raised that way, but also partly because I wish the benefit of the bargain-- I myself would like to be free of other people's Freak Flags. I don't want them gratuitously offending me, or assuming an over-familiar posture with me, so I will, to modify my own behavior and dress so that it is corporate bland and business casual.
But while I completely understand and endorse the Business Casual system of empty, gray dullness at work, I do not and will not accept it outside of work.
It is one thing to demand that I comport myself as if I am walking on eggshells for 9 or ten hours a day, at work. It is another thing entirely to further insist that when I get Home, and rest at my metaphoric Castle, that I must continue to follow the Corporate Rules of Conduct.
Here's my answer to that: Go fuck yourself. You cannot pursue me from work to home and hound me with your constant need for Conformity in all things.
Bill Quick is essentially making the case for Conformity in all things, in all spheres. He sees people making their Silly Religious Objections as possibly Offensive to some people, and causing some Friction, and certainly Bad For Business.
Well so fucking what, Bill Quick? The Corporate Handbook of Proper Employee Conduct may apply when I am working in an office with 100 strangers, but it does not apply when I own my own fucking business and my own fucking property.
On that ground, I can design any rules I wish. And if this makes your gray, corporate brain go all a-flutter at the potential disorderliness!!!, well, go fuck yourself, buddy. I do not exist to appease your OCD need for Hierarchy, Structure, Order, Regularity, and Standard Procedures in all facets of life.
Some people continue to be wigged out at the idea that I can buy alcohol in one county but the next county over -- get this! -- it's illegal to sell booze.
They just seem to have this baseline devotion to the ideal that we should all be the same. That each county should follow the same rules. That a traveler, moving from one county to the next, should not be surprised or bothered to discover there are Different Rules in effect, or a Different Culture.
That we should, in short, all have the Same Rules, and the Same Culture, with all Proud Nails pounded flat to the wood, so that there is no danger of snagging anyone's clothing or giving anyone a cut.
Some find that comforting.
I find it creepy. I also find it be the height of Entitlement: In what fucking spasm of ego did you conceive that other people exist to protect your mental Safe Place from any discombobulation and discomfort?
It bothers Bill Quick that one bakery could have one set of policies, and yet a bakery down the street could, get this, have an entirely different set of policies.
That's just wrong, he apparently thinks. We all need to be on the same page as far as Bakery Policies, or else -- else -- else...! Well, That Way Madness Lies, surely.
The idea that I must never be exposed to any thoughts I find weird -- like a Muslim demanding that women be veiled -- like a Catholic church demanding that women cover their shoulders -- is simultaneously infantile, weak, and entitled.
I guess this is the difference between Bill Quick and I: Bill Quick seems to pine for an orderly world in which a controlling hierarchy pursues us in our every waking hour to impose the Corporate Rulebook on us, even when we're not at the Corporate Headquarters, even when we own our own business which is not governed by any Corporate Rulebook but our own.
He finds that comforting.
I find it terrifying.
I think conservatives have long been overly trusting of corporate and social power, usually assuming we'd be in control of it, so that we would be protected from any misuse thereof.
I think we are now suddenly discovering that was a terrible assumption to make, and that we should have been asking ourselves, all along: What if this power to gin up the forces of social conformity and legal bullying were not in our hands, but in fact used against us?
Well, if any conservatives were previously unaware of the danger of empowering scolds, busybodies, bureaucrats, and police to Make You Behave As The Group Thinks Is Proper, surely none can still be ignorant.
If you're still fighting for Statism and Conformity and Group Decisionmaking, you are an enemy of liberty and an enemy of conservatism.
I think you get the point.
But do you get the point, Dummy? You seem to think I care about these things, because, Of course I must.
After all, I'm to be playing a Strawman Role you've assigned to me in your fat-clotted head.
But in fact I don't. I don't give a shit. I don't give a shit about being denied service at a Muslim Halal Shop, and, as long as we work out a system which avoids me waiting in the rain for a cab which later rejects me, I don't care about Muslim cab drivers refusing to ferry alcohol or dogs around, either.
You cannot be logically consistent on this issue unless you drop the bullshit about Christians being singled out -- (Muslims famously murder gays), and accept that if religious liberty permits Christians and Christian businesses to discriminate against gays, then you have to also permit Muslims and their businesses to discriminate against gays -- and women, and dogs, and drinkers, and kaffirs, and the whole host of religious proscriptions that religion subscribes to.
I have no idea what you're rambling on about, but it is much easier to be logically consistent on this issue than you seem to imagine, Dummy.
And if you say, "pshaw, I’m just talking about Christians here. We can’t let the Muslims run wild, that would be crazy."
Another thing Dumb People like to do is put Dumb Objections in your mouth -- Dumb Objections they can then easily, and dumbly, swat aside.
Well, at that point you’re demanding the state to establish a religion -- and that, dear friends, is really unconstitutional -- re-read that First Amendment you’re shrieking at the top of your lungs about.
You're blathering on quite a bit assuming that I'd object to either of these hypotheticals. Which I don't.
Also, yes, this is terribly, terribly important -- to the dozen or so gay couples who will request wedding cakes from the dozen or so bakers (some of whom may well be Muslim) who will refuse them.
Mm-hm. There sure aren't many gay bakers.
And even fewer gay florists.
And gay photographers? Why, nearly none of those.
In the meantime, Obama is giving Iran nuclear weapons, but Jebus --we have much more important things to screech about.
Gee I notice you screeched about it-- just on the other side. So I guess it is worth talking about-- so long as you support the leftwing position on it.
Leftwingers do this all the time -- they employ the rhetorical gambit, "How silly it is for you to ever care about this trivium!"
So you say: Well, Old Man, if it's trivial, surely you wouldn't mind conceding the trivial point to me, eh?
At which point they say: "Are you mad? This is an important matter of principle!!!"
Just like this dummy did right here. Right after he chided me about this not being so important, he informed me that it was terribly important to about a dozen gay couples.
Well, it's probably also important to a dozen Christians in the baking business.
Either way, your childish "This is too small an issue for you to argue about!!!" gambit fails.
By the way, I've been covering Iran a lot.
When I say Americans are stupid, this is the sort of thing I’m talking about.
Me too. I completely agree with you that most Americans are stupid. In fact, many people who spit up their every pique and half-baked Blog-Slam!!! are among the stupidest of all.
Food for thought: This country is increasingly paranoid about people who don't bow to the accepted Order of Things.
The country plainly does not like Small Independent Business owners, because without a larger Corporation overseeing their decisions, How do we know they'll make the right decisions? How do we force them to make the right decisions?
Corporations are cowardly and leftwing and the height of conformism.
But what about these damned Independents-- these Wildcatters with their own businesses, their own leases, and no Board of Directors or Shareholders to answer to?
How can we endure knowing that some people are out there Making Up Their Own Rules???!!!!
When Christians and their fellow-traveling conservatives (like me) were in more of a dominant social position, we didn't have to think much about the dilemma of whether we would like a system by which we get to impose our Rules and Values on Others, or whether we would like to be free from other people imposing their Rules and Values on Us.
See, when you're in a dominant social position, you don't have to make that choice, because you get Both. You are in a strong enough position to not have to worry too much about a hostile majority pushing its Rules and Values on you. You are the Majority, or a Near Majority, at least; so you can push a regime which is more insistent on Conformity, because you are numerically strong enough to stop the worst abuses of a Conformity Regime from being inflicted on you.
But we're not in that position any longer. We can longer use our numerical might to block other people's aggressions in this sphere. We can no longer have our cake and eat it too; we must choose.
We must now begin choosing which is more important: A regime in which the Majority gets to Impose Rules on a Minority (hoping we can occasionally be the Majority and Impose some of our Rules), or a Regime in which the Majority is de-powered, so that any Minority (including, most importantly, us) is less likely to be bullied by the Majority at all.
Some people still do not get this choice they are confronted with. They continue to insist that it's still 1988 and that we can have both, that we can have a regime in which a majority bullies an unpopular minority and be free of such bullying.
Other people see a choice, but seem to think that Corporate Conformism is more important than liberty.
I choose to be self willed. Empowering myself means de-powering others.
Sorry, Bill Quick. I don't want you or any of the other rules-following, orderliness-obsessed corporatists making decisions for me.
I choose liberty, and I choose my own conscience. And choosing that means, get this, that I must also choose liberty and the right to conscience for others.
This is a time for clarity, and this is a time for choosing. This is a time to discover who it is who really supports Liberty and Freedom, and who it is who is really all about Control and Conformity.
For many years, many conservatives have really been more about the latter than the former. I have admitted, and I will continue to admit, I was among them. I have long had pronounced authoritarian and statist tendencies.
I fight against them now, like an alcoholic fights his lust for drink.
But too many conservatives continue championing Social Control and Conformity while mouthing the empty platitudes about how wonderful Freedom is.
Freedom to do exactly what is permitted on pages 36-42 of the Corporate Handbook, that is.
Anything else is A Disorder and thus Subversive.
If keeping my own freedom means, horror of horrors, also granting it to a Muslim, then I am prepared to make that deal all. day. long.
It is time to put away childish things. Either you support liberty and justice for all, or you support it for none.
I will continue responding to Fake Libertarians who wish to explain to me why True Libertarianism requires Coercion in service of Conformity— TheClassyLife (@AceofSpadesHQ) April 2, 2015
The man who says "I support freedom, up to the point it causes disorder or inconvenience" does not support freedom. He is an authoritarian.— TheClassyLife (@AceofSpadesHQ) April 2, 2015
An Awful Woman's Awful Emails
Some good ones:
Hillary is having trouble deciding between the Lear jet and the G3, just like everyday Americans pic.twitter.com/Cw8v7dkOim— Greg Pollowitz (@GPollowitz) July 1, 2015
Here, we see that Hillary's secretiveness extends to the White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel -- even though she's a Secretary of State and, presumably, would need to communicate with Emmanuel.
