Saturday Car Thread 04/19/14 - [Niedermeyer's Dead Horse & Countrysquire]
In a rush today but didn't want to leave you hanging.
Here's a few photos for you to discuss. Some of you have seen them, others have not.
I spotted this in a Hardees parking lot:
This is for sale just down the street from me. Check out those wheels!
Here's another view of that one.
I was behind this on the interstate for several miles. Wanna know how I know he was hauling taller than 13' 6"?
He tapped the brakes before every single overpass and every single sign.
Then there's this '57 Thunderbird which pulled in $60k at a recent Barrett-Jackson auction.
And here's one of the ugliest cars I've seen in some time:
Here's a pretty little gal for the Morons:
Close it up
Saturday Gardening Thread: Easter Weekend Edition [Y-not and WeirdDave]
This week's Easter Weekend Edition of the Gardening Thread brought to you by The Legend of the Dogwood:
At the time of the crucifixion, the dogwood had reached the size of the mighty oak tree. So strong and firm was the wood that it was chosen as the timber for Jesus’ cross.
To be used for such a cruel purpose greatly distressed the dogwood. While nailed upon it, Jesus sensed this, and in his compassion said. “Because of your pity for my suffering, never again shall the dogwood tree grow large enough to be used for a cross. Henceforth, it shall be slender, bent, and twisted, and its blossoms shall be in the form of a cross–two long and two short petals.
“In the center of the outer edge of each petal will be the print of nails. In the center of the flower, stained with blood, will be a crown of thorns so that all who see it will remember.”
Take it away, WeirdDave!
WeirdDave's "Hot Mess:"
There's a similarly themed open thread below for OT talk and politics. Trust me on this one, you'd be better off down there.
Man, what a mess. It all started when they announced a sale on cyanide at Penny's (nod to Colin Mochrie). I was talking to myself about this week's thread. “Self, “ said I, “what should I write about this week?” “I know”, I replied, “How about a garden sing-a-long? Rewrite popular songs to a garden theme. Our name is Weirddave after all, there's precedent”. Hmmm. OK, Billy Joel:
Pussy willow, daffodil, artichoke, chlorophyl
Common yarrow, foxtail fern, red tomato plant
Red leaf lettuce, green bean vine, kohlrabi, grapes for wine
Bachelor's button, Billy buttons, sure is going slow
Shovel dirt, white corn, wheel barrow Sunday morn
Carrots, hard work is nigh, shit hon, the grass is rye
Hot shower, now clean, more to plant? What do you mean?
Move the dirt, hoe the row, too much work, enough!
Trying to plant a garden,
but the nights are too cold
and my seeds are too old
Trying to plant a garden,
but the plants will flop
and the work don't stop
Rusty shovel, onion set, rain now so it's all wet
Broccoli, on my knees, corn a mile high
Mango, apple tree, watermelon, berry
Radish is too small, please God tell me why
Cabbage, pumpkin, time to pull the weeds again
Pachysandra, pink mink, paper reed, mulch stinks
Eggplant, raspberry, cauliflower, choke cherry
Artichoke, spade broke, another rabbit trap
Trying to plant a garden,
but the nights are too cold
and my seeds are too old
Trying to plant a garden,
but the plants will flop
and the work don't stop
Shit, that's awful, plus I'm going crazy trying to think in 3 and 4 syllable plant names. Maybe a different song. A Springsteen tribute to cross-pollination? (Oh, oh, oh, who's my sire?). Drek. What could I do with the Dead Kennedys ode to Jerry Brown? (Grow a green bean. Up a trellis. Up a trellis,
grow a green bean). * Shudder * Not that. The Chairman of the Board? (When I was 17, I ate a very good pear..). Obviously, this idea is going nowhere.
OK, I'll do what all the great writers throughout history have done when they lock up. Shakespeare, Dickens, Hemingway...all of them at one time or another got writers block, and all of them did the same thing-turned to Google. Playing with the theme, I Googled “Garden songs”, and I got an immediate hit. It's this song, by someone named Dave Mallett:
Well, wasn't that just a lot worse than my attempted at parody? 90 seconds in I had to slit my wrists, which isn't helping because now my keyboards is wet and slippery. More results, more results...There's a Chinese restaurant in Georgia named Song's Garden....Here's somebody's list of 10 songs with garden in their title (Self, in a Dr. McCoy voice “Don't just sit there, throw it in! We need content, man, content!”)
"Ten "Garden" Songs Everyone Can Dig” (link: http://voices.yahoo.com/ten-garden-songs-everyone-dig-10841103.html)
Hey, look! 100 year old garden songs! http://www.parlorsongs.com/issues/2006- 5/thismonth/feature.php
E-bay claims to have great deals on “garden songs”. I'm not clicking. Everything else is about that awful folk song up above. I give up.
There you have it folks, one white hot stinking mess of a garden thread, song edition, a cautionary tale about what can happen when you try to write to a theme and just don't have it going on that day. OTOH, I think the open political thread below came off quite well. Maybe I should just blog open threads.
And now from your co-hostess, Y-not:
In honor of the Easter weekend, I thought it would be nice to share a little bit about traditional Easter plants. We're all familiar with the beautiful flowers at this time of year, especially the Easter lily, but did you know that two woody plants are also associated with this holiday?
The first, as mentioned at the top of this post, is the dogwood tree. It's one of my favorite flowering trees. The area of Maryland where I grew up had many wild flowering dogwoods, most of the white, horizontal growth variety. By "horizontal growth I mean like this:
I think they are such beautiful trees, not just for their flowers, but for their interesting twisted branches.
Although there don't seem to be a lot of dogwoods in my current state of Utah, certainly not growing wild as they did in Maryland, we do have red twig dogwoods. They make a spectacular display by the sides of our rivers and streams. Do any of you have one? I was thinking of planting a couple in a problem spot of our yard that tends to be soggy owing to run off from the neighbor's irrigation system that is up slope from our yard.
In any event, if you like dogwoods as much as I do, you might want to check out some of these dogwood festivals:
Although the Atlanta Dogwood Festival was last weekend, I think it's worth a mention because it looks like it's a B.F.D. Also, presumably dogwoods are still blooming in the Atlanta area this weekend if you want to check them out.
Charlottesville, Virginia has a dogwood festival that extends over several weeks, starting in March and extending through April.
Next month, Tennessee's Dogwood Festival in Winchester (May 2-4), will be featuring the Charlie Daniels Band. Their catch-phrase for the festival is the "Devil went down to Dogwood." Cute.
There don't seem to be many dogwood festivals out West, but I did find one in Idaho, the Dogwood Festival of the Lewis-Clark Valley.
"The Pussy Willow is also our Easter symbol. One of the most prominent Easter symbols, because of the fact out of this dry, kind of twig all of a sudden bursts forth this beautiful flower of life, and it is the first bush that blooms," said Father Krysa.
Christians use Palms as a church symbol of greeting Jesus as he rode into Jerusalem. But in the Polish tradition, you will also see pussy willow branches on Palm Sunday.
Father Krysa said according to Polish legend, Jesus visited a forest on Palm Sunday, barren by winter conditions, He commanded His angels to gather up pussy willows, with soft, cotton buds, the first blooms of spring.
Pussy willows were another favorite plant from my childhood. My mom always kept one and would usually have a display of the branches in an old antique vase. Sadly, Utah is not in the pussy willow's range, so I don't have one in my yard.
Garden Report from the VAST Quarter Acre Estate at Casa Y-not:
We had HAIL (combined with thunder, lightning, and high winds) at Casa Y-not last weekend. It blew in at 1:30 in the morning, so needless to say I didn't get out there to cover my plants.
Fortunately, it looks like my mystery sprouts survived. The things that I *think* are radishes are chugging along and I'm seeing signs of what I think are beets and red onions peeking up through the soil. Not sure if the spinach or carrots are going to sprout. I'll give them some more time to do their thing, in the meantime, I put in some starter plants yesterday: snap peas, shallots, sweet onions, and strawberries. Those, combined with the herbs and lettuces that survived the winter are starting to make my raised beds look like a garden!
What's happening in your garden?
This week's Blog of the Week is Botanist in the Kitchen. I stumbled upon this last week when a commenter was asking about the (possible) relatedness of magnolias and gardenias. This post shows what's called a phylogenetic tree analysis of "food" plants. It's worth a gander, especially if you want to understand one of the modern ways that evolutionary study is conducted.
If you're interested in learning more, here's a scientific primer on phylogenetic trees from UC Berkeley.
Also from UCB, I thought that this was a useful discussion of the predictive power of phylogenetic analysis:
Phylogenies also allow us to generate expectations about the characteristics of living organisms that we have not yet studied. For example, scientists discovered that the Pacific Yew produces a compound called taxol that is helpful in treating certain kinds of cancer, but it was difficult and expensive to get enough of the compound out of the tree to make its use broadly feasible. However, based on the evolutionary relationships among yew species, biologists expected that close relatives of the Pacific Yew might produce similarly effective compounds.
Happily, they were right! They discovered that the leaves of the European Yew contain a related compound that can also be used to efficiently produce Taxol. Taxol is now widely available for cancer treatment.
BTW, from what I can glean, Gardenias are not particularly highly-related to Magnolias. Gardenia is a Genus in the family Rubiaceae (the Coffee or Madder family). Magnolia is a Genus in the Magnoliaceae family. The other member of that family is Liriodendron (the tulip tree).
Finally, in honor of the Easter holiday, here's W.A. Mozart's Regina Coeli KV 108:
Close it up
Open Thread for Politics 4-19-14 [WeirdDave]
Well, the garden thread was supposed to be a parody sing along themed one, but that went south in a hurry. However, it just so happens I have a song I wrote to the tune of “Bonnie Blue Flag” back when the Tea Party was new, and that one goes great in an OT political thread. Here's the original song if you're not familiar with it, it was almost as popular as “Dixie” in the CSA. From the movie Gods and Generals:
"We are a band of brothers
And native to the soil,
Fighting for the property
We gained by honest toil;
And when our rights were threatened,
The cry rose near and far--
"Hurrah for the Gadsden Flag
Fly proudly from our spar!"
CHORUS: Hurrah! Hurrah!
Individual rights hurrah!
Hurrah for the Gadsden Flag
Fly proudly from our spar.
While the D.C elite,
Were faithful to their trust,
Like friends and like brothers
Both kind were we and just;
But now, when Federal treachery
Attempts our rights to mar,
We hoist on high the Gadsden Flag
Fly proudly from our spar.--CHORUS
First gallant Rick Santelli
cried out from the exchange,
The people followed quickly,
rejecting this new "change".
Alaska's native daughter,
inspired many more
All raised on high the Gadsden Flag
Fly proudly from our spar.--CHORUS
Ye men of valor, gather round
The banner of our fight;
From home to halls of Congress
The statist foe we smite.
We shall oppose the president,
his cronies and his tzars;
Now rally round the Gadsden Flag
Fly proudly from our spar.--CHORUS
And then in old Virginia--
progressives met their fate--
Along with blue New Jersey
showed reforms can not wait;
Impelled by their example,
Now other states prepare
To hoist on high the Gadsden Flag
Fly proudly from our spar.--CHORUS
Then cheer, boys, cheer;
Raise the joyous shout,
The two-ten midterms proved our case
There is no remaining doubt;
And let another rousing cheer
For freedom's light be given,
"Don't tread on me" from the Gadsden Flag
Flies proudly from our spar.--CHORUS
Then here's to our Republic,
Strong are we and brave;
Like patriots of old we'll fight
Our rule of law to save.
And rather than submit to shame,
To die we would prefer;
So cheer for the Gadsden Flag
Fly proudly from our spar.--CHORUS
Close it up
—Dave In Texas
April 19 1995. Oklahoma City. A vehicle bomb containing barrels of ammonium nitrate, liquid nitromethane, diesel fuel, and about a million pounds of pure goddamned evil was detonated in front of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal building.
He killed 168 people including 19 children, 15 of which were inside the America's Kids Day Care Center. There were almost 700 other casualties.
I remember thinking as all the facts came to light this was the most evil, cruel, hateful, insane act of murder that ever happened in my country in my lifetime. At the time it was true. It isn't true now.
All this happened a few minutes ago on a beautiful spring morning in 1995.
God bless the men and women who struggled to save lives that day, to those who cared for the wounded, and the families and loved ones of those whose lives were torn apart that terrible day.
Gabe normally posts on the events of this awful day, he was unavailable this morning and asked if someone else could do it.
I have a friend who lost her parents that day. They had "disappeared", her sister in Oklahoma City said "I haven't heard from mom and dad and don't know where they are". Her sister went to their mom and dad's home and found some Social Security forms and paperwork on the kitchen table. It was weeks before their bodies were identified but the sisters pretty much knew a few days after the bombing that their parents had gone to the Murrah building that morning.
Close it up
Overnight Open Thread
Thanks to Niedermeyer's Dead Horse and the cobs for helping me put this together.
Do you think your kids would appreciate having their Easter baskets stuffed with healthier items? Well sure they would!!! What kid wouldn't love to find an Easter basket stuffed with plastic eggs, inside of which are dried fruits??!!
But the best suggestions have to be: Tea, and Stationery.
Yes, stationery. Because children love quality writing paper.
You know, if you give your kid tea and stationery for Easter, you're kind of giving them permission to kill you in your sleep.
Might as well go whole hog and give your kid a Pet Fart (TM) as a gift.
And while you're breaking your children's hearts with gag gifts for Easter, you might keep in mind that some people treat even rats better than that:
For anyone feeling a bit sad, here's a picture from a woman who makes Teddy Bears for her pet rat! pic.twitter.com/4KtU3esTnq— Animal Planet (@MeetAnimals) March 17, 2014
A type of insect has been discovered in which the female has the penis -- well, the "intromittent organ," the thing that gets stuck into the other organ.
It's not really a penis, of course. It's just something she sticks inside of the male to painfully leech the sperm out of him.
A study of four species of the Neotrogla genus showed that the penis-like structure of the female, called a gynosome, is inserted into males and used to receive capsules of nutrient and sperm.
Once within a male, part of the gynosome inflates and projects spines which anchor the two insects together.
The scientists found it impossible to pull coupling males and females apart without causing injury.
The insect has been named "Paul Begala," from the Latin for "fivehead twatmuffin."
To save money, and to like be "green" or whatever, the Netherlands is attempting an experiment on a length of road whereby they take down all the streetlights and provide illumination instead only via glow-in-the-dark paint used for the road lines.
Here's a mock-up (I think) of what that might look like:
You might not think the basic design of the axe could be improved upon after... what, gotta be like 40,000 years of constant human use, right? But these Finns say they've done just that.
The traditional axe is simply a heavy wedge that is swung at the wood. If it has enough momentum, it penetrates into the wood, spreads it and thus splits the wood.
In designing the traditional axe the challenge is to find the optimal wedge shape which both penetrates into the wood and splits it. Too shallow an angle and the axe will not split the wood and too wide and the axe will not penetrate.
In practice, everybody who has tried splitting wood with a traditional axe knows that it takes a lot of power to penetrate and split the wood. Consequently, women and children may have serious trouble operating the traditional axe.
When using a traditional axe the work is quite slow. It happens quite often that the axe penetrates into the wood but does not have enough energy to split it. The reason is that there is an enormous amount of friction when the wedge penetrates the wood and tries to split it and this friction consumes the axe’s energy. As a result, you have a log that has the axe stuck firmly inside it. Removing it can be quite challenging at times.
So basically the axe is designed to be used by a powerful man using brute force, and only a small amount of mechanical advantage, to split wood.
The "Leveraxe" is built oddly-- the center of momentum isn't in the middle of the blade, but off to the side. So when it strikes wood, it turns, and in turning, it uses some of the momentum you've given it to split the wood apart.
This video shows what I'm talking about:
So, they built the axe "wrong," making it wiggly and wobbly in the hand instead of straight and solid, deliberately engineering a lot of girlish flopping around into it, to allow a weaker, more feminine sort of man to achieve good results with it.
Gee, I wonder where they got that idea from.
They're showing off new composite photographs from the Hubble space telescope.
Below, a movie of a zoom in from the night sky to a cluster called CLASS B1608+656. I'm not sure if they're implying this is real or really real -- that is, is this actually just a video of the zoom in, or is there CGI animation inserted to make the movement smooth?
I don't know. Cool, though.
Close it up
Friday Night Open Thread
Worst ever avalanche on Mount Everest kills 12 guides, with four people still unaccounted for.
Why so many guides and few climbers? Well... because Sherpas are really the climbers, and every season, they prepare the climb with predeployed supplies and equipment (and checking ropes and such) for the "climbing season."
With peak season just days away [I see what you did there -- ace], Sherpas and guides are busy preparing for the trek up the highest peak in the world.
"The Sherpa guides were carrying up equipment and other necessities for climbers when the disaster happened," a spokesman for Nepal's Tourism Ministry, Mohan Krishna Sapkota, told the AFP news agency.
Before a climber begins the assent, hired Sherpas set up camps at higher altitudes and fix routes and ropes on the slopes above.
Of course climbing Mount Everest is a serious achievement for anyone.
Still, you know. It's always strange to celebrate a climber when Sherpas are going up the mountain all the time. As their day job. Let's face it, they're the climbers. The "climbers" are really the luggage.
Don't ever call them socialist, but it just so happens that David Axelrod has been hired by a socialist candidate for UK prime minister.
The British Labour Party has appointed David Axelrod as a strategic adviser to Ed Miliband's 2015 campaign. Axelrod, who went on to serve as a senior adviser to President Obama after acting as an adviser on the president's 2008 campaign, will reportedly be paid a six-figure sum for his work.
These government-connected socialists do live well, don't they?
You probably won't believe this, but Politico seems to have a crush on Hillary Clinton.
Incidentally, while the left celebrates Hillary's soon-to-be electorally-useful Grandmother Status, they also attack Drudge for the "ageist" attack of calling her a grandma.
Which is what they're doing. Oh but right, they're talking up how that will make her the Best President Ever so it's different.
Oh, and just two weeks after NBC warned the country about the dangers of billionaires spending wads of money to influence elections, Mike Bloomberg appeared on NBC to publicize his donation of $50 million to, get this, "grassroots organizations," the media calls them, to fight gun rights.
NBC forgot to ask Michael Bloomberg about the perils of billionaires buying elections.
Ah well, I'm sure it just slipped their minds.
Breaking: Obama's a nasty little prick.
@RDBrewer4 sent me this audio of Quentin Tarantino's commentary for True Romance, specifically the "Sicilian speech" scene. (Oh, yeah, he didn't direct it, but he provides commentary as the writer.) Here's the part about the Sicilian speech, but I've listened to most of the whole thing, and I think it's a very good commentary.
Tarantino is not as annoying as he usually is, and he basically uses the commentary to tell the early story of his career (he wrote, in order, True Romance, Reservoir Dogs, and Pulp Fiction within a few years). It's pretty interesting, so long as you like any of those movies.
He also makes a few interesting observations, like his idea that a movie should be so autobiographically revealing about yourself that if you watch it a few years later, you should be embarrassed at how much of yourself you've exposed. He says he did this with his fantasy/juvenile portrayal of what an awesome girlfriend would be like with the Alabama character (he had never had a girlfriend at that point, and he was 25, so his idea of a girlfriend was entirely speculative and hypothetical) and I guess the Clarence character, who is a Tarantino Mary Sue.
So, if you thought, "Gee this Alabama character sure seems like an idealized wish-fulfillment creation of a romantically-frustrated arrested-development 25-year-old juvenile who knows almost nothing about actual women," Yup. You nailed it.
Worth a listen.
By the way, speaking of Bunnies, did you know people actually put rabbits through show competitions, including agility courses?
They do. There are a lot of videos like this on YouTube.
Krauthammer: I No Longer Support Disclosure in Campaign Donations, Because Zealots Will Destroy Free Speech Rights By Ruining Lives and Wrecking Careers
And there's really no way around that, is there?
Best we can do is mitigate the harm by making government smaller, thus limiting the harm that people can inflict when they gather into Battleclans for Tribal Warfare.
And of course that's not happening any time soon.
[Full disclosure and complete transparency] used to be my position. No longer. I had not foreseen how donor lists would be used not to ferret out corruption but to pursue and persecute citizens with contrary views. Which corrupts the very idea of full disclosure.
It is now an invitation to the creation of enemies lists....
Sometimes the state itself does the harassing. The IRS scandal left many members of political groups exposed to abuse, such as the unlawful release of confidential data....
The ultimate victim here is full disclosure itself. If revealing your views opens you to the politics of personal destruction, then transparency, however valuable, must give way to the ultimate core political good, free expression.
Our collective loss. Coupling unlimited donations and full disclosure was a reasonable way to reconcile the irreconcilables of campaign finance. Like so much else in our politics, however, it has been ruined by zealots. What a pity.
The whole column is worth reading, but I can't quote it all, of course.
Kevin D. Williamson has more thoughts on the related issue of the militarization of the speech police.
Down in Travis County, Texas, where the stink of cronyism has Republicans in the legislature and Democrats in the bureaucracies sniffing each others’ tails like opportunistic stray dogs, University of Texas regent Wallace Hall is facing the possibility of criminal prosecution for helping to expose the bipartisan scandal of Texas politicians’ seeking preferential treatment for friends and family in university admissions....
In a sane world, Wallace Hall would get a medal for bringing attention to wrongdoing by elected officials, but the university establishment and the political establishment relish their comfortable symbiosis.
Others dream of prosecution, too. The political class is infatuated with speech regulations (which we are expected to call “campaign-finance laws”) because its members harbor a self-interested desire to set the terms under which political contests are fought. That is corruption, and a particularly nasty sort of corruption at that: corruption dressed up as a reform crusade....
The irony here is that it is the ones doing the prosecuting are the ones who should be prosecuted. It is against the law to use IRS resources for political vendettas and to maliciously prosecute citizens to further partisan political interests. Those are serious crimes — serious because they pervert the fundamental relationship between citizen and state. But we are enduring what Sam Francis called “anarcho-tyranny,” a situation in which the government either refuses to or is unable to enforce its most fundamental laws — e.g. controlling the borders, ensuring that its revenue agents are not engaged in an unhinged political jihad with an eye toward stacking elections, etc. — while at the same time it seeks to regulate the minutiae of citizens’ lives with all the terrible moral ferocity of David Frum on a Tuesday afternoon espresso bender.
Meanwhile, Harry Reid -- who is more and more simply a monster -- continues making it clear that the Party of Government has personal interests, and it will stop at very little in vindicating those personal interests:
I note again that it is a scary thing when high-ranking officials of the Party of Government take challenges to their authority so personally.
You don't want a cop taking a small amount of attitude personally, and you sure as hell don't want the Majority Leader of the Senate doing so.
Or Sheldon Whitehorse of Rhode Island, who apparently took it quite personally indeed that Tea Party groups were seeking the same sort of tax status as myriad progressive groups.
Close it up
AoSHQ Podcast: Guest, Jonah Goldberg
The yoga is hot, things are in hands, and no animals were harmed in the making of this podcast.
Intro/Outro: Van Halen-Panama / 38 Special-Teacher Teacher
Questions & comments here: Ask the Blog
Browse (and even search!) the archives
Open thread in the comments.
Profanity Note (Ace): After weeks of very little cursing, we curse a lot in this one.
I mean, I curse a lot. It wasn't planned or anything.
Preppin' on Mars: The Martian by Andy Weir
Brief book review. I read this a while ago. It's pretty good.
The premise -- which is a bit dodgy, but I'll grant the writer some latitude in establishing his premise -- is that a single member of a Mars exploration crew is left behind, presumed dead, when the entire team evacuates during a high-powered windstorm that threatens to destroy their camp.
The lone survivor -- the "Martian" of the title -- regains consciousness and takes stock of his situation. There is no possible hope of rescue for four years. He has enough food for something like 300 days (50 days of food for each of the six planned crewmen). So he has to extend his 300 days of food into something like 1450 days.
I mean 1450 "sols." You can't say "day" because a day is an actual measure of time corresponding to 24 hours. A Martian "day" is not the same length of an earth day (though it's pretty damn close), so instead it's called a "sol," which I guess is short for solar cycle.
The "Martian" basically becomes a Prepper. He uses almost all of the floorspace of his habitation unit -- and almost all of his excrement -- as a makeshift farm for growing the highest-energy-density food possible, potatoes. He realizes he also won't have enough water to grow his potatoes, so he's forced to engage in some dangerous chemistry to synthesize hundreds of liters of water out of oxygen and... rocket fuel. And he has to do perform various cannibalizations and modifications to his Mars Rover Vehicles, because his only hope of escape -- 1450 sols down the road -- is making a dangerous and lengthy overland journey over the perilously high/abyssally low Martian terrain to the site of the anticipated landing zone for the next Mars mission.
It's a pretty fun adventure/survival/settler book. (The book does not mention it at all, but it does suggest to a reader (or at least this reader) the travails faced by the early American colonists, or the Antarctic explorers. It's just kind of implicit in this sort of story, without having to be mentioned.)
It's mostly a collection of his diary entries while on Mars. I always feel this is a cheat, because it permits a writer to resort to a very bloggy, casual style of writing in which very little work is exerted. But it mostly works, and I guess is justifiable. This sort of epistolatory novel has a long tradition, after all. Robinson Crusoe was also journal entries, if I remember from the last time I read it. (When I say "I read it" I mean I briefly skimmed the Wikipedia entry.)
But the writer finds this format -- an epistolatory novel consisting of nothing but "found documents" like journal entries or government memoranda -- constraining at times, and then breaks into a conventional third-person omniscient narrative, which is jarring for a couple of reasons. First, just because it's breaking the journal format established earlier, and second, because Weir is, well, his Third Person Narrator style of writing is just as slapdash as his First Person Blog Account style.
It's actually a lot worse, because at least the First Person Blog Account permits a lot of humor (his "Martian" is very jokey) and we don't expect a high degree of literary craft in a journal entry.
But when you switch over to Third Person Narrator, well now that's the actual author of the book writing it, and you don't cut him slack for not being much of a stylist.
In addition, these Third Person Narrator accounts are mostly set on earth, concerning earth officials' efforts to get the stranded "Martian" back to earth, and the read, unfortunately, like those old sci-fi magazine stories in which characters pretty much just speak to each other about Plot Conceits with some occasional Science and Engineering Fan Service thrown in.
And then, when you begin to wish for some actual characterization in these parts, he offers the bare minimum of check-that-box characterization, and you wish he hadn't even bothered.
In fact, I kept thinking as I read these parts: they're so badly written, without any real effort to make these characters seem alive and real, that he really should have stuck to the Full Epistolatory Format and just made these memoranda or minutes from meetings. If he'd done that, the lack of characterization or versimilitude wouldn't be a problem; it would be a virtue. Meetings of NASA meetings aren't supposed to contain a lot of extraneous character information, after all.
There are also a few patches of Very Convenient Plotting Syndrome. These were especially grating because, mostly, they didn't seem necessary-- they have to do with narrative convenience (and, at times, narrative laziness). They don't really affect the main plot that much, which makes the appearance of bits of This Is What Happens Because I Said So more unfortunate.
That said, the book is just fun. Sure, the first person journal account is not the best way to describe the long ride in the MRV near the climax. I would have preferred a Third Person account there, to better convey the wonder of driving through Mars' red dust, down its mile-deep ravines.
And sure, here and there it's written so craftlessly it gets distracting.
But the story is just undeniable fun. The situation is inherently interesting.
And the main character is admirable: There's just no quit in him, and he never gets down. I would have liked him to be more depressed at the beginning, so that his resolution to Just Survive would be more dramatic, but the character winds up being that type who wouldn't get that depressed.
Surviving on Mars for four years, despite only having provisions for 100 sols, is just a problem that needs to be worked through. There's no point crying about it, there's no point blaming the crew that left him behind, and there's no point cursing NASA and God. Just Get On With It. Just do what you need to do, get through the next 30 days so you can then plot how to get through the next thirty. Just keep calm and carry on.
And if you blow up your habitation unit while playing around with your rocket fuel chemistry experiment, you don't cry about it like a baby. When you regain consciousness, you just get out the Duck Tape and start fixin' the thing.
So while at first I wanted more of a depression to seize him, as I read the book I liked the way the character was actually written better. He's an astronaut, after all, and he's not an Everyman. He's the sort of guy who signed up for this years-long, high-chance-of-death mission in the first place.
He's not going to be like I would be in this situation -- fortunately for him, because I just would have eaten the 100 sols of food in 50 days and then hung myself from the radio mast.
Which would have been stupid, because the gravity wouldn't have been enough to do a proper job of strangling me. So I would have f***ed that up too. (By the way, the author uses the f word a lot.)
Overall, it's about Mars, it's about survival, it's about preppin', it's about just shutting up with the complaints and working on the problem at hand.
It's pretty good. There are worst ways to spend a coupla-three nights, and most of those involve the televison.
DIY: Commenters have made me aware of something I didn't previously know -- the book was self-published on Amazon for 99 cents before being bought up by a real publisher (and now sells for $9.99).
It's also been optioned for a movie.
Kind of cool.
I now sort of understand why at times this reads like a book written by an amateur that wasn't professionally edited -- because that's what it is.
Still, flaws and all, it stands on its strengths.
Close it up
College Professor Suspended and Investigated After Being Reported For Using His Daughter to Make Real and Credible Threats to Kill People
Oh, here was the real and credible threat he posted on Google+:
Intellectual Winter is Coming
Scary, huh? Yeah, that T-shirt is a quote from Daenerys Targaryen from Game of Thrones.
It's a nerd culture t-shirt, in other words. The "fire" she's threatening people with? Yeah, comes from fire-breathing dragons.
But the professor has literally been suspended and is being investigated for this scary death threat.
But one contact — a dean — who was notified automatically via Google that the picture had been posted apparently took it as a threat. In an e-mail, Jim Miller, the college’s executive director for human resources, told Schmidt to meet with him and two other administrators immediately in light of the “threatening e-mail.” …
Schmidt said he met with the administrators, including a security official, in one of their offices and was questioned repeatedly about the picture’s meaning and the popularity of “Game of Thrones.”
Schmidt said Miller asked him to use Google to verify the phrase, which he did, showing approximately 4 million hits. The professor said he asked why the photo had set off such a reaction, and that the security official said that “fire” could be a kind of proxy for “AK-47s.”
Well, in fairness, the type of dragon alluded to is an "Assault Dragon," with extended stomach-magazines for additional literal fire-power.
Plus, "that part that goes down" (i.e., a tail).
It gets worse:
Schmidt believes the school is acting not to protect students from potential threats, but to retaliate against him. A week before being placed on leave, Schmidt filed a grievance against the school because he was passed up for a sabbatical.
Here's how Bergen Community College covers itself in further glory: by doubling down.
[Bergen Community College President Kay] Walter said she did not believe that the college had acted unfairly, especially considering that there were three school shootings nationwide in January, prior to Schmidt’s post.
Well that's not the sort of sub-moronic utterance I associate with community colleges at all.
The professor is suspended, without pay, until he can pass a psych exam showing he is not a threat to the school.
So that's it, then: It's Idiocracy. We are a stupid, stupid people, and like most deeply stupid people, we are increasingly proud of our stupidity.
The greatest offense you can inflict on a stupid, ignorant person is to tell him something he doesn't know, and there's no possible way to avoid this offense, because the list of things he does not know is vast.
And he'll hate you for telling him something he didn't know. And he will mock you for having known this thing, and, if he can get away with it, he will inflict punishment on you. Corporeal punishment, if he's bigger than you, and if he's not bigger than you, which will usually be the case, he will resort to the more cowardly method of punishment favored by the weakling, to wit, social/political/bureaucratic punishment.
All for having made a f***ing moron felt briefly ashamed about not knowing something.
In no case will the proudly ignorant ever just laugh off their moment of revealed ignorance and apologize for the misunderstanding, because the thick-headed do not know the things it's okay not to know. That is, it's okay to not know character quotes from Game of Thrones; it's just a nerd-cult tv show and book series. Who cares if you don't know the quote, or never heard of Khaleesi, Mother of Dragons?
But the stupid know so little they cannot differentiate between those things they should be ashamed of being ignorant of and those that they shouldn't, so, always fighting from the position of a defensive flinch, they feel ashamed about being ignorant of everything, which would be fine, but being stupid, and therefore, in the center of themselves, aggressive and hostile, they lash out at their phantasmal "oppressors" by any means they can.
In related news, civilization itself was a major misstep and that error probably should be corrected as soon as possible.
LA Sheriffs Kept Big-Brother-Like Eye in the Sky Technology Secret, for Fears That the Public Wouldn't Approve
There is an argument against the technology itself. I'm not going to make that argument, because there's a much more obvious argument to be had here:
What on earth is the government of an alleged democratic republic doing hiding its actions from a supposedly free citizenry for fear that the citizens may object?
“The system was kind of kept confidential from everybody in the public,” (LASD Sgt.) Iketani said. “A lot of people do have a problem with the eye in the sky, the Big Brother, so in order to mitigate any of those kinds of complaints, we basically kept it pretty hush-hush.”
"In order to mitigate any of those kind of complaints."
The logic here is incredible, and yet, at the same time, perhaps inevitable.
We're going to be doing one thing that's creepy and scary -- watching you 24/7 per day -- so the thing we'll do to "mitigate those kinds of complaints" is also subvert democracy by keeping it secret from the public.
Like I say, perhaps this is inevitable -- if you're doing one scary thing, then logic dictates you "mitigate" it by doing an even scarier thing.
What the hell is going on in this country?
Cool Beans: Earth-Sized Planet in the Habitable Zone Discovered Very Near our Own Solar System
At just a mere 500 light years away, why, it's almost walking distance.
It's in the outer limits of the habitable zone, though. The cold part of the zone, like Mars. But it's more massive than Mars (more massive than Earth, in fact) so it could hold more of an atmosphere and thus be warmer.
Water could exist in liquid form, if it exists there at all.
Kepler-186f actually lies at the edge of the Kepler-186 star's habitable zone, meaning that liquid water on the planet's surface could freeze, according to study co-author Stephen Kane of San Francisco State University.
Because of its position in the outer part of the habitable zone, the planet's larger size could actually help keep its water liquid, Kane said in a statement. Since it is slightly bigger than Earth, Kepler-186f could have a thicker atmosphere, which would insulate the planet and potentially keep its water in liquid form, Kane added.
The planet orbits a red dwarf, much colder than our own sun, but the planet is much closer to it (and so is within the smaller star's smaller habitable zone).
This is kind of interesting. I know, vaguely, that a planet's atmospheric make-up depends on its mass. Mass determines not just how much gas a planet will hold in its atmosphere, but which gases, specifically. I believe it's easier to hold heavier gases, and harder to hold lighter ones (like hydrogen and helium).
Mars, being quite a bit less massive than earth, can't hold oxygen or nitrogen.
This planet, being just about earth's mass (1.1 earth-masses) could. But anyway, here's the interesting part: You can't go much more over earth's actual mass before a planet will begin trapping hydrogen and helium (rather than losing grip on these light atoms and letting them slip into space), and thus become not very earth-like at at all.
"What we've learned, just over the past few years, is that there is a definite transition which occurs around about 1.5 Earth radii," Quintana said in a statement. "What happens there is that for radii between 1.5 and 2 Earth radii, the planet becomes massive enough that it starts to accumulate a very thick hydrogen and helium atmosphere, so it starts to resemble the gas giants of our solar system rather than anything else that we see as terrestrial."
So "earth-like" is a very, very narrow range as far as mass -- say, I don't know, 0.8 earth masses to 1.5 earth masses -- and as far as distance from star.
Not a lot of wiggle room here.
thanks to @rdbrewer4.
Elizabeth Warren Angry That People Challenged Her Claims of Being a Cherokee
U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren recounts in her new autobiography that she was “hurt” and “angry” by news reports that there was no documentation to support her claims of her family’s Cherokee heritage in the 2012 Senate race, according to a published report.
“What really threw me, though, were the constant attacks from the other side,” Warren wrote, according to Politico.com...
Efforts to reach a Warren spokeswoman yesterday were unsuccessful.
She once again makes the maudlin, manipulative claim that by challenging her use of her "minority" status for professional advancement, people were attacking her dead parents, who, she alleges, told her this silly story.
Of course, they never told her "And be sure to check off the 'minority' box in each and every job you apply for or land."
Incidentally, Warren also took credit (such as it might be) for the Occupy movement.
The article also states Warren was “confused” when the media jumped on her claim of inspiring the Occupy movement.
“There must have been a mistake — right?” Warren said she thought, before learning from an aide she had been correctly quoted as saying: “I created much of the intellectual foundation for what they do.”
Warren acknowledged, “My words sounded so puffy and self-important, and they made it seem as if I were trying to take credit for a protest I wasn’t even part of.”
Howie Carr has a simple suggestion as to how to resolve this controversy: if Elizabeth Warren will just be so kind as to swab the inside of her (high) cheeks with a DNA sample swab, he'll pay for a DNA test out of his own pocket to determine if she's a Cherokee.
It’s easy. Just swab the inside of your mouth. Check my photo on the left, I’ll show you how to do it.
No more of this fact-free nonsense about your “high cheekbones,” or these ridiculous fables about your parents “eloping” to escape the racism of the Indian Territory when they actually returned to their hick hometown that same evening for a traditional wedding party.
The only explanation you haven’t trotted out yet is that you instantly knew you were an Indian when you first heard Cher on the AM radio belting out “Half Breed.”
It would be great publicity for your new 2016 presidential campaign book if you finally come clean. Plus, what’s the downside, if you’re so positive that you really are an Indian princess?
Funny, but such a test would probably help her. It's quite possible she has 1/64th (or was it 1/128th?) Cherokee blood. It's even possible her parents told her stories of her distant, attenuated Cherokee ancestor. I'm told such legends are commonplace in Oklahoma.
But to claim to be a minority for professional advancement based upon such a tiny amount of minority status?
There's no simple DNA test for shamelessness and cynical careerism.
I don't think this is a gratuitous issue -- while I don't think Elizabeth Warren would challenge Queen (or is it Grand-Queen now?) Hillary, she does seem to be positioning herself for a possible bid if Hillary doesn't run.
Boehner: Amnesty 2014 Or Bust
I'll just leave this here without further comment.
Speaker John Boehner and other senior House Republicans are telling donors and industry groups that they aim to pass immigration legislation this year, despite the reluctance of many Republicans to tackle the divisive issue before the November elections.
Many lawmakers and activists have assumed the issue was off the table in an election year. But Mr. Boehner said at a Las Vegas fundraiser last month he was "hellbent on getting this done this year," according to two people in the room.
Added: Senator who partnered with Democrats to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill that Obama would sign in a heartbeat, fumbles and flips around on amnesty some more.
“I think this administration has probably reached the point of irreconcilable differences with regards to trust, particularly among Republicans,” Rubio explained during a conversation at a Texas Tribune event on Tuesday.
“There is a true distaste--and rightfully so--for comprehensive pieces of legislation,” he said.
Rubio explained that he believed that immigration would always have to be addressed in a sequential process.
“It doesn’t happen all at once, but I think it’s a lot better than continuing to go in circles here, and this all-or-nothing approach that for 14 years has led to nothing.”
So....we're just supposed to forget that less than a year ago he was the GOP poster-boy for what he's now saying is bad policy?
Rubio should stick to giving speeches about how much he loves America. He's very good at that. He's not quite as good at actual politics.
As Churchill once said about returning to the Conservative Party after abandoning it for the Liberal Party, "Anyone can rat, but it takes a certain amount of ingenuity to re-rat.". Rubio, who has gone from amnesty opponent to supporter and is now trying to get back to opponent, does not have Churchill's level of ingenuity.
It's Not Over Until The Liberal Republicans Win
I guess Ben has forsaken you so allow me to step in.
1. Liberal Republicans like former W. Bush aid Michael Gerson, just can't stop beating up on Goldwater.
The problem comes in viewing Goldwater as an example rather than as a warning. Conservatives sometimes describe his defeat as a necessary, preliminary step — a clarifying and purifying struggle — in the Reagan revolution. In fact, it was an electoral catastrophe that awarded Lyndon Johnson a powerful legislative majority, increased the liberal ambitions of the Great Society and caused massive distrust of the GOP among poor and ethnic voters. The party has never quite recovered. Ronald Reagan was, in part, elected president by undoing Goldwater’s impression of radicalism. And all of Reagan’s domestic achievements involved cleaning up just a small portion of the excesses that Goldwater’s epic loss enabled.
The Republican Party needs internal debate and populist energy. But it is not helped by nostalgia for a disaster.
It's funny how the liberals in the GOP keep going back to Goldwater. Are there no more modern examples of the GOP picking bad candidates for President that we might learn something from?
I guess we're just to chalk up loses by George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney to...well nothing. Those get airbrushed out of history. No we must forever be vigilant against the repetition of a one time event like Goldwater (who in today's environment of fairly stable red/blue voting patterns would have done as well as McCain or Romney).
Remember that the alternative to Goldwater in 1964 was Nelson Rockefeller who just happened to support much, if not all, of Lyndon Johnson's "great society".
It's almost as if people like Gerson and Jennifer Rubin aren't trying to improve conservatism but push liberalism.
Speaking of which....
[Romney] may not direct a high-powered political-action committee or hold a formal position, but with the two living former Republican presidents — George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush — shying away from campaign politics, Romney, 67, has begun to embrace the role of party elder, believing he can shape the national debate and help guide his fractured party to a governing majority.
Insisting he won’t seek the presidency again, the former GOP nominee has endorsed at least 16 candidates this cycle, many of them establishment favorites who backed his campaigns. One Romney friend said he wants to be the “anti-Jim DeMint,” a reference to the former South Carolina senator and current Heritage Foundation chairman who has been a conservative kingmaker in Republican primaries. Romney’s approach is to reward allies, boost rising stars and avoid conflict.
Let me remind you of a few things:
A-Romney was a terrible candidate
B-You can say, "but he was right about Obama". Yes and so was everyone on this blog. It's not a really impressive thing.
C-The whole idea of, "if the election were held today he'd win" is meaningless. It's not going to be held today for starters and just about any Republican would have as much of a shot in this hypothetical rematch as Romney.
D-He was untrustworthy on almost every issue.
That Romney would be better than Obama is a useless metric. So would just about any jackass off the street. Personally, I'd give the random jackass a better chance of winning simply because I know for a fact what a terrible candidate Romney is.
George W. Bush won two terms as President and he's been as quiet as a church mouse for going on 6 years. Mitt Romney got his ass kicked in one election and he can't keep his shut. Advantage: Bush.
Top Headline Comments (4-18-2014)
Happy Friday, all.
AoSHQ Weekly Podcast | Stream | Download | Ask The Blog | Archives
Overnight Open Thread (4-17-2014)– Not Sure Edition
In the film, it is the "Great Garbage Avalanche of 2505" that frees our protagonists from their cryogenic sleep. This prediction that trash will eventually pile up to unmanageable amounts has started to come true in many parts of the world. Particularly, Guatemala is known for their regular landfill landslides, especially during rainy seasons. Sadly, this is the cause of many deaths per year there to those who make their living as trash miners.
This one was a fairly obvious dig on society as it already was when the movie came out, but it's gotten way worse since. You virtually can't go anywhere without being bombarded by advertisements, and it's only going to continue to get worse and more prevalent as technology advances. Think about it, when was the last time you watched a YouTube video, surfed the Internet in general, or even watched television for more than five minutes without some product being pushed in your face? Heck, even phone apps are loaded with them if you aren't specifically paying them not to.
Plus you have the ubiquitous cursing and general talking like a tard.
But the absolute proof that we're now in the late pre-Idiocracy era is the fact that this aired on America's Got Talent:
Short answer: Politics. And opposing DWIs.
Yes. Yes you can via the 11-99 Foundation.
Alex Mayyasi reports that in the parking lots of Silicon Valley's venture capital firms, expensive cars gleam in the California sun and a closer look reveals that the cars share a mysterious detail: they nearly all have a custom license plate frame that reads, 'Member. 11-99 Foundation.' Are the Bay Area's wealthy all part of some sort of illuminati group that identifies each other by license plate instead of secret handshakes? The answer is the state highway patrol - the men and women that most people interact with only when getting ticketed for speeding. A number of the frames read 'CHP 11-99 Foundation,' which is the full name of a charitable organization that supports California Highway Patrol officers and their families in times of crisis. Donors receive one license plate as part of a $2,500 'Classic' level donation, or two as part of a bronze, silver, or gold level donation of $5,000, $10,000, or $25,000. Rumor has it, according to Mayyasi, that the license plate frames come with a lucrative return on investment. As one member of a Mercedes-Benz owners community wrote online back in 2002: 'I have the ultimate speeding ticket solution. I paid $1800 for a lifetime membership into the 11-99 foundation. My only goal was to get the infamous 'get out of jail' free license plate frame.'
Just because you have health insurance through ObamaCare does not mean you get to see a doctor.
And prepare to die.
Well I guess you take what you can get when it comes to national fame.
Well I think for most people a single request is more than enough. When you're going on year three of making requests, well...
And since we seem to be entering the age of quick territorial snatch-and-grabs from your neighbors, beware the Senkaku temptation:
If Chinese troops were to seize the Senkakus, might they also wrest the nearby Ryukyu Islands from Japan? It's not so far-fetched: Japanese strategists fret about how to forestall a doomsday scenario in the Ryukyus, the southwestern island chain that arcs from Japan's home islands southwest toward Taiwan.
Americans should worry as well. The southern tip of the Ryukyu Islands sits only about 80 miles east of the Senkakus. Unlike the uninhabited Senkakus, the Ryukyus host not only roughly 1.5 million Japanese residents, but also the U.S. Marine and Air Force bases that anchor the U.S. presence in the East China Sea. Occupying the Ryukyus would fracture the U.S. strategic position in East Asia - separating U.S. forces based in Japan (to the north) from those at Bahrain, the other permanent U.S. hub in Asia, far to the west. At a bare minimum, U.S. ships and aircraft would have to detour around Chinese-held islands, waters, and skies - incurring the additional time and costs longer voyages entail.
It's got the smell you crave.
Yahoo group. That is all.
The group thingy. And the middle class, brought to you by Carl's Jr.
Plus my Twatter spew.
Tonight's post brought to you by fair warning and full disclosure:
Notice: Posted by permission of AceCorp LLC and the CT Overlords. Please e-mail overnight open thread tips plus $1 for S&H to maetenloch at gmail. Otherwise send your scraps to BizarroAce. Do not taunt happy-fun ball.
Close it up
Mark Steyn: The Long, Slow, Unremarked-Upon Death of Free Speech
I heard a lot of that kind of talk during my battles with the Canadian ‘human rights’ commissions a few years ago: of course, we all believe in free speech, but it’s a question of how you ‘strike the balance’, where you ‘draw the line’… which all sounds terribly reasonable and Canadian, and apparently Australian, too. But in reality the point of free speech is for the stuff that’s over the line, and strikingly unbalanced. If free speech is only for polite persons of mild temperament within government-policed parameters, it isn’t free at all. So screw that.
But I don’t really think that many people these days are genuinely interested in ‘striking the balance’; they’ve drawn the line and they’re increasingly unashamed about which side of it they stand. What all the above stories have in common, whether nominally about Israel, gay marriage, climate change, Islam, or even freedom of the press, is that one side has cheerfully swapped that apocryphal Voltaire quote about disagreeing with what you say but defending to the death your right to say it for the pithier Ring Lardner line: ‘“Shut up,” he explained.’
A generation ago, progressive opinion at least felt obliged to pay lip service to the Voltaire shtick. These days, nobody’s asking you to defend yourself to the death: a mildly supportive retweet would do. But even that’s further than most of those in the academy, the arts, the media are prepared to go. As Erin Ching, a student at 60-grand-a-year Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania, put it in her college newspaper the other day: ‘What really bothered me is the whole idea that at a liberal arts college we need to be hearing a diversity of opinion.’ Yeah, who needs that? There speaks the voice of a generation: celebrate diversity by enforcing conformity.
I actually noticed this story on Twitchy, because a left-leaning comic, Patton Oswald, approvingly retweeted the link, stating he agreed with the general thrust, and for that blasphemy, was then set upon by the zealous inquisitors of the Holy Universal Unification Church of Shut Up.
Hillary Clinton Will Soon Be Grandmother
Chelsea Clinton announced her pregnancy.
The 16-week-old fetus has been signed to a six-figure deal to host a new MSNBC show.
Chelsea has reported it kicking, for which the unborn child has received a Walter Cronkite Excellence in Journalism award.
I didn't care about the "Chelsea is pregnant" storyline -- who can keep up with our useless princelings? -- until I saw the Drudge headline, "Grandma Hillary."
Does this help her or hurt her?
Director Bryan Singer Sued for Alleged Sexual Abuse of 15-Year-Old Boy
A lot of details claimed in this suit, and not just about the alleged drugging/sex.
But rather about a Hollywood culture that enables the abuse of children. I'll refer you to Variety for that.
X-Men: Days of Future Past” director Bryan Singer has been accused of sexually abusing a teenage boy in 1999 in a lawsuit filed Wednesday in Hawaii federal court.
The plaintiff, Michael Egan, claims he was 15 years old when Singer forcibly sodomized him, among other allegations. Egan’s lawyers, led by Jeff Herman, allege that Singer provided him with drugs and alcohol and flew him to Hawaii on more than one occasion in 1999. His suit claims battery, assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy by unreasonable intrusion, and it seeks unspecified damages.
Singer’s attorney, Marty Singer, called the lawsuit “absurd and defamatory.”
Herman is a sexual abuse attorney based in Boca Raton, Fla., who also represented the plaintiffs who accused Elmo puppeteer Kevin Clash of sexual abuse. He and Egan are scheduled to appear at a press conference on Thursday in Beverly Hills.
“Hollywood has a problem with the sexual exploitation of children,” Herman said in a statement. “This is the first of many cases I will be filing to give these victims a voice and to expose the issue.”
Speaking of Rape-Rape... Has Whoopi Goldberg finally found something she's qualified to do?
More: The Daily Mail reports more on the "boy parties."
USAToday Stealth-Edits on the Ukraine Leaflets Story
I quoted the story as it was written some hours ago.
But they've changed it, without acknowledging the change.
WAS: Pushilin acknowledged the flyers were distributed by his organization but he disavowed their content, according to the web site Jews of Kiev, Ynet reported…
NOW IS: Pushilin acknowledged that fliers were distributed under his organization's name in Donetsk but denied any connection to them, Ynet reported in Hebrew.
This is a major change in reporting -- from Pushilin admitting his men to handing them out, to a mere acknowledgement that he's aware of leaftlets purporting to come from his organization.
They have gone from reporting he publicly admitted that his men were dropping these leaflets, to him denying that.
This is not just a minor change in wording. This reverses, completely, their reporting on a key point.
We do not criticize the media for getting things wrong-- everyone gets things wrong, especially in fast-moving stories, and especially in cases of relying upon a translation.
But this is a major change to the original reporting and must be acknowledged as such -- otherwise people (like me) will go on thinking USAToday's original report was correct.
We don't get mad that they get things wrong. That is understandable.
We get mad that they can't bring themselves to admit they've gotten something wrong, and forthrightly correct the record.
And I have to think this is borne of incompetence. Competent people do not fear corrections, because they know they're getting things 90% right, and that's all you can hope for in this world.
It's the incompetents who are fearful that their next screw-up may mean their heads.
So I have to assume that USAToday considers itself incompetent, and on thin ice as far as the accuracy of its reporting.
Thanks to Anon Y. Mouse, who spotted this and was persistent in alerting me about it.
Unrelated, But: In Taranto's column discussing the politicization of the Census Bureau -- which, as DrewMTips notes, is a "crazy rightwing conspiracy theory" proven true -- he has a funny thing at the end.
"This is not your grandfather's NATO anymore."--Thomas Friedman, New York Times, March 30, 2003
"Friends, we are in the midst of an energy crisis--but this is not your grandfather's energy crisis."--Friedman, New York Times, Jan. 20, 2006
"Well, my general view is that this isn't your father's recession; it's your grandfather's recession."--former Enron adviser Paul Krugman, New York Times website, Feb. 13, 2009
"To appreciate the problem, you need to know that this isn't your father's recession. It's your grandfather's, or maybe even (as I'll explain) your great-great-grandfather's."--Krugman, New York Times, Feb. 20, 2009
"I've been saying for almost a decade now that what we have these days aren't your father's recessions, they're your grandfather's recessions."--Krugman, New York Times website, Jan. 17, 2011
"And this is the relevant history we should be looking at: this isn't your father's slump, it's your grandfather's slump."--Krugman, New York Times website, Sept. 19, 2011
"If Israelis want to escape that fate, it is very important that they understand that we're not your grandfather's America anymore."--Friedman, New York Times, Nov. 11, 2012
"This is not your grandfather's battlefield."--Friedman, New York Times, Feb. 2, 2014
"We're not dealing anymore with your grandfather's Israel, and they're not dealing anymore with your grandmother's America either."--Friedman, New York Times, April 16, 2014
This is not your grandfather's cliched hackery.
"The Repeal Debate Is and Should Be Over:" Oblahablah Open Thread
Oblahblah's talking about... something or other.
Oh, he's doing a victory lap over the CBO's new estimated numbers that claim that Obamacare's unaffordable costs will be slightly lower.
Oh God, it's just a general defense of Oblahblahcare yet again, calling for us to "move on." Now he's talking about the "50 or so votes to repeal this law" (a debunked number, of course; see, he's lying) and how those votes could have been used to "create jobs" or something.
"The repeal debate is and should be over."
[Update - Andy]: A key takeaway from President TrollSoHard's prepared
Paul Krugman Gets Pwn3d Like a Loudmouth in a Woody Allen Movie
There's a famous scene in Annie Hall when a blowhard idiot pontificates about Fellini and Marshall McLuhan. Woody Allen (or "Alvie Singer") becomes increasingly annoyed by the boor, until he at last pulls the actual Marshall McLuhan out from behind an obstruction.
Marshall McLuhan then tells the guy he's an idiot, and that he "know[s] nothing of my work."
Why am I telling about you this? It's on YouTube:
Then Woody Allen turns to the camera and says, "Boy, if life were only [really] like this."
Well, sometimes life really does work like this.
Sometimes an egregious blowhard really does get pulled aside by the man whose work he is (wrongly) pontificating about and get told that he knows nothing of his work.
It just happened to Paul Krugman.
Krugman's been commenting on the work of Dan Kahan. Kahan's a professor of law at Yale who writes a lot about "cultural cognition," which is just the idea that individual people will tend to think, reason, and decide according to the patterns instilled in them by the cultural cohort within which they reside.
In other words, partisans tend to parrot like-minded partisans.
Although I'm sure it goes beyond actual political partisanship, to general social and philosophical outlook.
So Lesser Krugman, Ezra Klein, had written about this (himself getting big parts of it wrong, naturally), and then Paul Krugman wrote about Klein writing about it, and Krugman's main complaint with Ezra Klein was that he hadn't been partisan enough in his analysis.
Whereas Kahan describes cultural cognition as affecting, of course, both the left and right, Krugman insisted that No, it almost entirely affects the right, Becuz Theyre Dumb.
By the way, Klein was already pretty partisan about this, briefly acknowledging the phenomenon on the left, before turning with considerably more brio to talk about how dumb the right is.
But Krugman said, basically, Nah, you shouldn't have even conceded that much. Look we're just better. Period.
And do you know what happened next?
Magic happened next.
Kahan himself considered Krugman's "empirical proof" that the left was less subject to the effects of cultural cognition (group think), and... laughed out loud.
He really says that. Well, he says "guffawed."
Okay, I've finally caught my breath after laughing myself into state of hyperventilation as a result of reading Krugman's latest proof (this is actually a replication of an earlier empirical study on his part) that ideologically motivated reasoning is in fact perfectly symmetric with respect to right-left ideology.
Rather than just guffawing appreciatively, it's worth taking a moment to call attention to just how exquisitely self-refuting his "reasoning" is!
There's the great line, of course, about how his "lived experience" (see? I told you, he's doing empirical work!) confirms that motivated cognition "is not, in fact, symmetric between liberals and conservatives."
But what comes next is an even more subtle -- and thus an even more spectacular! -- illustration of what it looks like when one's reason is deformed by tribalism:Yes, liberals are sometimes subject to bouts of wishful thinking. But can anyone point to a liberal equivalent of conservative denial of climate change, or the “unskewing” mania late in the 2012 campaign, or the frantic efforts to deny that Obamacare is in fact covering a lot of previously uninsured Americans?
Uh, no, PK. I mean seriously, no.
You know nothing of my work, Krugman.
I won't detail Kahan's refutation of Krugman's re-writing of his work. You can read his own words for that.
But his main point is that Krugman misses the point entirely. Krugman asserts, at the outset, that progressive beliefs must be correct, and therefore, anyone holding those beliefs must be better at reasoning.
Not so, Kahan replies -- you've missed the whole point of my work. Entirely. You can measure reasoning, but you'd measure reasoning by actually measuring reasoning, that is, taking the partisans of both sides and seeing how they react when presented with a provably true but ideologically discomfiting piece of evidence.
Instead, Krugman just assumes Progs R Smarterer because, you know, Progs R Smarterer.
That Krugman is too thick to see that one can't infer anything about the quality of partisans' reasoning from the truth or falsity of their beliefs is ... another element of Krugman's proof that ideological reasoning is symmetric across right and left!
In other words, Paul Krugman, posing as a Champion of Empiricism and purely-rational thought, himself discards the need for actual empirical evidence on a key point because it gels with the conclusion he already had in mind -- and thereby proves he's more infected tribal thinking than anyone else who's entered the discussion.
Thus directly self-refuting himself, and disproving the very claim he seeks to "prove."
For in fact, that "the other side" is closed-minded is one of the positions that partisans are unreasoningly committed to.
And this close-mindedness more and more frequently takes this form:
1. You are a racist, moronic, barely-human monster.
2. For evidence of such, see point 1.
3. The fact that you won't accept this proof proves that you are close-minded and hostile to "new ideas."
4. Which in turn proves -- as if it needed further proof! -- that you're a racist, moronic, barely-human monster.
If you want to read more of Kahan's theorizing on "motivated reasoning" (that is, what we usually call "reasoning backwards," figuring out the evidence and logic backwards from the conclusion you've begun with, you can read this.
More quotes at Volokh.
Thanks to @rdbrewer4 for this.
Why, this Paul Krugman is worth every penny of the $25,000 per month CUNY is paying him to serve as a Paris-Hilton-like brand ambassador for their studies in income inequality.
Who better to declaim about income inequality than a guy making $25,000 per month as a show-up-to-a-few-of-our-parties-and-collect-a-check side-gig?
Close it up
Ron Paul Praises "Fantastic" Article on His Website Claiming 9/11 Was Perpetrated by the American Government
Ron Paul offers his standard defense here, the same defense he's used with respect to, say, his frequent appearances on the Alex Jones show -- he's such a rootin'-tootin' fan of liberty that he does not wish to discriminate against anyone on the basis of their belief system. More speech, not less. More voices, not fewer.
Of course, Ron Paul does not publish criticisms of Ron Paul on his website, nor refutations of his own various claims; if he's published a "Three Cheers for the Fed!" piece, I don't know about it.
So I find his claim that these pieces just keep on making it onto his website and into his newsletters (sometimes above the signature "Ron Paul") merely because of a studious commitment to strong-form non-discrimination against view points to be false and phony.
Obviously he exerts some degree of personal choice and discretion when he chooses to publish crap like this. Obviously he thinks this article has something important to tell us all -- indeed, he claims that 99% of it is "fantastic."
Reason has reprinted almost one-third of the article, or, by their accounting, 30%.
If 99% of the piece was "fantastic," that means that somewhere around 96% of the below must be "fantastic" as well:
The most serious blow of all is the dawning realization everywhere that Washington's crackpot conspiracy theory of 9/11 is false. Large numbers of independent experts as well as more than one hundred first responders have contradicted every aspect of Washington's absurd conspiracy theory. No aware person believes that a few Saudi Arabians, who could not fly airplanes, operating without help from any intelligence agency, outwitted the entire National Security State, not only all 16 US intelligence agencies but also all intelligence agencies of NATO and Israel as well.
Nothing worked on 9/11....
For the first time in history low temperature, short-lived, fires on a few floors caused massive steel structures to weaken and collapse. For the first time in history 3 skyscrapers fell at essentially free fall acceleration without the benefit of controlled demolition removing resistance from below.
Two-thirds of Americans fell for this crackpot story. The left-wing fell for it, because they saw the story as the oppressed striking back at America's evil empire. The right-wing fell for the story, because they saw it as the demonized Muslims striking out at American goodness. President George W. Bush expressed the right-wing view very well: "They hate us for our freedom and democracy."
Italians were among the first to make video presentations challenging Washington's crackpot story of 9/11. The ultimate of this challenge is the 1 hour and 45 minute film, "Zero." You can watch it here. [You can google this Truther movie if you like -- ace.]
It is impossible for anyone who watches this film to believe one word of the official explanation of 9/11.
The conclusion is increasingly difficult to avoid that elements of the US government blew up three New York skyscrapers in order to destroy Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah and to launch the US on the neoconservatives agenda of US world hegemony.
Paul goes on to claim that anyone who finds fault with him for continuing to peddle batshit-crazy conspiracy theories which appeal to infirm and broken minds are guilty of "political correctness."
It's not political correctness.
I know a lot of people on the right really dig conspiracy theories (as well as people on the left), but for people who take a more sober view of events and intentionality, who don't view at as an action-packed thriller movie in which all significant historical events are hatched by a conveniently-detestable Black Hat Villain or Black Hat Organization working the levers and dials of History, this mode of thinking is crude, childish, and deranged.
Human beings are not particularly well-suited for thinking about abstraction. When humans talk about the quantum-level world, we describe in terms of "orbitals" and "spin," even though those things have nothing at all to do with quantum mechanics, and in fact are deeply misleading.
But we need to relate these imponderable abstractions to something that makes sense to us on a gut level, something that we have some tangible appreciation for.
Large events and impersonal social forces are often too big to wrap our minds around. They are largely abstract, and hard for us to process. Conspiracy thinking reduces large impersonal forces to something the average human can comprehend: Human intention, human villainy.
We all understand that some people are just wicked and cruel. And thus wicked, cruel events are most easily digested as originating from something comprehensible -- these Black Hat Villains planned this all.
When horrible things happen, we have emotional reactions, of course. But emotion is geared to be directed at other human beings.
In fact, even when we know exactly who committed a particularly distressing and large evil act -- as in the case of 9/11, or JFK's assassination -- some of us still find the need to postulate larger villainies behind it all.
More emotionally satisfying villainies.
That a great man (so the thinking goes) like John F. Kennedy could have been killed by a failure, a loser, a broken Communist weakling like Lee Harvey Oswald is too much to bear.
Thus, John F. Kennedy must have been murdered by the "dark chatter" of the rightwing in Dallas 1963.
Or even, as Oliver Stone's film suggests: President Lyndon Baines Johnson. After all, who has the power to kill one Warrior King but another Warrior King?
This isn't about political correctness-- it's about an aversion to thinking that frankly isn't "political" at all.
This sort of thinking is Shadow Politics. What it really is a psychological reaction to the incomprehensible and quasi-religious mythmaking.
It may appear political -- it's designed to -- but what it really is a deep psychological drive to make some kind of tangible sense out of a chaotic world that seems too big, and inventing mythic stories to explain it all, scarcely any different than early humans sitting around the campfire and positing that each night, a great dark serpent devoured the sun, and each morning he vomited it back up.
This isn't about political correctness, because it's not even about politics in the first place.
It's really just about deciding who is relatively sane, and whose judgment can be (to some extent) trusted, and who seems to be haunted by the Demons and Ghost-Snakes of 100,000 BC, and who seems, quite frankly, to be crazy.
It's Interesting That He Cites the Italians for Their Perspicacity... because that lets me talk about my favorite Italian word, furbo,, meaning full of cunning and slyness.
"Furbo" is very important in Italian culture. Even more than in our own.
Let's say, for example, I say I believe George Bush that Al Qaeda perpetrated 9/11.
The fact that I'm saying I believe him exposes me to several risks. What if he's lying? If he's lying to me, he's played me for a fool. I would have shown that my furbo is rather weak.
But what if I instantly claim he's lying, instead? Well, then I can never be accused of having had the wool pulled over my eyes by him. My furbo would be strong.
Now, most cultures, of course, respect skeptics and treat the guileless as amiable fools.
But in many cultures, you can only show so much furbo before you begin looking like a fool from the other direction. Not a fool because of what you believe; but a fool because of the incredibly long list of things you don't.
Italy, however, prizes furbo to the extent that it's pretty hard to be considered a fool based on your conspiracy-theorizing. Italy overvalues furbo, and undervalues skepticism about skepticism itself.
Italians pride themselves on their ability to offer a cynical conspiracy-theory counter-explanation for any event they witness. That guy just donated a million lira to an anti-hunger organization? Well, it's probably because he'll actually be selling them services and goods in their anti-hunger efforts. He'll wind up making out like a bandit, believe you me.
Furbo is king in Italy. And there's not nearly enough skepticism about these barely-considered conspiracy theories offered as alt-history explanations for everything. It's very hard to go too far with your furbo in Italy.
The more outrageous your conspiracy theory -- like, for example, that Amanda Knox killed her roommate because she was part of a Satanic cult that collected female genitals for use in summoning rituals -- the more furbo you're showing, and all the better.
I mean, sure there's no evidence against Knox and she appears innocent. But that's just what the Satan Cult would arrange, isn't it? If you believe her when she says "I'm not part of a Satanic cult killing women in ritual sex-orgies," you expose yourself to the risk of having her out-furbo you.
I mean, what if she's actually guilty? There's a one in a million chance of that, and we just can't take that risk.
Now in some quarters in America, furbo is also king. In Ron Paul's world, for example.
But we're not quite as enthusiastic about furbo in America, so the rest of us view this all as the babbling of silly clowns.
Well: Leaflet Handed Out by Pro-Russian Forces Holding Eastern Ukraine Orders All Jews Over 16 Years Old to Register as Jews, Listing All of Their Property They Own
Chilling, but at the moment this is very sketchy and unconfirmed.
A leaflet distributed in Donetsk, Ukraine calling for all Jews over 16 years old to register as Jews marred the Jewish community’s Passover festivities Monday (Passover eve), replacing them with feelings of concern.
The leaflet demanded the city’s Jews supply a detailed list of all the property they own, or else have their citizenship revoked, face deportion and see their assets confiscated.
However, we have yet no confirmation of this story, nor any admittance that the leaflets are real. The leaflets, after all, could be some kind of agent provocateur operation to discredit the pro-Russian insurgents.
But... I don't know about that. I hate to cast aspersions on a large population, but it's my understanding that Ukraine is fairly anti-semitic. So I don't know what the PR effect of a fake leafletting campaign would be.
Unless those distributing the leaflets think Jews Control The World and hence that any perceived threat to Ukraine's Jewry would result in NATO storming in to repel the Russian insurgents.
Which is its own issue.
Update: I needn't have been as skeptical as I was. They're real.
The leaflets bore the name of Denis Pushilin, who identified himself as chairman of “Donetsk’s temporary government,” and were distributed near the Donetsk synagogue and other areas, according to the report.
Pushilin acknowledged the flyers were distributed by his organization but he disavowed their content, according to the web site Jews of Kiev, Ynet reported…
So Pushilin says he doesn't agree with the order, but acknowledges his men are in fact ordering Jews to register.
Obama's Deliberately Trolling the GOP
Already mentioned by @theh2 (Andy) in the morning comments, and boy, I sure wish he'd mentioned it for the podcast -- great piece at Slate by John Dickerson, linked from Hot Air.
We've talked about the Buzzfeedification of politics but this would seem to mean that's now an actual strategy.
Obama Trolls the GOP
The refined cynicism of the president.
By John Dickerson
How do I get you to pay attention to this story? I could type out a balanced tale about an incremental change in White House spin and message control, relying on your discernment, patience, and kindness toward all the creatures of the Earth. Or, I could say that Barack Obama is a cynical and manipulative liar. The first approach would get a modest number of thoughtful readers, but they probably wouldn't stay on the page very long. The second would excite the emotions. Conservatives would approve. Liberals would denounce it and point out the exaggerations. My editor would smile because the controversy would attract more readers.
This is trolling. I've decided against it, but the White House has not. CBS's Major Garrett writes in National Journal about a new version of the “stray voltage” theory of communication in which the president purposefully overstates his case knowing that it will create controversy. Garrett describes it this way: “Controversy sparks attention, attention provokes conversation, and conversation embeds previously unknown or marginalized ideas in the public consciousness.”
Under this approach, a president wants the fact-checkers to call him out (again and again) because that hubbub keeps the issue in the news, which is good for promoting the issue to the public. It is the political equivalent of “there is no such thing as bad publicity” or the quote attributed to Mae West (and others): “I don't care what the newspapers say about me as long as they spell my name right.” The tactic represents one more step in the embrace of cynicism that has characterized President Obama's journey in office.
Facts, schmacts. As long as people are talking about an issue where my party has an advantage with voters, it’s good.
Major Garrett writes of this "stray voltage" tactic here.
The questioning of Obama's use of a Census Bureau statistic that the median wages of working women in America are 77 percent of median wages earned by men lasted almost all week. The story revved into mini-overdrive when the White House defensively swatted away criticism that salaries on Obama's watch—for which the American Enterprise Institute used the same median wages metric applied by the Census Bureau—showed that women in the president's employ earned 88 cents for every dollar earned by men.
All to the delight of a White House desperate to inject the issue into the political bloodstream and amplify otherwise doomed Senate Democratic efforts to make it easier for women to sue and win damages for workplace pay differences. The controversy that played out on front pages, social media, TV, and radio did just that.
This is the White House theory of "Stray Voltage." It is the brainchild of former White House Senior Adviser David Plouffe, whose methods loom large long after his departure. The theory goes like this: Controversy sparks attention, attention provokes conversation, and conversation embeds previously unknown or marginalized ideas in the public consciousness....
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.
Like the typical sort of blog-trolling, Obama is basically writing grabby, preposterous, eye-catching, false headlines. And as with the various outfits which practice trolling all day long, he doesn't expect to catch flack for his mangling of the facts for viral hits, because no one expects a Salon headline to be honest in the first place, and, increasingly, few expect honesty from a President, either.
So, in order to maximize viral shares, you just lie. You lie small, you lie big. You like outrageously, you lie entertainingly. This makes liberals link you in approval -- you're finally "getting tough" with the GOP -- and it makes conservatives link you to argue against you.
Whatever the reason, you're getting linked. Your claims, no matter how false, unfair, or ridiculous, are now the day's number one linked story.
Obama came into office as the world's first truly literary president, a rara avis (according to super-fan Christopher Buckley), and he goes out of office as a Gawker blog editor with a keen eye for search engine optimization and listicles.
Thursday Morning News Dump
- Looks Like We're Going To Help Bail Out Detroit After All
- The Rule Of The Lawless
- Bruce Braley's Poll Numbers Fall Following Farmer Comments
- Sebelius Hopes To Ride Waive Of Obamacare Popularity Into The US Senate
- Understanding Our Divisions
- Putin: Russia's Great Propagandist
- Patient Can't Find Doctors Thanks To Obamacare
- FBI Uncovers Al Qaeda Plot To Just Sit Back And Enjoy Collapse Of United States
- The Clinton Defense
- Landrieu Ad With Fake Footage Is Blowing Up In Her Face
- Time For Conservative To Tell Donald Trump To Get Lost
- 14 Eggceptionally Nerdy Easter Eggs
- Blame Chinese Air Pollution For America's Bad Weather
- Rapper Cuts Off Penis And Jumps Off A Building
Follow me on twitter.
Top Headline Comments (4-17-2014)
President Bozo McUnpresidential and his halfwit sidekick Choppers are down with all the cool kids, yo!
(You should thank me for hiding the image)
This is a good piece that I was going to mention in last night's podcast recording but didn't have time for.
CBS reporter says White House knew 77 cent wage gap claim false & would get pushback.All part of arcane WH strategy. http://t.co/d4gai4rF6z— Christina H. Sommers (@CHSommers) April 16, 2014
The Obama presidency is basically a gigantic Democrat Internet trolling operation. That explains so, so much, doesn't it?
AoSHQ Weekly Podcast | Stream | Download | Ask The Blog | Archives
Overnight Open Thread (4-16-2014)
In one case on whether employers can use background and credit checks in hiring. The courts rejected the EEOC's complaint.
Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a challenge by the EEOC to the use of credit checks by Kaplan Higher Education Corporation. The very first sentence of the opinion, by Judge Ray Kethledge, calls out the EEOC for its hypocricy:In this case, the EEOC sued the defendant for using the same type of background check that the EEOC itself uses.
The EEOC claimed that these kind of checks had a disproportionate effect on minorities and to prove it they brought in a crack team of "race detectives" to guess at applicants' race based on their drivers license picture.
The way the EEOC attempted to prove disparate impact is quite revealing and rather disconcerting. To evaluate the racial impact of a hiring policy, one must, of course, know the race of applicants. In this case, Kaplan did not record this information. Thus, the EEOC's "expert" had to eyeball copies of applicant driver's licenses and, in effect, guess the race. (The expert also had the names of applicants; though the EEOC insisted they weren't used to determine race, the Sixth Circuit seemed skeptical of that claim).
To guess the race of applicants from the photos on their licenses, the expert used a process called "race rating." He assembled a team of five race raters each of whom has experience in what the EEOC calls "multicultural, multiracial, treatment outcome research."
And the Court was having none of this.
The EEOC brought this case on the basis of a homemade methodology, crafted by a witness with no particular expertise to craft it, administered by persons with no particular expertise to administer it, tested by no one, and accepted only by the witness himself. The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding [the expert's] testimony.
I almost expected the court to follow up with a Billy Madison judgment here.
Mostly to other people to spend.
In the recent Hobby Lobby Case, Justices Elana Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor said that corporations that don't want to pay for abortions should simply not provide any health insurance: "But isn't there another choice nobody talks about, which is paying the tax, which is a lot less than a penalty and a lot less than - than the cost of health insurance at all?" Dissenters from the official line must pay a tax. That sounds familiar.
Consider the ObamaCare 'Tax' penalty as just the starting jizyah dhimmis like you will have to pay for not adhering to the state religion - progressivism.
The pinky to mouth movement is just assumed here.
So sayeth Professor Steven M. Walt of Harvard's School of Government:
Since the early 1980s, in fact, mass-market treatments of war and the military have become increasingly respectful, even adulatory. This trend begins with An Officer and a Gentleman (1982), followed by Top Gun, a 1986 film starring the F-14 Tomcat; A Few Good Men (1992); Saving Private Ryan (1998 ); Independence Day (1996), where the villains are evil space aliens and a sniveling civilian secretary of defense; Black Hawk Down, a 1999 book by Mark Bowden and 2001 film; the Oscar-winning The Hurt Locker (2008 ); and Zero Dark Thirty (2012) about the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. You could toss in Lone Survivor, Shooter, Under Siege, Tour of Duty, Call to Glory, JAG, and Band of Brothers - the moral of the story wouldn't change much. Some of these works include conniving politicians or less-than-admirable commanders, but the core institutions and the troops themselves are portrayed in a consistently positive light. Today, only Garry Trudeau's Doonesbury is still willing to crack a few jokes at the military's expense, but his main military characters (B.D., Ray, Melissa, and Toggle) are all wounded or damaged in some fashion and the predominant tone is one of sympathy and support rather than satire.
I can think of only five partial exceptions to this pattern - Private Benjamin (1980), Stripes (1981), Good Morning, Vietnam (1987) and the two Hot Shots! parodies, but these works do not undermine my larger point.
And even the exceptions he points out aren't portraying the military negatively enough for him:
In Stripes and Private Benjamin, for example, the lead characters ultimately gain wisdom from their military experience and become better people. And Good Morning, Vietnam becomes less funny as the film proceeds, as Cronauer confronts the realities of the war and discovers a Viet Cong agent has duped him. Hot Shots! (1991, 1993) doesn't really count, as these films are really spoofs of pro-military genre films (especially Top Gun) rather than of the military itself.
Well at least Walt can console himself with M*A*S*H and all the deranged veteran movies of the 70s.
Well excluding Kaboom since its horror transcends simply a bad morning meal.
Tonight's post brought to you by tonight's filmstrip:
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
Bloomberg "Reporter," Who By the Way Once Served as Head of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz' PAC, Headlines Story About Mike Pence's Possible Presidential Run By Noting He's a "Koch Favorite"
Mike Pence, a Koch Favorite, Mulls 2016 Run for President
Here are some things that this "reporter," Jonathan Allen, deemed not worthy of a headline mention:
* That Pence is actually the current governor of Indiana. That seems sort of important.
* That he's a Republican. Bear in mind, the next election is an open-seat one, no incumbent. There will be challengers on both sides (well, one assumes Hillary will have challengers). So it's sort of important to note which nomination he's considering pursuing.
* That he's a former Congressman.
These are the various basis bits of biographical data which would usually occur to a reporter to include in a headline about a subject. Bear in mind, Mike Pence is not a household name; a headline would usually inform the reader about who the heck he is.
Well, Allen knows who he is, and he wants you to know: He's a "Koch favorite."
If you’re wondering why this otherwise prosaic Bloomberg piece about Pence’s national future begins with a mention of the Koch brothers, it’s probably because the guy who wrote it worked for Paul Sarbanes and, briefly, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz before resuming his career as an impartial reporter.
During the early-going of the 2012 cycle, I myself pushed a Pence run, reasoning that he would be a party-uniting figure.
He still could be. And he's worked in both the federal system, as a Congressman, and currently holds the position of Chief Executive of a state. That's a solid resume.
And speaking of Jonathan Allen, The Federalist has an interesting piece about the tactics used in coercive kidnap-and-brainwashing operations, as in the case of Patty Hearst.
And, interestingly, the similar tactics employed in political agitation.
Below, the Asch conformity experiment, name-checked in the article.
This is why many of us believe the Democrat Party is not the real enemy; the Democrat Party is just the Customer Service Division of Worldwide Socialism, Inc.
The real enemies are institutions that push a socialist lie on the public, 24/7.
Oh, and this is fun: ABCNews tried to get two of its reporters added to a Pulitzer Prize award -- one of them being Brian "I hear he may have Tea Party connections" Ross.
Apparently these reporters did little but take someone's previous print reporting, repackage it for TV, and broadcast it. But they want credit.
And, Open Thread.
Close it up
What Happens When You Try to Open a Plane's Door at 30,000 Feet?
Nothing happened. The door can't be opened due to the pressure differential. The inside of the plane is pressurized, and the outside is low-pressure; basically you have a thousand pounds of pressure holding the door shut.
Popular Mechanics, however, gets vague about how this works. Airplane doors open outwards. The pressure inside a plane also pushes outwards.
So why does the pressure keep the plane's door shut, rather than giving a would-be door opener a terrific advantage in opening it? Why does pressure fight against a door-opener, rather than fighting for him?
The reason concerns the way that the door is engineered. Some just have locking mechanisms. I suppose those could be opened in flight.
But many are sealed shut by the cabin pressure itself.
These kind of doors are called plug doors, because, like a plug in a sink, they're meant to fill a hole and stay there, sucked into the hole by negative pressure.
Here now some things I learned from Wikipedia and generally scouring the Internet to answer this question, which has long bothered me. (My information is spotty and wholly based on reading so there may be some mistakes here, and I'd appreciate any corrections.)
The inside edge of a plug door is fatter than the outside edge, like a plug that tapers towards its front. The low pressure outside the door hole and the high pressure inside it pushes the plug door into its frame, preventing it from being pulled inwards.
An emergency exit door might just physically come apart from the plane -- that is, it detaches completely. To open it, one has to pull into the body of the plane, then put aside or laid on the floor.
In the video below, note that fatter inside edge of the door, and the thinner outside edge.
In flight, at high altitude, when pressurized, the pressure would be pushing that door outwards into the hole.
Main doors have a tricky hinge, that requires opening it in two stages:
First, the door must be moved inward. Because the door has to be opened inward, it's at this stage that the high pressure of the cabin is helping keeping it sealed shut -- the pressure is pushing the door outward, and a person trying to open it at altitude would have to fight the air pressure to pull it back.
Once it's been moved inward, the hinge now permits it to move outward into the fully open position. Apparently the door can tilt or rotate on the hinge such that it can now move through the door-space, even though it's actually too big for the space. (Much as you can get a couch through a doorway by angling it.)
See? It moves inwards first. If you were trying to open that at 30,000 feet, you'd find it impossible to pull it towards you.
Another kind of door, on the Airbus, achieves this "Bigger on the inside edge" sealing factor by building a door with a top and bottom piece that slide out of the way when a locking mechanism is turned.
You can see that at around twenty seconds in here:
I don't know about that one, though. The true plug type doors just can't be pulled inward (at least not by human strength) at the great pressure differential at high altitude. But the Airbus door appears to open outwards only -- and is only blocked by doing so by the top and bottom pieces of the door, which can be moved aside by mechanical manipulation.
Thus that door seems to be relying only on mechanical safeguards, rather than air pressure, to keep the door shut.
Correction: Airbus actually says its doors open inwards, too. I guess I'm just not seeing the inward motion in that video.
When people say it's impossible to open a door at altitude, I think they're talking about the plug doors.
But not all airplanes have those. (This is unaffected by the correction.)
One more thing about all this: While people will say "You can't open a door in flight," that's not true. Even the plug-type doors can be opened in flight -- just not in flight at high altitudes while the cabin is pressurized.
When there's not such a great difference between the external and internal pressure -- and cabins are only pressurized to about the pressure you'd feel at 8,000 feet -- there won't be anything except the locking mechanisms keeping doors closed.
Of course, it's also not particularly dangerous to open an aircraft door at lower altitude -- no explosive depressurization, no Goldfinger exit -- but it's also not advisable. A sudden change in the airplane's aerodynamic profile can wreak havoc on the pilot's control, and of course no one wants to feel 500 mph hour winds gusting right outside the window.
So there's kind of three myths that need to be busted here: first, the myth that you can just open a door at high altitude and explosively depressurize the cabin.
You can't do that... with plug doors.
But it's actually not true that all airplane doors are plug doors. Some just rely on mechanical safeguards.
And further, the the contrary myth that you can never open a door in flight at all is also wrong.
Up to 8,000 feet, you'd have absolutely no considerations of pressure at all keeping doors shut -- only the mechanical locks would be holding the doors shut -- and I'm going to guess that up to around 15,000 feet, while there would be a pressure differential, it wouldn't be so vast that an adult man couldn't yank it open.*
So... don't be entirely calm when that weird looking guy goes for the door while you're descending for a landing.
And via the Washington Free Beacon, an aircrew does her best stand-up while giving the pre-flight safety instructions.
Listen closely; she packs a lot of jokes in there. Including her advisory that not only are you not permitted to disable the bathroom smoke detector, but that you're also not permitted to disable the bathroom webcam.
* Actually, I bet the handles and such are designed to break off if too much force is exerted on them. That is, if you have to exert such a significant amount of force on the door to pull it open (which would happen in a low pressure outside/high pressure inside situation), the handles are designed to just break off in your hand and leave the door in place.
They could manage that just by using weaker attaching hardware -- plastic screws designed to fail under too much force -- than they otherwise would.
But that's all conjecture.
Close it up
Selfless Crusader Against Income Inequality to Heroically Accept $225,000 For Nine Months of Sub-Part-Time Work from State-Funded Organization to Occasionally Give a Few Quotes About the Scourge of Income Inequality
$225,000 would be quite a rate of pay for a part-time job.
But this isn't even a part-time job. Former Enron shill Paul Krugman is now taking another "big money call" to promote the City University of New York's Luxembourg Income Study Center.
$225,000 for nine months of work.
What will Krugman to do to earn his $25,000 per month? Almost nothing at all. He's expected to "play a modest role in our public events” and “contribute to the build-up” to the school's new “inequality initiative.”
I assume "playing a modest role in our public events" is similar to Paris Hilton's modest role in public nightclub openings -- show up, eat a few shrimp hors de oevures, chin-chin a champagne fluter or two, go home for the night, watch 30 Rock reruns at 1:00 am.
He is not required to teach students or interact with them at all. He will be expected to appear at one (1) seminar at year's end.
Krugman wrote back: “I admit that I had to read it several times to be clear ... it’s remarkably generous.”
Indeed. Remarkably "generous."
Or is it "generous"? Generosity is what comes out of your own wallet. But this cash bonanza doesn't come out of the pockets of the CUNY officials making this "generous" offer, of course; it comes out of students' hides.
Despite being lavishly subsidized by the state, CUNY has been escalating student tuitions from $4800 in 2011 to $6330 by 2015.
“I just can’t afford that amount. That’s the reason why I came here was because I can afford it. I heard it’s a credible school. And now it’s going up. I’m thinking of finding another school to go to,” Davis told CBS 2's Hazel Sanchez.
Perhaps Krugman, the $25,000 Per Month Not-Even-Part-Time Man, can invite Mr. Sanchez to his single annual seminar and explain to him the evils of income inequality.
Megan McArdle on Obama's New Books-Cooking Census Insurance Question: "I ’m speechless. Shocked. Stunned. Horrified. Befuddled. Aghast, appalled, thunderstruck, perplexed, baffled, bewildered and dumbfounded."
The census is changing the way they ask a question about being insured. The old way, they say, tended to overstate how many people were uninsured. (But note Obama was willing to rely on that overstated figure in making his case for the urgency of destroying the health care system.)
The new way is supposedly "more accurate" -- but will result in fewer people saying they're uninsured.
Coincidentally I'm so f***ing sure, these changes are implemented at the precise damn moment Obama wants to demonstrate a Big Impact of Obamacare.
Of course, he has cooked the books. Much of the change in the number of uninsured will come simply from the new way in which the question is asked, but he will imply or explicitly state (explicit lies are well within his wheelhouse) that the drop in uninsured is attributable to Obamacare.
Megan McArdle, to whom, as a economist/analyst, data are precious as diamonds, is shocked that Obama would decided to destroy any possibility of using census data to get an accurate analysis of the impact of Obamacare, but perhaps she shouldn't be all that shocked at all.
Indeed, she suspects as much:
But why, dear God, oh, why, would you change it in the one year in the entire history of the republic that it is most important for policy makers, researchers and voters to be able to compare the number of uninsured to those in prior years? The answers would seem to range from “total incompetence on the part of every level of this administration” to something worse.
Yes, that’s right, I said “every level.” Because guess who was involved in this decision, besides the wonks at Census?The White House is always looking for evidence to show the benefits of the health law, which is an issue in many of this year’s midterm elections. The Department of Health and Human Services and the White House Council of Economic Advisers requested several of the new questions, and the White House Office of Management and Budget approved the new questionnaire. But the decision to make fundamental changes in the survey was driven by technical experts at the Census Bureau, and members of Congress have not focused on it or suggested political motives.
I find it completely and totally impossible to believe that this problem didn’t occur to anyone at Census, or in the White House. It would be like arguing that the George W. Bush administration might have inadvertently overlooked the possibility that when the U.S. invaded Iraq, there would be shooting. This is the biggest policy debate of the last 10 years, and these data are at the heart of that debate. It is implausible that everyone involved somehow failed to notice that they were making it much harder to know the effect of this law on the population it was supposed to serve. Especially because the administration seems to have had a ready excuse as soon as people reacted to the news.
Of course, the Administration's main salutatory innovations in economic and policy matters has been to change the method by which we measure the economy and impacts of specific policies.
We used to figure out a President's job creation number from, get this, subtracting jobs lost from jobs created, resulting in (whether positive or negative) net jobs created.
But Obama found that Old School Approach to not be accurate enough. He created a new category -- Jobs Saved.
And when "Jobs Saved" turned out to not be plentiful in and of themselves, he created a new category-- "Jobs Funded." He asked employers to note when even a single dollar of government stimulus money had gone to an an employee, whether or not that employee was ever in danger of being laid off. If a single dollar of money went to that employee, then the job was considered "funded" by the government.
But that still wasn't enough -- the Department of Energy created a new metric for measuring the economic impact of stimulus spending. People who politically supported boondoggle spending on, say, Solyndra, would be credited as having been "positively impacted" by the spending.
Sure, Solyndra cost the country money in exchange for no jobs, but think about all those people "positively impacted" by the spending! They felt good about spending money on a cronyist boondoggle; and you just can't put a price on making progressives' erogenous zones throb with the excitement of spending other people's money.
Is GDP not growing enough? Is Obama being weighed down by low GDP growth figures?
Not to worry-- There's An App For That (TM).
Much attention about today’s data release will focus on BEA’s new methodology for calculating GDP. This new methodology generally makes two large changes. First, it reclassifies some spending made by businesses as long-lived investment rather than current intermediate costs. This means that this reclassified spending now boosts measured GDP (which excludes intermediates costs, but does include investments).
Are too many businesses reporting that they're laying off workers at about the same time Obamacare is implemented? Don't sweat it -- just make businesses swear on their tax forms that firings were not due to Obamacare.
Consider what administration officials announcing the new exemption for medium-sized employers had to say about firms that might fire workers to get under the threshold and avoid hugely expensive new requirements of the law. Obama officials made clear in a press briefing that firms would not be allowed to lay off workers to get into the preferred class of those businesses with 50 to 99 employees. How will the feds know what employers were thinking when hiring and firing? Simple. Firms will be required to certify to the IRS – under penalty of perjury – that ObamaCare was not a motivating factor in their staffing decisions. To avoid ObamaCare costs you must swear that you are not trying to avoid ObamaCare costs. You can duck the law, but only if you promise not to say so.
Earlier in his term Obama wanted to reassure voters that he wasn't lenient on illegal immigration. And yet he was actually deporting fewer people than Bush or Clinton. How to assure them he was tough as nails on deportation, then?
Easy peasy -- change the way you calculate deportations. Just begin counting border interdictions (where you just stop someone at or near the border and send them back home) as "deportations" and suddenly you've doubled your "deportations."
Interdictions had never been before counted as "deportations." They were counted under a separate heading. So by changing the accounting method, "deportations" suddenly rise -- when in fact actual deportations have gone down. Way down.
And then, by simply changing your accounting method (without telling anyone about the change), you have gone from someone who's deporting fewer illegals to the Most Hardcore Hardass Deporter in History.
Of course, this then became a meme on the Open Borders left, with illegal immigrant advocates getting angry at Obama and calling him "The Deporter in Chief".... to which charge he now tells them, "Relax, I was just lying, fellas."
In Obama's first year in office, his administration deported 237,941 people. That number represents the traditional definition of a deportation: someone living their life in the U.S. when they encounter a law enforcement officer who has them shipped out of the country.
By last year, that number had fallen to 133,551. And of those, 71,938 had been previously convicted of at least one felony or several misdemeanors – the "criminal aliens" that the administration has targeted. That means of the 12 million undocumented immigrants living in the country, fewer than 70,000 who have led generally peaceful lives here were deported last year.
Yes, the Obama administration says it deports 400,000 people annually, recently passing the 2 million mark throughout the president's time in office. But the majority of those cases involve people caught by Border Patrol agents along the Southwest border and processed through Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In years past, those people would have been quickly shipped back to Mexico....
The backlash started last September, when seven undocumented immigrants handcuffed themselves to the gates of the White House to call on the president to halt deportations. More groups joined in the chorus, culminating in a March speech by Janet Murguía, the president of the National Council of La Raza, the country's largest and most well-financed immigration advocacy group. In it, she called Obama "deporter in chief."
That led to a White House meeting last month, when the president voiced his frustration with leaders of several immigration advocacy groups. In his time in office, Obama has stopped the work site immigration raids so frequent under Bush and created a program that has granted protected status to more than 500,000 undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children. He has stopped the deportation of relatives of military members, is considering extending work visas to spouses of foreigners working in the country and ordered a system-wide review of deportation practices to see how to conduct them "more humanely."
When Obama speaks to the Gringos, he touts the 400,000 figure.
When he speaks to Hispanics -- at a White House meeting, presumably behind closed doors -- he tells them he's not really deporting that many people.
A different lie for every constituency.
And in each case, the changes in accounting methodology prevent the whole point of accounting -- accountability.
There is never a good baseline upon which to judge Obama's performance, because at every turn he deliberately destroys the baseline measure.
Orwell noted that whoever controls the past, controls the future.
Obama seems to be an Apt Pupil.
Primary Season: Remember when Obama claimed that he was submitting a budget that would be "balanced" in its out-years (you know, those years a convenient decade away when all the real cuts would allegedly occur)?
He was questioned on this -- how could he say the budget was "balanced" when his own charts still showed $800 billion per year deficits?
Ah, you see, you misunderstood -- they only meant the primary budget would be balanced, the primary budget defined as the budget excluding the huge outlays to maintain debt service on already-accrued borrowing.
This is like saying "Well, the budget is balanced. And when I say 'budget,' I mean the budget, excluding Social Security payments."
Why would you exclude those? What possible justification is there to treat some expenditures as somehow not worthy of being counted?
But even by Obama's new accounting on what "balanced" means -- of course it even turned out that that was a lie.
Public: Hey, Can We Get a Timetable for When You'll Be Releasing the Numbers for Actual Obamacare Sign-Ups?
Jay Carney: Nah, Bro
Wheels are in motion, though, and the check is in the mail.
“I don't have a timetable for when that would happen,” he added.
Carney also noted that the timeline for releasing demographic information and details, such as who among the 7.5 million have paid their first month's insurance premium, is different than the timing for the administration's push to have the Senate confirm Sylvia Mathews Burwell as the next HHS secretary.
I Currently Have No Estimates
...as to whether my promise to not do That Thing in your mouth is still operative.
Oh shit. I've gone and done it.
WaPo's Dana Milbank: Republicans Went Easy on Kathleen Sebelius...
(wait for it)
(wait for it)
(Wait for it...!)
...Because She's White
James Taranto reports that, get this, the entire leftwing commentariat is now on board with the Democrats' acknowledged plan to simply racially demagogue in lieu running on their record or proposing any sort of positive agenda.
They take orders from the Central Planning Committee very well, don't they?
There is often a longing on the right that we too should be this hierarchical and slavish to the Central Planning Committee's various edicts. But this is inhuman.
In furtherance of the Democrats' Important Action Alert, the Washington Post's Dana Milbank suggests on Al Sharpton that she wasn't threatened with impeachment (as Holder was) because she's white.
From National Review:
Let’s compare Holder to Kathleen Sebelius, who has presided over Obamacare, which is the thing that has most antagonized the Right and the Republicans over all these years. You’re not seeing calls for her impeachment, you’re not seeing the same level of personal vitriol.
I think, that’s why, again, it’s fair to ask the question, and let every individual say why it is that they have that particular antipathy toward this attorney general, toward this president, and why not, say, toward Kathleen Sebelius, who they’re obviously much more at odds with.
Truth Revolt notes dryly that Milbank's own newspaper carried an article in October 2013 listing 30 Republicans who had demanded that Sebelius resign.
Lois Lerner Email Discusses IRS Criminal Investigation of Targeted Groups
And coordinating with the DoJ and FEC, based on partisan Democrat Sheldon Whitehorse's assertion that Tea Party aligned groups had "lied" on their application forms.
From: Lerner Lois G
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2013, 5:30 PM
To: Flax Nikole C
Cc: Grant Joseph H; Marks Nancy J
Subject: DOJ call
I got a call today from Richard Pilger Director Elections Crimes Branch at DOJ, I know him from contacts from my days there. He wanted to know who at IRS the DOJ folks could talk to about Sen. Whitehouse idea at the hearing that DOJ could piece together false statement cases about applicants who “lied” on their 1024s –saying they weren’t planning on doing political activity, and then turning around and making large visible political expenditures. DOJ is feeling like it needs to respond, but want to talk to the right folks at IRS to see whether there are impediments from our side and what, if any damage this might do to IRS programs.
I think we should do it – also need to include CI [Criminal Investigation Division], which we can help coordinate. Also, we need to reach out to FEC. Does it make sense to consider including them in this or keep it separate?"
Mike Pence For President? Sebelius For Senate? Bloomberg For Heaven? And More!
1. Governor Mike "Presidential Hair" Pence of Indiana is considering a run for President.
You should check out that link not just to see what Pence says but how the Bloomberg reporter frames it. Hint: KOCH BROTHERS.
I was pretty interested in Pence in 2011 because I think he has the ability to unite significant parts of the traditional GOP 3 legged coalition.
The Bloomberg story is via @ByronYork.
2. Speaking of Bloomberg, Mike is sure he's going to heaven because God is all about fascism or something.
If [Bloomberg] senses that he may not have as much time left as he would like, he has little doubt about what would await him at a Judgment Day. Pointing to his work on gun safety, obesity and smoking cessation, he said with a grin: “I am telling you if there is a God, when I get to heaven I’m not stopping to be interviewed. I am heading straight in. I have earned my place in heaven. It’s not even close.”
3. Democrats: Hey Kathleen Sebeilus isn't doing anything these days, maybe she should run for Senate this year.
4. Meanwhile in Ukraine, the Russians are winning.
NATO is kind of indifferent on whether or not France should deliver a modern amphibious warship to....Russia.
Can we stop pretending that NATO and "Europe" are serious about anything? Please.
And the real reason for this entire post: A Ukrainian armored personnel carrier doing donuts.
Video via @CDRSalamander
Wednesday Morning News Dump
- Donald Rumsfeld's Tax Day Letter To The IRS
- The Case For A Little Sedition
- The Problem With Cliven Bundy
- Is Scot Walker On His Way To 2016 Front-Runner Status
- Bloomberg To Spend 50 Million Dollars To Disarm Americans
- How Much Will Obamacare Cost You In Taxes
- Fruit And Vegetable Prices Are Rising
- Inequality Looks Different If You Look After Taxes
- Progressive Puritans
- Coalition Of The Disappointed
- Bruce Braley Has A History Of Advocating For Trial Lawyers
- You Know It's Harry Reid's SuperPac Because It Can't Stop Lying
- Security Holes In Power Grid Have Feds Scrambling
- Some People Aren't Reacting Well To The Soda Tax
- Gun Rights May Return To The Supreme Court's Agenda
- CNN Host Asks What's Wrong With His Stupid Assertion That Right Wingers Kill More Than Al Qaeda
- Lawlessness In Chrysler Bankruptcy Still Hurts The Economy
Follow me on twitter.
Top Headline Comments (4-16-2014)
A little news from around teh Twitters ...
First up, the secondmost disturbing event at the Boston Marathon memorial yesterday (short video at the embedded link):
VID: Man barefoot and in a black veil screaming "Boston Strong." Boylston St by finish line now shut… http://t.co/ULoediz6ZM— Jennifer Eagan (@Jennifer_Eagan) April 15, 2014
What could top it, you ask?
VP Biden: "my god, u have survived & u have soared. it was worth, it was worth it. i mean this sincerely, just to hear each of u speak."— RickLeventhalFoxNews (@RickLeventhal) April 15, 2014
Tell that to little Jane Richard, who lost a brother and a leg. What a jackass.
And while we're on the jackass beat, Mike Bloomberg proves out that C.S. Lewis quote about the consciences of people who torment you for your own good ...
And the Troll of the Day Award goes to .... Josh Romney:
AoSHQ Weekly Podcast | Stream | Download | Ask The Blog | Archives