The Left's Willful Ignorance [CBD]
Here is an interesting article from Reason (yeah, I know) about the resounding, deafening silence from the Left and academia in response to an article exposing the shaky foundation of the campus serial rapist theory.
But is anyone surprised?
Here is what is happening all across American campuses.
Sunday Morning Book Thread 08-30-2015: Scorched Earth [OregonMuse]
Good morning to all of you morons and moronettes and bartenders everywhere and all the ships at sea. Welcome to AoSHQ's stately, prestigious, internationally acclaimed and high-class Sunday Morning Book Thread. The Sunday Morning Book Thread is the only AoSHQ thread that is so hoity-toity, pants are required. Or kilts. Also, assless chaps don't count. Serious you guys. Kilts are OK, though. But not tutus. Unless you're a girl.
When I have a little money, I buy books; and if I have any left, I buy food and clothes.
Trigger warnings this week for free speech being a good thing, because it helps us determine who the idiots are. Also, winners should be determined by merit, not tribal affiliation.
Health warning: reading the book thread excessively may cause your debit card to spontaneously combust.
By the way, speaking of debit cards, I have a non-book question for you morons who do a lot of multi-state traveling, which is this: before you embark on one of your trips, do you have to contact your bank or financial institution and tell them what states you'll be traveling to so your debit card purchases won't automatically be declined, or does your debit card simply work wherever you go?
Backstory: my new job requires me to be expertly familiar with debit card transactions and the security thereof, and this issue came up in the training class this week.
The Residuum of WorldCon
In last week's comments, one of you morons (I forget who, sorry) linked to this article in Wired by Amy Wallace about the Sad Puppies isn't a total waste, as most of the articles written by SJW hacks usually are. This is not to say that it's good; in fact, it does regurgitate the tiresome narrative that the Sad Pupplies are reactionary white guys who are politicizing the Hugos because they hate brown people. In the first place, the author actually reached out and spoke with Larry Correia, Brad Torgersen and even the SJWs' bête noire, Vox Day. Which, by the way, puts her ahead of The Guardian, which has published a number anti-SP hit pieces without contacting any of the writers they rail against.
So Wallace does let you hear the other side, even though it's filtered through her crap narrative.
And then there's this:
In fact, their argument is actually pretty interesting. They say their beef is more class-based; Torgerson [sic] says his books are blue-collar speculative fiction. The Hugos, they say, are snobby and exclusionary, and too often ignore books that are merely popular, by conservative writers. The Sad Puppies have a name for those who oppose them: CHORFS, for “Cliquish, Holier-than-thou, Obnoxious, Reactionary Fanatics.”
I sometimes wonder if these types of class-based arguments shouldn't be pushed more by our side. Not universally, of course, but perhaps there may be situations where they're appropriate. Like here. It might not have ever occurred to Saul Alinsky that his rules could be used against his own tribe. They should be made to live up to their own rules. Since they're obsessed with "class" and "class" distinctions, we should shove "class" down their throats until they choke on it.
Wallace doesn't want to deal with this argument, though. After bringing it up, she immediately drops it and goes on to what she really wants to talk about, namely, the evil Vox Day.
Another thing I find odd with Wallace's article is that it appears to carry the evidence of its own refutation. That is, she wants the audience to believe that the Puppies are all diversity-hating white guys, then she brings up the case of Annie Bellet, an SJW author who withdrew her name from Hugo nomination consideration when her story was included on the Sad Puppies slate.
This is how Bellet describes herself:
“I’m adopted, and I have a sister who is black, a sister who’s Vietnamese. My mom is a lesbian. I grew up in a liberal, inclusive environment.
So she's a poster child for diversity. Fine. But if the Puppies hate diversity, then why would they nominate her for a Hugo? This is a question that Wallace's narrative will not allow her to ask. But the answer is right there in front of her, if only would bestir herself to look:
[Torgersen] says the Hugos are beset by identity politics. “When people go on about how we’re anti-diversity, I’m like: No. All we’re saying is storytelling ought to come first.”
Yes, it's the storytelling. Bellet wrote a damn good story (regardless of her politics or ethnic background) and that's all the Puppies care about. But, of course, that would bust the SJW narrative wide open, and we can't have that.
And speaking of unacceptable individuals...
I have yet to hear any of the social justice wankers (I think I'm going to just spell it out like that from now on) who have been soiling their nappies at the WrongThoughts of the Sad Puppies in general and Vox Day in particular utter one word of disapprobation, or even concern, about the unapologetic NAMBLA defender Samuel R. Delaney. I mean, if you want to enforce disqualification from society based on WrongThought, I would think that defending child molesting would certainly qualify.
Larry Correia's take on this year's WorldCon is here. This is how it starts out:
As you all know by now, the Hugo Awards were presented Saturday, and No Award dominated most of the categories. Rather than let any outsiders win, they burned their village in order to “save it”. And they did so while cheering, gloating, and generally being snide exclusive assholes about it.
And it gets even better. As the poet says, read the whole thing.
What the British mean by "conservative" is quite different than the typical American definition. Here, a conservative is someone who is in favor of policies such as lower taxes, smaller government, economic growth, and protecting the unborn against wholesale slaughter. By contrast, in Britain, a conservative some guy in khakis and a pith helmet being carried on a sedan chair by brown people.
That's the impression I get from reading the articleTop 10 conservative novels by Kate Macdonald in the left-wing "Guardian" newspaper online. She alternately praises and sneers at the authors she's discussing. The character in one of the novels is "unreconstructed Rhodesian imperialist". Another author "staunchly opposed social change". Etc.
Macdonald's myopia is on full display as she describes a novel's "fierce pub arguments, and the default position is always Conservative", never realizing that her own position is "default commie." And here's a beaut: she has H.P .Lovecraft on the list because his "visions of a tentacled overlord from under the sea in a different dimension makes so much sense as a metaphor for conservative fears." Huh? What the hell is that supposed to mean. How is that anything other than a gratuitous insult?
She claims she's studying conservative fiction writing "for decades", yet she says that the first James Bond novel is "Dr. No", an egregious factual error. If she makes a mistake that basic, how can you trust anything else she's written?
And her response in the comment section, blaming this rookie-level derp on the Guardian's fact-checkers, is especially piquant.
Most of the authors and books on her list I have never heard of, but that's just my ignorance. This being a British publication, it's a very British-centered list. John Buchan is an exception, and is worth checking out. His books are available for low cost or no cost on Kindle.
But every so often a blind squirrel steps on a rake and gets some sense whomped into her:
Ignoring fiction of a political colour that you don't agree with is teaching with blinkers on.
In view of the Sad Puppies brouhaha, I certainly agree.
There's some recommendations of other conservative books in the comment section.
Macdonald is the author of the book Novelists Against Social Change: Conservative Popular Fiction, 1920-1960, which is so outrageously expensive ($80 for the hardcover edition? Really?) that I doubt anyone has ever read it.
Then there's Ten Great Conservative Novels over at NRO. Thia article from 2010, By John Miller, which he put together after canvassing NRO readers and some "experts" on American literature. The result is "a list of ten great conservative novels, all written by Americans since the founding of the conservative movement in the 1950s."
I was especially interested in
7. Shelley’s Heart, by Charles McCarry (1995): Charles McCarry is sometimes called a “conservative John le Carré” for his highly intelligent espionage thrillers.
In particular, for stuff like this:
Here is how McCarry describes a president who has made a momentous decision that he knows runs counter to the best interests of the country but may save his career and advance his political agenda: “Like most political figures of his generation who embrace progressive convictions,” McCarry writes, “Lockwood had never in his adult life been anything but a politician.” He “was a politician to the depths of his being, and his office was all he had.”
Shelley's Heart, as well as a number of other of McCarry's books, is available on Kindle for about ten bucks a pop.
Ivy League Blues
In a thread earlier this week, moron commenter rrpjr recommended the book Out of Ivy: How a Liberal Ivy Created a Committed Conservative by Travis James Rowley:
Mr. Rowley's description of incidents on Brown's politically correct campus are by turns hilarious, infuriating, and intriguing as he provides one of the sharpest and most detailed inside looks at elite higher education seen in a long time, Tom Wolfe's "I am Charlotte Simmons" included.
Of course, none of this is new. William F. Buckley covered this ground in his famous first book, God and Man at Yale: The Superstitions of 'Academic Freedom', which was published in 1951. Holy crap that's over six decades ago. That's how far back the rat bastard commies have been burrowing.
Buckley wrote the book based on his undergraduate experiences at Yale University. In the book, he criticized Yale and its faculty for forcing collectivist, Keynesian, and secularist ideology on its students. He criticized individual professors by name, arguing that they tried to break down students' religious beliefs through their hostility to religion. Buckley also states in the book that Yale was denying its students any sense of individualism by making them embrace the ideas of liberalism. Buckley argues that the Yale charter leaves oversight of the university to the alumni, and argues that because most alumni of Yale believed in God, that Yale was failing to serve its "masters" by teaching course content in a matter inconsistent with alumni beliefs.
Buckley was 26 years old when his book was first published. Not bad for a first book, I'd say.
Infrequent moron commenter 'Feynmangroupie' checked in this week with a couple of Smart Military recommendations for this Smart Military Blog. I'll just cut and paste from his e-mail:
I’ve been reading a book by Victor Suvorov called “Inside the Aquarium: The Making of a Top Soviet Spy,” and it’s an auto-biographical account of a tank officer who ends up being picked to join the GRU. It’s an in-depth look on how the Soviet spy network operated and also how incredibly ruthless and distrustful they were of their own people. This book discussed the massive amount of time, money, and manpower that went into tracking NATO forces and recording their activities in hopes of finding a weakness and how to exploit it. I was a Patriot Missile Crewmember stationed in Germany, right at the end of the Cold War, and remember wondering if I was being watched whenever I traveled or made purchases. After reading this, I am quite certain that I was!
Inside the Aquarium: The Making of a Top Soviet Spy is from 1986, and I don't think it's still in print. Most of the copies on Amazon appear to be either used or NOS (new old stock), which actually makes them more affordable.
But wait, there's another one:
Another one by the same author is “Icebreaker” which describes WWII from the Soviet perspective and presents evidence that implies that the Soviet Union instigated the war and choreographed most of Hitler’s actions in order to fulfill the Communist dream of global domination...This one is not as easily absorbed as it is filled with statistics, Soviet and German unit names, and discussions of strategy. However, anyone who is a WWII buff will definitely find it interesting, even if it is just to declare it preposterous.
Icebreaker: Who Started The Second World War? appears to be still in print, Kindle version $9.99.
The wikipedia entry notes that Suvorov's thesis is not shared by the majority of historians. The article cites David Glantz' book Stumbling Colossus: The Red Army on the Eve of World War in rebuttal:
Glantz views Suvorov's argument as "incredible" on a variety of fronts: first, Suvorov rejects without examination classified ex-Soviet archival material, and makes highly selective picks from memoirs. Glantz points to this as a serious methodological flaw. Further, Glantz argues, Suvorov's thesis is strongly contradicted both by ex-Soviet and German archival material, and the facts do not support the argument that the Red Army was prepared to invade Germany. On the contrary, the appalling lack of readiness, poor training level, and abysmal state of deployments show that the Red Army was unprepared for static defense, much less large-scale offensive operations. Glantz's conclusion is that "Stalin may well have been an unscrupulous tyrant, but he was not a lunatic."
I don't have a dog in this fight and I'm not trying to shoot down Feynmangroupie's recommendation. I just discovered some contrary evidence and thought it was worthy of note for the Smart Military morons who know far more about this subject than I do.
Books By Morons
Another moron author outs himself! Longtime moron commenter 'logprof' has published his first work of fiction, No Lesser Love: A Novella. Thia is what he says about it:
By default I placed No Lesser Love in the Romance (!) category on Amazon because the plot is a romance, but it is intended as a societal critique.
$2.99 on Kindle.
Anna Puma's novel, Golden Isis is also available on Kindle. She was kind enough to provide me with an AoSHQ Amazon Bookstore link, but unfortunately, digital media can only be purchased directly from the main Amazon store.
Think you might be having a rough day?
There was Diana Hunt, minding her own business. A woman trying to survive in New York City. During the Great Depression. Boy was it greatly depressing.
Her husband is on the lam, leaving her alone to face the goons and the police that are looking for him. Then one morning an unconscious young woman appears on her door step and Diana's life will never be the same again.
What does Egypt, magic, and those naughty good for nothing Nazis have to do with this story?
That's what Diana wants to know.
Moronette Lauren has been sitting on a short story for a long time, but now she's gone ahead and published it. Ordinarily, Just Another Oppressor is available for 99 cents on Kindle, but for you morons, Lauren has made it available for free today.
What I'm Reading
Tales of Tinfoil: Stories of Paranoia and Conspiracy was a Bookbub freebie earlier this week, so I snapped it up.
In this short story collection, today's top fiction authors pull back the curtain on the biggest conspiracies of all time. Explore the JFK assassination, Area 51, the moon landing, the surveillance state. Meet a French spy posing as Abraham Lincoln, play a video game designed by the CIA, watch "Suicide Mickey." Learn the truth about Adolf Hitler and Elvis Presley.
Twelve short stories, twelve conspiracy theories, twelve twisted rabbit holes.
I read the first story, where some schlub manages to resolve, once and for all time, the question of who shot JFK, and I thought it posited a clever, non-traditional solution (even though I'm in an intransigent who holds firmly to the view that the rat bastard commie Oswald acted alone).
I hope the other stories are as good.
As of now (Sat. nite), it is still available for free on Kindle.
So that's all for this week. As always, book thread tips, suggestions, bribes, rumors, threats, and insults may be sent to OregonMuse, Proprietor, AoSHQ Book Thread, at the book thread e-mail address: aoshqbookthread, followed by the 'at' sign, and then 'G' mail, and then dot cee oh emm.
What have you all been reading this week? Hopefully something good, because, as you all know, life is too short to be reading lousy books.
Close it up
Early Morning Thread 08/30/15 [krakatoa]
Overnight Open Thread (29 Aug 2015)
And coalition forces may be advertising where our ISR and tanker aircraft are flying in Iraq and Syria. Not too smart.
Got a pesky drone problem? Give Boeing's Compact Laser System a try. I only have one question. Can I put this on a shark yet?
Meh. The way you eat pizza can give clues about personality. What if you stack two pieces on top of each other to make an impromptu calzone?
This Much Will Kill You
Gadget 'allergy' pays off for a French woman. Expect many, many more. I'm allergic to Democrats and GOPe types. I demand a disability stipend for this.
Roman Candle Launcher
Super Star Destroyer
A Super Star Destroyer is as big as Manhattan. Now if it is commanded by a DeBlasio type, it'll be combat ineffective.
Scientists say not to worry about eating radioactive Fukushima tuna. You'd have to eat 2.5 tons of it. Now if one can get some super powers out of it.
Dude has some skills.
Yeah, sure you will. House GOP leadership: we'll vote to defund Planned Parenthood this fall.
Do you have cats? Do you seem to always have money missing from your purse or wallet? It just might be your cat.
Tonight's ONT brought to you by 19th Century Magic Advertisements:
Notice: Posted by permission of AceCorp LLC. Please e-mail overnight open thread tips to maet or CDR M. Otherwise send tips to Ace.
Close it up
Robert Bork On The Martini [CBD]
[A letter he wrote to The Wall Street Journal in response to this.]
Martini's Founding Fathers: Original Intent Debatable
Eric Felten's essay on the dry martini is itself near-perfect (Don't Forget the Vermouth -- WSJ Leisure & Arts, Pursuits, Dec. 10). His allusion to constitutional jurisprudence is faulty, however, since neither in law nor martinis can we know the subjective "original intent" of the Founding Fathers. As to martinis, the intent may have been to ease man's passage through this vale of tears or, less admirably, to employ the tactic of "candy is dandy, but liquor is quicker."
What counts in mixology is the "original understanding" of the martini's essence by those who first consumed it. The essence remains unaltered but allows proportions to evolve as circumstances change. Mr. Felten's "near-perfect martini" is the same in principle as the "original-understanding martini" and therefore its legitimate descendant. Such latter-day travesties as the chocolate martini and the raspberry martini, on the other hand, are the work of activist bartenders.
Mr. Felten lapses into heresy only once. He prefers the olive to the lemon peel because the former is a "snack." Dropping a snack into a classic drink is like garnishing filet mignon with ketchup. The correct response when offered an olive is, "When I want a salad, I'll ask for it."
Robert H. Bork
The Hudson Institute
And...Open Drinking Thread (and use coasters!)
No Longer Tropical Storm Erika, now Invest 90
Good evening, Morons and Moronettes, and this should be the final post about Erika (and, God willing, any tropical system that should threaten to hit the continental United States). If the long-range forecasting is correct, as El Nino gets going, that should inhibit tropical cyclone activity in the Atlantic, and as such, restrict my posting to the odd overnight thread.
More below the fold...
So Erika didn't like running into the mountainous terrain of Hispaniola and Cuba, and has dissipated to an extremely poorly-organized low pressure center between the Bahamas and Cuba. Thank God for friction.
If you're in central Florida, you've still got a pretty good rainmaker with possibly three to five inches of rain forecast for the area. As such, please remember that flooding is the biggest threat with any tropical system, and that threat will remain inland in Georgia, Alabama, and other states in its path.
In the meantime, sit back and enjoy the media's annoyance with their planned news cycle not working out.
A brief thought on Katrina, ten years later...
So as many of you know, I'm a New Orleans native, and I was working in Huntsville, AL when Katrina pushed ashore. It was a pretty damned empty feeling to watch my hometown flood, and to see pictures of the Mississippi Gulf Coast (where my family and I would weekend a few times a year) trashed in the worst way since Camille in 1969.
Much like living in earthquake country, you deal with the notion that at some point, that big storm or big quake is going to come, and you hope you're prepared. When it comes to the city and state leadership, New Orleans and Louisiana (under Ray Nagin- for whom I used to work- and Kathleen Blanco) couldn't be bothered, while Haley Barbour and the Biloxi/Gulfport/Pascagoula leadership were on their game.
Don't forget also that Jefferson Parish (just to the west of NO; part of where Steven Seagal: Lawman used to be filmed) Parish President had his people abandon the pumping stations in the face of the storm, which screwed up the East Bank of Jefferson Parish just as badly. I'm happy to say that Broussard and Nagin are now in federal prison.
A whole bunch of people died needlessly because of the incompetence of Louisiana's leadership, and the only silver lining that one can draw from it is that it slapped a lot of people awake along the Gulf Coast. Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi have been exemplary models of emergency preparation and management, and the same preparation and management have been hallmarks of Bobby Jindal's administration in Louisiana as well.
So, to close, y'all just please be prepared for whatever natural disasters can threaten your area- be it snowstorms, hurricanes, volcanoes, or whatever. If you're prepared for calamity, that means you don't have to rely on questionably competent elected officials and that emergency services can concentrate more fully on their gigs as well.
In the meantime, please pray for the folks affected by the western wildfires... I think they'd KILL for a tropical system to drop 3-5" of rain on their areas right now.
Thanks again for reading!
Close it up
The Cost Of Capitalism vs. Socialism [CBD]
CoyoteBlog writes, I Have This Argument All The Time With The US Forest Service , but it could be with any government agency doing....anything. The pull quote is marvelous, and one that, while we as obsessed conservatives have internalized, is not common knowledge among those who aren't quite as rabid about political philosophy.
from page 114 of the 5th edition (2015) of Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics :
While capitalism has a visible cost -- profit -- that does not exist under socialism, socialism has an invisible cost -- inefficiency -- that gets weeded out by losses and bankruptcy under capitalism. The fact that most goods are more widely affordable in a capitalist economy implies that profit is less costly than inefficiency. Put differently, profit is a price paid for efficiency.
Fresh Open Thread - [Niedermeyers Dead Horse]
I'm going blind from watching this over and over and...
How they sharpen pencils in a factory.. pic.twitter.com/OYO7vCjMaL— SciencePorn (@SciencePorn) August 27, 2015
and, which of you will try this at home?
I almost broke my brain with a backwards bicycle for the sake of Science. I would appreciate it if you... http://t.co/idQ1YHAahd— Smarter Every Day (@smartereveryday) April 24, 2015
I'm sure content will arrive shortly.
Close it up
August 29, 2015 Saturday Gardening Thread: Robert Ryman Edition [Y-not and KT]
Greetings fellow gardeners! Your hostess is somewhere in flyover country at present in a large SUV filled (one hopes) with her belongings, including loving spouse and pets. So this week's edition of the Saturday Gardening Thread will be a minimalist affair:
As always, KT was prepared with plenty of juicy gardening content, but I didn't want to risk not being able to put it up this weekend. (TWHS!)
Here are a couple of pictures that Mr. Y-not took during the walk-through of our new house last weekend showing our new backyard:
We have a gazebo and everything!
No pool though.
First order of business is that wall/pavers project I'd mentioned recently. (Do NOT comment on old threads!)
What's happening in your gardens this week?
[Addendum} Can someone identify this tree and this seed or nut pod?
Sorry about the crappy photos....(CBD)
Platinum Membership for the correct answer ( I don't know it....).
Close it up
Special Food Thread: Canning Edition [CBD]
H/T NDH (you should follow her on the tweet thing: @mflynny)
And of course Open Thread, because you maniacs do it anyway.
EMT 8/29/15 - The bright side edition. [krakatoa]
Only nine more days to college football season.
Overnight Open Thread (28 Aug 2015)
Every presidential candidate's doppelgänger, according to face recognition software. Haha, Lindsey Graham only scored a 82 on the masculinity measurement. That's still too high though.
F-35 vs A-10
Something tells me that the USAF wouldn't be advertising this unless it's rigged. The F-35 vs the A-10, head-to-head in close air support. Not happening until 2018 though.
Interesting Ship Name Choice
Hmmmm. Japan launches latest helicopter carrier. Its name? The Kaga.
The 24,000-ton Kaga (DDH-184) - built by ship builder Japan Marine United - bears the same name as the World War II Imperial Japanese Navy carrier Kaga that was part of Pearl Harbor attack and was sunk in the Battle Midway.
I guess I've been so busy that I hadn't heard that SMOD was supposed to be coming next month. We should only be so lucky but its not happenin'.
Reviving the Statistical Atlas of the United States.
Not a surprising finding. Study finds women turn to lesbians due to lack of boyfriends.
The study also discovered that less attractive women are more likely to become lesbians.
Air Force News
I'm still more afraid of being killed by a dumb ass driver while commuting than guns. WaPo says we're averaging 1 mass shooting a day. Ironically anti-gun folks don't like this analysis because it includes gang shootings. I'd be curious to see if they could pull up data on car crashes that had 4 or more victims. Would these be defined then as mass car accidents with breathless coverage about how we need to restrict access to motor vehicles?
This stuff looks delicious but would you freakin' stand in line for 3 hours for it? Freaky new ice cream people wait 3 hours for. This being NYC, I'm surprised it hasn't already been banned.
Tonight's ONT brought to you by:
Pretty sweet to get a small, small taste of John Williams new score.
Notice: Posted by permission of AceCorp LLC. Please e-mail overnight open thread tips to maet or CDR M. Otherwise send tips to Ace.
Close it up
The Real Scandal at the Washington Post: Hack David Ignatius Fails to Disclose His Key Source Claiming There Is No Email Scandal is Longtime Advisor to... Hillary Clinton
The "scandal" that isn't?
The Washington Post published a column Thursday night by David Ignatius that purports to clear leading Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton of wrongdoing in exclusively using a home brew server kept in her home that held top secret classified information during her four year tenure as secretary of state. The column is entitled The Hillary Clinton e-mail ‘scandal’ that isn’t.
Ignatius' lead defense witness for Clinton is one Jeffrey Smith who is given four paragraphs of quotes defending Clinton. Ignatius identifies Smith as "a former CIA general counsel who’s now a partner at Arnold & Porter, where he often represents defendants suspected of misusing classified information."
Smith is the only named source in Ignatius’ column.
Ignatius and The Post failed to disclose that Smith served as a 'close' national security adviser for Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign and that Smith has a history with the Clintons going back to at least President Bill Clinton’s election in 1992.
An April 2, 2007 New Republic article noted Clinton’s hiring of Smith...
Can't quote any more; go to the link to read Taylor's compilation of the Clinton-Smith connections.
Why did David Ignatius fail to note this connection? Is it because his column would have appeared even more laughable if he had properly informed his readers that the witness for the defense was an employee/crony of the accused?
Thanks to @RosenRosenRosen and Laurie David's Cervix.
Tropical Storm Erika 8/28/15 (tmi3rd)
Good evening from the AoSHQ Weather Desk, Morons and Moronettes. I'm tmi3rd, and I'll be continuing my nightly eye on Erika until the storm dissipates. Some interesting things have happened over the last 24 hours with Erika, and I think we'll enjoy the media disappointment over it.
More below the fold...
So you'll notice the track has shifted back to the west, which comes as something of a surprise to me, but this is largely in response to the shape of the high pressure area that it's moving around.
The other thing is, with its path taking it straight over Hispaniola and Cuba, it doesn't look like it's going to reach the continental United States as a hurricane. In point of fact, it's entirely possible it won't even make it ashore as a tropical storm, due to a combination of terrain and speed.
This will, of course, totally WRECK the planned news cycle for the weekend, which requires an editorial by Nelson Muntz:
Now- if you're living in Florida anywhere from Miami to at least Apalachicola, you do need to stay alert for flooding. I will remind you that there have already been fatalities on the island of Dominica (where I have friends in medical school, at Ross University). Dominica saw a foot of rain, and flooding is what causes the most fatalities in tropical cyclones.
You're still going to get *some* storm surge. How much and where depend on the storm's exact track and speed, and we won't have a better feel for that until we see what it does over the next couple of days.
So, to recap:
Good news: Erika is increasingly unlikely to hit land as anything more than a middling tropical storm, and that will in turn wreck the weekend news cycle.
Bad news: you're still looking at a major-league rain event that has already killed some people, and if you're in a low-lying area in pretty much all of Florida, you need to keep your eyes on it.
That's what I've got for you tonight- more later! As ever, you can find me on Twitter if you need me.
Thanks for reading!
Close it up
AoSHQ Podcast: Ben K.
Morning dumper Ben K. joins Ace and Gabe on this week's episode.
Intro: Pride & Joy - Stevie Ray Vaughan
Outro: The Sky Is Crying - Stevie Ray Vaughan
Browse (and even search!) the archives
Follow on Twitter
Don't forget to submit your Ask the Blog questions for next week's episode.
Open thread in the comments.
We're Gonna Need a Bigger Stray Voltage: Hillary Clinton Now Being Investigated Under the Espionage Act
This strikes me as, um, problematic, as all the kids say.
An FBI "A-team" is leading the "extremely serious" investigation into Hillary Clinton's server and the focus includes a provision of the law pertaining to "gathering, transmitting or losing defense information," an intelligence source told Fox News.
The section of the Espionage Act is known as 18 US Code 793.
A separate source, who also was not authorized to speak on the record, said the FBI will further determine whether Clinton should have known, based on the quality and detail of the material, that emails passing through her server contained classified information regardless of the markings.
Now you might think that sounds bad for Grandmonster Hillary.
Nah, don't sweat it, says as progressive cretin David Ignatius at the Washington Post, a totally unbiased paper, swearsies.
The Hillary Clinton e-mail 'scandal' that isn't
Splendid! It's not a sneer without sneer quotes.
By David Ignatius Opinion writer August 27 at 8:37 PM
Does Hillary Clinton have a serious legal problem because she may have transmitted classified information on her private e-mail server? After talking with a half-dozen knowledgeable lawyers, I think this "scandal" is overstated. Using the server was a self-inflicted wound by Clinton, but it's not something a prosecutor would take to court.
David Petraus disagrees.
"It's common" that people end up using unclassified systems to transmit classified information, said Jeffrey Smith, a former CIA general counsel who’s now a partner at Arnold & Porter, where he often represents defendants suspected of misusing classified information.
Ah, the guy who defends people who mishandle classified information says it's no biggie.
You can read the rest if you enjoy bad writing which is dumb and partisan.
You may wonder, doesn't this deserve a flaming skull?
No. For some news, we note its import by an even more urgent signal than the flaming skull.
Some news is so enormous as to beg -- nay, demand -- a Realness Update:
The Injustice Collector: Racist Assassin Claimed Anodyne Sentences Like "The reporter's out in the field" to be "Racist"
Because "field," you see, while meaning to everyone else "outside the office, out in the actual field of reporting," he took it to mean "cotton fields," and ergo a racist assault on his dignity.
He also objected to the phrase "swinging' by a place," because, I guess, lynching.
Allahpundit notes that Charles Cooke is asking, in a different way, the same question I asked a few days ago.
I asked, "If 'backlash' is a real thing, presumably all races and creeds, and not just white (Republican!) Christians, are susceptible to having tribal/racial fires lit in their hearts by hot, sensationalistic coverage of another tribes' sins (or alleged sins); why does the media not seem to care about "backlash" when it reports sensationalistically on Dylan Roof's terrorist murders? Why in fact does it actively seek to make Roof's crime a crime of the entire White Race, who are collectively responsible for it, and who are, ergo, especially in the mind of a maniac, to be collectively punished for it?
If there is a danger that white (Republican!) Christians will go after innocent Muslims upon being sensationalized into anti-Muslim hatred owing to an Islamist's terrorism, does not the same danger apply to other races and creeds?
In fact, we know for a fact the same danger does so apply: "Bryce Williams" proves it, if Christopher Dorn didn't already.
The various assassinations of cops proves it.
But the media continues to pretend that "backlash" is something only white people can engage in.
Cooke wonders about all the hot "microaggression" rhetoric that fed directly into the Vine Assassin's "injustice collecting" -- the same nonsense in which perfectly innocent words are transformed into racial assaults:
Half-joking on Twitter, the Free Beacon’s Sonny Bunch reacted to this news [that "Bryce Williams" believed, among other lunacies, that 7-11's watermelon flavored Slurpees were a racist insult] by observing that, "instead of going on a killing spree, this guy should’ve gotten a columnist gig at the Guardian." As with all humor, there is some truth at the root of this barb. Certainly, the shooter was extreme in his willingness to take offense. But, really, he was no more extreme than many of the extremely silly people who write at Salon or sit on diversity boards or who stand up and make a nuisance of themselves on contemporary college campuses. If one believes that the culture causes people to pull triggers -- and again, I don’t but many do -- then one has to be ecumenical about it. For what reason is this guy exempt? Why do we not need to have a "national conversation" about hypersensitivity?
The answer, I imagine, is politics, for this instinct seems only to run one way. The same people who tend to think that ugly strains within our culture lead inexorably to murder did not seem to care much that the man who killed three Muslims in North Carolina earlier this year was a progressive atheist with strong views about Islam. Likewise, they were not greatly interested that the guy who shot up the Family Research Council was inspired by the always hyperbolic output of the Southern Poverty Law Center, and they saw no connection whatsoever between protestors calling for the execution of police officers and a host of incidents in which angry men did just that. Hypocrisy.
This idea is getting some minor play on the right, but I personally think it should get a lot more. Pride of authorship, I'm sure, egotistically suggests to me this is a more important point than it might otherwise seem to me -- yet I cannot help but think that if the left wants to talk about the "tone" of discussion and the "hot words" used in politics, then we should in fact have a very serious conversation about all the actual, palpable venomous hatred the left stirs up daily in claiming that, for example, Amy Schumer is responsible for the Charleston terrorist attack because years ago she told a couple of jokes about Mexicans.
Either we can and should take one man's outrages and blame an entire race or religion for them or we ought not to.
The Racist Left, however, has played this game for years, speaking of whites and Christians as if they were actual demons on earth deserving of extirpation, all the time piously "calling out," mob attacking, and firing anyone who said anything untoward about any other group.
So I ask again:
Is the white race alone among races, and the Christian religion alone among religions, uniquely prone to "backlash" type attacks on innocent people?
And if the Left's answer is yes -- and indeed, their answer is in fact yes; they just don't say this aloud very often-- they they should be called to account and defend their obvious racism and Christophobia.
So Why Isn't Hillary's "Republicans Are Like ISIS" Statement Getting More Play in the Media?
I'ma blow your mind: Two cheers for the media for not making a big deal about this.
Because this is just Hillary attempting to use Obama's cynical "Stray Voltage" tactic.
Major Garret exposed this two years ago.
Whenever the White House is in trouble -- which is almost always, because they're socialist and hence incompetent -- they drop a rhetorical stinkbomb on the nation, a statement calculated to be trollish, controversial, enraging, and false.
They deliberately said false things about the women's pay gap, for example.
Why? Specifically to draw attention to the statement itself, which, while it may be a negative (in as much as Obama is lying as usual), is a sort of manageable, normal, routine-business sort of negative. Politicians argue about their claims all the time; they also frequently lie. Thus, to be in that particular fight was no big deal for Obama, because he's used to that, and while there may be a downside, it's just normal wear-and-tear downside, not major damage.
Keep in mind: While the public might be getting curious about Obama's ineptitude on the VA, or Healthcare.gov, or ISIS, or his thousand other failures, that is "stray voltage," flowing possible excitement of the national media mind, which could in fact damage him badly, should the circuits complete. That sort of electricity could electrocute him.
A top White House adviser told me last week's pay gap dust up was a "perfect" example of stray voltage. This time it was premeditated.
Obama's team expected, invited, and, to a certain degree, relished last week's hubbub. That's stray voltage in action.
As a theory, "stray voltage" exists in a kind of strategic void. It can't be dismissed or embraced as workable because creating controversy for the sake of controversy is, well, achievable. Like getting soup from the White House mess. It's also self-reinforcing and internally didactic. Everyone looks around and says, "See. There's controversy. It's working."
So this is why Hillary Clinton dropped her hot, wet turd on the country: to get us talking about this "outrage" instead of the fact that she is very close to having her security clearance revoked by the Intelligence Community, and even being prosecuted by the FBI.
She wants us talking about this, rather than that.
Hey, Hillary, you know who's a lot like ISIS?
You are. Because the FBI's counter-intelligence task force is investigating both of you, and your affiliated minions.
TGIF Open Thread
Busy morning. Leave your positive comments here.
Overnight Open Thread (8-27-2015)
i gotta tell you, sometimes I post my actual thoughts on twitter because I'm sick of being attacked in the comments for them.
on twitter, I can block people.
so... yeah, bad commenters drive out good ones. Every site in the world discovers this; the Wild West model is always proven to fail. Always.Posted by: ace at August 26, 2015 09:33 PM (dciA+)
585 The "abuse' Model of "argument" is not an attempt at discussion, but of shutting discussion down.
The goal is to make it socially painful to express a non-approved idea; some of the Trump supporters are trying to do just this, to make it socially painful to express an anti-trump sentiment here, by pouring abuse on whoever speaks one, thus making him keep silent, as well as any other people who witness it.
Well, it worked too well, to the point where I discovered I was saying things ON TWITTER I was too dissuaded to say ON MY OWN FUCKING BLOG.
Then one day I woke up and said "WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS BULLSHIT?" and like that, I decided I would force the migration in the other direction.
Spirited debate is fine; so is supporting Trump. I half support him myself. (You might not know that, because I keep trump commentary to twitter, because i've learned I cant' talk about trump on my own blog.)
But this idea that we are going to BULLY AND HECTOR PEOPLE INTO SILENCE is not a form of debate; it is the fascist's idea of stifling debate.
It will no longer be tolerated. And I don't just mean the Trump people (though they were the straw that broke this camel's back); I mean the trump-baiters, too.
Anyone who takes someething to a personal place that doesn't need to be in a personal place.Posted by: ace at August 26, 2015 09:52 PM (dciA+)
It's a very sad day when a man can't post his own thoughts on his own goddamn blog without being personally abused and insulted by his so-called fans.
Frankly the Trump thread on Tuesday was the straw that broke the camel's back for me. If this blog were a bar, I wouldn't want to hang out in it because of the ugly crowd it's attracted. After browsing through all the vitriol in the comments I told Ace that I didn't like this place any more and wasn't sure I wanted to post here any longer. It's been taken over by the raging nasties who take everything personally and feel that their anger at...well everything gives them a license to asshole. Note: It doesn't. Well at least not here.
And if I'm feeling this way - and Ace as well apparently - then there are probably dozens, even hundreds of others who feel the same way but have just walked away from the blog entirely. That's the silent insidious damage that this kind of atmosphere does. Not only does it devolve all discussions to insults and attacks but it quietly drives away the good commenters who have the most to offer. This is how online communities eventually wither and die.
Now some of this behavior is due to the very human tendency to take out your anger on a person of convenience rather than the actual, deserving target - especially when there's so much free-floating and well earned anger around. This is why people often end up being the nastiest to the loving people around them since a) they're close at hand and that's so much easier than having to track down the real target b) it feels so good to rage at and insult someone - anyone - even if they had nothing to do with the cause of the rage and c) deep down the ragers know that their chosen targets will take it without any real consequences. The fact that this kind of anger displacement is so easy, satisfying, and mostly cost-free is why it's such a common human failing. And when there's no cost at all you get the cesspool of internet comment sections.
Then you have the trolls and assholes (trassholes? asstrolls?). But calling them that is really glossing over some of the nuances of their behavior. Because a good percentage of the people most angry and unhappy about politics are in fact just angry and unhappy people in general. And 'politics' becomes a safe, more socially acceptable way to vent and act out all these pent-up feelings.
As Ace has pointed out before a whole lot of what would be considered disturbed, even somewhat crazy behavior in other areas of life suddenly gets a pass when it's presented as 'political' passion. So a lot of psychological energy in these types of people gets dressed up as 'politics' since that's more socially tolerated and you can get away with a lot of shit that would get you tossed or beaten/arrested elsewhere. But being an asshole because 'you just love america so much and hate what they have to done to it' still means that you're being an asshole - albeit with above average rationalization abilities.
Anyway whatever the reasons these vitriolic and personal attacks are ending.
I haven't seen any of these and most of them do sound interesting.
Deep Springs College is a liberal arts college deep in the California desert near Death Valley. It's both a school and a working cattle ranch. Those very few students who are admitted to it study great books, especially within the fields of religion and philosophy, as well as do hard physical labor to earn their keep.
It's an incredibly selective institution. Only 6 to 15 freshmen are granted offers of admission each year, of which 90% accept. After spending two years there, 80% of graduates go on to higher universities, including elite Ivy League schools. The all-male school offers an isolated, almost monastic lifestyle of study and work.
No one died in any of these crashes and the remote locations or damage made it not worth salvaging the plane. So they remain in place decades later.
Yahoo group. That is all.
Come on be a smartie and join the yahoo group party! For the children. Why do you hate children?
And my lo-fi Twitter spew.
Tonight's post brought to you by completely mostly untrue and also unfairly exaggerated, especially the true parts:
Notice: Posted by assumed authority of AceCorp LLC.
Close it up
Tropical Storm Erika (tmi3rd) 8/27/15
Hello from the AoSHQ Weather Desk, Morons and Moronettes. Though Erika isn't likely to become a major hurricane, it's still likely at this point to strike the continental United States as a hurricane, and that merits a post from us.
If you're along the Atlantic coast of Florida, it's a good bet that you're going to see at least tropical storm conditions (high winds, high surf, torrential rain, and perhaps a weak tornado here or there) starting Sunday into Monday, and if you're along the Georgia, South Carolina, or North Carolina coast, it's time to make sure you've got your hurricane gear ready to go *if* it comes your way.
If you're along the Gulf Coast, wait until it turns north before you start letting your guard down.
Details below the fold...
Modeling is pretty uniform for the next three days (through late Saturday), taking Erika west-northwest through Puerto Rico, the northeast side of the Dominican Republic, and through the Bahamas before it becomes a total mess in terms of guidance. Given the presence of the subtropical ridge (a high-pressure area), the official thinking pushes it up the East Coast of Florida.
Historically, the more East Coast-centric track is how this goes, but where specifically it decides to go ashore is anyone's guess just yet. It's going to be going over enough small landmasses to keep it from really stepping on the gas in terms of intensification, so it shouldn't turn into a major hurricane. That doesn't take into account the heavy rainfall, however- the island of Dominica has received over a foot of rainfall, and there are reports of fatalities. Flooding is usually the major cause of death in tropical storms.
We're going to keep an eye on this here at the AoSHQ Weather Desk. Even if it doesn't hit your area, if you're in hurricane country, this is a good time to make sure you've got your hurricane kit together. It isn't time to start boarding up or anything just yet; just start making sure you're not running out of anything essential.
I want to re-emphasize that this shouldn't be anything extraordinary as far as hurricanes go, but the usual precautions are advisable under the circumstances.
Have a drama-free evening, and we'll see you tomorrow night sometime.
Thanks for reading, and I'm on Twitter if you need to reach me.
Close it up
NYTs Asks 75 High Ranking Democratic Insiders About Hillary; They're Officially Getting Ready to Dump Grandmonster Hillary
Even ultra-spinning in-the-bag hack Greg Sargent at the Washington Post's Plum Line (note that no conservatives get their own political column) admitted that this makes it official: The Democrats are actually panicking.
Biden is now the guy they have their hopes pinned on.
If you can believe that.
You all be nice to each other! Lot of people seem to really dig the friendlier, less angry vibe; let's keep that going and see how it all shakes out.
CNN Commentator: I Believe The WDBJ Assassin
She says he was mentally ill, and he says he was victimized -- so she has no reason to doubt him.
Personally, I sort of doubt spree killers who are mentally ill, but Sally Kohn sees no reason to doubt this guy. He was #Black, and #OnlyBlackLivesMatter.
Failure Theater, Act V, scene iii: Bob Corker Announces It's "Unlikely" GOP Can Stop Iran Deal
Oh you think the Dems will have the votes to block the GOP's override of Obama's veto?
Ha-ha, you're so yesterday, Squares. Obama won't even have to veto it, because the Stick Together On Every Vote Democrats will have enough votes to even filibuster the GOP's vote against it.
Oh well, we tried! Guess you'll just have to vote for us harder and send us more campaign donations!
John Boehner, at Fundraiser (of Course): Ted Cruz is a "Jackass"
Whatever we do, guys, we have to make sure this guy stays in the Speaker's chair. There's just no one else who can give us this Boehner-level of excellence in leadership and results.
What would we do without such a Giant in the speaker's chair? A political culture produces such an ubermensch but once ever 60 or 80 years. We'd be insane to demote him in favor of any other Republican.
Sorry, I Baited: I actually was attempting to bait the Establishment people on Twitter who got a bit sneery about demoting Boehner last time, and was not thinking of anyone on this site.
However, there are what I'd call "Establishment Types" on the site here, and they could, very reasonably, take this post as insulting towards themselves (and thus inviting an insult in return).
And being worried about being banned, they then might not take the legitimate opportunity to insult me back, given that I could just be a dick and ban them.
Which is a totally unfair situation -- I insult you, then you have to hold your own fire for fear of what I might do if you insult me back.
So I have removed the personally-baiting part of this post, and I apologize for that.
I'm just getting used to the new rules myself; there is going to be a period of adjustment.
Sorry if I insulted you. I can only say I actually didn't intend to insult anyone here, but rather some people on Twitter, but you'd be perfectly right to take it as an insult against you if you supported Boehner in January.
I apologize, and will be on the look-out for my own baiting statements.
Update: Pentagon IG Has Launched Investigation Into Charges That Intel Analysts Were Pressured to Make Obama's Phony War on ISIS Appear More Winning Than It Actually Is
Pardon me, I'm a couple of days behind this story -- not only was that Daily Beat article from yesterday, but the allegations were enough to spur the announcement of an IG probe yesterday, too.
Sorry, I missed this story. (Well, I had it open in my thousand tabs and then lost it.)
The New York Times reports:
WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon’s inspector general is investigating allegations that military officials have skewed intelligence assessments about the United States-led campaign in Iraq against the Islamic State to provide a more optimistic account of progress, according to several officials familiar with the inquiry.
The investigation began after at least one civilian Defense Intelligence Agency analyst told the authorities that he had evidence that officials at United States Central Command -- the military headquarters overseeing the American bombing campaign and other efforts against the Islamic State -- were improperly reworking the conclusions of intelligence assessments prepared for policy makers, including President Obama, the government officials said.
Fuller details of the claims were not available, including when the assessments were said to have been altered and who at Central Command, or Centcom, the analyst said was responsible. The officials, speaking only on the condition of anonymity about classified matters, said that the recently opened investigation focused on whether military officials had changed the conclusions of draft intelligence assessments during a review process and then passed them on.
Legitimate differences of opinion are common and encouraged among national security officials, so the inspector general's investigation is an unusual move and suggests that the allegations go beyond typical intelligence disputes. Government rules state that intelligence assessments "must not be distorted" by agency agendas or policy views. Analysts are required to cite the sources that back up their conclusions and to acknowledge differing viewpoints.
Some senior American officials in recent weeks have provided largely positive public assessments about the progress of the military campaign against the Islamic State....
But recent intelligence assessments, including some by Defense Intelligence Agency, paint a sober picture about how little the Islamic State has been weakened over the past year....
The New York Times suggests (without saying so) that all of this, to the extent there may be a "this" there at all, is due to the military brass having an vested interest in portraying themselves as more effective than they are -- lying to poor abused Obama, that is, to make themselves look good.
I have rather different suspicions myself. I suspect that Obama's people are in fact the ones putting pressure on the brass, who in turn put pressure on the analysts, to report back to him that which he hath decreed must be the reality we believe in, so he can disseminate his faked up version of reality to Congress and the American public generally.
But I guess we'll just have to see.
Scandal-free administration, boys. Scandal-free.
Shocker: Intelligence Analysts Say They Were Pressured to Downplay ISIS' Strength and Overstate Obama's Effectiveness Against Them
They're the JV, you know. Obama said so. Now re-write your report to make them the JV.
Scandal-free administration, You Guys. Scandal-free.
Shane Harris and Nancy A. Yousef:
U.S. intelligence analysts keep saying that the American-led campaign against ISIS isn’t going so well. Their bosses keep telling them to think again about those conclusions.
Senior military and intelligence officials have inappropriately pressured U.S. terrorism analysts to alter their assessments about the strength of the self-proclaimed Islamic State, three sources familiar with the matter told The Daily Beast. Analysts have been pushed to portray the group as weaker than the analysts believe it actually is, according to these sources, and to paint an overly rosy picture about how well the U.S.-led effort to defeat the group is going.
Reports that have been deemed too pessimistic about the efficacy of the American-led campaign, or that have questioned whether a U.S.-trained Iraqi military can ultimately defeat ISIS, have been sent back down through the chain of command or haven’t been shared with senior policymakers, several analysts alleged.
In other instances, authors of such reports said they understood that their conclusions should fall within a certain spectrum. As a result, they self-censored their own views, they said, because they felt pressure to not reach conclusions far outside what those above them apparently believed.
"The phrase I use is the politicization of the intelligence community,”"retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, the former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told The Daily Beast...
It's truly incredible, and of course the major media aren't interested.
A president's minions direct their analysts to lie for political advantage, corrupting some of the most important machinery of United States security, intelligence.
But the media's okay with this -- their preferred story is also "Obama Triumphs." So they work hand in glove with him.
Glenn Reynolds: It's Little Reported in the US, But Liberal Enlightened Europe Is Talking About Walls and Immigrant Crackdowns, Too
The US media doesn't want to talk about any of this though, both because it is in ideological solidarity with the open borders movement, and is embarrassingly parochial anyway.
Europe's immigration drama has nothing to do with Donald Trump: Glenn Reynolds
Hundreds of thousands of migrants challenge EU's liberal stance on open borders.
From following the news, you'd think that immigration was strictly a U.S. problem, one brought to the fore by Donald Trump. But although Trump has certainly moved the debate to a new level here at home, other parts of the world are facing an immigration crisis that is, if anything, worse. And there are lessons in that.
Meanwhile, as Americans talk of a border fence, Bulgaria is building one, with razor wire and steel 12 feet high. And Slovakia is flat-out refusing to accept Muslim migrants, viewing them as dangerous and destabilizing. Migrants have massed at the Macedonian border and are creating tensions between Serbia and Hungary. Hungary is building a fence too. Norwegian politicians are suggesting that Norway should do something similar to Australia, which is sending unwelcome refugees to New Guinea or to prison....
So it's not just Trump. America, like the rest of the world, will have to decide what it wants to do about the fact that more people want to live here than we can accept. It is simple political reality that the problem can’t be ignored forever.
In Clueless, Alicia Silverstone fakes her way through a debate assignment on immigration by just making up some happy-sounding nonsense about there not being any RSVP required at Party USA.
That's pretty much exactly what the political and economic masters of this country are doing -- burbling Alicia Silverstone's happy-talk nonsense, hoping no one notices it doesn't make sense.
John Singer Sargent, "Green Shutters" (c. 1909)
Thursday Morning News Dump
- Clinton Data Went Unsecured For Over A Month After Classified Data Discovered
- When The Entire Democratic Party Was Like Donald Trump
- In Defense Of Offensive Speech
- Almost None Of The Women In The Ashley Madison Database Actually Used The Site
- Virginia Killer Wore Obama Badge During On Air Election Reports
- Chinese Government Detains 12 Over Tianjin Blast
- Don't Like 'Anchor Babies'? Try 'Products Of Deception'
- What Does Joe Biden Know?
- Good News For People Like Us!
- NYDaily News Has Tasteless Cover Of Journalist Shootings
Overnight Open Thread (8-26-2015)
But the more we learn about the farcical nature of this deal, the more Israel's calculus may tilt in favor of an Israeli attack - if not in 2015 or 2016, then in 2017 when Obama is no longer president. After all, the hell Israel would pay if it attacks Iran must be weighed against the threat of a nuclear Iran. Barak's account, if accurate, adds plausibility to the view that Israel sees the latter as more hellacious.
In a very real sense, then, the key people evaluating Obama's deal aren't U.S. Senators and Representatives, but rather Israeli generals, intelligence chiefs, and ministers. They are the ones who, effectively, can nullify the deal.
It seems to be that with every revelation of a major Obama/IAEA concession to the mullahs, the prospect that Israel will exercise its veto increases.-- Paul Mirengoff
And this article by John Bosma makes the case that if Israel does attack Iran, it will very likely have to use low-yield nukes to be sure of taking out Iran's nuclear facilities.
REPORTER: And anything you wish - I'm sorry - that you had not done or that you'd done differently?
JIMMY CARTER: I wish I'd sent one more helicopter to get the hostages and we would have rescued them and I would have been re-elected.
But Neo-neocon rebuts Carters regrets and shows that the botched rescue (and even the entire crisis) were the results of multiple sequential bad decisions by Jimmy Carter.
Given that the shah's occasionally violent riot control during the revolution was now Exhibit A in Iran's human-rights case against the former regime and America, Carter wanted to avoid killing Iranians, so he had insisted that if a hostile crowd formed during the raid, Delta should attempt to control it without shooting people. Burruss considered this ridiculous. He and his men were going to assault a guarded compound in the middle of a city of more than 5 million people, most of them presumed to be aggressively hostile. It was unbelievably risky; everyone on the mission knew there was a very good chance they would not get home alive. Wade Ishmoto, a Delta captain who worked with the unit's intelligence division, had joked, 'The only difference between this and the Alamo is that Davy Crockett didn't have to fight his way in.'"
Even after it became known that the Shah was suffering from cancer, President Carter was reluctant to allow him entry to the United States, for fear of reprisal against Americans still in Iran. But in October, when the severity of the Shah's illness became known, Carter relented on humanitarian grounds. "He went around the room, and most of us said, 'Let him in.'" recalls Vice President Walter Mondale. "And he said, 'And if [the Iranians] take our employees in our embassy hostage, then what would be your advice?' And the room just fell dead. No one had an answer to that. Turns out, we never did...".
And the Denver city council says YES!
Chick-fil-A's reputation as an opponent of same-sex marriage has imperiled the fast-food chain's potential return to Denver International Airport, with several City Council members this week passionately questioning a proposed concession agreement. .
Lopez compared Chick-fil-A's past politics to divisive remarks made this year by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump about immigration and other issues, saying: "I would throw up in my mouth a little bit if we did business with Trump."Kniech, Lopez and other members said DIA's reputation was at stake, although airport officials view the concession as a big potential money-maker.
Daddy Government is your life-partner now.
Oh and just a reminder of our new old commenting policy:
Well of course they did. That was the whole purpose of the offset scam in the first place.
The scandis may be mostly smug squishes these days but they can still deal with trouble-making foreigners firmly and expeditiously when they choose to.
A 15-year-old Norwegian has been sentenced to 30 days in prison, deportation, and a six-year ban from Denmark after he made a prank bomb threat at Copenhagen airport for a YouTube video.
The youth, who is of Middle Eastern descent, remains in Danish custody more than two weeks after making his ill-advised gag as he was checking in his bag on August 12.
But this report from a Walmart manager suggests that this is simply because they were poor sellers for the company rather than a capitulation to PCdom.
Well fan theories are fine as long as they're clearly labeled as theories and possibly based solely on imagination. Then you have this video presenting the alternaview that Daniel was actually the real villain in The Karate Kid.
Worrisome News: Chimpanzees and Monkeys Have Entered the Stone Age
Unlike the #problematic 'Call Me Caitlyn' costume of hate.
And there's really no question what the number one deathmobile is.
The Group knows your sins but doesn't care.
Tonight's post brought to you by quite normal and natural in fact:
Notice: Posted by explicit and uncut permission of AceCorp Inc. Do not taunt happy fun Ewok.
Close it up
New Banning Policy
I will be banning people a lot, going forward.
Here is the sort of comment that is no longer allowed: An insult lodged out of the blue at a commenter, a coblogger, or myself, based on nothing except political disagreement with something that person said.
The proper response to an argument or statement you don't like is a counter-argument or correction -- not a personalized attack.
Criticism is fine, but note that in criticism, ideas are discredited, not the person offering the idea.
Some people seem incapable of doing that, or too lazy or ill-informed to try, so they launch into the personal attack pre-emptively.
In some cases, there is what I would call an "organic" fight, where two people get into it little by little, each gradually getting meaner and meaner.
This will not be cause for banning, but just for a caution to take it down a notch.
Unless someone jumps way, way up without provocation. That will be taken as an out-of-the-blue insult, and reason for banning.
This is largely a problem of n00bs who warp in because they see us linked somewhere; but I'm announcing the policy to them anyway, so they won't whine when they're permabanned.
In addition, there are some assholes here who are incapable of having anything resembling a civil discussion; any disagreement is quickly met with the only argument they know: "Well you suck."
I have let the assholes fester here far too long; I intend to make up for lost time with rapid-fire serial banning.
I am tired of being afraid to speak my piece on my own website for fear of the drive-by assholes attacking me out of the blue; I imagine many of you are as well.
This was once a place for actual discussion; it will be again.
And I will ban those assholes who are incapable of behaving like elevated, educated, thinking people.
You're too "angry" to discuss things? Don't give a fuck; not my problem. You're banned.
You super-like Trump and you just can't abide someone who has a less enthusiastic opinion than you? Don't give a fuck; not my problem. You're banned.
You're super anti-Trump and need to shower the Trump people with all your frustrations that he's winning in the polls? Don't give a fuck; not my problem. You're banned.
The assholes will be banned in short order. There will not be argument about this.
I know for many low-functioning individuals, simply attacking people for something you disagree with is a political argument; some low-thinking, low-character people have never actually had a real discussion, and actually are so ignorant as to think a personal ad hominem, dropped on a stranger out of the blue, is an "argument."
Well, I don't have time to educate you; your daddy should have done that. Take it up with his wayward ignorant ass.
Your problems are your problems, and your problems alone; your emotional problems and angry outbursts will no longer be acceptable blog fodder here.
If this blog is too fast for you -- if people making arguments you might disagree with is just too painful for your mind to take -- well, there's lots of other blogs on the web; I suggest you try one that's more your speed.
We here are pretty good commenters, and pretty good at discussion and at repartee; we're not going to be dragged down to a sub-moron level simply because that's the only level at which a sub-moron feels he can participate in a Real Life Political Discussion.
These are the rules, and they will be enforced. Adjust your behavior accordingly.
Jeb, Hey, How About Free College Tuition?!
Trump: I'd Like to Raise Taxes on Rich People Like Myself
However, Trump signaled the other day that he's going to be releasing his own plan on college financing in four weeks, I think he said. Given that Trump seems to be a... how do I put this... Democrat, I expect him to offer up some Free Shit to people too.
But we don't know that yet. What we know, at this moment, is that Jeb has embraced what I call "The Heart of Jeb-ness."
Jeb Bush has a fantastically awful idea when it comes to college education. He thinks community college students should get "free" tuition for two years. If that's sounds familiar, it's because it’s the exact same thing President Barack Obama proposed in January. Which shows how completely hypocritical Bush is because he came out against Obama’s plan in January.
Oh, but Bush’s plan gets even more #headdesk inducing. He wants universities to PAY BACK students who don't graduate in four years.If kids can't graduate with a four-year degree in four years, there ought to be some payback to their families or to them, or their got to be some support for the loans they’ve taken out.
This is so fiscally irresponsible and reprehensible, it's not even funny.
Yes, let's subsidize failure and irresponsibility with more billions and billions of taxpayer dollars. We're not incentivizing failure and irresponsibility enough in this society.
If a kid literally wants to take a two year retirement at age 18 and just PARTY HIS FACE OFF for two very expensive college years, we should totally pay for that for him.
In Fairness: Stephen Price Blair suspects Jeb is garbling, in a Jebbish way, a more defensible policy:
This sounds like Jeb heard about the *good* idea of making colleges partially responsible for student loans, and just couldn't wrap his head around it.
That is, put colleges on the hook for non-graduating students and their unpaid loans, so they are incentivized to only enroll students who actually want to learn, and aren't merely diploma-mills-without-the-actual diplomas.
I imagine this part he'll clarify tomorrow.
Still -big huge new entitlement on those first two years of college, huh? Nothin' like asking a truck driver to pay for the college education of the son of a dentist.
Somewhat less egregious, but still troubling, is Doctor Populist himself offering up tax increases on the rich.
Republican front-runner Donald Trump began to flesh out his economic vision for America, and it includes raising taxes on the wealthy....
"I would change it. I would simplify it," Trump told hosts Mark Halperin and John Heilemann from the lobby of Trump Tower on New York's 5th Ave. Specifically, Trump targeted hedge fund profits, which are currently taxed at a lower rate than regular income. ....
"I would take carried interest out, and I would let people making hundreds of millions of dollars-a-year pay some tax, because right now they are paying very little tax and I think it's outrageous," Trump said. "I want to lower taxes for the middle class."
Asked whether his proposed changes meant he was prepared to raise taxes on himself, the billionaire framed his answer in terms of fairness.
"That's right. That's right. I'm OK with it. You've seen my statements, I do very well, I don't mind paying some taxes. The middle class is getting clobbered in this country. You know the middle class built this country, not the hedge fund guys, but I know people in hedge funds that pay almost nothing and it's ridiculous, OK?"
Eh. Make up your own minds. Personally, I have been extremely angry at the Donor Class for beating the shit out of the grassroots with every dime they have, completely spurning the concept of an alliance -- in which I agree to adopt some of your agenda, and you agree in turn to adopt some of mine -- to pursue a wholly mercenary agenda that serves themselves exclusively, destroying grassroots challengers at every opportunity.
Personally, I will not weep if the Donor Class takes a haircut. That might remind them next time that we in the grassroots only agree to their agenda to the exact extent they agree to ours.
I know that's not a popular sentiment -- especially with really good conservatives who aren't to blame for the current state of affairs -- but it's what I feel.
I feel badly used in this "alliance." I feel like a booty call for the Donor Class, and I would not mind them learning a lesson about what happens to political turncoats.
Plus, frankly, the super-rich are by and large liberal, except for their resistance to taxes on themselves, so the hell with them. Since they want to enact most of the Democrats' agenda, they can get their protection from tax hikes from the Democrats, too. One-stop shopping, boys. Enjoy!
However, people need to understand you're getting a different kind of Republican with Trump, and by a "different kind of Republican," I mean a Democrat who wants to restrict immigration.
Yes, I do think he will have cross-over appeal to downscale Democrats. But he will have this appeal not for the reasons Reagan did -- Reagan pitched a conservative philosophy -- but for the reasons the typical Democrat can reach Democrat voters, that is, because he's pitching Democracy policy goals.
If we're cool with that, fine, but we better make sure we're cool with that.
There may be some good political and strategic reasons to do this, but we just spent 7 years tearing our hair out over a guy determined to expand the welfare state at any cost; you all better be chill with the idea of having a president from your own party pushing to expand it.
Because it's Popular, and you can't spell popular without Populist. Well, at least you need a lot of the same letters.
Meanwhile, Marco Rubio says that Trump won't be president because we're not an angry nation, which is just so adorable.
Jeb Bush: Please Don't Vote For Me
Jeb Bush says that Univision anchor Jorge Ramos, who was escorted out of a press conference held by Donald Trump on Tuesday night, should have been "treated with a little more respect."
"I think people with the press ought to be treated with a little more respect and dignity," he told reporters.
Meanwhile, Mark Haperin asks Trump about... religion.
As you could guess, this goes not so well. It's not terrific, as Trump would say.
Mr. Trump, who is your favorite apostle?
-- I couldn't say, they're all great guys, really super guys, great people.
But specifically, do you have a favorite apostle?
-- Specifically...? I don't know, I want to say, Ringo, maybe? Is Ringo in the mix?
No Mr. Trump, Ringo is not in the mix.
-- Are you sure? Because I hear a lot of buzz about Ringo.
Not in the Bible, though.
-- Well then who's talking up Ringo?
I don't know, Mr. Trump. Cher, maybe? Okay, shifting gears...
-- Oh thank God.
Which is your favorite book of the Bible, Mr. Trump?
-- Oh again with this.
So: Favorite book of the Bible?
-- Yes it's a great book, really fantastic, with the words and sentences and all.
But *which* book is your favorite?
-- The Bible. What did I say already?
But there are more than one book in the Bible. Which is your favorite book?
-- Oh my favorite book of the Bible. Now I understand, yes.
So which is it?
-- Uhh.. Well I love them all, with the wine and the waters and the joy and all that good stuff, but I guess, if you had to pin me down, I guess my favorite book is the one where the blonde girl gets the dragons. What's the name of that book?
Um... I think you mean a Game of Thrones.
-- Yes, that's it. That's my favorite book of the Bible. But so bloody!
Not a book of the actual Bible, though.
-- Is it in the Jewish Bible?
-- Well it's something either way, I'll tell you that. Well, I might not know a lot of specific facts about the Bible, but I try to live by the Golden Rule: "Winter is coming."
No... that's Game of Thrones again.
-- No I'm pretty sure it's a verse in the Bible. Like, "And Jacob said, feast well and bundle up, for Winter is Coming."
Nope, still just Game of Thrones.
-- Well I don't know where it comes from but it's an incredible philosophy. Carl Icann lives his life by it. Very rich man. Owns a lot of furs and space heaters.
Close it up
In Gravis/OANN Poll, Trump Hits... 40% Among Republicans
Before getting to that, this AllahPundit piece examines a claimed NYMag report that Roger Ailes now wants to take Trump out of the race; the claim is that Ailes says Trump is flatly unelectable, and Ailes views it as his mission to "save the country" (from a Democrat President, I guess).
This piece by very liberal but also pretty darn sharp Damon Linker is very good indeed.
How America's Political and Economic Elite Gave Birth to the Trump Campaign
Anti-immigrant sentiment has been on the rise (in intensity if not always in sheer numbers) throughout the Western world in recent years. The severe economic downturn that began in 2008 and the painfully slow recovery that followed has no doubt helped to fuel it. But so has a visceral frustration at what many believe to be a failure of representative institutions to respond to popular discontent about the changing ethnic and economic character of Western nation states over the past several decades.
These institutions have been sluggish to respond to this discontent because two (sometimes overlapping) factions of our political and economic elite strongly support high levels of immigration -- or at least oppose doing very much to stop it.
One of the factions -- the business class and its neoliberal champions in government, think tanks, and NGOs -- believes in a free-flowing international labor market that treats borders as superfluous.
The other faction -- liberal lawyers, activists, intellectuals, journalists, academics, members of the clergy, and (once again) NGO staffers — has a deep-seated moral suspicion of nations and political boundaries in general. Why should an American count for more than a Mexican who crosses the border into the United States? Shouldn't a refugee fleeing violence in North Africa enjoy full political rights upon setting foot in the European Union? Don't all human beings deserve to be treated equally under the law? Isn't opposition to such equality an example of bald-faced racism?
Both of these factions make deeply anti-political assumptions, denying the legitimacy of particularistic affiliations and dismissing the intuition that citizenship in a particular political community is a distinction that should not be open to all comers. The first faction denies these fundamentally political distinctions in the name of economic universalism; the second denies them in the name of moral universalism....
Out of fairness, I must stop quoting him there, but I assure you, his subsequent conclusions are just as important. His basic point is that while the public may favor a liberal immigration policy, they have not and probably will not agree to a virtual opens border policy, which is the policy preference of the "political and economic elites," as he calls them.
Anyway, on to the poll.
My one problem here is that this is sponsored by the One America News Network. I don't really know this outfit, other than they hired Sarah Palin.
I have nothing against them, but I also have no track record yielding anything for them, either.
Also, while I've heard of Gravis, that's the extent of my knowledge of them. I've just heard of them.
Oh, I just looked up methodology: It's a real poll (not an internet survey), but it's a robopoll. As I understand it, these are considered less reliable than human-conducted polls. I'm just going to guess here that that's because people feel far more comfortable hanging up on a robot, and therefore the survey becomes more self-selecting than with a human-conducted poll (that is, people who want to be polled stay on the line, skewing the survey towards the most animated people.)
That caveat aside, let the screaming about Trump, pro or con, commence.
There's a chart with all the candidates on it. It's below the fold because it's pretty wide.
Scott Walker's numbers have plunged, obviously.
Close it up
Backlash: Black Killer of White Reporters Sent Manifesto Declaring that Murders were a Response to Charleston
Now, see if you can follow my logic.
The media very softly plays Muslim terrorism stories. Why? Well, they always say they want to avoid "backlash" -- something which has been aggressively warned against 100,000 times for all three times it's actually happened.
The idea is that if you play up the sensational angles of a Muslim terrorism story, you will gin up people's natural tribal allegiances and natural tribal hatreds, and they will take out those natural tribal hatreds on completely-innocent Muslims.
That is, you can easily kindle racial -- or if race is not the right word, tribal -- hatred by giving sensationalistic coverage to murders which involve a member of one tribe butchering members of another.
That's the theory. That's why the media is always very "cautious" -- by their own statement; they say "we're being very cautious here" -- to not speculate that a killer might be a Muslim.
Is that theory right? Well, backlash doesn't happen that often, but I suppose there's absolutely nothing wrong with being cautious in one's reportage of an outrage committed by a member of one tribe against another.
History has shown that that can ignite fires in people's hearts -- very ugly fires.
No one can doubt that when one tribe agitates to start oppressing or actually butchering another tribe, they routinely start tallying up the List of Sins supposedly committed by members of the tribe being targeted for oppression or extinction.
If the Targeted Race hasn't committed enough real outrages, you then invent some (Hey, they're using our babies' blood to make bread, the bastards!).
So I can kind of understand the media's caution here, even if I think they take it to silly places sometimes.
Sure, if you get too sensationalistic, and make this too much into a story of CHRISTIANS MURDERED BY MURDEROUS MUSLIMS, you can inspire some less-mentally well Christians to maybe go on a personal Crusade.
Which is why I'm a bit astonished that the media offers no cautiousness whatsoever in reporting white murders of black people. In those cases, they don't seem concerned about igniting ugly fires in the hearts of a less-mentally stable black person -- in those cases, they seem to take the position of, 'Whatever might wind up happening to white people because of this, so what, they kinda had it coming."
I'm a bit mystified here -- while I can accept the idea of "backlash" and I can further accept the media's extreme trepidation in reporting Muslim on non-Muslim crimes, I cannot accept the media then taking the position that they can gin up as much hatred of white people as Ratings May Demand without any need for similar cautiousness.
But that is the position they take.
Now, Charleston was a serious crime which would be an emotionally igniting thing whatever the media's reaction to it was.
But I do note, with some degree of rage, that the media throws out its vaunted "caution/backlash" template when it comes to white people -- whose lives, it seem, actually don't fucking matter.
So here's the manifesto, and all this ugly weird crazy troll's various hallucinated grievances against White People, who he's pretty sure have been oppressing his weird crazy troll ass since he first hung his wang in a mesh Speedo.
"Why did I do it? I put down a deposit for a gun on 6/19/15. The Church shooting in Charleston happened on 6/17/15..."
"What sent me over the top was the church shooting. And my hollow point bullets have the victims’ initials on them."
It is unclear whose initials he is referring to. He continues, “As for Dylann Roof? You (deleted)! You want a race war (deleted)? BRING IT THEN YOU WHITE ...(deleted)!!!” He said Jehovah spoke to him, telling him to act.
Thanks media! No, I can't pin this on you -- but either the caution and worry for "backlash" is a real thing, or it is not a real thing.
If "backlash" is a real thing -- why do you exhibit no concerns about such backlash when the targets of such backlash will be white?
Do we just not matter as much as other people?
Or are white people, alone in the world, the only race capable of wishing to lash out a innocent third-parties due to anger over some other person killing a member of our tribe?
If you ever believed the latter, Christopher Dorn's rage-murders should have already disabused you of that racist conception; and now "Bryce Williams'" rage-backlash killings should certainly so disabuse you.
But you'll keep on doing the same thing, won't you?
You will continue being sober and cautious when a killer turns out to be non-white -- and absolutely gleeful when he turns out to be white, because that's the only color of True Evil in the media's eternal Narrative.
The Narrative never changes; the Narrative can never change. Only the names, dates, and places change daily, but the Narrative remains pure and inalterable like Polaris.
This Part of the Game I Can Cleanly Blame on the Media: When the killer is Muslim, the media tries its hardest to not connect that killer to any other Muslim, or even the Islamist ideology. They want to draw as narrow a circle as possible around the killer, including no other people, so that a hypothetical half-crazy would-be Crusader won't think "I'll get my vengeance by killing one his compatriots."
But when the killer is white, they expand that circle as wide as possible to indict all of white society. In the Charleston shooting, they blamed the Confederate flag and all the white people who admired that flag.
The Washington Post even went as far as blaming the Charleston shooting on a couple of minor jokes about Mexicans (not blacks) told by Amy Schumer.
The Confederate flag, South Carolinans who voted to keep the flag, Amy Schumer, the NRA, the GOP... the circle of responsibility was not just permitted to grow -- it was deliberately expanded by the media and the "experts" it lets past its gates.
Would the media ever do that with Muslims? Would they start making random tendentious connections between a Muslim killer and all other Muslims, or a Muslim stage performer? Would the media blame CAIR?
No, they would not.
But they routinely do that when the killer is white -- they go searching for the "root causes," and the root causes they're interested in are not specific to the killer; they find the sins to dwell within the hearts of all white people.
When a Muslim commits a terrorist act, that's just a lone wolf. But when Dylan Roof goes on a murder rampage, that is a sin that has been encouraged by, and is the direct responsibility of, every white person who is not himself an ultra-orthodox intersectionalist progressive.
So why shouldn't Bryce Williams take the media at its word and decide that Charleston is the responsibility of every white person he takes a disliking to?
Oh and By the Way: This racist was a "grievance collector," as commenters report an FBI profiler called him on TV. He was, get this, a loser, and he filed complaint after complaint blaming other people for his inability to hold a steady job or not piss off everyone who met him.
It was always "racism" that was causing his problems.
Some might say it was because he was a crazy asshole, a fact proven by his cowardly choice to shoot a man and two women in the back; but on Twitter, alas, I see some people taking his side, claiming he was "driven" to this or whatever, and how sad that is.
Which dovetails with the point I was making earlier in the post. The media would not permit any suggestion that perhaps Dylan Roof had a point (and they would be right to dismiss any such horrifying suggestion), but when it comes to non-white murderers, suddenly the media is on a hunt to discover What White People Might Have Done to Provoke This.
Who knows, perhaps the duo who wrote that article for the Washington Post will tell us that Bryce Williams, like Dylan Roof, was driven to murder due to Amy Schumer's "racist jokes."
Hulu Web Comedy Series Features Character Who Writes Edgy Joke on Twitter and Gets Social Media Blowback; Show Actually Getting Real Social Media Blowback for Entirely Fictitious Joke, Which Was Presented as Being Over-the-Line
Okay, sorry about that last post, which is such a huge screw up that I can do nothing more than apologize abjectly on behalf of @comradearthur and pray you forgive him his exclusive responsibility for the mess he's gotten us all in.
If he were here to defend himself, I'm sure he'd be the first to blame himself. Well, actually, he'd be the second.
But via Mary Katharine Ham, rounding up the new outrages of the day (Oh no -- someone's going to play dress-up as Caitlyn Jenner, who isn't actually Caitlyn Jenner), she drops this amazing story of how loathsomely stupid our society is:
A tasteless joke by an inept comic in Amy Poehler's Hulu series -- a joke designed to demonstrate the character's incompetence -- instead has redounded against Poehler, and brought out the Twitter tomato-tossers.
This is complicated, so pay attention: Poehler has a new series on Hulu called Difficult People, which has gotten some good reviews...
The main character, played by a Julie Klausner (Poehler produces but does not appear in the show), writes a twitter joke about how she can't wait until "Blue Ivy" (Beyonce's kid) grows up to be old enough to be peed on by R. Kelly (a rapper who got arrested due to his enjoyment of urinating on underage girls).
The joke is not presented as funny in the show -- no one but the Klausner character thinks it's funny -- and she catches grief for it on Twitter. Her boyfriend or husband (not clear) gives her only an awkward silence as she tells the joke.
But, America now having a lower rationality level than primitive people who are still burning "witches" at the stake, of course morons have to attack the show and Poehler for the joke.
Here now the new Scholars of America:
The Blue Ivy joke is disgusting. Amy Poehler should be ashamed and issue an apology. Real fucked up & racist to pick her for that punchline— Delilah Sinclair (@VorpalFemme) August 18, 2015
@VorpalFemme it's almost like she doesn't really care about black people. That's ok, she is more white people's cup of tea anyhow.— Dennis L. Middleton (@DennisMiddleto5) August 26, 2015
Shut the f*** up, Dummies.