Why wouldn't WH chief of staff have the Secretary of State's email address? pic.twitter.com/xhtUr2npig— Ed Henry (@edhenry) July 1, 2015
Here, a friend of Hillary's says that Leslie Gelb, former NYT reporter and columnist and currently editor of Parade, will agree to give Hills "veto" power over any subject in the story and guarantees "she will like it."
"She will like it" pic.twitter.com/9I3EzPfTvu— Jimmy (@JimmyPrinceton) July 1, 2015
Apparently Hillary was super-important in national security briefings:
This email either makes Hillary look so far outside of actually being relevant to Obama's team or very irresponsible. pic.twitter.com/seXC0mm9MN— Josh Jordan (@NumbersMuncher) July 1, 2015
Emily Zanotti joked that Hillary was Selena Myers (the hapless, useless Veep on the show of the same name).
In this one, Buzzfeed Ben Smith reassures the Hillary people that he has been "talked out of" pursuing some angle in a story.
People have asked Buzzfeed Ben what story he was talked out of. As far as I know, he refuses to answer:
And of course we know David Axelrod denied knowing about Hillary's secret email account -- but then we find out he was emailing Hillary on her secret email account.
David Axelrod had a good explanation for this -- and by good explanation, I of course mean "lie."
A archetypal Clintonian answer. https://t.co/0J7Pqo6UR4— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) July 1, 2015
Sorry the AP didn't ask. As I have said before, I knew HRC had private email. I did not know she used it exclusively or had her own server.— David Axelrod (@davidaxelrod) July 1, 2015
And Hot Air just put this up-- Mother Jones, the ultra-left magazine, says that Hillary's emails show an intention to manipulate and mislead the press.
Gunnar Widforss, "Grand Canyon Nat Park: Widforss Postcard" (n.d.)
Good News! Kennedy's Idiotic Gay Marriage Decision Worse Than You Thought
I was wondering how this new found "right to dignity" would play out. Turns out, Kennedy wasn't satisfied with just rewriting the centuries old definition of marriage. No, he decided to unshackle judges entirety from the written Constitution. He accomplished this by overturning a precedent that laid out the ground rules for finding "new rights."
In Glucksberg, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s holding that the Constitution contains a substantive-due-process right to assisted suicide. Substantive due process is a doctrine under which courts may discover and enforce unenumerated constitutional rights. The Supreme Court stated that in order to find a substantive-due-process right, a court would have to determine that the right, based on a “careful description” of what it included, was “objectively deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”
Rather than admitting that there was no substantive-due-process right to same-sex marriage, Justice Kennedy buried Glucksberg. He acknowledged that the Glucksberg test “may have been appropriate” when talking about assisted suicide, but claimed that a more lenient approach is appropriate when “discussing other fundamental rights.”
And other than redefining marriage in a ridiculous way by judicial fiat, what other rights might courts now invent?
In Obergefell, Justice Kennedy made it clear to lower courts that, after he eliminated Glucksberg, the only remaining limit on new judge-made rights is a judge’s imagination. He noted that “when new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim for liberty must be addressed.” In other words, he believes that since the Founders “did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions,” they gave courts unlimited power to “protect . . . the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.” The “we” in that sentence refers to judges.
The left is always on about how people have "a right" to be free from "want" and given things like "free" housing, food, a "living wage" and on and on. All the things they couldn't get via the electoral process? They will now simply sue for citing Kennedy's decision and obtain them by judicial decree.
As Gabe pointed out, Roberts' ObamaCare decision is a massive power grab by the courts from the executive. Pair it with this usurpation of legislative authority and we should just eliminate the political branches all together.
DOOM: A Serious House On Serious Earth
I been gone too long, my groovy babies. Real life doth conspire to keep us apart, but given the spectacularly DOOM-laden week gone by, I thought I should bestir myself and vent my spleen. (TRIGGER WARNING: Some Xtianist God-bothering occurs in the below text. Please keep a paper bag handy so that if your outrage causes you to hyperventilate, you can breathe into it until some semblance of emotional equilibrium is restored.)
In the wake of the Supreme Court's gay-marriage decision, there is a lot of angst among Christians about what this latest defeat in the culture war portends. Some advocate withdrawing from the culture entirely; others advocate various forms of civil disobedience. As for me...I simply feel weary. Christians have been fighting secularism in the West for more than a century now, and losing ground the entire time.
Matthew Arnold wrote "Dover Beach" more than a century ago, but it could have been written yesterday:
The Sea of Faith
Was once, too, at the full, and round earth's shore
Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furled.
But now I only hear
Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar,
Retreating, to the breath
Of the night-wind, down the vast edges drear
And naked shingles of the world.
The poet Philip Larkin brought his secularist's fear and suppressed awe to God's house in his poem "Church Going":
A serious house on serious earth it is,
In whose blent air all our compulsions meet,
Are recognized, and robed as destinies.
And that much never can be obsolete,
Since someone will forever be surprising
A hunger in himself to be more serious,
And gravitating with it to this ground,
Which, he once heard, was proper to grow wise in,
If only that so many dead lie round.
Religious faith is serious, and only takes root in serious folk. To me and many of my Christian cohort, the diminution of Christianity in the West coincides more or less with a loss of seriousness in the West. Not just a decay of virtue (both public and private), but a decay of gladness, hope and optimism -- a loss of belief in the ideal that being moral, upright, kind, steadfast, and honest is something to be aspired to even when it brings no direct benefit. Even when no one is watching (for God is always watching). There has been a progressive (in both senses of the word) loss in the belief that there is pneuma as well as sarx and soma -- and that pneuma is the most important part.
A church is a serious house on serious earth...but much of the earth is no longer serious.
But we do not despair, we Christians. The faith will go on -- if not here, then somewhere else. Our religion is not a game of numbers, to be given up when the score goes against us. Over the course of two millennia, we have faced graver threats. Every Christian is taught over and over again that our lot on earth is hardship -- we are commanded to go forth even so and carry the Word with us. (1 Peter 4:11-12)
The recent failure of a SpaceX mission was a lousy end to a lousy week. That's three ISS cargo runs that have failed in the past year, for those keeping track: an Orbital Antares rocket exploded on the pad; a Russian Progress freighter was lost; and now a SpaceX resupply mission has failed. For some weird reason, the space-launch industry goes through these periods of high failure-rates -- there doesn't seem to be any common denominator. Just Murphy exerting his invincible will. NASA assures us that the ISS has enough supplies to last for quite a while, but the margins have narrowed significantly.
"This is humiliating," said Athanasios, an 80-year-old former army officer. "I used to receive a monthly pension of 1,500 euros and now I have to line up for hours to receive 120? This is unfair."
You elected the Socialist government now driving your country into the abyss, friend. If you believe as I do that people in democracies get the government they deserve, then this is perfectly fair. Socialism is a one-way ticket to misery and failure. As George Will put it, "There cannot be too many socialist smashups."
It's easy (and completely justified) to blame the Greeks for their predicament, but the Greeks are simply the vanguard in a long line of nations who have buried themselves under mountains of unpayable debt. (Puerto Rico is in pretty much the same straits as Greece financially, but since they use the US dollar and the US government is their sovereign, they will not face nearly the same downside as the Greeks.)
All beneficiaries of government largesse should remember one thing: a promise to pay benefits does not guarantee an ability to pay benefits.
The government is not a person -- it does not love you, or particularly care about your welfare, or worry about how well you're getting on. To the government, you are a ledger entry and that's pretty much it. The government is a set of rules and processes overseen by politicians and bureaucrats who have absolutely no personal investment in your welfare. Your value to the government is a statistical one, insofar as you are a member of some larger collection: part of a voting bloc, a certain class, or interest group. Most governments aren't evil, but they're not benevolent either. It is a colossal mistake to ascribe personal feelings or motivations to any government. Individuals within that government, sure, but not the government itself.
I've said it many, many times, but it bears repeating: the Euro was a horrible idea right from the start. It was a system so fragile and brittle that failure was inevitable -- the only surprise it that the Eurozone has managed to stagger along for this long without a major rupture.
Next up in the "California is boned" pageant: the city of Richmond! Let's give them a big hand!
Before I close, I want to say a few words about debt. I'm seeing a lot of hyperbole from my hard-money and libertarian friends that there is something intrinsically wrong with debt, and that one should never go into debt unless at gravest need -- and maybe not even then.
This is silly.
Why do I say this?
Because debt is simply one side of the coin; the other side of the coin is investment. You cannot borrow money unless someone is willing to loan it, and you cannot loan money unless there are borrowers. Without debt, there is no investment. Without investment, wealth cannot be created and the economy cannot grow.
People run into problems with debt in the same way they run into problems with food: they eat too much. The problem with debt are not intrinsic to the concept, but in the inability of many human beings to manage it. As in so much else in economics, debt is a behavioral problem. Many policy answers to the "debt problem" try to focus on the incentives of debt, but the problem is that the government wants people to go into debt -- requires them to go into debt, in fact. A consumer-driven economy in a fiat-money system cannot function without high levels of debt at all levels; this churn is needed to keep money in motion and provide opportunities for the investment side of the ledger. (Though in a ZIRP environment, the "investment" side of the equation is barely worthwhile, and it is this asymmetrical relationship that is at the root of our economy's underperformance.)
Debt is much like any other intoxicant: its usage requires self-control. Lacking that, all the laws and regulations in the world won't stop people from getting into trouble with debt -- as with a habitual drunkard, the only remedy is to cut them off.
Close it up
Wednesday Morning News Dump
- You Can't Compromise With Culture Warriors
- Why The TSA Posted A Photo Of Cash Filled Luggage On Twitter
- Docs Reveal A Long Spying Operation In The John Doe Case
- Why I'm Filling A Civil Rights Lawsuit
- WH Knew About Hillary's Private E-mal Server
- Axelrod Caught Lying About Hillary's E-mails
- Befuddled Grandmother Has No Clue How To Work A Fax Machine
- TV Land Pulls Dukes Of Hazard Reruns Because Of Confederate Flag
- Girl Scouts Return $100,000 Donation To Anti-Transgender Donor
- Greek Crisis: Chaos As Retires Try To Withdraw Cash
- Winning The Selfie Vote
- Failed President Sharpens His Message On Race
- What Good Is VA Medical Coverage When They Won't Accept You As A Patient
—Dave In Texas
Andy didn't tell me how hard this was.
Overnight Open Thread (6-30-2015) – Link-o-rama Edition
When Greece's finance minister, Yanis Varoufakis, in an early round of negotiations in Brussels, complained that Greek pensions could not be cut any further, he was reminded bluntly by his colleague from Lithuania that pensioners there have survived on far less. Lithuania, according to the most recent figures issued by Eurostat, the European statistics agency, spends 472 euros, about $598, per capita on pensions, less than a third of the 1,625 euros spent by Greece. Bulgaria spends just 257 euros. This data refers to 2012 and Greek pensions have since been cut, but they still remain higher than those in Bulgaria, Lithuania, Latvia, Croatia and nearly all other states in eastern, central and southeastern Europe.
And here Mark Steyn describes the onerous life of a Greek civil servant:
Greek public sector employees are entitled not only to 14 monthly paychecks per annum during their "working" lives, but also 14 monthly retirement checks per annum till death. Who's going to be around to pay for that?
So you can't borrow against the future because, in the crudest sense, you don't have one. Greeks in the public sector retire at 58, which sounds great. But, when ten grandparents have four grandchildren, who pays for you to spend the last third of your adult life loafing around?
In the 1950s, the most puritanical place in America was somewhere in Kansas. Today it is Los Angeles.
-- Richard Miniter
Blogger Glenn Reynolds noted that when the South was solidly Democratic, we got "Gone With the Wind" nostalgia. Now that it is profoundly less racist, but also less useful to Democrats, it's the enemy of all that is decent and good.
-- Jonah Goldberg
The F-35's ability to compete against other fighter aircraft in a close-in dogfight, even against the decades old designs it looks to replace, has always been a contentious issue. Long ago, the F-35's maneuverability was planned to far exceed that of fourth generation fighters. Over time, those claims eroded to the point where the troubled stealth jet is described as being "about as maneuverable as an F-16."
Also: The F-35 can now take off from a ski jump. So it has that going for it.
Hard to argue effectively with that, although as I've noted earlier Greece is still an ally, which leads me to rather sentimentally not want it to collapse into some sort of Anarchy Free-Fire Zone. But, hey, elections have consequences. Greece has been making some very bad calls all throughout this crisis; not least of which was its inexplicable decision to hire Marxists to solve its economic problems. That's like hiring a radical Greenie to run your fission pile; he doesn't want to do the job, and even if he did he still doesn't know how. Hopefully the Greeks will wise up, soon. because the end result of that fission pile analogy would quite likely be a pile of corpses, and that is something that Commies are quite good at producing, alas.
What, you don't think that you can have a Third World collapse in Europe? Why? It's not like there's some sort of Cause And Effect disruption field covering the continent.
Part of a pattern.
In 1975 the Clintons attended in a voodoo ceremony in Haiti. Hillary has also been known to communicate with the dead.
Nevertheless, the DEA took all of Do's money under the assumption that he's involved in the drug business, despite being more than willing to let him go without even a citation. Do had planned to take his money to California to help his financially-struggling siblings out, but ran into the DEA first.
Then there's this:The Plaintiff did not know that it was a violation of Federal regulations to carry cash in excess of $5,000 at the time of the seizure.There's a good reason for not knowing this. There is no federal regulation prohibiting citizens from walking around (or boarding planes) with any amount of cash. Asset forfeiture laws make this practice unwise, but nothing in federal law says Do was forbidden from boarding a plane with his $44,000.
Note that not only was there no evidence of any connection with drugs but that DEA agents simply took the money without even issuing a citation or summons. This is Mexican Federales shit.
And then it got worse.
In 1980, Ted Benna was fed up with the pension consultant business. Instead of looking for ways to help employees when they retired, employers were looking out for themselves and seeking tax deductions, while minimizing pensions.
...The 401-k was a page-and-a-quarter of the 1978 Tax Reform Act. It allowed companies to set up defined contribution plans in which employees put money in, invest it, and collect the money when they retire. No one envisioned what Benna did with the 401-k, and it is doubtful Congress intended it that way. Unions have come to oppose defined contribution plans. Perhaps because the 401-k makes it easier for workers to participate in capitalism.
He was working on refining the pension plan of Cheltenham National Bank of Philadelphia in 1980. He had gone into work on Saturday where he would not be distracted by colleagues and phone calls, he read the code and had a Eureka moment. He credits God for the discovery, and who am I to argue with him?
Benna's plan was brilliant, because it allowed pre-tax payroll deductions of the money, and allowed employers to match some of the investment to encourage hourly workers to save money for retirement by investing their savings in mutual funds. Because it was retirement money, this forced workers to think in the long term and not worry about day-to-day changes in the market.
But his plan was not in the law. Benna wrote it. None of that was in the 401-k legislation. Unsure of the legality of his plan, Cheltenham National Bank. He said, "My approach was that if the code doesn't say thou shalt not, then thou should be able to."
Johnson Cos., an insurance and finance company in Newtown, Pennsylvania, was the first to take the plunge. Benna received initial approval from the Internal Revenue Service, which later promulgated regulations enabling Benna's plan.More than 30 years later, the 401-k is now a $4 trillion industry.
"A blast furnace that fits in a vest pocket."
-- Wilhelm Ostwald, winner of the 1909 Nobel Prize in Chemistry
Rosie O'Donnell could not be reached for comment.
With hidden games, liquor, and pr0n.
The Yahoo group is for closers only.
Tonight's post brought to you by unsung heroes:
Notice: Posted by permission of AceCorp LLC. You can send tips to email@example.com. Your ad could be here.
Close it up
If Hillary Clinton's Speaking Fee of $237,000 Is Too Much For You, You Can Hire Her Useless Failure-Puddle of a Daughter for $65,000
What the Clintons lack in dignity, they make up for in graft.
I know I'm way late on this but can I just say: Oh my shit.
Racism is a powerful animating force. And yes, this is racism. This is Female Superiority Racism mixed with Liberal Comfortable Class Tribalism Racism.
This is all about paying someone to stand as an avatar for one's own Superiority.
You can make a lot of money by giving the unaccomplished a racial or chromosomal excuse to feel that they're Important, too.
When the University of Missouri at Kansas City was looking for a celebrity speaker to headline its gala luncheon marking the opening of a women's hall of fame, one of the names that came to mind was Hillary Rodham Clinton.
But when the former secretary of state’s representatives quoted a fee of $275,000, officials at the public university balked. "Yikes!" one e-mailed another.
So the school booked the next best option: her daughter, Chelsea.
The university paid $65,000 for Chelsea Clinton’s brief appearance...
Now, let's see what a University gets for it's $65,000. Or what I call "full ride for a deserving underprivileged student."
The schedule she negotiated called for her to speak for 10 minutes, participate in a 20-minute, moderated question-and-answer session and spend a half-hour posing for pictures with VIPs offstage.
That long, huh? I hope she's monitoring her pulse rate. That kind of pace can kill someone.
As with Hillary Clinton’s paid speeches at universities, Chelsea Clinton made no personal income from the appearance, her spokesman said, and directed her fee to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.
Yes... and let's pretend that Foundation doesn't pay for their wardrobe, offices, transportation, travel, and five man staffs. (Yes, Chelsea has a five man staff.)
You know what most people call those things?
The cost of living. (Plus, jet plane rides and five-man staffs!)
So yes, they are in fact being paid by the Foundation.
If I started a "charity" and contracted to pay all your food and rent costs for the rest of your life, would you claim that you were being 'uncompensated"?
So the university turned back to others, eventually choosing Chelsea Clinton when the agency indicated she was willing. Just shy of her 34th birthday, Clinton commanded a higher fee than other prominent women speakers who were considered, including feminist icon Gloria Steinem ($30,000) and journalists Cokie Roberts ($40,000), Tina Brown ($50,000) and Lesley Stahl ($50,000), the records show.
Chelsea's done so much more, just by being born to Hillary Clinton and... well it really doesn't matter.
Officials with the school appeared to believe Clinton was worth her fee, which university spokesman John Martellaro said was paid using private donations. They exulted to Clinton’s representatives that the luncheon sold out quickly, with 1,100 tickets selling for $35 each -- which would equal $38,500. University officials say the event was intended to boost attention for the new hall of fame, not raise money.
So you funneled money to the Clintons at a fundraiser, lost money (as usual), and then you say "It wasn't about the money anyway, it was a about the attention?"
What f***ing attention? Who the hell ever heard of this before now?
I'm reading an article about this "hall" you supposedly boosted the profile of and I can't name the hall or guess what this hall's function is.
This was about funneling other people's money to political figures the left likes -- as usual.
"Chelsea was the perfect fit," Amy Loughman, an alumni relations official who managed the event, wrote in an e-mail a few days later. "It created fantastic buzz in the community."
She created fantastic buzz on NBC News, too, before she was fired for having the charisma of a urinal cake.
In dozens of e-mails exchanged between University of Missouri officials and Clinton’s representatives at the Harry Walker Agency, which arranges appearances by all three Clintons, there was no reference to her $65,000 fee going to charity. Nor was there any reference in the five-page contract.
Because it didn't.
What can this charmless, talentless, pointless woman do except collect graft-checks on behalf of her parents?
The university paid the fee -- which also covered Clinton’s travel expenses -- in two disbursements to the Walker Agency. But Martellaro said, "We have no knowledge of how funds were disbursed from that point."
Bazbaz said all of Clinton’s paid speeches through the Walker Agency are delivered on behalf of the foundation "to support implementing its life saving work" and that this was "always the intention" with the University of Missouri. He added that neither she nor her hosts receive charitable tax deductions.
Because it's not charity.
Oh now let's look at the contract, which has more riders in it than Van Halen did at the peak of their popularity.
The contract stipulated that Clinton would have final approval of everything, such as the selection of her introducer (celebrities, journalists and elected officials were prohibited from consideration), the onstage setup (there must be "room-temperature water" next to her podium along with "two comfortable armed-and-backed chairs" for the question-and-answer session) and the type of microphone provided for her use (both lavaliere and handheld).
In e-mails with university officials, Clinton’s aides closely edited the texts of press releases, marketing materials and introductory remarks. Clinton’s representatives instructed that a line about her being the daughter of Bill and Hillary Clinton be deleted from one news release and that her title of vice chair of the Clinton Foundation be added beneath her name on an electronic flier. Other materials mentioned her parents, however.
When reviewing the script that a student would read introducing her, a Clinton Foundation aide asked university officials to remove the list of Clinton’s degrees. A Clinton adviser, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about the event, said "this was by no means an intention to script a high school student's introduction of Chelsea," but rather to avoid what otherwise would have been a recitation of all of Clinton's achievements.
There's so many of them, who could list them all?
Oh, there you go. I just did list them all.
Not as hard as I thought.
Clinton’s representatives also closely managed her time on campus. They asked whether she would be free to depart from the event once she finished her remarks, rather than waiting until the luncheon concluded. Martellaro said she stayed until the end.
Clinton agreed to pose for photographs backstage with 100 VIPs prior to the speech. But her representatives requested that only 20 to 30 minutes be budgeted for the photo line, rather than 45 minutes the university initially sought.
You know what there's no news about?
Anything Chelsea Clinton said there that day.
For $65,000 for thirty minutes' work, you'd think that this graceless walking graft-bag could have said something interesting or insightful, no?
But no, no one expects anything from the Clintons; no accomplishments, no successes.
Just nothing but an extended hand, palm up, demanding their next pay-off.
Contest: Play this video -- Chelsea Clinton talking with Stella McCartney about how harrrrd it is to have rich parents -- and watch the counter.
Tell me the time at which you Tap Out.
How far can you make it?
Suggestions Box for the Next Book Club Thread
I don't think I picked a great one last time, but I want to do this again.
People will want to read a political book. There are two such books I want to read, and which are endlessly recommended to me, but which I need a nudge to read (which the point of a bookclub, the nudge): Thomas Sowell's Vision of the Annointed and F.A. Hayek's Road to Serfdom.
One book I'd like a nudge to read is Dracula, which I was enjoying before I put it down for no good reason. I was surprised it was well written -- for some reason I expected it to be gothic trash. Maybe it is, but I liked the scenery-painting of Transylvania.
The only type of book I'm going to call in the book club is one that people need a nudge to read -- classics, smart-stuff. I don't need a nudge to read the sort of entertainment fiction I already read. Like, I don't need a nudge to read the Jack Reacher book Killing Floor; I already did that, without a nudge. Nor the sci-fi candy Ready Player One.
So, that said, and feel free to recommend books, but there's no point saying "You should read the Vince Flynn book" because, while I take your recommendation seriously, it's also the case that I'd read the new Vince Flynn book if I liked the cover and the first few pages.
Ultimately I want to do Moby Dick, but I guess I need to build to that. Maybe at some point I'll try Huckleberry Finn, another classic I was supposed to have read but did not.
Choice: CBD suggested Poe's "Fall of the House of Usher," which I always wanted to read. I have no idea what it's about, though I suppose there's a house involved, and some substandard foundation work.
It's 7000 words, so it's just a short story, a mere tenth of a novel, and it's free on Kindle (and B&N, I assume).
It's also available freely at project Guttenberg, here.
So Fall of the House of Usher it is!
This is very exciting!
Let's go for... um, I dunno. Let's go for the Sunday after next.
It Is Time to Scrap the F-35 And Simply Begin Building Somewhat Updated F-15s Again
Have you heard the bad news? We have spent one trillion dollars on the F-35, which is intended to be the main battle plane across three different services (Navy, Air Force, Marines), filling at least two different roles (air superiority, that is, dogfighting and radar-destroying, and ground-striking) and the thing is an absolute piece of shit which will kill our pilots.
This is not some niche plane. This is intended to be the main airframe in use by all of our military. This will end up being 70% of the planes we fly. (Note: I just made that up, but I really want to push that this is not just some niche flier we can afford to limp along with.)
A test pilot has some very, very bad news about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The pricey new stealth jet can’t turn or climb fast enough to hit an enemy plane during a dogfight or to dodge the enemy’s own gunfire, the pilot reported following a day of mock air battles back in January.
"The F-35 was at a distinct energy disadvantage," the unnamed pilot wrote in a scathing five-page brief that War Is Boring has obtained. The brief is unclassified but is labeled "for official use only."
The test pilot's report is the latest evidence of fundamental problems with the design of the F-35 -- which, at a total program cost of more than a trillion dollars, is history's most expensive weapon.
The fateful test took place on Jan. 14, 2015, apparently within the Sea Test Range over the Pacific Ocean near Edwards Air Force Base in California. The single-seat F-35A with the designation "AF-02" -- one of the older JSFs in the Air Force --took off alongside a two-seat F-16D Block 40, one of the types of planes the F-35 is supposed to replace.
The F-35 was flying "clean," with no weapons in its bomb bay or under its wings and fuselage. The F-16, by contrast, was hauling two bulky underwing drop tanks, putting the older jet at an aerodynamic disadvantage.
But the JSF's advantage didn't actually help in the end. The stealth fighter proved too sluggish to reliably defeat the F-16, even with the F-16 lugging extra fuel tanks. "Even with the limited F-16 target configuration, the F-35A remained at a distinct energy disadvantage for every engagement," the pilot reported.
In the end, the F-35 -- the only new fighter jet that America and most of its allies are developing -- is demonstrably inferior in a dogfight with the F-16, which the U.S. Air Force first acquired in the late 1970s.
I am not even close to expert. One caveat I'd note here: Dogfighting is not everything. Agility is not the most important thing. Speed is. For example, I remember in the nineties some lesser plane -- maybe the F-16, maybe some British fighter -- would routinely beat F-15s in dogfighting.
But the F-15 pilots laughed. They said, basically, this: "We lost because we were under the artificial conditions where we had to dogfight. In real life, we get to decide whether we have the superiority and thus whether to engage at all. And in the air, speed, not agility, is king: we can close on them if they flee, and we can flee them if they close on us. Add in our ability to hit them from very far away, and it all shakes out that the F-16's advantage in dogfighting is trivial, and not one that will make a difference on the battlefield very often."
But no one hears anything but one problem after another with this plane. (See video below for more.) Australia's going a little big wiggy that they've contracted to buy this lemon.
There is no doubt that the US fighter fleet could use a refreshing -- but this plane seems to be awful.
We need some brave voices to stand up to the serious Career-Momentum of this thing -- that is, everyone who shepherded this piece of shit along is going to suffer a career-ending embarrassment if we pull the plug on it, or put it back on to the chalkboards -- to take a stand and say that our boys, and our security, are more important than some Pentagon Procurement Asshole's career.
Put the F-35 back into the chalkboard stage, and begin designing some incremental, evolutionary changes to the F-15.
No, a slightly upgraded F-15 will not give us the sort of dominance we need.
But the F-35 sure won't, either, and at least we know, with the F-15, we're getting a reliable and effective platform.
We do need more stealth. Fine. Use the money saved from canceling the F-35 rollout (and buying cheaper upgraded F-15s) to buy some extra stealth planes.
But this F-35 seems to be a disaster, and Washington seems to be doing with this disaster what it does with all disasters of its own making: Pretending it's not happening so that no one actually has to (gasp!) get a demotion over the catastrophe.
For a contrary take, see Defense Tech, quoting pilots who claim flying the F-35 is "like magic."
I don't know.
There's a certain rah-rah that happens when you're in a group project and you want it all to turn out all right...
New Video Added: Dave in Texas recommends the below video-- from the co-designer of the F-16.
He calls the F-35 "dumb," and the whole F-35 plan a "stunt" and "public relations campaign."
Reporter Misreported Nobel Scientist Tim Hunt's Words, Then #SocialAttentionWhores Just Ran With It Until They Forced His Resignation
Unbelievable. According to a third-party EU official, and Sir Tim Hunt himself, she took words out the context, and concealed the fact that Hunt's remarks were jokes at his own expense.
The Guardian has now heavily re-edited this Social Attention Whore's story to make it less defamatory -- but the Guardian doesn't alert you to that, contrary to its own claimed rules.
Hunt has now resigned from his important work in cancer research. And this Social Attention Whore got her scalp.
New revelations about the speech and the context of the joke have surfaced. An account of a European Commission Official who took detailed minutes of the event adds key information absent from the original report:According to the new account, Sir Tim started with: "It's strange that such a chauvinist monster like me has been asked to speak to women scientists” which makes clear he mocking sexism, rather than indulging in it. St. Louis reported this as Hunt simply admitting: "he has a reputation as a male chauvinist."
Immediately after the now infamous joke, according to the new evidence, he proceeded to make several very pro gender equality remarks, including: "Now seriously... Science needs women and you should do science despite all the obstacles, and despite monsters like me," which was similarly disregarded in St. Louis's twitter report.
Hunt has already protested that he added, "now seriously" to indicate the joke was over.
The Daily Mail is now vetting this #SocialAttentionWarrior, Connie St. Louis, and finding lots of troubling facts.
Then, early this week, the simmering dispute took a further, seismic twist.
It came courtesy of The Times newspaper, which revealed the contents of a leaked report into Sir Tim's fall from grace compiled by an EU official who had accompanied him to the Seoul conference.
This individual, who has not been named, sat with him at the lunch and provided a transcript of what Sir Tim 'really said'.
Crucially, it presented a very different take to the one which had been so energetically circulated by Connie St Louis.
However, Sir Tim's critics remained unmoved and disputed the EU report's contents. Importantly, given how the scandal had originally emerged, they were led by Connie St Louis.
Perhaps, therefore, we should ask two other related questions: who exactly is Connie St Louis? And why, exactly, should we trust her word over that of a Nobel laureate?
A good place to start is the website of London’s City University, where St Louis has, for more than a decade, been employed to run a postgraduate course in science journalism.
Here, on a page outlining her CV, she is described as follows:
'Connie St Louis . . . is an award-winning freelance broadcaster, journalist, writer and scientist.
'She presents and produces a range of programmes for BBC Radio 4 and BBC World Service . . . She writes for numerous outlets, including The Independent, Daily Mail, The Guardian, The Sunday Times, BBC On Air magazine and BBC Online.'
All very prestigious. Comforting, no doubt, for potential students considering whether to devote a year of their lives (and money) to completing an MA course under her
stewardship. Except, that is for one small detail: almost all of these supposed 'facts' appear to be untrue.
I've quoted too much so I'll leave you to click on the Daily Mail to see what's untrue.
Think about the sort of person who becomes a Social Attention Whore.
Think about the psychology at play.
Then wonder: Why do we ever give these unaccomplished, envious, grasping monsters any credence at all?
thanks to @comradearthur
Kurtz: The Media Is an Intolerant Mob of Jungle-Tribe Witchdoctors and Zealots
Will be back in a few -- but needed to get something up.
Morrissey quotes Hugh Hewitt's interview with Buzzfeed Ben, an interview that makes me more sorry for Buzzfeed Ben than usual.
What astonishes me is that Buzzfeed Ben is like this guy Dietz in the Illinois 18th race -- it is quite obvious that he has never even thought about the questions Hugh Hewitt poses before. Simple, obvious questions everyone even pretending to be a thinker must ask himself, like "Why is it I feel comfortable declaring there are no two sides on gay marriage, and yet I cannot bring myself to criticize Shariah law?"
Again, this is obvious.
And Buzzfeed Ben is not an uncommonly dumb person for the media. Among media types, I'd wager he's actually highly intelligent (for the cohort, I repeat).
But this exposes how painfully, embarrassingly shallow and utterly disconnected from any kind of intellectual rigor these people are.
These creates are not thinkers, and hell, they're barely even writers. What they are are Social Climbers, social animals with a fondness for telling those lower in the social pecking order What's Hot and What Not, but with not a dollop of actual interest in the ideas that are supposedly informing their Viral Persuasions.
These people are shallow, they are incompetent, they are in the arena of idea without actually having any taste for thinking, and they must, and will be, swept aside.
Here's What I'm Doing: Just a brief personal note. This is no big deal. But it doesn't cost me anything to write some frivolous words.
I have a good job. In fact, I have a great job. But like many people, I lose sight of just how fortunate I am. I get annoyed that I have to blog every hour, I get lazy, I get bored by the same sorts of stories day in, day out.
And what people do, and what I certainly do, is just forget all the wonderful parts of this job, and just look at the annoyances of it. But here's what I get to do: I get to write every day, I get to think about things (which, unlike Buzzfeed Ben, I find enjoyable), and then I get them read by you guys -- who, in the main, like most of what I write, so I get a huge amount of affirmation every single day-- far more than 99% of the world, which works harder than I do but gets only the most meager appreciation for their toil.
The other thing I get to do, and this is why I had to run, is do things like grill two huge rib-eye steaks in the middle of the day.
I'm Intermittent Fasting, which means I don't eat for about 16-18 hours a day. I eat in a short window of 6-8 hours. When I wake up, I'm pretty hungry. My last meal was at about 5:30 last night, and it was a couple of hardboiled eggs.
So I woke up hungry and did my early-afternoon walk and thought about getting some food.
And then I remembered: I actually went shopping this weekend and bought two big rib-eyes.
I completely forgot about those. Ever do that? Ever let good, expensive meat spoil because you just forgot?
Anyway, I realized I had to eat those steaks. So I'm grilling them.
That's why I had to post quick and run -- had to turn the steaks.
Anyway, I know that many of you wish you could work from home. It has some downsides (isolation, lack of stimulus), but obviously it has huge upsides.
And I think it's important for me to occasionally acknowledge how lucky I am, and drop the depressive Woe Is Me act.
I really am grateful.
And soon, I will will be almost drunk on rib-eye.
Steak Update: These guys are thicker than what I'm used to so the first cut revealed they were purple-pink inside, and I don't play that.
Got the alarm set for another five minutes, but I think it's going to be like ten.
I am so hungry. You have no idea.
Close it up
Gunnar Widforss, "California Redwood Grove" (1925)
Tuesday Morning News Dump
- The Darin LaHood Campaign Is Asking the US Chamber Of Commerce To Like About Mike Flynn
- Churches That Oppose Gay Marriage Should Still Tax Breaks
- The Supreme Court And End Of The Umpire
- Progressive Mass Hysteria
- Buzzfeed's Journalistic Struggles On Same Sex Marriage In Gifs
- What The Hell Happened To England? Part 2,321
- A Greek Default Would Be A Great Lesson In Economics
- Was I Wrong To Support Gay Marriage
- Baltimore's Incompetent Prosecutor Gets A Vogue Spread
- What World War Three Would Look Like
- ISIS Now Beheading Women
- Gay Marriage Supporters Handle SCOTUS Decision With Class And Dignity
- Can Gay Marriage Defeat The Islamic State
- Rapper Glad He Cut His Penis Off
—Dave In Texas
I love doing this cause it lets me show off my laziness.
Overnight Open Thread (6-29-2015) – Surprise Early Edition
"How can something like this happen without prior warning?" asked Angeliki Psarianou, a 67-year-old retired public servant, who stood in the drizzle after arriving too late at one empty ATM in the Greek capital.
WTF. So in what sense is this actually a nuclear inspection agreement then?
The P5+1 countries led by the United States under Barack Obama have caved in to Iranian demands and will not insist on inspections of nuclear installations as part of a deal on Iran's nuclear weapons program, Channel 1 reported Sunday.
Alternative theory from the article: Iran already has nukes in the form of a couple crude Hiroshima type bombs so it's game-over.
Meanwhile the State Department kicked out unfriendly US reporters at a Vienna briefing on the imminent nuclear agreement.
It cannot be said too often: There cannot be too many socialist smashups. The best of these punish reckless creditors whose lending enables socialists to live, for a while, off other people's money. The world, which owes much to ancient Athens's legacy, including the idea of democracy, is indebted to today's Athens for the reminder that reality does not respect a democracy's delusions.
And is considered a viable contender.
Mr. Biden, 72 years old, lost two previous bids for the White House, in 1988 and 2008, and he would enter the 2016 contest as a clear underdog. Yet as a sitting vice president with loyal supporters in states that hold early contests, he has the potential to scramble the Democratic field.
A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll earlier this month showed that Americans' image of Mr. Biden is growing more positive. A total of 40% saw him in a favorable light, versus 31% who had a negative view of him. In November 2014, Mr. Biden's favorability rating stood at 35%, compared with 38% who viewed him unfavorably.
I've only threatened to leave to leave the United States once before and that was over the prospect of a Ted Kennedy presidency back when I was a precocious and passionate adolescent. Well the possibility of a President Biden is the second time I'm threatening to go ex-pat.
It's a hard knock life working on the Empress Dowager's campaign.
Here is the background. The American Law Institute periodically issues "restatements" that attempt to codify the common law-but also shift the law in the direction the institute wants it to go. In 1964, for example, the institute's Restatement of Torts established the liability of sellers to consumers for defective products regardless of fault. At the time only 16 states had taken this position. Now it is the law everywhere.
The Arizona Supreme Court has ruled that American Law Institute restatements are law in all subsequent decisions when there is no state statute to the contrary. The U.S. Supreme Court on average cites the institute at least once a month.
On May 20 the American Law Institute approved, by a very close vote, significant changes to the section of its new Restatement of Torts dealing with assault and battery. The changes will have far-reaching, and extremely troubling, social and legal ramifications-including favoring some religious beliefs over others.
The institute's restatement defines the tort of battery as any contact with another person that "offends a reasonable sense of personal dignity" or-the new addition-contact that is highly offensive to another person's "unusually sensitive sense of personal dignity, and the actor knows that the contact will be highly offensive to the other."
To be a battery, the contact or touching must be offensive. That's to exclude the occasional bumps we experience walking through a crowd. And the law always measured what constituted an offense based on the views of a reasonable person. That way a judge can dismiss a frivolous claim. However, the American Law Institute now proposes that personal contact is a tort if the defendant knows that it will be offensive to someone who is "unusually sensitive."...Consider John Doe, waiting at a bus stop, who taps a woman wearing a Muslim veil on the shoulder to get her attention and ask for directions. The institute's restatement suggests that Mr. Doe might be liable for committing battery. A jury might find that a reasonable person would know that males aren't supposed to make bodily contact with females not in their family. But if the woman touches Mr. Doe, she's not liable, because he follows a different religion or no religion at all.
Well property taxes are local but I can see local exemptions being stripped in blue areas since it lets the legislators feel morally superior and brings in more $$$.
No, the real intent of removing tax-exempt status is to cripple the institutions that continue their dissent from the sexual revolution. When tax exemptions are removed, donors will give far less than they are giving now. Churches will become liable to property taxes. That means that many churches will have to forfeit their property to the government because they won't be able to afford the taxes they have to pay on it. Many of them wouldn't be able to pay them now. If donations went down, they would be that much further from being able to pay them.
[Morrell] said the FBI and Department of Homeland Security's recent bulletin resonated with him for two reasons. One note for concern, he said, is the large number of people who align themselves with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.
"There's been about 50 people in the last 12 months who have been arrested in the United States for being radicalized by ISIS, wanting to go fight there or wanting to conduct an attack here," Morell said.He's also worried about ISIS' "call to arms" for attacks against the terror group's enemies during Ramadan.
Not much we can do other than be prepared and watchful as always.
(Thanks to 'Dave' or as I know him, Secret Tipster Unit31)
You know when casting agents put out a call for bouncer and biker gang parts they mention that they're looking for big, burly kinds of actors - and for parts calling for a bosomy woman, it follows that they might mention that fact in the call notes. But apparently this is now sexist or something.
As Rose puts it ... "I just got fired by my wussy acting agent because I spoke up about the bulls**t in Hollywood."
If you missed it -- Rose went on a rant about the notes attached to a casting call for a Sandler flick. The notes called for women to wear something tight "that shows off cleavage (push-up bras encouraged)." She thought it was offensive to women, but a lot of people just saw it as part of the job for actors.
One day later, Rose's agents -- who most likely sent her on the casting call -- 86'd her.Doesn't seem like she's too crushed. She tweeted, "#douchebags #awesome #BRINGIT."
And here McGowan is shown fighting for women and machine gun cyborgs' rights in the movie, Planet Terror.
The Yahoo AoSHQ group - it's got electrolytes and shit.
And my twitter thang.
Tonight's post brought to you by Quasi Modo, winner of the 2015 world's ugliest dog contest:
Notice: Posted by permission of AceCorp LLC. Please remain standing while the national anthem of the United States and Endor are played.
Sorry for the bummer of an ONT - it happens sometimes. As a consolation the AoSHQ Prime beer cooler will be open tonight to *everyone* until 11:30pm EST. So go ahead and grab yourself a brewski on Ace. It don't cost nothing.
Close it up
#TheRevolutionWillBeLiveStreamed: Flynn/LaHood "Candidate Forum," on YouTube, at 7 PM Eastern
Andrew Breitbart's Wartime Consiglierte goes up against Establishment/US Chamber of Commerce/Main Street Partnership scion and Boehner Water Carrier Darin LaHood.
Watch (not just listen) below.
If the channel gets stuck, it might also be available here.
Also, it's the top story at Breitbart.
.@flynn1776 "We are children of God, we are all touched by the divine. Conservatism is a humility-- we do not know what's best for you."— TheUltraYachtLife (@AceofSpadesHQ) June 29, 2015
Update: I'm told that Mike will be appearing on Mark "The Great One" Levin's show at 8:30, or thereabouts. You can listen live here.
The New York Times, Which Refused to Run Any Mohammad Images Claiming They Simply Would Not Run Pictures That Offended Any Religious Group, Runs Picture of Pope Made Up of Condoms
You might say, how do they know this offends the religious?
Easy. Their own article says the picture is drawing complaints from Catholics in Milwaukee.
Portrait of Pope Benedict XVI Made of Condoms Draws Complaints in Milwaukee
Here was their transparently-false claim in January:
Here's the truth you won't hear in the New York Times:
The New York Times' stock-in-trade is silly, transparent dissembling unworthy of adults or even educated children.
Note: Mike Flynn will have his last "candidate forum" with LaHood (who won't agree to a debate) tonight at 7 eastern, livestreamed at sj-r.com. I will be covering it, or, well, listening to it and commenting it.
He'll then be on the Mark Levin show afterwards -- but as the debate is 90 minute (I think), it's going to be tough to squeeze him in. Ah well, we'll see how long he and Mark Levin get to talk.
Hillary Clinton, Get This, Edited the Emails She Turned Over to State to Delete Embarrassing References to Oil, Terrorism
I saw someone note that altering official federal records -- which Hillary's emails are -- is a felony.
Hillary Clinton withheld Benghazi-related emails from the State Department that detailed her knowledge of the scramble for oil contracts in Libya and the shortcomings of the NATO-led military intervention for which she advocated.
Clinton removed specific portions of other emails she sent to State, suggesting the messages were screened closely enough to determine which paragraphs were unfit to be seen by the public.
For example, one email Clinton kept from the State Department indicates Libyan leaders were "well aware" of which "major oil companies and international banks" supported them during the rebellion, information they would "factor into decisions" about about who would be given access to the country's rich oil reserves.
Remember, this is as she's taking $100 million from Canadian oil-and-uranium mining magnate Frank Guistra.
The email, which Clinton subsequently scrubbed from her server, indicated Clinton was aware that involvement in the controversial conflict could have a significant financial benefit to firms that were friendly to the Libyan rebels.
She thanked Sidney Blumenthal, her former aide and author of dozens of informal intelligence memos, for the tip, which she called "useful," and informed him she was preparing to hold a meeting with Libyan leaders in Paris in an exchange that suggests the flow of information went both ways.
State Department officials admitted Clinton had withheld all of nine emails and parts of six others after Blumenthal provided 60 emails to the House Select Committee on Benghazi that the agency had failed to submit earlier this year.
There's more. I can't quote it all.
The White House is putting out the word that they're "disgusted" by the email scandal, but this is par for the course for this White House, which tacitly approves of actions but puts out claims about how "angry" they are.
There's a way a president can show his anger about remorseless law-breaking: Appointing a Special Prosecutor with the power to investigate and bring criminal charges, if warranted.
But they won't do that, will they? No, they'll keep their Democratic apparatchiks busy covering it all up, then putting out the word they're "disgusted" at having to clean up Hiilary's filthy, stinking leavings.
Apparently Hillary Clinton's Yoga Routines consist of Downward Dog Graft and Crescent Moon Crony Militarism.
Politically Corrupt, Devoutly Anti-American Supreme Court Reaches Randomly Into Its Grab-Bag of "What's Hot" and "What's Not" Rulings, Puts Texas Abortion Restrictions on Hold
Update: "Gay Reparations?"
This isn't a full ruling on the merits, but rather a restraining order to keep the situation in place while the Supreme Court has a nine-man political debate about it and Elects a New Law.
The part of the Texas law being estopped is always the one I thought was most problematic and likely to result in court action -- the one that basically shutters abortion clinics, I think the ones where they have no doctor on staff with privileges at a nearby hospital.
Although sold as a "health" measure, I think it's pretty obviously put in there to keep the number of abortion clinics low, which may be a problem.
But the Supreme Court is basically spinning the Wheel of Made-Up Law lately, randomly guessing the consonants and letters that will spell out its opinions, so who knows.
And yes, Obama solicitor general David Verelli has already admitted that tax exemptions for religious institutions opposed to gay marriage are officially under jeopardy under the Supreme Court's latest lawmaking without the consent of the governed, so you have that to look forward to.
BTW, a guy I trust says that he was speaking to an informed source on the Gay Marriage side of things, and he says that "gay reparations" are going to be a live issue in 2016, and something that all candidates will have to take a position on.
Lawless, Politically-Rotten Supreme Court Randomly Rules that Obama's EPA Rule is "Unconstitutional"
Oh, I'm happy about the ruling.
But I'm not going to pretend the Supreme Court is ruling on the law or Constitution any longer.
This particular EPA rule bothered a majority of the Supreme Court, as it would bother any person voting in a political election. So they had their own nine-man political election, and said "Nah."
I'm with Andy C. McCarthy -- and with Drew M Tips. I'm done with the ruse. The Supreme Court is just a political organ -- but one we don't get to vote on.
We should. We need retention votes. If these motherf***ers want to be political, we get to vote on them, and run campaigns against them.
So here's how the third House of Congress voted, the House of Congress that gets to make All the Laws in this country.
The Supreme Court dealt a blow to the Obama administration’s landmark air quality rule on Monday, ruling the Environmental Protection Agency did not properly consider the costs of the regulation.
In a 5-4 ruling, the justices ruled that the EPA should have taken into account the costs to utilities and others in the power sector before even deciding whether to set limits for the toxic air pollutants it regulated in 2011.
In the majority ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia concluded that the EPA "unreasonably" interpreted the Clean Air Act when it decided not to consider industry compliance costs and whether regulating the pollutants is "appropriate and necessary.”
While the agency is afforded a certain level of power to interpret the law, the court wrote, "EPA strayed well beyond the bounds of reasonable interpretation in concluding that cost is not a factor relevant to the appropriateness of regulating power plants."
Oh but by the way this is the same Third House of Congress that just sagely informed us that an executive agency could reasonably read "established by the state" as "established by the federal government," and also, that the right to gay-marry was established 150 years ago by the 14th Amendment, but no one realized that until last Thursday.
Three Essays on Post-America America
In the 1850s there was an active political movement that became known as the "Know-Nothings," because they considered themselves semi-secret, and members, when questioned about the group, were supposed to say "I know nothing." Of course, a secret political party doesn’t have much effect, and quickly the Know-Nothings were pretty overt about telling everyone around them that they knew nothing, over and over again.
It seems to me there’s a semi-secret political party at work in the U.S. now: the People Who Know Better.
[T]he Know-Betters would never come to the conclusion that conditions in places like Colorado simply aren’t suited for wide-scale mass transit.
Instead, the Know-Betters have decided that we should use government to impose greater population density, with utopian city plans that push people into small, "walkable" communities with mass transit hubs.
And if people prefer to live on half-acre lots with lawns and space between houses, well, they Know Better.
I keep finding myself coming back to a passage from Thomas Jefferson that I put up on Tatler a long while ago. Here’s Jefferson:Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them, therefore, Liberals and Serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, Whigs and Tories, Republicans and Federalists, Aristocrats and Democrats, or by whatever name you please, they are the same parties still and pursue the same object. The last one of Aristocrats and Democrats is the true one expressing the essence of all.
– Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Henry Lee, 1824)
Rod Dreher writes of the need to now live as expatriots in our own country. Internal exiles, as the Soviets termed them.
It is hard to overstate the significance of the Obergefell decision-- and the seriousness of the challenges it presents to orthodox Christians and other social conservatives. Voting Republican and other failed culture war strategies are not going to save us now.
Discerning the meaning of the present moment requires sobriety, precisely because its radicalism requires of conservatives a realistic sense of how weak our position is in post-Christian America.
The alarm that the four dissenting justices sounded in their minority opinions is chilling. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia were particularly scathing in pointing out the philosophical and historical groundlessness of the majority’s opinion. Justice Scalia even called the decision "a threat to democracy," and denounced it, shockingly, in the language of revolution.
The warning to conservatives from the four dissenters could hardly be clearer or stronger. So where does that leave us?
For one, we have to accept that we really are living in a culturally post-Christian nation. The fundamental norms Christians have long been able to depend on no longer exist. To be frank, the court majority may impose on the rest of the nation a view widely shared by elites, but it is also a view shared by a majority of Americans. There will be no widespread popular resistance to Obergefell. This is the new normal.
For another, LGBT activists and their fellow travelers really will be coming after social conservatives....
It is time for what I call the Benedict Option. In his 1982 book After Virtue, the eminent philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre likened the current age to the fall of ancient Rome. He pointed to Benedict of Nursia, a pious young Christian who left the chaos of Rome to go to the woods to pray, as an example for us. We who want to live by the traditional virtues, MacIntyre said, have to pioneer new ways of doing so in community. We await, he said "a new — and doubtless very different — St. Benedict."
Throughout the early Middle Ages, Benedict’s communities formed monasteries, and kept the light of faith burning through the surrounding cultural darkness. Eventually, the Benedictine monks helped refound civilization.
I believe that orthodox Christians today are called to be those new and very different St. Benedicts.
Buzzfeed Ben was asked to reconcile his shitty listicle site's stated claim of being "neutral" with its all-in rainbow-color theming for the gay marriage ruling. He said that he was being perfectly neutral and objective -- it's just that there aren't two sides to the gay marriage question. There's only one.
This is a frightening thought, and LOLCats Ben isn't the only one pushing it. In order to claim the high road of being liberal and tolerant of ideas, while at the same time actually being as illiberal and intolerant as any zealot or hooded klansman, it is necessary to deem contrary positions unpositions, which therefore can only be held by unpeople.
By claiming an idea simply does not exist in civil society, one must, perforce, also claim that those holding that idea do not, or must not, themselves exist in civil society.
Something must be sacrificed in order to maintain these two contradictory claims -- and the thing most easily sacrificed is any acknowledgement of you as a human being and American citizen.
But Buzzfeed Ben is a nice, open-minded guy. Just ask him. He'll tell you so.
So, Donald Trump
Republicans are starting to get kind of freaked out about this whole Trump thing.
“Donald Trump is like watching a roadside accident,” said former George W. Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer. “Everybody pulls over to see the mess. And Trump thinks that’s entertainment. But running for president is serious. And the risk for the party is he tarnishes everybody.”
Those risks were amplified this week after a trio of polls showed him likely to earn a coveted invitation to the party’s debates, which ironically were restructured with the very goal of avoiding the circus-like atmosphere of 2012. Giving Trump a major platform just as the country is tuning in is not exactly the Big Tent the party’s bigwigs had in mind..
“I’m not excited about somebody as divisive as Trump or somebody as obnoxious as Trump being on the debate stage,” one RNC member confessed.
First, a bit of throat clearing: Trump is an ass. He's a liberal. He's not going to be President or even the nominee.
With that out of the way, contra that RNC member, I'm giddy at the prospect of the GOP having to deal with Trump.
He's very valuable in one key way, holding a mirror up to what is wrong with the GOP. The "serious" candidates are awful. They are milquetoast.
Jeb Bush...nuke the filibuster to get rid of ObamaCare? Gee, I don't know let me think about that.
Scott Walker says he'd nuke the filibuster to repeal ObamaCare but his personality isn't exactly...electrifying.
Trump is a clown but he's says things people are feeling. I know conservatives hate the whole "I have feels!" thing but guess what...people do. You need to acknowledge them, reflect them and connect with them.
Republican candidates are far more at home in the boardroom or the congressional hearing room than the living room and it shows in the candidates they keep picking.
Remember how Romney got crushed on the very important "cares about people like me" metric? I bet Trump, for all his money, scores off the charts on that.
Rubio probably comes closest but as you saw in his reaction to the SSM decision, he's really most passionate about amnesty, how much he loves America and a hawkish foreign policy. He never really talks about smaller government or out of control government. He just wants to be the rationale manager of it.
Unless and until the GOP can find a candidate who hits the sweet spot of being seen as a plausible President and caring about people's lives, it's going to be in big trouble.
We're Living In The United States Of Calvinball. It's Time The Right Got In The Game.
"Other kids' games are all such a bore!
They've gotta have rules and they gotta keep score!
Calvinball is better by far!
It's never the same! It's always bizarre!
You don't need a team or a referee!
—Excerpt from the Calvinball theme song"
The imaginary game from the great Calvin and Hobbes comic strip series seems eerily like what liberals have made of what is supposed to be our constitutional republic.
The right is behind in this game because we don't want to admit we're playing it but we are. I'll admit I'm late to the game. While I still don't think it's time to go full Obama it is time to embrace a hybrid game that allows us to live within the Constitution while fighting back. Well, we could if there was a party willing to play for us.
Let's pretend for a moment the GOP wakes up one morning and realizes it stands for something beyond "win seats, hire loyalists, and pay consultants" (hey it's Calvinball, anything is possible), what would want them to do?
Assuming there is a GOP Congress and President come 2017 there are a few things they can do that would shake up the fundamental nature of our current political system while still staying with the Constitutional system we cherish.
1- Eliminate the filibuster.
It is neither ordained by God nor required by the Constitution. Mostly what it serves to do is lock Democratic wins into place and make it impossible for conservatives to pass anything.
The GOP has never held a filibuster proof majority in the Senate so it's not a positive tool for passing things and locking them in. Yes, the Democrats will some day have a majority and pass spectacularly horrible things but they do that anyway. All the filibuster really does is make it easier for liberal Republicans to collaborate with Democrats to create and save programs.
Removing the filibuster would create a balance of terror that is lacking now. Democrats know they can pass programs and there's nothing the GOP can do in response. Make them fear what the next GOP majority will pass when they are helpless.
Once the filibuster is gone, what should the GOP do?
2- Create two or four new Supreme Court seats.
Yes, pack the court to the gills. Again, there's nothing magical about having nine justices at a time. If the Court is going to serve as a Super-Legislature it should be larger.
Liberals want to play games and make SCOTUS the center of the government, fine. That's there move now it's our turn to play come Calvinball and change the rules.
Harry Reid nuked the filibuster to pack the DC Court of appeals so the precedent,
not that government by Calvinball requires one, has been set. Game on.
None of the new justices should be older than 50 or so and all should be
unabashed conservatives. They don't even have to be lawyers. Justice Charles C.W. Cooke has a nice ring to it, no?
3- Eliminate withholding.
Again, there's nothing sacred about the way we collect our taxes. If people want big, crushing government, fine. Make them feel it and let them see how much it costs them.
I think hiking taxes is bad policy and economics but it can be good politics, so if as a sop to independents and even Democrats I'd support a 15 or 20% surcharge on the net worth of the top 1% to sweeten the pot. The "donor class" has been spending lots of money pushing big government types. Fine, pony up even more.
4- Repeal ObamaCare and a whole host of other laws.
Hey it's Calvinball, you can do whatever you want! Have at it.
Will the GOP, especially a Mitch McConnell led Senate, do any of these things? No.
Even if the GOP wins the presidency, the Senate majority will probably be smaller. Faced with the usual mid-term losses of the party in power, McConnell will retreat even further into a shell to protect his useless members. For them, it's about winning to stay in office,, not to do anything with those wins.
Even if the GOP was willing to "pack the Court" there's no reason to believe a GOP President wouldn't just appoint a bunch of Souter, Kennedy and Roberts types.
Could all of this backfire at some point in the future even if it payed dividends in the short and/or medium term? Sure but we know for a fact that if we keep playing by the rules of the game as they exist we'll lose more now AND in the future.
I understand these ideas are not temperamentally conservative. One should not rush to throw old systems away on a whim. The problem is the old systems we love have been thrown away. We simply need to accept that.
Everything I've advocated, while disruptive are within the bounds of the Constitution. They don't require us to ignore laws or invent new rights. We just need to be willing to take advantage of the moves we are allowed to make now.
But the GOP will do none of this. They will either promise you unattainable Constitutional amendments or suggest you meekly assent to liberal usurpations.
And my guess is, that will be good enough for most conservatives.
Enjoy the decline. But hey...Go GOP, right?
George Inness, "Kearsarge Village" (1875)
Monday Morning News Dump
- Ayatolah Roberts And His Sharia Council
- The OPM Hack And Obama's Politicized Federal Government
- Non-White Politicians Are Running For President And Liberals Can't Stand It
- Love Among The Ruins
- Why Big Oil Wants A Carbon Tax
- Puerto Rico Governor Says Island Can't Pay Debt
- This Is CNN
- The World Is Defenseless Against The Next Financial Crisis
- An Urban Agenda For The Right
- Dissenting Obergefell Justices Sound Alarm On Religious Freedom
- Michigan Vs. The EPA
- Liberal Media Tries To Trap GOP Candidates With Sex Questions
- Chris Squire Dead At 67
- John Kasich To Announce July 21
Morning Open Thread
If you like this blog so much why don't you marry it?
Overnight Open Thread (6-28-2015)
Exchanges established by the federal government are exchanges established by the state. Rachel Dolezal is black. Iran will honor an agreement not to develop nuclear weapons. ISIS is a JV team. There's an epidemic of sexual assaults on college campuses. Michael Brown had his hands up and pleaded "don't shoot." Caitlyn Jenner is a woman. Obamacare is working. 2+2 doesn't necessarily equal 4. The polar ice caps are disappearing. The IRS is doing a decent job. The border is secure.We've ended two wars responsibly. Hillary Clinton turned over all work-related e-mails. An $18,200,000,000,000 debt can grow without mention. People who burn down buildings and overturn cars aren't thugs. The OPM hack is manageable. We've reset relations with Russia. Entitlement reform can be kicked down the road. We're more respected around the world.
-- Peter Kirsanow in Reality Is Now Discretionary
Two plus two equals five. A severed head plus "Allahu Akbar!" equals "Nothing to do with Islam." Network screenings of Gone With The Wind plus Uncle Ben's rice equals blatant incitement to mass murder. A nice chichi gay couple at 27 Elm Street and a firebreathing imam and his four child brides at 29 Elm Street equals the social harmony of a multiculti utopia.
Where is this story headed? The warriors of the caliphate divide the planet into the dar al Islam and the dar al harb - the house of war. In reality, it's a struggle between the dar al Islam and the dar al Gay: Liberty in the fin de civilisation west means sexual liberty and nothing else - which is why one consequence of yesterday's decision is that freedom of expression and freedom of religion will increasingly be confined to what Justice Alito called the deepest recesses of your home.-- Mark Steyn
After all, the greengrocer was a threat to the system not because of any physical or actual power he had, but because his action went beyond itself, because it illuminated its surroundings and, of course, because of the incalculable consequences of that illumination. In the post-totalitarian system, therefore, living within the truth has more than a mere existential dimension (returning humanity to its inherent nature), or a noetic dimension (revealing reality as it is), or a moral dimension (setting an example for others). It also has an unambiguous political dimension. If the main pillar of the system is living a lie, then it is not surprising that the fundamental threat to it is living the truth. This is why it must be suppressed more severely than anything else.
In the post-totalitarian system, truth in the widest sense of the word has a very special import, one unknown in other contexts. In this system, truth plays a far greater (and, above all, a far different) role as a factor of power, or as an outright political force.-- Vaclav Havel in the Power of the Powerless
Meanwhile the Gleischaltung immediately rolls on:
Here former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy argues that we should just admit that the Supreme Court has now become a supra-legislature and treat it as such.
Did you notice that there was not an iota of speculation about how the four Progressive justices would vote?
There was never a shadow of a doubt. In the plethora of opinions generated by these three cases, there is not a single one authored by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, or Sonia Sotomayor. There was no need. They are the Left's voting bloc. There was a better chance that the sun would not rise this morning than that any of them would wander off the reservation.
...And it is not so much that they move in lockstep. It is that no one expects them to do anything but move in lockstep - not their fellow justices, not the political branches, and certainly not the commentariat, right or left.It is simply accepted that these justices are not there to judge. They are there to vote. They get to the desired outcome the same way disparate-impact voodoo always manages to get to discrimination: Start at the end and work backwards. Guiding precedents are for the quaint business of administering justice. In the social justice business, the road never before traveled will do if one less traveled is unavailable. But there's a problem. Once it has become a given that a critical mass of the Supreme Court is no longer expected, much less obliged, to do law, then the Court is no longer a legal institution. It is a political institution.
So forget Constitutional strict constructionalism and all that and simply strive to get conservative electors into our third legislative body to start voting against the progressive bloc.
John Hinderaker of Power Line suggests that if we're now in a post-constitutional era, the conservative justices should start discovering new 'fundamental rights' more to our side's liking:
For example, how about a "fundamental right" not to pay income taxes in a percentage exceeding that which other Americans are charged? Why isn't the progressive income tax a violation of the equal protection clause? That is a much stronger argument than the one the Court has just accepted on gay marriage. Or, how about a theory that the Internal Revenue Service is violating Americans' right of privacy-that same right of privacy that the Court found among the emanations and penumbras of the Constitution's actual provisions-in seeking extensive information about taxpayers' finances?
Or how about a fundamental right to affordable energy-or, rather, to be free of government policies that unreasonably raise the cost of energy? If the Supreme Court discovered such a right, the EPA's anti-coal regulations would be unconstitutional. You could write a decision in support of such a "fundamental right" that would be at least as persuasive as Justice Kennedy's "fortune cookie" travesty. What is more fundamental than heating your home and driving your car? To paraphrase Justice Kennedy, what if a voice cries out in the night, saying, "Honey! Can you turn the heat up?"If conservatives are willing to abandon the archaic notion that the Supreme Court is a court and not a super-legislature, there is no telling what conservative policies might be advanced.
And must be suppressed.
I thought about this in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, especially when a friend alerted me that the editors of The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, PA, had declared, within minutes of the announcement of the decision: "As a result of Friday's ruling, PennLive/The Patriot-News will no longer accept, nor will it print, op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage."
In a tweet later in the morning, the paper's Editorial and Opinions Editor John L. Micek (until recently a state capitol reporter-yikes!) explained himself curtly: "This is not hard: We would not print racist, sexist or anti-Semitic letters. To that, we add homophobic ones. Pretty simple."
...This is why it was important for the LGBT movement that same-sex marriage be affirmed by the high court rather than piecemeal in the states: Statutes are contingent and temporary, dependent on shifting allegiances and majorities; the Supreme Court is permanent, accountable to no one. The people and our elected representatives are subjective and unreliable; the Supreme Court is objective and irrefutable.The Patriot-News isn't censoring bigotry. If it were, it would have been rejecting anti-same-sex marriage letters yesterday as well as today. It is censoring dissent-dissent from the new orthodoxy proclaimed by our secular Magisterium, dissent from the prevailing viewpoint of our oligarchs, dissent from the state. And we are to conform ourselves to this orthodoxy not because it is good, but because the state so ordains it.
The Patriot-News later backed off a bit and said that they will allow letters with wrong-think about gay marriage for a limited amount of time.
The Greek government called for a referendum on July 5th on whether to accept the ECB bailout terms or leave the Euro. But events may be already overtaking their plans.
Greece has moved to close its banks and impose capital controls to prevent financial chaos following the breakdown of bailout talks with its international creditors. The dramatic move on Sunday night came after the European Central Bank announced it would freeze the amount of emergency loans it supplied to keep the Greek banking system afloat.Officials said the bank closure would last for several days and would be accompanied by limits yet to be announced on bank transfers abroad and withdrawals from cash machines. The cashing of cheques would be halted and fixed term deposits would be locked down. The Athens stock exchange was also set to be closed.
Each weapon is vignetted with a representative still image, followed by still photos and video footage of the actual weapon(s) in question being used in the conflict. Notable weapons include a chromed or nickeled Beretta 38 submachine gun, a cache of MAS 36 rifles, what appears to be a rearsenaled or civilian production M1 Garand, a PTRS-41 14.5x114mm anti-materiel rifle, and of course several of the StG-44s captured from a Syrian government stockpile by rebel fighters.
In the smaller shows there is typically seven full time guys. In the bigger shows, like Vegas, there are upwards of nine guys full time. The reason is because we do so many shows. In New York, the typical Broadway run is eight shows a week, and we will often do much more than that. On a slow week we'll do 12, and on a high week we can do upwards of 20. So we need those extra guys to do those shows. This is also another reason why guys stick around for so long, because there is less of a grind that way. There will be slow weeks and you can take leaves of absence to do other artworks. Its just a much more stable, supportive environment that way. And for a theater gig. it was 12 years with 401K, full benefits for me, my wife, and my kid, a really stable setup.
So immediately after the show, we go and clean up a little bit. And this has been a really important part of the show since the beginning, we go and meet the audience as they're leaving the theater. That's a really special part of the show too, or one that I've always enjoyed because you can shed the character slightly. We always talk about that it's 80 percent Blue Man and 20 percent just yourself at that point. So if someone comes to you and says, 'That show meant so much to me,' you can very quietly say, 'Thanks a lot.' We're not the hardcore character in that moment even though we're still in make up.
The point of that part is so that the person right next to you can have that connection, but the person across the room still just sees a Blue Man. ...So that's about 15-20 minutes. Then we go downstairs, and as we're getting out of makeup, in this other important Blue Man tradition, we have about a 20 minute conversation with the stage manager of the night and the band. We talk about all these different parts of the show. And this is why, again, that guys can stay in it for so long, because it is always, always, always considered a work in progress. There's always stuff that can be done better. Just because there's a guy who's been doing it for 12 or 15 or 16 years, doesn't give them any kind of 'Get Out of Jail Free' card. We're working on stuff day-to-day just as much as trainees are basically.
DC Cab (1983)
When Mr. T is the most subtle and nuanced character in your film, you know there's issues. You can't tell me Gary Busey isn't on near-lethal levels of coke in this movie; it's almost scary to watch. Also, take note of the mad inclination of all the male characters to start randomly dry humping.
Sad News at Casa Maetenloch
On Friday we had to put one of our cats to sleep due at aggressive liver cancer. We had Kitty for 9 years but he was already 5 to 8 years old when we rescued him from living (unhappily) under a neighbor's back porch so he was an old cat. He had a very happy life during that time and even his final hours with us in the garden were as happy as they could be given his condition.
After we had had him for a while Mrs. Maetenloch demanded that he be given a real, official name so I dubbed him Kittybot Cougar Unit12. She was not exactly pleased with this. So he became known as Kitty to friends and family and Cougar to outsiders.
He was a good-natured cat who truly loved to be with us and people in general. He was happiest just being wherever humans were and would follow us from room to room to hang out. In fact many an ONT was created with Kitty sleeping at the base of my desk. From waiting in the bathroom in the morning while we got ready for work to greeting us at door when we got home to sleeping in our bed at night, he was a constant happy presence in our lives for nine years. And now we have a Kitty-sized hole in our lives.
RIP Kitty, a good loving cat.
Weekly Commenter Standings
Top 10 commenters:
1 [720 comments] 'mynewhandle' [101.09 posts/day]
2 [384 comments] 'Ricardo Kill'
3 [367 comments] 'J.J. Sefton'
4 [360 comments] 'Christopher Taylor'
5 [355 comments] 'just saying'
6 [350 comments] 'Anna Puma'
7 [348 comments] 'Boss Moss'
8 [341 comments] 'rickb223'
9 [334 comments] 'Grump928(C)'
10 [328 comments] 'Mike Hammer, etc., etc.'
Top 10 sockpuppeteers:
1 [86 names] 'The Political Hat' [12.07 unique names/day]
2 [63 names] 'Turd Ferguson'
3 [49 names] 'Prince Ludwig the Indestructible'
4 [47 names] 'HAL 9000'
5 [46 names] 'Mickey Shwarma'
6 [44 names] 'Uncle Busyhands'
7 [39 names] 'Article V'
8 [38 names] 'Mike Hammer, etc., etc.'
9 [38 names] 'wth'
10 [37 names] 'Miley Cyrus'
The group. Banned on 12 universities.
Where it's at - the Twitter
Tonight's post brought to you by burrito stategery:
Notice: Posted by permission of AceCorp LLC. Please e-mail overnight open thread tips to maetenloch at gmail. Otherwise send tips to Ace.
Close it up