Overnight Open Thread (5-21-2015)
Sadly most of the movies I see these days are ones I watch on planes. So here are a couple of quickie movie reviews of what I've watched in the last few weeks.
Okay I had read the mixed reviews but I figured hey I'm a sucker for sci-fi flicks so why not. Well the short version is that Interstellar is a long, maudlin, melodramatic, visually stunning, wannabe epic, manipulative, nearly 3 hour long movie with gaping plot holes that actually ended up irritating me. Not recommended unless you have nothing else better to do for three hours. Or just enjoy movies where nearly every single line is an intense whisper.
A very interesting and well done movie. I can see why it won an Oscar and Michael Keaton was nominated for one. It did a very good job of putting you into the life and mind of Riggan, a washed-up actor best known for playing the superhero Birdman now trying desperately to pull off a Broadway show and show that he can actually do something meaningful. The movie follows him around and fills you in on his life without ever having a flashback scene, while also making you want to see what happens to him next. I enjoyed its mix of documentary-style and magical realism scenes but I can see why others might not care for it. It also makes the case that life in general needs a jazz drum background track. Recommended.
Okay I already knew the story of Alan Turing and the British breaking the Enigma code during WWII and was very skeptical that it could ever be made into a watchable movie. But I was wrong and The Imitation Game is in fact excellent. It does a good job of both explaining the technological challenges of breaking the code and the context of how important this was to winning the war and capturing the drama behind it. So you can watch the movie knowing nothing and fully enjoy it. Alan Turing was a genius and likely had what we would call today Asperger's syndrome and was critical to ultimately breaking the code. Benedict Cumberbatch did an excellent job playing him and deserved his Oscar for it. Turing's homosexuality was significant to several parts of the plot but I'm glad the movie didn't make it a central point or become preachy about it. Highly recommended.
This 2006 British movie has been lingering in my Netflix queue for nearly five years - so long I had forgotten why I ever even added it. But a few weeks ago out of complete lack of other choices I finally watched it. And it turned out to be very good. The story is about an art student who after a painful breakup with his girlfriend is unable to sleep at all. Finally desperate to fill his nights he starts working the night shift at a local grocery store. There at some point he discovers that he has the ability to actually stop time. So of course he has some fun with this checking out women's breasts and playing pranks on people. But after a while he becomes bored with this and is inspired to use the stopped-time scenes as still-lifes for his art. And in the process he also comes to really know the motley group of people he works with and appreciate them in their own way. In particular he falls in love with a quirky cashier, Sharon. They eventually start dating and it turns out that being able to stop time is not nearly as helpful in a relationship as you might think.
Stylistically the movie is sort of a mix of Fight Club with Groundhog Day along with a good amount of teen sex comedy and rom-com mixed in. But it's actually a very thoughtful and funny movie with the main character narrating scenes and musing on the significance of time in peoples' lives, his own flaws and missed opportunities, and reflecting on how he came to be so fascinated by the female form. Ultimately the movie is about finding love and inspiration in the fleeting moments of everyday life more than any of the entertaining boobage and comedy scenes in it. Excellently written this movie really should be more well known than it is. Highly recommended.
All of these phrases are really implicit calls for censoring certain kinds of speech.
But the federal government does not just "ask" for money. It takes the money it wants in taxes, usually before the people who have earned it see their paychecks.
Despite pious rhetoric on the left about "asking" the more fortunate for more money, the government does not "ask" anything. It seizes what it wants by force. If you don't pay up, it can take not only your paycheck, it can seize your bank account, put a lien on your home and/or put you in federal prison.
So please don't insult our intelligence by talking piously about "asking."
And please don't call the government's pouring trillions of tax dollars down a bottomless pit "investment." Remember the soaring words from Barack Obama, in his early days in the White House, about "investing in the industries of the future"? After Solyndra and other companies in which he "invested" the taxpayers' money went bankrupt, we haven't heard those soaring words so much.
Then there are those who produced the wealth that politicians want to grab. In Obama's rhetoric, these producers are called "society's lottery winners."
....When all else fails, redistributionists can say, as Obama did at Georgetown University, that "coldhearted, free-market capitalist types" are people who "pretty much have more than you'll ever be able to use and your family will ever be able to use," so they should let the government take that extra money to help the poor.Slippery use of the word "use" seems to confine it to personal consumption. The real question is whether the investment of wealth is likely to be done better by those who created that wealth in the first place or by politicians. The track record of politicians hardly suggests that turning ever more of a nation's wealth over to them is likely to turn out well.
How you prevent an 'immigration crisis'.
How a FAL gets made.
Using movement in move-ies.
Zhang Caijie, 25, became an overnight hit in Taiwan after pictures of her were posted online. She works in her parent's market stall butchering meat and is now a sought-after bachelorette in the country.
You're been doing it wrong apparently.
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 Audrey shopping with her fawn:
Notice: Posted by permission of AceCorp LLC. Do not taunt happy-fun ball. Now go forth and conquer.
Close it up
Senator Kristen Gillibrand's Chubby Case Against Paul Nungesser Falls Apart
Paul Nungesser is the man charged by the so-called #MattressGirl, Emma Sulkowicz.
If you know the case, you know that two (or three?) additional people stepped forward to accuse Nungesser after Sulkowicz began making these allegations.
Let's deal with two of them.
Let's deal with the male accuser.
From Cathy Young: Oh my.
Several days after my Daily Beast piece, which featured not only Nungesser's account of his relationship with Sulkowicz but social media messages tending to support his version, the feminist blog Jezebel ran a purported rebuttal titled "How to Make an Accused Rapist Look Good." Much of the story, by Jezebel editor Erin Gloria Ryan, dealt with Sulkowicz's not entirely convincing explanation of her friendly messages to Nungesser days after what she says was a terrifyingly violent rape. But the piece also contained a new revelation meant to bolster the claim that Nungesser was a serial sexual predator: the existence of a hitherto unknown male victim, identified by the pseudonym "Adam."
Adam, who also graduates this week, told Jezebel that "he was close friends with Paul during his freshman year in 2011" and that "one fall night, in the midst of an emotional conversation in Paul's dorm room...Paul pushed him onto his bed and sexually assaulted him." He claimed that after much self-doubt and internal struggle, he finally reported this incident, first to a student society to which both he and Nungesser belonged and then in a formal complaint to the university in the fall of 2014. Adam rather melodramatically lamented that my Daily Beast piece "invalidates and completely erases [his] experience."
Oh my -- it invalidates your experience. WHY DIDN'T YOU SAY SO SOONER?!!
There's a girl on Twitter calling herself "NachoSarah." Hot chick, actually. But she tosses off lots of crude jokes.
One oft-repeated joke is about how effeminate the men she sees around her are.
It goes like this:
i was out with a guy on a date and he ordered a quinoa salad and i was like hey remember when men used to carry swords
But that joke probably invalidates Adam's experience, so forget I said anything.
This gets better.
According to Adam, during this conversation Nungesser asked him to sit on the bed, rubbed his shoulder and back, then "gently" pushed him down and proceeded to stroke his leg and finally massage his crotch "for approximately 2-3 minutes" while Adam froze in shock. He was finally able to muster the will to get up and leave.
Long story short, external evidence -- Facebook posts, texts -- tended to support Nungesser's denial more than Adam's charges. For example, "Adam" claimed that Nungesser kept bothering him. But the record shows that it was Adam who kept seeking Nungesser out after this dubious incident.
And then "Adam" says Nungesser really turned up the heat of harassment:
Adam's credibility was further sunk by his rather fanciful complaints of "retaliation" by Nungesser in a class they shared. These "deliberately aggressive acts" consisted of sitting too close to Adam or to his friends, which left Adam "distraught and traumatized," and complimenting some points Adam had made in a class discussion (which "felt like he was claiming a collective sense of power").
And thus Paul Nungesser carried out his continued Campaign of Erotic Terror.
hey adam remember when men carried swords
I am happy to report that, even on the trauma-happy modern campus, such claims of harassment are still recognized as, in the words of the report, "hyperbolic and illogical."
In the end, the investigators concluded that Adam was "unreliable" and that his story simply did not add up, and recommended that Nungesser be found "not responsible."
A woman charged him with "sexual assault" too, and now writes, anonymously, at Jezebel, that Nungesser was actually found guilty of this "sexual assault" before he "appealed it away."
Let's look at this allegation of a "sex assault" -- from the complaining witness herself:
At this point, I should be used to seeing backlash against Emma Sulkowicz, but I still wasn’t fully prepared for what came this week: endless tittering of people around me in real life and in my social feeds saying they "weren't sure" about Emma’s choice to carry her mattress to Columbia’s graduation; the insistence that Emma's alleged assailant Paul Nungesser had been "proven innocent" by Columbia and exonerated by the NYPD; the posters someone put up around Columbia with Emma's picture on them, calling her a "PRETTY LITTLE LIAR."
Every time I read another version of this narrative--that Nungesser merely "picked the wrong friends," that the complaints against him were a calculated vendetta--my stomach flopped. Don’t forget: before he appealed away the conviction, Paul Nungesser was found responsible for sexually assaulting a woman at Columbia. And I'm writing this because that woman was me.
When I filed the complaint against Paul, I didn't know it would turn into a national event. It was over a year before Emma started carrying that weight, months before what happened at Columbia helped sparked a national dialogue about rape on college campus. I was just trying to do the right thing.
The incident happened my junior year at Columbia, when Paul followed me upstairs at a party, came into a room with me uninvited, closed the door behind us, and grabbed me. I politely said, "Hey, no, come on, let's go back downstairs." He didn't listen. He held me close to him as I said no, and continued to pull me against him. I pushed him off and left the room quickly. I told a few friends and my boyfriend at the time how creepy and weird it was. I tried to find excuses for his behavior. I did a decent job of pushing it out of my mind.
You managed to push it out of your mind? What a soldier.
Now you may be thinking, "Okay, well in the Second Part of this story, Nungesser creeps into her room and rapes her!"
Um... nope. That's the whole story. He pulled her against him for a few seconds, tried to entice her to have sex, and then did nothing more when she pushed him away.
This is the "sex assault" he was found guilty of -- and here she quotes, pedantically, Columbia's definition of "sex assault," which includes "Any intentional sexual touching, however slight, with any object without a person's consent." [Emphasis added -- but I feel that emphasis is implicit in her breathless delivery.] She defines this sloppy, drunken hug as a "sexual touching;" apparently Columbia later realized how insane that was.
Now, don't get me wrong, Nungesser was plainly trying to get sex here. And it is uncomfortable as hell to be manhandled by a drunk (or at least heedless) guy looking for sex.
I hate being hugged or touched and when people hug or touch me it's almost always in a non-sexual, innocent manner.
But I don't like it.
I do think she has a complaint -- but not a legal one.
She has a thing she can justifiably complain about to her friends. "Oh my, this sloppy horny douche hugged me and thought he could sleep with me."
And that's all she has.
But apparently she thinks she was "raped" just like Emma.
But here, let her tell you:
Then, a year later, a friend approached me and asked if we could speak privately. She told me she'd heard that Paul had apparently raped someone, and that the story had reminded her of what he had done to me a year before.
He hugged me for three seconds. It was exactly like that anal rape that Emma Sulkowicz described to me.
This woman writes anonymously because she says she fears the pushback and mockery she might get if her name is connected to this Tale of Hug-Rape.
Good Bet, Sister.
Irresponsible Accusations from Drama-Seeking Children
I saw Goodman Nungesser dancing with the Devil by the well by the north path. Then they made the beast with two backs.
Then Chuck Norris raped me.
Six Baltimore Cops Indicted in Freddie Gray Death
Six police officers have been indicted in the death of Freddie Gray, Baltimore City State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby said Thursday.
The officers are scheduled to be arraigned on July 2, she said.
Alan Derschowitz has argued that this constitutes "crowd control justice" -- charges brought to appease a riotous mob, not meritorious charges.
A Ham Sandwich was quoted as saying: "You got the wrong sandwich."
Party of Science: Young People, When Polled, Estimate The Number of Gay People In Society at... 30%
I heard this "three in ten" claim one time, and I laughed at it. Even one-in-ten is too high by a factor of 3-5.
But there's our very educated Millennials for ya!
By the way, I keep hearing the Millennials are "very educated." And they don't mean that ironically.
They mean, of course, that they go to college at higher rates than previous generations, and then waste more time pursuing make-work masters in nonproductive fields.
But seriously: Are they even close to "very educated"?
I know people who employ Millennials.
See if you can guess their take on Millennials' group education level and group intelligence.
And I have to note, as usual, I know some Millennials, and they're bright. And, as I say, they will rule the world in time, for they have nothing but morons between them and the throne.
As Herman Mankiewicz wrote to his writer friend in 1925, imploring him to come to Hollywood:
"Millions are to be made out here, and your only competition is idiots."
He added a whisper:
"Don't let this get around."
Anyway, the fact that America, as a whole, is stupider than it's ever been doesn't mean there aren't very bright Americans, and the fact that the Millennials are a Generation of Imbeciles doesn't change the fact that there are smart Millennials too.
And by the way, the country as a whole -- young people, middle-aged, and old folks too -- peg the number at 25%.
We're not a smart people.
I also see that women, as a whole, also estimated the figure at 30%.
Well... what can we say about that that won't cause a Shaming Crisis?
Um.... it is true that women dabble more with light-to-moderate homosexual acts (at least when younger), and... well I guess it is now de rigeur for every upwardly mobile urban white woman to have her Gay Best Friend.
So maybe that inflates their estimate.
I guess they don't realize that one gay dude they think is their Gay Best Friend is performing Gay Best Friend duties for a network of like eight women.
That poor man.
For Further Reading and Review: Leon Wolf writes of the Emma Sulkowicz Generation.
Shock: Jeb Bush Says Two Things Which Are Vaguely Conservative
Maybe his plan to run against conservatives in a Republican primary isn't working amazeballs like he expected.
Jeb: The climate is changing, but those who claim that the debate is over are "intellectually arrogant."
Earlier Wednesday, Obama warned in a commencement speech to the U.S. Coast Guard Academy that climate change "constitutes a serious threat to global security (and) an immediate risk to our national security."
Shaking his head as the host of the house party, Richard Ashooh, quoted Obama's remarks, Bush chided the President for taking what he argued was the wrong path in addressing the problem.
[article's paragraphs re-arranged into actual chronological order -- ace]
"For the people to say the science is decided on this is really arrogant, to be honest with you," he continued. "It's this intellectual arrogance that now you can't have a conversation about it, even. The climate is changing. We need to adapt to that reality."
"The President's approach is, effectively, reduce economic activity to lower our carbon footprint," he said. "That's not what he says, of course, but that's the result of his policies."
Rather than focusing on carbon emissions, Bush said, the federal government should provide more incentives for lower carbon-producing forms of energy, like hydraulic fracking and horizontal drilling.
"I don't think it's the highest priority. I don't think we should ignore it, either," Bush said of climate change. "Just generally I think as conservatives we should embrace innovation, embrace technology, embrace science. ... Sometimes I sense that we pull back from the embrace of these things. We shouldn't."
Jeb Bush kind of bores me so I've modified this article to make it more "street."
Jeb Bush Faults Brother for Lack of Budget Discipline 'N Shit
CONCORD, N.H. -- As Jeb Bush has faced questions over Iraq and the policies of his brother throughout recent days, he got all TURNT!, son!, on one difference between them: curtailing spending.
"I think that, in Washington during my brother's time, you know, he served his nickel there, plus three more, Republicans spent too many Benjamins," Mr. Bush said Thursday when asked to describe where there was a "big space" between himself and his brotherman. "I think he could have used the veto powizzo, put a jimmie on that shit. He didn’t have line-item veto power, but he could have brought budget discipline to Washington, D.C. Instead, he got all krunk.”
He did qualify that his criticism of the government spending during his brother's tenure as president “seems kind of quizzaint right now given the fazzact that after he left, the budget and deficits and spending went up astronomizzically, knahmean?”
In the second link, there's a video of Joe Scarborough, the sad establishment clown, confessing that not a single Republican is passionate about Jeb Bush, and David Frum says Jeb just can't win.
Huckabee: Pardon My French, But the Iowa Straw Poll Is For the B*rds
Even though Huckabee has a pretty good shot at winning this meaningless thing, he's scorning it as too expensive and too much in service of ruling class interests.
He says the "Washington Ruling Class," but as Ed Morrissey notes, it really serves the Iowa Republican Establishment, which may or may not be a lame, minor league ruling class in the its own right.
I kind of like Huckabee for doing this. And for helping inject the "ruling class" idea into the national consciousness.
Things are really bad. We are being poorly served by our rulers. It is time to begin upsetting applecarts, rocking boats, and turning over moneychangers' tables.
At some point, those who fail to rebel under such conditions deserve their own enslavement.
Photoshop, Anyone? **CONTEST**
The Autopen of the United States (AOTUS) made a few pretty good presidential P-shops, a couple requested by me.
I like this meme, where Obama the unserious, fluff-pop-talkshow celebrity (a role he really relishes) is having a good guffaw while disastrous historical events are occurring during (and because of) his presidency.
It's just so, *him.*
The media lost their minds over the optics of Bush's wartime golfing. But they won't say 'boo!' about the Obamas basically having one long party in office while genocidal slavery openly and confidently marches across the globe. But I guess you can only call upon someone to show a moral core when you know that they have one, right?
Here's one, with more below the fold.
Just too easy. pic.twitter.com/cJ98cN5He9— AOTUS (@The_Autopen) May 20, 2015
This one is from the rape of the Yazidis, where a two-legged animal is selling a child at a slave market:
UPDATE: According to commenter Caiwyn, this picture has been misrepresented online as that of the child slavers but :
It turned out she was a contestant in a Koran-reciting contest and had just lost. The announcer was trying to cheer her up.
Which is a huge relief, if true. Other children are being sold, of course. But this one wasn't.
This one is along the same vein, but slightly more evil.
Hey, wanna play? Post your creations (from this meme) in the comments.
Let's make it a contest like back in the Olden Times. If you can find a bigger image or crop it so we can see it better, that would be great too.
There will be several totally awesome imaginary prizes. You won't believe all the stunning things I have no ability to actually give you! I will post winners next week. Yayyy!
UPDATE II: Thanks to garagelogician in comments; nice big original pic to work from at this link: https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8471/8077971985_867243d4b3_o.jpg
Close it up
Reform Conservatism....The Way Forward Or Warmed Over Compassionate Conservatism?
There's a huge debate going on within the conservative wonk class over the direction conservatism should take in the future. It's a debate that occasionally pops into the more mainstream discussions but is really being played out in think tanks and presidential campaign policy shops.
In the broadest strokes the "reform conservatives," who despite their protestations, represent the "compassionate conservative" view of government as an important player in people's lives. They basically think the federal government should focus on targeted policies (like larger child tax credits) as well as "empower" and fund institutions at the state and local level to help people navigate this messy thing called life.
Here's Yuval Levin, one of the recognized leaders of the "reformicon" camp writing in Reason's roundtable on the nature of "reform conservatism".
This regard for mediating institutions is reinforced by our sense of the limits of human knowledge and power. Because we think the human person is something of a mess, and because we think societies and their members flourish through mediating institutions, we are very skeptical of claims of rational control and technocratic management. Large social problems are too complicated to be amenable to centralized, wholesale, technical solutions and instead require decentralized, bottom-up, incremental ones. Societies evolve and improve and solve practical problems not by consolidated jerks of authority from above but by diffuse trial and error from below. Allowing society's institutions and members the freedom for such efforts is more likely to make society smarter than allowing technical experts to manage large systems.
When a society is allowed to become smarter through such institutions, it usually does so in a particular way: by allowing people to try different approaches to meeting the needs of their fellows, allowing the people who have those needs to choose among the options they are offered, and allowing those choices to matter so that successes are retained and failures go away. These three steps—experimentation, evaluation, and evolution—offer a kind of general recipe for addressing complex social problems while respecting human liberty and acknowledging the limits of human knowledge and power.
Representing the competing camp, generally considered Libertarian-populism or in Charles Cooke's formulation "Conservatarian", is Ben Domenich.
As the 21st Century conservatism's most industrious public intellectual and the leading voice for reform conservatism, