Overnight Open Thread (10-8-2015)
A bit of housekeeping: I'm off to Europe for two weeks - Barcelona, Dusseldorf, Amsterdam, plus wherever else my whim, wallet and corporate overlords take me. (I would have included a jaunt to Moscow and St. Petersburg too except that it turns out that Russia really, really does not want visitors and makes getting a visa expensive and difficult just like in the good old Intourist days.) So anyway not to worry - you'll be in the good hands of the usual bunch of last minute AoS non-credentialed subs.
"Your salary is a way to quantify what you're worth. If men are being paid a lot more for doing the same thing, it feels shitty."
She also brought up the difference in wages between her and "Iron Man" co-star Robert Downey Jr.
"Look, nobody is worth the money that Robert Downey Jr. is worth," she says. "But if I told you the disparity, you would probably be surprised."-- Noted economist Gwyneth Paltrow
Boy, there really are a lot of constitutionally illiterate pieces on the Second Amendment from academics lately. Here's a hint: There's a huge literature on this stuff. The Second Amendment wasn't badly drafted or unclear, it was drafted by smart men who knew exactly what they were trying to say; you just don't want to hear that. Your cocktail-party "insights" on the Second Amendment are neither interesting nor correct. This is Dunning-Krueger scholarship at its worst.
-- Glenn Reynolds
Putin understands this all too well, and much of his UN speech was pitched directly at the consciences of these men and women. It was impossible not to chuckle at the strongman's chutzpah when, nearing his conclusion, Putin explained his hope to partner with other nations on an "issue that shall affect the future of the entire humankind"-climate change. In his recent 60 Minutes interview with Charlie Rose, Putin parried a question about the rule of law in Russia by invoking American race relations-a tried and true rhetorical gambit of the Soviet era
...Putin understands American liberals better than most of them understand themselves, and light-years better than they understand him. This is among the reasons their assessment of his motivations is so misleading and incomplete. By presenting his actions as essentially reasonable and defensive in nature, by continuing, humiliation after humiliation, to hope that Putin will one day be their partner, they fail to focus their analysis on the dark core of his beliefs, which are ironically the very traits they believe compromise American conservatism: toxic nationalism and neo-imperialism.
He's not trying that hard to hide it.-- Aaron MacLean
Whenever I've written about these issues, I get a lot of e-mails from guys scoffing, "Oh, right, Steyn. Like you'd be taking a bullet. You'd be pissing your little girlie panties," etc. Well, maybe I would. But as the Toronto blogger Kathy Shaidle put it:
'When we say 'we don't know what we'd do under the same circumstances', we make cowardice the default position.'
I prefer the word passivity - a terrible, corrosive passivity. Even if I'm wetting my panties, it's better to have the social norm of the Titanic and fail to live up to it than to have the social norm of the Polytechnique and sink with it.-- Mark Steyn
What do the acolytes of the State want to ban this week? Which bootlace eyelet will they lubricate with eager spittle? Oh, the usual stuff. Fun. Your fun. Vox writer Dylan Matthews twittered his demands, and they're quite ordinary - except for one new requirement. See if you can spot it.
There an argument going around among leftists that if pro-life people were really pro-life they'd be calling for guns to be banned instead of being all worked up over abortion. But as Bookworm points out there is an order of magnitude difference between the two:
Number of abortions performed in 2011 in the United States: 1,100,000
Number of homicides using guns in 2011 in the United States: 8,583
Also note that abortion is an act while guns are only a means to carry out an act. To make these comparable you'd have to call for a ban on scalpels, surgical vacuums and other medical instruments used in abortions. But then they'd argue that these are also used in to save lives too. Exactly. Just like guns are.
And no I'm not exaggerating - he basically comes right out and says this.
From her adventures in cattle trading to chairing a policymaking committee in her husband's White House to running for Senate in a state she'd never lived in to her effort to use superdelegates to overturn 2008 primary results to her email servers, [Hillary] Clinton is clearly more comfortable than the average person with violating norms and operating in legal gray areas.
...Committed Democrats and liberal-leaning interest groups are facing a reality in which any policy gains they achieve are going to come through the profligate use of executive authority, and Clinton is almost uniquely suited to deliver the goods. More than almost anyone else around, she knows where the levers of power lie, and she is comfortable pulling them, procedural niceties be damned....She truly is the perfect leader for America's moment of permanent constitutional crisis: a person who cares more about results than process, who cares more about winning the battle than being well-liked, and a person who believes in asking what she can get away with rather than what would look best.
Read the whole thing.
Dalrymple is not a fan of Pope Francis. And I do think he has Francis' number here.
After all, fundamental relationships do not call themselves into question: someone must do it in the name of some doctrine, some belief, or other. The Pope's resort to the passive mood is indicative of his moral cowardice in confronting the opponents of what the Church believes in. Those opponents he knows to be militant and aggressive, and to confront them openly, in so many words, would lead to his fall in the popularity polls. Therefore he evades the issue with vague and oily declamation. It is one thing to be peace-loving and conciliatory, it is another to surrender by means of avoidance of the issue.
...At every point, the Pope evaded specifics and resorted to unctuous generalities. No one ever courted unpopularity by denouncing injustice, but many risked much by being specific about what they considered, rightly or wrongly, unjust.
The Pope was against poverty in the way the preacher in the famous Coolidge anecdote was against sin. But while no secularist will speak up for poverty, the religious attitude has traditionally been more nuanced. Moreover, when the Pope spoke of 'the unjust structures' that exist 'even in the developed world,' he was presumably referring to the arrangements that lead to economic inequality. By doing so he was first making a fetish of wealth (for why else would inequality in itself be bad?) and second he was exciting one of the seven deadly sins, envy (the concentration on what others have irrespective of whether one has enough oneself). Of course, inequality may be unjust, but is not itself evidence of injustice. Evidence that it is so must be adduced independently, and this the Pope failed to do, preferring to court popularity while rocking no boats.In short, the Pope was playing to a gallery and to a constituency, while wanting to be liked by everybody. There was nothing of timelessness in what he said but only of the temporal, the contingent, the fashionably platitudinous. He is not a shepherd, but one of the sheep.
This was only a matter of time, and we should realize that they just started down a path we first travelled in our first combat use of land attack cruise missiles; 1991.
...The SS-N-30A is, in many ways, a superior weapon - and more flexible weapon - than our TLAM. This should not be shocking. We have been complacently living off the hard work of the 1970s for awhile.
This actions by the Russians is significant, but in this way. We were hesitant in using our TLAM, but when we finally did, we became rather fond of it.
The Russians have broken the seal on its use, and I think they will like it. Why not? For the last quarter century the USN has set a global norm on the use of this one-way armed drone. We have no room at all to argue against it use. None.Expect more use from Russia of this weapon.
Mark Steyn comments:
It's weird. The "denier" is in command of the facts, whereas the president of an organization specifically devoted to the subject appears to know nothing about it, but instead keeps drooling over and over about "the 97 per cent consensus".
By the way, that "97 per cent" nonsense is taken apart on page 295 of my book. It means 75 out of 77 more or less hand-picked scientists. So the "97 per cent consensus" is in fact a smaller number of scientists than the more than 120 I cite in my book, all of whom cheerfully put the boot in to Big Climate's poster child, the hockey stick.
Yahoo group. That is all.
Come on be a smartie and join the yahoo group party! For the children. Why do you hate children?
And my lo-fi Twitter spew.
Tonight's post brought to you by Mom there are some people at the door who want to talk to you:
Notice: Posted by permission of AceCorp LLC. Note that the mannequins are for display only. Do NOT taunt disgruntled happy-fun ball. Sayonara bitchez!
Close it up
Here's something I didn't really want to blog, but whatever. So, Shep Smith grilled Walter Jones about his letter advising anyone with "skeletons in their closet" ("like Bob Livingston") to not seek any leadership position without disclosing such skeletons to the caucus.
Earlier today, someone posting from the Department of Homeland Security edited Kevin McCarthy's Wikipedia entry to push out a rumor.
I'd like to see that IP tracked down and the employee disciplined.
Anyway, lot of gossip in our little Rome on the Potomac.
Is This Something?
Possibly, this is something.
Apparently it's unclear if this will be a movie, or if this trailer was just released in hopes of drumming up interest in a movie, or what.
Here's the first episode of the original show, by the way.
Close it up
Good Lord: Boehner Reportedly Urging Paul Ryan to Run for Speakership, Or Else Boehner Might Declare He's The Only Man Capable of Leading the House
Oh, God. We thought we got rid of Boehner, but now if Boehner doesn't get in someone acceptable to the Corporate Establishment, he's threatening to hang on to power?
Which is bullshit anyway -- because the votes are there to kick him out.
But he says he'll stay until someone is chosen to replace him.
Speaker John Boehner has agreed to stay on as Speaker–not just until the Caucus nominates someone --but, until that person can confirm 218 votes on the House floor (needed to take the Speaker’s gavel). Short of that -- Boehner will stay on for the rest of this Congress and steer legislation that is pending.
What does this mean? Moderates and leadership types are cheering and saying Boehner is the only one they will support. Conservatives will go ballistic since they know this signals that Boehner will make ALL kinds of deals to get big ticket legislation through the House even if it means using Democrats votes to do it.
He's "agreed" to stay. LOL. Who was asking him?
I guess the rest of the Establishment.
Another name being offered as someone acceptable to both wings is Gowdy.
Who knows, maybe the most ridiculous rumor of the day -- that they'd ask Mitt Romney to be Speaker (nothing requires the Speaker to be a Representative) -- will end up coming to fruition.
Nah. But there's a Padding Link to round this post out.
The Real Pay Gap Progressives Won't Talk About: Federal Workers Make 78 Extra Cents on the Dollar Compared to Their Private Sector Analogues
Apparently "Good enough for government work" is now considered the gold standard as far as determining employee recompense.
Employees for the federal government earn far more than their counterparts in the private sector, according to a new study by the Cato Institute.
Federal workers' pay and benefits were 78 percent higher than private employees, who earned an average of $52,688 less than public sector workers last year.
The study found that federal government workers earned an average of $84,153 in 2014, compared to the private sector’s average of $56,350. Cato based its findings on figures from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA).
But when adding in benefits pay for federal workers, the difference becomes more dramatic. Federal employees made $119,934 in total compensation last year, while private sector workers earned $67,246, a difference of over $52,000, or 78 percent.
This is largely because while private sector pay rises are delayed or diminished due to economic downturns, civil servants always get their too-generous pay increases, come hell or high water.
Cato makes a good-government pitch for reducing government worker pay, too: They say reducing pay would encourage turnover, which would bring in new (and younger) people with new ideas. It would reduce government sclerosis.
Oh, I'm putting lots of stuff in the sidebar too, so feel free to use this as a Mid-Day Open Thread.
"Homeland" Opener Offers Some Eye-Opening Analysis of the War on Terror
For the White Urban Liberal Women who watch Premium Cable Dramas and otherwise don't really know what's going on in the world (except that Obama is Awesome and we're losing the #WarOnWomen), this character's assessment of the current strategy in the War on Terror -- that there isn't one -- will be pretty surprising.
Worth a watch. "Hit Reset," indeed.
Then again, maybe dumb people will assume that this is made up. Dumb people have a habit of assuming that true things are fiction, and fictitious things -- like Obama -- are true.
For example, some people were surprised to find out The Martian was not based on real events. They thought we'd already been to Mars.
Moon, Mars. Both start with M's, both have four letters. Close enough.
Spencer Stone Stabbed While Defending Friend in Barfight
The attack reportedly happened early Thursday morning in Sacramento while Stone was protecting a friend. Stone was stabbed 4 times in the chest while standing on a street corner.
He's come out of surgery and is in stable condition.
Bombshell: McCarthy Drops Out Of Race For Speaker Of The House
BREAKING -- House GOP Leader @kevinomccarthy drops out of race for Speaker— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) October 8, 2015
Update [Ace]: Don't assume this is just about McCarthy's dumb statement. Yesterday, the Freedom Caucus announced they would be voting as a block for Daniel Webster. As the Freedom Caucus is 40 strong, this would have denied the 218 votes necessary for McCarthy (assuming Democrats didn't vote for him).
Oh, so Boehner is delaying the election. Note that there are two candidates remaining, Webster and Chaffetz, so the election could go forward -- but that would result in a non-Establishment winner, and they can't have that. Obviously.
Hot Air notes that Representative Walter Jones urged that no one tainted by scandal -- i.e., had any marital infidelities -- while serving as Congressman should run for the Speaker's chair. This isn't necessarily directed at McCarthy, or any of the other named candidates, but it does seem worth a mention.
Especially because he made the letter completely public. It's posted on the House website!
Willard Leroy Metcalf, "Summer Night No. 3" (1917)
Thursday Morning News Dump
- Gun Control Is About The Issue, Not The Solution
- Hillary Clinton: I totally Oppose That Trade Agreement I negotiated in 2012
- Obama's Iran Point Man Promotes Anti-Israel Conspiracy Theories
- Who's Enthusiastic For A GOP Senate Majority?
- After Intelligent Life Is Discovered
- No, Obama Critics, Don't Admire Putin
- Harry Reid To Sue Exercise Equipment Firm Over Eye Injury
- Man Calls 911 To Complain About Lack Of Sex
- Roseburg Resident Talks Guns
Overnight Open Thread (10-7-2015) – Lonely Women and Beardless Men Edition
The world has always been a dangerous place, and the proliferation of nuclear weapons has only made it more so. But not since the Cold War have there been so many potential triggers for major power conflicts. Will we get into a shooting war? Perhaps not, and almost not certainly with the current Commander in Chief. But each time there is a near miss without consequence, as most are, bad actors are encouraged to believe there will never be any consequence. Still, notwithstanding Barack Obama, the United States does have red lines, treaty obligations (to the Philippines, to Japan, to NATO allies) that could force us into conflict where none was planned.
-- Danielle Pletka in How We Get to World War III
The model hero in ancient times was of the conquering, killing sort, a warrior earning renown by slaying piles of enemies on the battlefield. Think of Homer's Achilles, whom Lindberg examines at length: a self-centered, petulant demigod, perhaps, but a warrior of superhuman caliber. Or Julius Caesar, a man so determined to be the greatest man in Rome that he would destroy the Republic in a civil war rather than rein in his ambition.
But over the centuries, the slaying hero gradually fell out of fashion, thanks in large measure to the horrors of World War I and Vietnam, not to mention the rise of the literary antihero such as The Catcher in the Rye's Holden Caulfield. Our ideal of the hero morphed instead into a courageous soul who is no less afraid of death but more focused on saving lives than taking them. Achilles' modern counterpart acts not to kill and conquer, but to serve and save others. "From slaying to saving," writes Lindberg, "from the highest, riskiest expression of self-regard to the highest, riskiest expression of generosity and the caring will."
Lindberg uses the history of the Congressional Medal of Honor-the U.S. military's highest decoration-to demonstrate this evolution of heroism. He reviewed the award from its creation during the Civil War to the present, and concluded that "the percentage of citations that include a saving narrative [as opposed to a killing narrative] has increased markedly" over time.-- Mark Tapson
If government is - to borrow Barney Frank's memorable definition - the "name we give to the things we choose to do together," then in zombie fiction like TWD, the things everyone chooses to do together include panicking, lying, and displaying breathtaking incompetence. To be fair, zombie fiction would be boring indeed if the first undead outbreak were promptly squashed by a squad of bureaucrats from the Centers for Disease Control. Yet even relatively government-friendly fiction, such as the bestselling book World War Z, features a series of catastrophic mistakes before the ship of state finally rights itself. In brief, in zombie world, the man who relies on the government for his safety will be zombie chow in short order.
So who lives? Well, it's not Pajama Boy. In zombieland, there are three kinds of people: those who know how to use guns, those who learn how to use guns, and zombies....The groups that survive are the ones whose members understand that trust is hard-earned and there is no such thing as a "safe space." In other words, man is fallen, and you either remember that fact or you die.
-- David French
Now men are afraid to be men. [...] They won't be a gentleman because that makes them appear soft. That's what we're dealing with now, a hundred percent, and girls are settling for that, but I won't. I will wait forever if I have to. That's why I haven't been having sex or even really seeing anybody.
...I mean I get horny, I'm human, I'm a woman, I want to have sex. But what am I going to do-just find the first random cute dude that I think is going to be a great ride for the night and then tomorrow I wake up feeling empty and hollow? [.] I can't do it to myself. I cannot. It has a little bit to do with fame and a lot to do with the woman that I am. And that saves me."
...It is lonely, but I have so much work to do that I get distracted. I don't have time to be lonely. And I get fearful of relationships because I feel guilty about wanting someone to be completely faithful and loyal, when I can't even give them 10 percent of the attention that they need. It's just the reality of my time, my life, my schedule.-- Rihanna describing her non-existent love life
There is the love and marriage and family kind of happiness, which is exceedingly boring to describe but nonetheless is important to have and dreadful not to have.
-- PJ O'Rourke
Hey he and his business and government cronies know how to use your property better than you do so why shouldn't they take it. After all a limousine parking lot for Trump Plaza is an important and necessary civic resource. Oh and it's not really 'taking your property' since they give you some money after they use the courts to take your property.
Apparently the Eastern Correctional Facility debate team is quite good. Their main advantages seem to be plenty of time to prepare as well as a lot of life experience. And plus they have the eye of the tiger when it comes to the wrestling phase of the competitions.
If the ALI's proposal goes through, we'll all be living under the insane university rules of 'affirmative consent'. Because in the future everyone will be a rapist for 15 minutes.
See if you can guess why without peeking. Okay time's up....and nope - you're wrong.
Alphabet, which took over as Google's new holding company on Friday, has dropped the tech giant's "Don't Be Evil" mantra from its code of conduct." I mean, there's a limit to how many deals you can make with ruthless non-democratic and totalitarian states before people start wondering what, exactly, your definition of 'evil' is. Certainly Chinese and Russian dissidents might have an opinion on the subject. They may not dare to express that opinion, but they certainly have it.
Don't get me wrong: I still use Google myself. But let's have no illusions about the company, shall we? And certainly no more smugness from them, either.
Remember: They got paid actual money for this article.
The Group knows your sins but doesn't care.
Tonight's post brought to you by Sinatra getting Lou Gehrig's autograph:
Notice: Posted by implicit permission of El Gran AceCorp LTD. Tips are entirely optional. Must be 18 years or age or older to be an adult. The AoSHQ icemaker is not a toy.
Close it up
Hillary's Liberal Media Defenders Got the Word From Hillary HQ, I Guess
The opposition to TPP from .@HillaryClinton shows that flexibility -- over standing her ground -- is one lesson learned from 2008.— Jeff Zeleny (@jeffzeleny) October 7, 2015
Clinton tried consistency with Iraq vote in 2008 and that didn't turn out well. So maybe that was among lessons learned for TPP and labor— Chuck Todd (@chucktodd) October 7, 2015
Well, I guess Jeff Zelazny and Chuck Todd just got a phone call, huh?
MSNBC recently did a focus group about Hillary, and this very special lady's lovely flexibility was not the first attribute of hers that sprung to mind.
During a New Hampshire focus group of Democrats televised on MSNBC this morning, "Shannon" didn’t want to say what she really thinks of Hillary Clinton.
The exchange with moderator Mark Halperin began with Shannon saying Hillary’s "scorned" tone can be "off-putting."
"Tell me what it's like, what are you seeing," Halperin pressed.
After sighing, Shannon replied, "You know, when she's -- I don't want to use the word," laughing. Then she whispered "bitchy" to Halperin.
A male voter said, "I like Hillary, I think she's a strong candidate. But she has that --,” pointing to Shannon, "that condescending and I can see that causing gridlock."
Shannon jumped back in mimicking Clinton, "I'm a woman, I deserve it."
When Halperin asked the focus group to raise their hand if they thought "that" (her, um, let's say "consistency") could hurt her, everyone raised her hand.
Video of that focus group at the link.
Update: Jeff Zeleny was the guy who asked Obama, upon his inauguration in 2009, what he found "enchanted him the most" about the experience.
Hillary Comes Out Against TPP, Pleasing Her Left Flank
If you can believe this, every time Hillary faces an issue, she turns left, even when that means repudiating long-held positions.
Like her long-held position against gay marriage. Or, like reversing her one-time claim that she was "adamantly against illegal immigration, now promising to go even further than Obama did in using executive actions to deliver amnesty to illegals.
In the case of the Trans Pacific Partnership trade bill, Hillary Clinton personally pushed it forty five times (!!!). Jake Tapper noted each of those 45 times back in June, when Hillary was still dodging the question.
She called it the "gold standard" of trade bills in 2012. And, as Secretary of State, this was negotiated, one supposes, with some of her input. (Or was she just there for show...?)
But as the election draws closer, Hillary has begun taking positions on issues she previously dodged -- and in each case, goes to the left, as she just did on Keystone, opposing it.
Now she says she opposes the TPP, too, reversing herself for no obvious reason, except that the Democrat Party is a hard-left party ruled by left-wing interests.
Yes, yes, I know many conservatives also oppose this, but, so too does the social justice and unionist left.
Unlike most people on the right, Hillary has pushed this specific trade bill forty five time.
Now, Obama has of course pushed this, and David Axelrod says that her reversal would cause further "questions on trust" as far as this very untrustworthy pretender to the throne.
HRC's dilemma: Having touted TPP as SOS, to oppose it would mean new questions on trust. Yet embracing it would rile base. #hardchoices— David Axelrod (@davidaxelrod) October 7, 2015
Yesterday came news that Hillary was still searching for a campaign theme, an underlying rationale, for her candidacy.
At Hillary Clinton’s campaign headquarters in Brooklyn, staffers are invited to complete a phrase that is written on a wall: "Hillary for..."
Beside it, staffers have plastered dozens of sticky notes with various words and phrases.
While the wall could be seen as a freewheeling experiment in the manner of a tech startup, it could also be regarded as symptomatic of a nagging problem for Clinton in the 2016 race: namely, the difficulty she has had in explaining why she's running for president.
David Axelrod, one of the masterminds of President Obama's 2008 victory, has persistently warned that Clinton needs to provide a clear rationale for why she’s seeking the White House.
"'Hillary: Live with it' is no rallying cry!" Axelrod tweeted last month while bemoaning that the Clinton camp was running a "grinding, tactical race."
Last December, Axelrod had warned that Clinton needed to show she was "running for a purpose and not just for a promotion." He has also said, "You have to stand for something, you have to fight for something, and people need to know what that is."
Hillary's desperately cynical reversals and repositionings are all the evidence anyone needs for the real "theme" of the Hillary candidacy: Hillary is running because she has an almost erotic compulsion for personal political power.
Ideas and policies are to be discarded at will. The only underlying principle that Hillary Clinton believes in is an unshakable belief that Hillary Clinton should finally be in charge of people.
Amazing: Cheryl Mills Emailed Classified Information to Officials at The Clinton Foundation
The Clinton Foundation is, legally, a private organization with absolutely no status allowing it to legally receive classified US information. It is not, as a legal matter, what as Hillary Clinton imagines it to be, which is Hillary's Shadow Government In Waiting.
Hillary treated the United States' national intelligence apparatus as if it were simply the research staff of her fundraising operation.
Hillary Clinton’s No. 2 at the State Department twice forwarded information to the Clinton Foundation that was later deemed classified, the latest instance of former Clinton staff transmitting now-classified information.
According to a new email chain shared with POLITICO by Citizens United, Cheryl Mills -- Clinton's former chief of state at State -- forwarded State Department background information about Rwanda and the Congo to the Clintons' philanthropic organization. Citizens United, a conservative activist group, obtained the messages via a Freedom of Information act lawsuit.
Former President Bill Clinton was visiting Africa, including Rwanda, around the time that Mills sent the email, which was mostly redacted. Former president Clinton was also considering giving Rwandan President Paul Kagame a plenary role at the Clinton Global Initiative, according to the emails.
The information in the 2012 emails was classified by the State Department in July of this year because of national security and foreign policy reasons, according to the documents. The classification specifically related to foreign government information and intelligence activities, sources or methods, according to the redaction labels.
Note that sources and methods is usually considered the very most sensitive form of intelligence, because it directly exposes where we're getting this information.
So it should have been obvious this information was "born classified." But even if this somehow weren't obvious, that doesn't matter. Ed Morrissey writes:
Mills' defenders -- both formal and informal -- will argue that Mills didn't intend on transmitting classified information, and that is was either not classified at the time or at least not marked so in the originating materials. None of this is a defense against 18 USC 793, which nowhere requires classification to prosecute. Besides, the kind of information suggested by the redaction would obviously be sensitive enough to protect, and certainly not to be shared with uncleared and unauthorized personnel at a politically connected non-profit. This is precisely what security briefings tell people with clearances not to do. No one at any level would fail to grasp the risks and legal implications of these actions, and certainly not at the high level of clearance employed at the top of the State Department.
Turns out, Hillary had two personal intelligence services working for her: The Osprey Group of ex-CIA types headed by Tyler Drumheller, and the entire United States intelligence community.
Meanwhile, the FBI has seized -- or "reached out for," as Gabe likes to joke -- four State Department servers in its ongoing "reaching out" to Hillary Clinton.
The FBI has seized four State Department computer servers as part of its probe into how classified information was compromised on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email system, according to people familiar with the investigation.
The four servers, which were located at the State Department's headquarters building, were seized by the FBI several weeks ago. They are being checked by technical forensic analysts charged with determining how Top Secret material was sent to Clinton's private email by State Department aides during her tenure as secretary from 2009 to 2013, said two people familiar with the probe...
What they are surely interested in is how the ultra-classified information "jumped the air gap" from the Sensitive Compartmental Information Facility, closed off from the internet, to Hillary's email. How was it smuggled from an ultra-secure isolated room to the internet, where it could be sent around the world at the touch of a button?
The State Department uses two separate networks, one for classified information and one for unclassified information. The two networks are kept separate for security reasons. Most classified networks are equipped with audit systems that allow security managers to check who has accessed intelligence or foreign policy secrets.
The FBI is trying to determine the origin of the highly classified information that was found in Clinton emails....
The FBI is primarily concerned with trying to determine how Top Secret information made its way on to the private server.
I know I keep saying this, but seriously: Hillary is one very special lady.
Some Americans are starting to notice, and Americans aren't a particularly observant people. But they seem to have figured out just how special this lady is.
Biden-Supporting PAC Set to Run Tear-Jerking Ad Urging Biden to Run
And we know that Biden can't possibly have anything to do with this, because coordinating with a PAC would be illegal.
Though I have to say I'm suspicious, given yesterday's story that Joe Biden himself leaked the tear-jerking tale of his son Beau urging him to run for president while dying of brain cancer.
Not sure how the fact that he's seen some family deaths in his time qualifies him to be president, but of course this "humanizes" him, if anyone doubted this blustering half-a-wit was human.
I suppose that gives him an edge up on Hillary Clinton. But anyone would come out favorably in a humanity contest with Hillary Clinton, including Hillary's freshly revealed cloud server.
No doubt, the ad is probably effective, at least with the people who ultimately decide the presidency, who are almost uniformly stupid.
Meanwhile, Ed Driscoll writes at Instapundit that Hillary's Oppo Dumpsters seem to have been given the Go-Code by the Haggard Queen, as the leftwing blogs are alive with the sound of Joe Biden's tenacity in the #WarOnWomen.
If gender issues are Hillary Clinton’' primary progressive strength, they’re one of Biden’s major weaknesses. It's not just the role he played in Clarence Thomas’ confirmation hearings, when, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, his treatment of Anita Hill enraged feminists. Biden let her be grilled mercilessly while assuring Thomas that he had the "benefit of the doubt," and even refused to let three witnesses who might have corroborated her story testify. That was almost 25 years ago, of course, and since then Biden has done several things to redeem himself, including championing the Violence Against Women Act. His decidedly lukewarm record on reproductive rights, however, is harder to dismiss as ancient history, particularly given the onslaught of anti-abortion legislation we're seeing all over the country.
"There have been some clutch moments where he hasn’t been with us," says Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.
And speaking of clutch moments, it will only be shortly they'll be getting to Biden's penchant for inappropriately touching women like a guy sampling melons at the Hot Melon Go-Go Club.
Ted Cruz Bitchslaps Sierra Club President on the 18-Year Pause in Global Warming
Via Instapundit, alerted by commenters.
The amazing thing here is not that the guy disagrees -- what's amazing is that he doesn't seem to know what Ted Cruz is even talking about. He does not know what "the pause" refers to (it's the 18 year long pause in predicted global warming), and has to rely on advisors throughout the questioning.
At no point does he seem to even show a glimmer of recognition of this fact. This is all new news to him.
Marcel Rieder, "Soirée Romantique" (n.d.)
Morning Headlines Thread
Whatever's goin' on.
Here's something horrible. Neil DeGrasse Tyson went on a Reddit Ask Me Anything to answer questions about one of his many fields of expertise: art.
Sure, why not.
The toadying on display was vile, but this is the worst of it (I hope!!!):
In the 13-minute video, Tyson answers some serious questions and some quirky ones (our favorite: "If you were going to be painted nude, but the background of the painting was on the surface of a planet of your choice, what planet would you choose and why?"), throwing a fair bit of scientific facts in for good measure.
Email from Employee at Hillary's Cloud Server Company: "This Whole Thing Is Really Covering Up Some Shady Shit"
An employee of the computer company that maintained Hillary Rodham Clinton's email server questioned if he was part of a coverup, according to documents released Tuesday.
"This whole thing really is covering up some shady s–t,"the employee said in an Aug. 19 company email obtained by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), chair of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
The concerns by the Colorado-based Platte River Networks employee were aired after the Clinton camp ordered a reduction in the data stored during each server backup.
The limits were ordered after the State Department contacted the former secretary of state in summer 2014 to inquire about her private e-mail records.
The employee seems to have become alarmed by this sequence of events, and asked in an email (internally, I assume, because I doubt the employee directly accused Clinton of "shady shit") for confirmation of "their directive" to reduce the number of emails saved.
This Hillary Clinton is a very special lady.
Overnight Open Thread (10-6-2015)
Abstract: In this paper, I take the position that a large portion of contemporary academic work is an appalling waste of human intelligence that cannot be justified under any mainstream normative ethics. Part I builds a four-step argument for why this is the case, while Part II responds to arguments for the contrary position offered in Cass Sunstein's "In Defense of Law Reviews." First, in Part I(A), I make the case that there is a large crisis of suffering in the world today. (Part I does not take me very long.). In Part I(B), I assess various theories of "the role of the intellectual," concluding that the only role for the intellectual is for the intellectual to cease to exist. In Part I(C), I assess the contemporary state of the academy, showing that, contrary to the theory advanced in Part I(B), many intellectuals insist on continuing to exist. In Part I(D), I propose a new path forward, whereby present-day intellectuals take on a useful social function by spreading truths that help to alleviate the crisis of suffering outlined in Part I(A).
-- Nathan J Robinson in the best academic abstract ever, 'Can Philosophy Be Justified in a Time of Crisis?'
Let's take Malcolm Turnbull at his word that it's only "a very very small percentage of violent extremist individuals". What is the actual percentage? In the aforementioned Malmö, where up to a thousand mostly young male "refugees" arrive each day, suppose the "very very small percentage" is two per cent. That's 20 brand new "violent extremists" per day. During the Northern Irish "Troubles", MI5 estimated that there were no more than a hundred active members of the IRA at any one time - that's to say, people actively involved in shooting and killing. So Malmö is taking in the equivalent of the entire IRA every week.
-- Mark Steyn
So it is with this president. It's not enough for him to stake and defend his positions. He wants you to know that he thinks deeper, sees further, knows better, operates from a purer motive. His preferred method for dealing with disagreement is denigration. If Republicans want a tougher line in Syria, they're warmongers. If Hillary Clinton thinks a no-fly zone is a good idea, she's playing politics: "There is obviously a difference," the president tut-tutted about his former secretary of state's position, "between running for president and being president."
You can interpret that jab as a sign Mr. Obama is urging Joe Biden to run. It's also a reminder that Mr. Obama believes his Syria policy - the one that did nothing as 250,000 people were murdered; the one that did nothing as his own red lines were crossed; the one that allowed ISIS to flourish; the one that has created the greatest refugee crisis of the 21st century; the one currently being exploited by Russia and Iran for geopolitical advantage - is a success.
That's because the president's fundamental conviction about American foreign policy is that we need less of it-less commitment, less expense, less responsibility. Winston Churchill once said that the U.S. could not be "the leading community in the civilized world without being involved in its problems, without being convulsed by its agonies and inspired by its causes." Mr. Obama sees it differently. He is the president who would prefer not to. He is the Bartleby of 21st century geopolitics.-- Brett Stephens
Finally, with Obama's retreat from the region, there is no global rival backing the Sunni opposition. The Afghan mujahideen were going nowhere until the United States started arming them with Stinger anti-aircraft missiles and other advanced weaponry; Saudi Arabia can play the role that Pakistan played in the 1980s and 1990s, but if America won't play any part at all, the Soviets aren't likely to pay a price. The Russians' Afghan quagmire was, to a substantial degree, made in America - by Ronald Reagan.
Russia is a crippled power; its people are older and die younger every year, its wealth comes largely from exporting fossil fuels, and its military - despite the investments Putin has made - is a pale shadow of the mighty Red Army. But even irreversible long-term trends don't make defeat inevitable now, or any time soon. Even if this is history repeating itself, it's worth remembering that it took a decade for Russia to call it quits in Afghanistan, a country that's never been the same since.
This quagmire consistency truly is a hobgoblin of Barack Obama's mind; he sees every war this way. He is content that there is an "arc" to history, one that inevitably "bends toward justice." Vladimir Putin, by contrast, believes in the "great man" theory of things, and he thinks himself to be one of those great men. Along with the Iranians, he's doing his best to bend things in his direction; he who dares wins.-- Thomas Donnelly in He Who Dares Wins
Biden has always been a casual, shameless liar when it came to anything that might give him even a momentary political advantage. And when on the rare occasion that he's been called on it, he always falls back on the 'I misspoke' excuse. But truthfully it is hard to deny that lying has in fact been very, very good to Joe Biden over the years.
Biden's "Uncle Joe" schtick is designed to camouflage the career politician inside who has no qualms about lying to further his own ambitions. You know, the man who plagiarized his law review comment and falsely claims that he played college football, graduated in the top half of his law school class (he was 76 out of 85), had a blue collar upbringing, that his first wife and daughter were killed by a drunk driver (there is no evidence the driver was drunk), and that he was a skeptic of the Iran nuclear deal.
Biden has displayed, over a long period of time, a near-pathological propensity to lie in order to aggrandize himself. That he would "embellish" the story of his dying son's last words-and plant the story himself with the New York Times-is just another example of this pattern.
It turns out the "one-in-five number" is correct, but it's not the one-in-five the media are reporting. Harvard University released its sexual assault statistics as part of federal regulations, and it turns out 18.1 percent of reported rapes on campus are "unfounded," defined by Harvard police as "any report of a crime that is found to be false or baseless."
If this number is reported anywhere in the media that's so eager to report every faulty survey purporting to show 20 percent of women are sexually assaulted in college, you can bet they will add in all the caveats they leave out in reporting incidences of sexual assault.
And remember that these were just the cases that were so egregiously false that they were labeled as such.
So, so close to the quadfecta:
Similarly, if the above news does come to pass, it will be awfully convenient of NBC-MSNBC-Comcast to bundle Olbermann, Brian Williams, Al Sharpton, and Chris Matthews together all on the same network as an entire Star Wars cantina-style channel full of "must flee TV."
Welcome to the Party Pals: Federally Employed Same Sex Couples Lose Health Insurance For Kids Unless They Marry
So let's review here: a bunch of guys on 4chan convinced internet feminists to pee in their pants and then post pictures of it online in the belief that they're somehow fighting patriarchy.
Too bad the 4chan denizens didn't stay cool and focused, they could easily have progressed the feminists all the way up to the #HJ4E and #BJ4E campaigns.
But not say the population of a small Jewish state located near Egypt.
Slowly then in bunches.
For some cultures, big numbers just don't make sense. Take the shepherd who knows that he has the right number of sheep not by counting them one by one but by grasping the gestalt of his flock. That may sound strange to people from other cultures, says Patience Epps, a linguist at the University of Texas, Austin. Indeed, she says she's often asked by incredulous Americans how people with few numerals know, for instance, how many children they have. When she asks this of the Amazonian tribe she works with, "they look at me like it's a weird question. They list the names, they count on their fingers, but they don't go around with a quantity in their heads," she says.
But once a society becomes complex enough to require more abstract counting, higher numerals are needed. Amazonian languages add numerals when groups that don't know or trust each other begin trading goods and need to track exchanges more closely, Epps says....The upper limits of these Australian numeral systems most often varied between three, four, and five, the team reports this month in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B. Over time, even small numeral systems sometimes lost a numeral or two, but they mainly gained numerals-yet not by plodding up the number line, one numeral after another. Surprisingly, they tended to acquire numerals in bunches, leaping from five numerals to 10 or 20, for example. The numeral five was often the tipping point-once a system reached five, it was likely to add more numerals, up to 20. As a result, numeral systems with five as an upper limit are rare in Pama-Nyungan languages.
The Yahoo group is for closers only.
Tonight's post brought to you by April 1980:
Notice: Posted by extreme permission of LaceCorp LLC. Please e-mail the things to those who care. Note: Operator does not carry any cash.
Close it up
Gun Thread - Self Defense Edition [Weirddave]
I spoke to Ace this afternoon about his retiring early, here's a thread to take us through the evening while visions of hobos dance in the head Ewok's head
Gun of the Week
The Only Thing That Stops a Bad Man With a Gun is a Good Man With a Gun
The media loves to talk endlessly about mass murderers who succeed. They aren't so eager to document those cases where they are stopped.
August 30, 2010 When a 62-year-old man armed with two handguns forced his way into Sullivan Central High School in Tennessee, he was immediately engaged by School Resource Officer Carolyn Gudger. Gudger put her body between the gunman and a student and started what would turn out to be a more than 10 minute gun-to-gun encounter. Gudger used the time to slowly move the man to a less crowded part of the school. When other officers arrived on the scene, a brief gun battle erupted ending with the gunman mortally wounded.
Naturally, such examples will be rare. Even in states which allow concealed carry, there often aren’t people near a shooting who have a gun on them at the time. Many mass shootings happen in supposedly “gun-free” zones (such as schools, universities or private property posted with a no-guns sign), in which gun carrying isn’t allowed. And there is no central database of such examples, many of which don’t hit the national media, especially if a gunman is stopped before he shoots many victims....
Still, for whatever they are worth, here is a list of some such incidents (which deliberately excludes killings stopped by people who were off-duty police officers, or police officers from other jurisdictions, at the time of a shooting, as well as some other cases which struck me as borderline):
It Doesn't Always Work Out
ETA: The validity of this account is in dispute, see update from poster Blue Falcon, post #24 below. Thanks BF!
One of the things that distinguishes “our side” from the anti-gunners is that we demonstrate a willingness to take a cold, hard look at the facts and not be swayed by emotional arguments. Here is a case where a “good man with a gun” drew and fired with tragic results.
We advocate for responsible gun ownership. There's a reason that the “four rules” are repeated again and again and again and again. YOU MUST FOLLOW THE FOUR RULES! To review:
ALWAYS BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET AND WHAT'S BEHIND IT. This would-be hero got buck fever and totally forgot, with tragic results. Notice from the article that he had the presence of mind to police up his brass before he ran. Coward.
If we're going to have an honest debate on guns, we have to be willing to have an honest debate. That means that we have to acknowledge incidents like this. Of course, the other side doesn't want an honest debate because they are....
Dana Loesch made a video for the NRA advocating responsible gun ownership. Of course, a strong, independent woman determined to protect herself and beholding to nobody is that last thing the left wants, so this jackass edited the NRA film making it appear that Loesch shoots herself. If you want to see the video you can probably find it, but it was pretty poorly done, just a hand and gun superimposed on the NRA video. I wouldn't bother. It's been scrubbed from the link.
Tweet of the Week
Wife: Want to go to the gun show? Me: We don't need anything W: Ammo M: We have a ton W: We can never have too much ammo M: God I love you— Dave's Not Here (@Weirddave0) October 3, 2015
She actually didn't buy any ammo. Well, she did buy 1 box of .303 British, because what she did buy was this week's....
That's your basic SMLE right there, that's what that is. A Lithgow Enfield No. 1 Mk III. The preeminent rifle of the British Empire, this one was manufactured in Australia in 1944. All of the serial numbers match, as does the wear and patina of the wood. As far as I can tell, this rifle is all original. I can't wait to shoot it, or at least I couldn't until I priced out .303 British. Oy Vey! The cheapest I found was $.70/round in 500 round lots. I still can't wait to shoot it, but damn, that's a lot of money going up in smoke!
Sales Promotion of the Week
If it was me? “BONUS!”. She seems to be a bit upset because she feels her son was in “danger”. Now I guess bullets can shoot themselves, not just those evil guns.
Long Shot of the Week
Hero of the Week
Someone asked me last weekend on Twitter what I think could have been done differently in Oregon. I said “A gun in Chris Mintz' hands probably would have ended it quick”.
Onward Christian Soldiers
Tennessee's Lt. Governor kicked over a hornet's nest with this Facebook post:
Although I am a Christian, I have never felt that we are called to be defenseless. I've always been more of a Luke 22:36 kinda Christian.
He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.
I think that a lot of Christians are coming to the realization that it's almost time to start selling cloaks.
Companion Piece to the Charles C.W. Cooke Article From the Last Gun Thread
Hey Barack Obama, you don’t get to disarm us. We can see that our defiance eats at you. Good.
That’s why you were so mad when you came out in front of the cameras to blame us normal Americans for the Oregon murders, something you do every time some freak goes on a killing spree. But we’re laughing at your futile, petulant anger. Because you don’t get what you want this time. You don’t get to make us submit. You don’t get to break us.
We know that what spurred your rage at the podium was not bloodshed caused by a militant atheist who probably cheered when the people who nominated you booed God on the convention floor. We see through you.
Preach it brother!
Today's thread brought to you by Keeping Them Safe:
Feel free to use this thread to talk about guns or anything else.
Close it up
Hillary's Personal Emails Might Have Been Uploaded to a Cloud For Storage; May All Be Recoverable
From @comradearthur, this might be interesting.
Hillary Clinton hired a Connecticut company to back up her emails, and due to a technical glitch some may still reside on one of the firm' "cloud" storage sites, a Republican Senate committee chairman revealed.
The disclosures, in a letter Monday from Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, heighten the possibility that some of Clinton’s more than 31,000 personal emails may still be recovered. She said last March that she deleted them all upon turning over her official emails to the State Department in December 2014.
Congressional committees have voiced skepticism as to whether the 30,940 emails that the Democratic presidential candidate handed over represented all of her official emails. The FBI is separately investigating whether Clinton’s arrangement put classified information at risk.
Meanwhile, look at this nasty story that Hillary might have but definitely did leak to Poltiico: a claim that Joe Biden himself put out the story that Beau Biden, on his deathbed, urged him to run for president.
Oh, and this seems important: a federal judge is deciding whether or not Hillary's private server should be counted as a de facto official government record. If he rules it should be so treated, he will order the State Department (not Hillary's lawyers) to find documents responsive to FOIA requests.
That could wind up with some emails coming out that Hillary "overlooked" when she "searched" for them.
Combine that with the cloud server news... maybe she's a lot dumber than we thought.
Or drunk. I'm told she has a drinking problem with all the problem drinking she does.
US Analysts Conclude: Yes, Obviously, Russia Is Attacking US-Aligned Fighters, Not ISIS
Read Allah's analysis. Here's some key language from the WSJ's report.
U.S. officials said Russia’s targeting of its allies on the ground was a direct challenge to Mr. Obama's Syria policy. Underlining the distrust, the Pentagon decided against sharing any information with Moscow about the areas where U.S. allies were located because it suspected Russia would use that information to target them more directly or provide the information to President Bashar al-Assad's regime.
"On day one, you can say it was a one-time mistake," a senior U.S. official said of Russia’s strike on one of the allied rebel group’s headquarters. "But on day three and day four, there's no question it's intentional. They know what they’re hitting."
The first strike on [CIA-backed Tajamu al-Ezzeh] came at 9 a.m. on Sept. 30, catching its fighters off guard. Seventeen more strikes were launched against the group over the first three days of the Russian campaign, injuring 25 of Ezzeh's fighters. Some of the injured had received CIA training, according to their commander, Maj. Jameel al-Salih. Four strikes on the first day targeted Ezzeh's headquarters…
Members of the [rebel] brigades said in interviews they believed they were being targeted by the Russians to weaken the moderates, without whom the West would have to accept Mr. Assad's continued rule. The other rebel groups on the battlefield are too radical for the West to work with, they said.
Of course, Syria may not be the endgame here. Weaklings are provocative to bullies, and Obama's as sissy a weakling as they come.
So Putin may have bigger ambitions in mind: Like OPEC itself.
Mark Mills, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, writes:
Three facts motivate Putin. First, two regions utterly dominate world oil markets. The Middle East and Russia together ship 60 percent of all oil traded (45 and 15 percent, respectively). Meanwhile, American firms are by law prohibited from engaging in this vital global marketplace; more on this shortly.
Second, oil matters. It provides 97 percent of the global fuel needs for all the engines that transport everything on land, sea and air. No viable substitutes exist at any price for liquid hydrocarbons at the scale society needs. And the world will consume more oil, not less, as far into the future as it matters for sensible policymaking.
Finally, price matters. Here the U.S. has upset the apple cart. Entrepreneurs using new technologies have unlocked a shocking increase in oil supply. U.S. shale fields have recorded the fastest increase in oil production in history. As a result, crude prices have collapsed from north of $100 to south of $50 a barrel. The emerging consensus? Cheaper oil is the new normal.
How does Syria matter? While it's no oil-producing powerhouse by OPEC standards, even Syria's paltry production accounted for 25 percent of that nation's economy (although ISIS now controls most of Syria's oil fields). But Syria is ideal transit territory for pipelines to European markets for oil or gas originating in Iraq and Iran.
More important, given the build-up of Russian military men and materiel in Syria, is geography. Damascus is closer to Baghdad than Washington is to Boston, and not much further away from Riyadh than New York is from Chicago. Russia's military is now no longer deployed mainly on its Baltic borders but is in the world's premier petroleum neighborhood.
Russia is not an OPEC member and has often claimed no desire to join. But they may have just joined by default.
America's best diplomatic force is the Seventh Fleet, and I'm sure Russia's best diplomats are currently building airbases in Syria.
Obama likes to claim that Putin's acting out of "weakness" because the low price of oil, plus sanctions, have hurt Russia's economy.
Okay, let's say he acted to correct that weakness: What keeps him now from driving the price of oil up to whatever high price is required to pour money back into the Kremlin's coffers?
Stigma as an Argument: Great piece by Bret Stephens on our petty, weakling president.
David Petraeus testified last month to the Senate Armed Services Committee on U.S. policy in the Middle East. Regarding Syria, the former general and CIA director urged a credible threat to destroy Bashar Assad’s air force if it continues to bomb its own people. He also recommended "the establishment of enclaves in Syria protected by coalition air power, where a moderate Sunni force could be supported and where additional forces could be trained, internally displaced persons could find refuge, and the Syrian opposition could organize."
But Barack Obama does not agree. At his Friday press conference, the president described such views as "mumbo-jumbo," “half-baked ideas," "as-if" solutions, a willful effort to "downplay the challenges involved in the situation." He says the critics have no answers to the questions of "what exactly would you do and how would you fund it and how would you sustain it."
America’' greatest living general might as well have been testifying to his shower drain for all the difference his views are going to make in this administration.
So it is with this president. It’s not enough for him to stake and defend his positions. He wants you to know that he thinks deeper, sees further, knows better, operates from a purer motive. His preferred method for dealing with disagreement is denigration. If Republicans want a tougher line in Syria, they’re warmongers. If Hillary Clinton thinks a no-fly zone is a good idea, she’s playing politics: "There is obviously a difference," the president tut-tutted about his former secretary of state's position, "between running for president and being president."
The president is quite clear that his only ambition is to be a Commander, United National Territory, and a little one at that.
This Kid Really Wants His Jalapeno Bacon Mac and Cheese
But he insists he wants his jalapeno bacon mac and cheese, and, let me tell you one thing Old Chap, he shan't be leaving until he gets his jalapeno bacon mac and cheese.
Things get progressively worse. Caution: lots of cursing.
I was going back and forth on this about the "shaming" thing. I have a few thoughts. First, the rule can't be that no one ever shames someone else; obviously, that's silly. You'd shame Hitler. Well, all but John Ekdahl would.
The rule is that people shouldn't rush to shame, and shouldn't be eager to indulge in what is, at its heart, cruel behavior.
But there does come a point at which someone's bad behavior is hard to excuse away. This kid winds up committing a few low-level assaults, in addition to the disorderly and drunken behavior.
In addition, this non-shaming ship on this drunken sh*t has already sailed, because this video has already gone viral.
So anti-shaming people: This one seems like a lost cause.
Anyway, here's this kid's nine minutes of infamy.
He was arrested.
Obama Deports The Fewest Number of People in Almost Ten Years;
Hillary Clinton: Obama's Deportation Policies Too Harsh
he Obama administration deported the fewest number of immigrants in the past 12 months since 2006, according to new government figures obtained by The Associated Press.
The figures also show that deportations of criminal immigrants have dropped to the lowest numbers since President Barack Obama took office in 2009, despite his pledge to focus on finding and deporting criminals living in the country illegally.
Now comes Hillary-- who likes to style herself as a sort of moderate -- to say that Obama's ten year low in criminal immigrant deportations is just too many.
Hillary Clinton distanced herself from President Barack Obama's immigration policies in an interview with the Spanish-language network Telemundo, accusing the White House of breaking up families through an aggressive deportation policy.
Her comments echoed long-running complaints of the immigration advocacy community that Mr. Obama's immigration policy has been overly harsh. But they stand in contrast to comments Mrs. Clinton made in June 2014 defending the Obama policy, where she said the president was doing all he could within the law to keep families together. They also appeared to ignore changes in deportation policy that Mr. Obama ordered in late 2014.
Speaking to Telemundo, the Democratic presidential candidate criticized Mr. Obama's policy but said his approach was part of a strategy aimed at winning over Republicans to support immigration legislation legalizing people in the U.S. illegally.
"The deportation laws were interpreted and enforced, you know, very aggressively during the last six and a half years, which I think his administration did in part to try to get Republicans to support comprehensive immigration reform," she said. "That strategy is no longer workable. So therefore I think we have to go back to being a much less harsh and aggressive enforcer."
And she says she'll do this via, wait for it, executive action.
And, by the way, the number of non-English speaking persons in America just hit an all-time high of 63.2 million.
John Kasich: Please Don't Vote For Me, Ever, For Anything At All, Including For Any Business Plan I Might Present on "Shark Tank"
I'm not telling you how to go f*** yourself, I'm just saying you must go f*** yourself, John Kasich, vigorously and thoroughly, in whatever manner and style you think best expresses the real You, as a Person of the self-f*ckt variety.
What happened: Kasich, talking about his critics on his Medicaid expansion, said, condescendingly, he'd like to buy books for them, they come in two parts, an Old part and a New part-- see what the Bibles say about the treatment of the poor, he sums up.
He's what is referred to in Ephesians 7-10 as "a Real Asshole."
In UK, Student Diversity Officer Facing Criminal Charges for Tweeting "Kill All White Men"
A student diversity officer who was caught up in a racism row after allegedly posting 'kill all white men' on social media has been summonsed to court to face malicious communications charges.
Bahar Mustafa, 28, of Edmonton, North London, a welfare and diversity officer at Goldsmiths University, will appear at Bromley Magistrates' Court on 5 November, police said.
Ms Mustafa will face two charges, one of sending a threatening message between 10 November 2014 and 31 May this year, and one of sending a menacing or offensive message via a public network, between the same dates.
Here's her defense:
Ms Mustafa explained that she could not be guilty of sexism or racism against white men "because racism and sexism describe structures of privilege based on race and gender and therefore women of colour and minority genders cannot be racist or sexist, since we do not stand to benefit from such a system."
You see, she is the white men have so much hypothesized, "structural" privilege that she, as a non-white non-man, must be given real, actual privileges to disobey laws otherwise generally applicable.
Now, here's why I said "Good:"
I am of course against this sort of henny-penny Speechcrime prosecution. However, if such laws are on the books, and if disfavored persons (chiefly those unfashionable white men) are routinely being prosecuted under them (as they are), then it is absolutely imperative to prosecute Ms. Mustafa to visit upon her the unfairness and lunacy of a speechcrimes that she would visit on other people.
Suppose the United States really was the racist country it is claimed to be. Suppose we had truly punishing, draconian drug laws, as they do in Indonesia, but we did not enforce them against white people, but only against black people, on whatever theory -- "Oh, we have to protect black people against the scourges of drugs, for their own benefit, you understand." (I realize that pro-legalization people claim that this is the state our country actually sort of resembles; but whether or not it's true doesn't matter for this hypothetical.)
Under the situation of my hypothetical, white people would never be confronted with the question of whether throwing someone in prison for 20 years for a drug crime is a cruel punishment, because they never have to face the prospect of it themselves. For them, the threat of running afoul of such laws is entirely a hypothetical matter.
That would mean whites would have all the "benefits" of a draconian drug enforcement regime (such as they may be imagined to be) without any of the drawbacks of one -- and it would mean that whites could continue to inflict this law on blacks without having to ever see the consequences of it up-close and personal.
And the most important ethical principle in all the world is the shoe on the other foot test -- if you were forced to wear this shoe, would you submit or would you rebel?
These leftwing totalitarians cannot be permitted to have all the "advantages" of weaponizing the law to persecute their political enemies while never facing the disadvantages of such a vicious, anti-liberal regime.
If they want these laws, they must take the advantages and disadvantages both at the same time -- and that means that their kin will be prosecuted under these insane laws the same as their enemies will.
Unjust laws are never repealed if they are only inflicted upon a disfavored minority. It is only when the majority -- including those favored in fact by the state (non-whites, non-males; I speak of those favored in fact, not favored in fantasy, per the SJW claims) are forced to live under unjust laws that the laws' unjustness is suddenly... noticed.
So Ms Mustafa should not get the pass she argues for, based on the fact that she is non-white/not-male. There is no such exception in the law, and there cannot be such an exception in the law under any sort of tolerable regime.
She obviously supports using these laws to hang others -- then she must be trundled up the gallows, just the same as she'd see her enemies trundled.
There is no other way to make them understand what monsters they are, you know.
No, Ms Mustafa should not be prosecuted for mere speech. But neither should anyone else. Giving Mustafa a pass while continuing to punish disfavored groups will result in even more people being prosecuted for speechcrimes, because these laws will persist.
Only when Ms Mustafa and her vile allies are made to understand the downside of totalitarianism will they be open to moving away from a totalitarian regime.
The second-worst possible regime is to have speechcrime laws at all.
But the absolute worst regime is to have speechcrime laws, but under which only a disfavored minority are prosecuted, while the favored majority are quietly allowed to escape the law's cruelty. Speechcrime laws inflicted against one and all contain the bitter seeds of their own destruction; speechcrime laws used by a favored majority to attack a disfavored minority will persist as long as men have evil in their hearts.
Which is to say: Forever.
Apparently 4Chan wanted to see how follow-the-herd-of-stupidity feminists were. So they conspired to make up a hashtag, #PissForEquality, encouraging people to pee their own pants, then take a picture of it and upload it for the world to see, to protest... um, whatever. Victimization or something.
Making fun of pumpkin spice lattes is now sexist.
Actually, what it really more is is racist, because this gets put down a lot as a specifically white girl thing; but the rules are that you can't call out black racism. It's always safe, on the other hand, to say something about men's sexism.
According to a Swarthmore College student's op-ed, the real reason that people make fun of pumpkin-spice lattes is that our society thinks everything girls like is stupid because "girls don't get to have valid emotions."
"It all comes back to sexism," Min Cheng writes in a piece for The Phoenix, Swarthmore's official student newspaper. "People love to hate on what girls like."
"The PSL hate seems to me like a symptom of a larger problem: girls don't get to have valid emotions," she continues. (Exactly what a latte flavor could possibly have to do with your emotions is unclear -- but maybe I just haven’t been drinking meaningful-enough coffee.)
Lest you think she’s not making any sense, Cheng gives plenty of other examples to prove her point. Her piece — which, by the way, is titled "Evaluating Masculinity, Hidden Sexism, and Pumpkin Spice Lattes" -- explains that people also make fun of leggings, Uggs, North Faces, Taylor Swift, Instagram, flower crowns, crop tops and Grey’s Anatomy (arguably the worst show in the world, except for maybe Gilmore Girls) and Pinterest.
Can I hate people who make up fake dramas about trivialities to invest their meaningless lives with some jumped-up sense of purpose?
Or would that be denying people's "emotions"?
K-Timpf points out that it's a standard media trope to bust men's chops for the stuff they like.
In fact, it's a standard trope of feminism.
How do you square this bitching about men's enjoyment of being awesome with that silly crap about pumpkin spice latte non-liking behavior being sexist?
The size of G.I. Joe's biceps and Arnold Schwarzenegger's guns in the Terminator movies is proof that the dominant form of masculinity is out of control.
That message and similar ones were conveyed recently to students during Vanderbilt University's "Healthy Masculinities Week," organized by the Margaret Cuninggim Women’s Center. Attendance for students was optional.
The Vanderbilt week kicked off with a lecture by the first man to minor in women's studies at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, Jackson Katz. (His alma mater now offers a bachelor's in women, gender and sexuality studies.)
The self-described "anti-sexist activist" and filmmaker said that sexual violence and domestic abuse are men’s issues and that men would "benefit tremendously from having this conversation."
Katz founded a consulting firm that "provides gender violence prevention and leadership training to institutions in the public and private sectors" and has pioneered the use of bystander training in the U.S. military, according to his website....
Political correctness has value, Katz said....
He showed clips from his film Tough Guise, in which Katz claims "there has been a ratcheting up of what it takes to be considered menacing in the 1980s and 90s."
As evidence, Katz noted that G.I. Joe's biceps have gotten larger over the years and that Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone use bigger guns for their iconic roles as the Terminator and Rambo than did Humphrey Bogart in his 1930s and 1940s film roles.
Another speaker said that the three most destructive words in the English language are "be a man," or "don't be a pussy," because they... I don't know, teach men to be brave and tough and respond assiduously to challenges, when the proper response is to cry about it and give up or something.
Short Day: So. I let my body-clock get seriously out of whack (you may have noticed) and decided, sometime around 5:50 am this morning, that rather than go to bed, I would just stay up all night so I could go to bed early this night.
I think the only way I can adjust my clock is to force myself to stay up for 30 or so hours and go to bed at like 6 pm tonight.
Blogging today will be super-crappy, far crappier than usual. Probably bullet-point stuff. Quote and link without any effort, because i'm kinda dozing off as it is.
I'll probably stop really early too.
But, hopefully, I will be posting earlier than 1:30 pm from now on.
Morning Thread (10-6-2015)
Late start this morning. You're all due a refund.
Overnight Open Thread (10-5-2015)
The essential feature of this disorder is a pervasive and unwarranted tendency . . . to interpret the actions of people as deliberately demeaning or threatening. Almost invariably, there is a general expectation of being exploited or harmed by others in some way. . . . The person may read hidden demeaning or threatening meanings into benign remarks or events. . . . Often these people are easily slighted and quick to react with anger or counterattack; they may bear grudges for a long time, and never forgive slights, insults or injuries. . . . They tend to avoid blame even when it is warranted. . . . They intensely and narrowly search for confirmation of their expectations, with no appreciation of the total context. Their final conclusion is usually precisely what they expected in the first place.
-- A summary of the DSM entry on 'Paranoid Personality Disorder' from Matt Labash's The Cocked Fist Culture
If our universities are teaching students that their emotions can be used effectively as weapons-or at least as evidence in administrative proceedings-then they are teaching students to nurture a kind of hypersensitivity that will lead them into countless drawn-out conflicts in college and beyond. Schools may be training students in thinking styles that will damage their careers and friendships, along with their mental health.
-- Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt in The Coddling of the American Mind
Of course, the real and fair solution is much less politically correct but effective. It's to stop trying to protect people's feelings. Your feelings are your problem, not mine-and vice versa.
Real empowerment and respect is to see our fellow citizens-victims and privileged, religious and agnostic, conservative and liberal-as adults. Human beings are not automatons-ruled by drives and triggers they cannot control. On the contrary, we have the ability to decide not to be offended. We have the ability to discern intent. We have the ability to separate someone else's actions or provocation or ignorance from our own. This is the great evolution of consciousness-it's what separates us from the animals.
...There is a wonderful quote from Epictetus that I think of every time I see someone get terribly upset about one of these things (I try to think about it when I get upset about anything): "If someone succeeds in provoking you, realize that your mind is complicit in the provocation."
He said that some 1,900 years ago. Even then we felt that it was easier to police the outside than examine our inside.-- Ryan Holiday
Housing prices in San Francisco, and in many other communities for miles around, were once no higher than in the rest of the United States. But, beginning in the 1970s, housing prices in these communities skyrocketed to three or four times the national average.
Why? Because local government laws and policies severely restricted, or banned outright, the building of anything on vast areas of land. This is called preserving "open space," and "open space" has become almost a cult obsession among self-righteous environmental activists, many of whom are sufficiently affluent that they don't have to worry about housing prices.
...When more than half the land in San Mateo County is legally off-limits to building, how surprised should we be that housing prices in the city of San Mateo are now so high that politically appointed task forces have to be formed to solve the "complex" question of how things got to be the way they are and what to do about it?-- Thomas Sowell
Are we flexible enough to allow audiences to see things in our work, which we ourselves may not see? To fixate on aspects of our stories that we either consider trivial, or which interest us not at all?
Case in point: Gene Roddenberry was far more interested in the "free love" aspect of his 23rd century star navy - a navy Gene denied was a navy at all - than most of the fans, many of whom were interested in the star navy; as an extrapolated future military. In fact, Star Trek and its Starfleet became the personification of military SF storytelling for millions of fans. I am pretty sure Gene never intended it to be that way. But that's how it worked out. Gene's been gone for almost 25 years now, so we can't ask him how he feels about this legacy. Frankly, I think I'd be damned proud to have a fictional footprint the size of Starfleet on my storytelling resume. Starfleet is the idealized service many actual, current servicemembers wish they could join - myself included.
Starfleet will live forever.
That's canon. That's the fans finding meaning in the work.-- Brad Torgersen in A Matter of Canon
Never mind that her asylum-for-anyone-who-asks policy and browbeating of other reluctant EU countries is likely to make Europe a nastier, less peaceful place.
I'd almost think they're trolling us but when you read this stuff, you realize how much they just enjoy being outraged. So of course even their sci-fi future fantasy needs to have Teh Outrage in it as well.
Well this is what happens when you file a frivolous lawsuit in order to take money from an innocent person.
The fact that over four months after the shooting the forensics on the bullets that killed the bikers still hasn't been released is telling in itself.
This spring, four years after the nuclear accident at Fukushima, a small group of scientists met in Tokyo to evaluate the deadly aftermath.
No one has been killed or sickened by the radiation - a point confirmed last month by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Even among Fukushima workers, the number of additional cancer cases in coming years is expected to be so low as to be undetectable, a blip impossible to discern against the statistical background noise.But about 1,600 people died from the stress of the evacuation - one that some scientists believe was not justified by the relatively moderate radiation levels at the Japanese nuclear plant.
The creators of Pepper the 'emotional robot' have forbidden users from using it for sexual purposes, creating 'sexy apps' for it or reprogramming it to stalk people.
One thousand people paid £1,300 to buy the 'companion bot' within one minute of it going on sale in Japan this June, and then £250-a-month in rent.
Japan-based SoftBank included a clause in the ownership contract which said using the robot for 'the purpose of sexual or indecent behavior' breaks this agreement.
Disturbingly, computer pranksters have already reprogrammed the touchscreen hanging from its neck to give Pepper 'virtual breasts' which makes it shake its hips and moan when touched.It has reignited the debate around so-called 'sexbots', with one roboticist telling MailOnline that machines which humans can realistically fall in love with are only 'years away'.
Who's talking about love here?
Well for $17K Robby better not be an uptight tease like those Japanese bots.
The Yahoo AoSHQ group - it's got electrolytes and shit.
And my twitter thang.
Tonight's post brought to you by and....scene:
Notice: Posted by permission of AceCorp LLC. Please e-mail the good tips to Ace. All major credit cards accepted.
Close it up
The Mask Falls: Left Calling for "Gun-Free Society"
They had previously lied about their goals, claiming to be in favor of "sensible gun safety measures" or other rot.
But now they're becoming more honest: a Washington Post editor just explicitly called for a "gun free society.
A Gun Free Society.
By Fred Hiatt
Washington Post Editor
Maybe it's time to start using the words that the NRA has turned into unmentionables.
A gun-free society.
Let’s say that one again: A gun-free society.
Doesn’t it sound logical? Doesn’t it sound safe? Wouldn’t it make sense to learn from other developed nations, which believe that only the military and law enforcers, when necessary, should be armed -- and which as a result lose far, far fewer innocent people than die every year in the United States?
Yes, even saying these words makes the NRA happy. It fuels the slippery-slope argument the gun lobby uses to oppose even the most modest, common-sense reforms. You see? Background checks today, confiscation tomorrow.
And yes, I understand how difficult it would be. This is a matter of changing the culture and norms of an entire society. It would take time.
Note that he claims that using these words is dangerous, because the NRA would interpret them as a slippery slope argument to claim that the left wants a gun free society.
But that is precisely what Hiatt wants.
He's accusing the NRA of being right, but in an unhelpful way.
Ezra's Folly, I mean Vox, jumps on the idea and pushes it.
Harry Reid claimed to be pro-Second Amendment for his whole career -- but now that he's retiring, there's no more reason to maintain that fiction:
Harry Reid: Republicans Are 'Acting As Puppets For The NRA' http://t.co/T2RgHFMoSq— Adam Jentleson (@AJentleson) October 5, 2015
Hillary Clinton is announcing she'll start using extra-constitutional means to declare by executive fiat that the non-existent gun show loophole should no longer exist, and maybe that's what Obama has in mind when he promises more executive action on gun control:
The White House confirmed that President Obama was preparing a series of executive actions on gun control to match his recent passion on the issue after the latest mass shooting in Oregon.
"It's a high priority and will continue to be until we start to see more progress on this issue in this town," White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters today at the press briefing.
Earnest said he would "quibble" with anyone who criticized the president for not voicing any specific gun control proposals during his press conference, asserting that the White House was working behind the scenes for more executive actions on guns.
"I can tell you that they're not stumped, they’re continuing to review the law that’s on the books and continuing to consult with legal authorities but also others who may have ideas about what steps that can be taken to keep guns out of the hands of criminals," Earnest said.
Glenn Reynolds predicts the Democrats will pay a price for this, and further speculates that Obama is pushing gun control because his foreign and economic policies are in tatters.
Obama would just as soon we didn't talk about any of these debacles. The gun issue may not be a winner for him, but it's an ideologically divided issue where most Democrats will take his side, and it’s a hot-button issue that lets him inflame debate just by bringing it up.
These other stories, meanwhile, raise questions about Obama’s presidency that even Democrats are finding hard to ignore. Is it any wonder that Obama would rather talk about guns?
Maybe just more Stray Voltage. But maybe not.
Shock: Top Hillary Clinton Aide Lied About Using Personal Email for Business With Reporters
As Luke Skywalker said to Darth Vader: "No... that can't be true. That's impossible!"
Longtime Hillary Clinton aide Philippe Reines repeatedly lied about using a personal email address to communicate with reporters, records show. Emails uncovered after Gawker successfully sued the State Department show that Reines regularly corresponded with reporters using a personal Gmail address, despite previously dismissing the suggestion as a "cockamamie theory," saying his personal email account "is about the last place I want to be emailing reporters or conducting work."
Gawker's initial request under the Freedom of Information Act was initially denied after the State Department claimed to have no record of Reines's correspondence with reporters. The emails, about 18,000 in total, are coming to light now thanks to a successful legal appeal.
Well it sure seems that Hillary and all of her aides are pretty determined that they will not produce any documents for anyone, whether legally compelled to do so or not.
Must be because they're so honest.
Oh, and if you didn't see that terrible SNL sketch with Hillary, it's below. I just saw it now.
It's terrible, and while it's true they didn't mention the email scandal, what are they going to do, realistically? Hillary gets to veto any jokes that cut too deep; I'm surprised she let them attack her (very gently) from the left, in being slow to realize she was against Keystone because environment and pro gay marriage because love.
Hillary Clinton was on SNL last night http://t.co/EPMnNIv1cP What do you think?— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) October 4, 2015
Close it up
Supercut: Boy, NBC Sure Asked Hillary Clinton the Hard Questions
But that doesn't seem to be helping her very much in NBC polls.
Oregon Sheriff Investigating Umpqua Shooting Under Fire For Conspiracy Video Posted on FaceBook Page
I don't know. All seems kinda silly.
A prominent gun-control advocate is calling for the resignation of the Oregon sheriff leading the investigation into the recent shooting, who he labeled a pro-gun "conspiracy theorist."
Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin ruffled feathers after it came to light that he sent Vice President Joe Biden a letter in January 2013, threatening to not enforce stronger gun laws.
According to reports, Hanlin also posted a conspiracy video on his Facebook page suggesting the government was behind the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting as well as the 9/11 terrorist attacks in a coordinated effort to "disarm the public." He later distanced himself from the video and denied claims he is a conspiracy theorist.
This has enraged gun-control activists.
He's denying he believes that.
Before Douglas County, Oregon, Sheriff John Hanlin found himself answering questions about a school shooting in his backyard, he posted a link to a video raising questions about another -- the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre that left 20 children and six adults dead.
"This makes me wonder who we can trust anymore ..." Hanlin wrote on his Facebook page on January 13, 2013, above the conspiracy video link. "Watch, listen and keep an open mind."
That post has since been taken down, albeit not before many saw it.
When asked about the video Friday, Hanlin told CNN that "I know what you're referring to, but that's not a conspiracy theory that I have."
I'm not a fan of silly conspiracy theories. I'm also not a fan of this age's method of political argumentation, which consists merely of blackening the reputation of a person offering a political claim, as if smearing that person also discredited the political claim itself.
But that's all we do anymore. It's a normal and routine technique in actual political elections to talk about character issues and personal scandals because we're actually not just electing a series of (vague) policy proposals, we're electing an actual person, and we should know about that actual person.
This has always been grist for the easiest, laziest sort of political writing -- and as someone who practices this and loves a scandal story because of how damn easy it is to write up, I say this with complete expert authority.
But this sort of character attack is completely irrelevant in all areas except the situation where we're choosing one person or another for an office.
It has absolutely nothing to do with questions of actual policy. The fact that Hanlin may have posted this tells us precisely nothing at all about the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment and the proper level of freedom (or restriction) of gun ownership.
But this is all we do anymore -- this lazy, #HotTake Gawker-style method of dealing with policy issues. It's nothing more than Hashtag Scandal anymore.
We're increasingly running full political campaigns -- dredging up negative information, discrediting people on character grounds, etc. -- who are not in fact running for any office at all.
Sometimes, we're running political campaigns against complete nobodies who are jus trying to make a joke about an upcoming trip on Twitter.
We are reducing all difficult arguments requiring thoughtfulness, evidence, and logic into mere smear campaigns run against whoever happens to speak out on an issue.
And this isn't just evil. It is evil. It is surely evil. But it's also deeply stupid. It's Idiocracy.
Stupid, thoughtless people always try to reduce things down to their own stupid, thoughtless level, so they can participate.
And the media, of course, is a prime enabler of this New Age of Stupidity, because they're among the laziest and dumbest public speakers in the world. Getting things down to a very dumb, lazy level plays to their strengths.
So once again another awful, vicious campaign of personal destruction because all too many Americans in the media are completely ill-equipped to have anything resembling a policy argument.
Contempt as an "Argument." I noted in the sidebar the fact that the Washington Post's The Fix wrote up a Seth Meyers attack on the GOP, and stalwart defense of Planned Parenthood, as a real news piece, headlining it (Vox-style) The Planned Parenthood Controversy, Explained By Seth Meyers [Video]."
It was of course not an explanation at all: It was simply a staged show of emotional contempt.
It occurs to me that the left, particularly, only makes this sort emotional-solidarity sort of "argument" anymore, the public expression of theatricalized contempt.
They bond through their hatred; they politically agitate through their expressions of hate.
And I'm not sure if they have any other game, really.
The fact that the Washington Post, a supposedly "real newspaper," could mistake this showing of theatrical contempt for an "explanation" of a political issue tells you a lot about our media, our country, and the deeply stupid age we live in.
It keeps reminding me of this observation of David French's:
So, a "senior Obama administration official" called the prime minister of Israel -- our closest ally in the Middle East and one of the few nations in the region that is not (a) imploding or (b) actively funding or supporting terrorists --"“a chickenshit." While that word has rocketed around the globe, other descriptions of Benjamin Netanyahu include,"“recalcitrant, myopic, reactionary, obtuse, blustering, pompous, and 'Aspergery.'" And let’s not forget the worst word of all, "coward."
Behold, the beautiful and delicate rhetorical stylings of our cultural and political elite. They’re the improvisational jazz musicians of American diplomacy, always ready with just the right word to solidify alliances, avoid unnecessary confrontation, and reassure Americans they know exactly what they’re doing in the face of bloody violence. This is what happens when the academic Left runs American foreign policy.
[This is an example of] the sophomoric, malicious style of campus rhetoric, where stigma is the preferred method of argument. It’s hard to overstate the propensity towards name-calling even of "elite" academics, and the culture of the academy is one where groupthink is enforced and reinforced through vicious rhetoric. Their opponents can’t be merely wrong. Instead they are racist, bigoted, homophobic, or -- despite professed love of the disabled -- "Aspergery."The arrogance is overwhelming, and the fake tough-guy posture of name-calling elitists is laughable to everyone but themselves.
If the recent history of our universities is any guide, the products of a leftist bureacratic monoculture will be characterized by the following:
Ignorance: Groups of like-minded people are notoriously incurious about the ideas and perspectives of dissenters.
Condescension: They don't let ignorance stand in the way of a bulletproof sense of moral and intellectual superiority. Hatred: Since all the good people they know agree with them, they ascribe the worst of motives to the other side, believing them to be motivated by little more than greed and bigotry. And, finally . . .
Fanaticism: Cass Sunstein described the "law of group polarization" like this: "In a striking empirical regularity, deliberation tends to move groups, and the individuals who compose them, toward a more extreme point in the direction indicated by their own predeliberation judgments." In other words, when like-minded individuals deliberate, their common views grow more extreme over time.
He's quite right. The only "argument" made by the left is the political technique of the assignment of stigma to a view -- and the entire left now does this, not just the branches of it (such as Media Matters, etc.) which you could forgive for doing it, as it's their actual job.
But all members of the left, the media, the bien-pensant intellectual class, every single of one them now knows only the primitive, stupid, animal-level technique of ginning up campaigns of social ostracism against individual people, in hopes of (or do they even care about this part any longer...?) stupid people confusing an argument about a person with an argument about a policy.
Hillary Clinton is a Very Special Lady
She was asked a good question, actually, about her emails: If Dick Cheney had been shown to have conducted all his government business on private emails, would she be as understanding about it as she urges others to be about her email use?
Instead, she "blocked and bridged" (a media handling technique where you ignore the question and talk about whatever you want to talk about) to yell about the Benghazi committee, generally, and Kevin McCartny's ill-chosen words.
"This committee was set up, as they have admitted, for the purpose of making a partisan, political issue out of the deaths of four Americans," she said. "I would have never done that! And if I were president --and there were Republicans or Democrats who were thinking about that -- I would have done everything to shut it down."
Longer video of her performance here.
By the way, she opened up about her alcohol problem.
Indeed. Look at how much her eyes light up at the question. She beams at getting to name her favorite drink.
Like she's in love with alcohol. Like she's had a torrid 30 year affair with it.
Longer Clip: "Beyond the pale."
Close it up
Hillary Clinton: Hey, This Executive Action Thing Seems Like Fun! I'll Implement Gun Restrictions By Fiat.
Hillary has proposed to close the so-called, "gun show loophole" by executive fiat. Well, she generously has agreed to allow Congress a chance to do it first but if they don't, well, as Queen she will rid herself of this troublesome body and do it herself.
Clinton’s campaign says that this could theoretically be accomplished via a new rule by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms that would more clearly define what it means to be “engaged in the business” of selling firearms. Gun control advocates point out that under federal law, those “engaged in the business” of selling firearms must perform background checks, but federal regulations defining that phrase are too vague, allowing too many gun sales to proceed without such a check. Such federal regs, they say, could be changed through executive action that, for example, would set a clearer threshold defining “engaged in the business” of selling firearms in terms of the number of guns sold.
So in a Clinton II administration they will simply decide that the Gun Control Act of 1968 is suddenly too vague to enforce and they will decree what Congress has refused to define because....go to hell, that's why.
Something to consider...these "common sense reforms" are supposed to address the "epidemic" of mass shootings and rampant gun violence in general. But all of the mass shootings of late have been committed by people who acquired their guns legally from federally licensed dealers. So adding this restriction on private sales (and that's what this about) wouldn't do anything except expand the role of the federal government into ever more private activities.
As for gun violence in general...do you think people selling weapons to gang members are going to be deterred by yet another federal rule? Of course this new proposal ignores the fact that it's already illegal to sell a gun to someone who isn't eligible to purchase or own one and there are substantial criminal penalties to doing so.
But GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE!
The real challenge here is the mainlining of the idea that if a Republican Congress doesn't bend to the will of a Democrat President, then Congress can be by-passed (because you damn well know the press wouldn't allow a Republican to do this).
The real question in the House leadership races should be about which candidates have a plan to restore the legislative branch's rightful place in our Constitutional system. But that would mean Congress would have to write laws that are more than first drafts for regulators and then fight the President (of either party) who encroaches on their authorities. But that would mean work and doing stuff which is way beyond the competency and interest of most of these people.
Morning Thread (10-5-2015)
And just like that, Bobby Jindal gets an AoSHQ Podcast bounce.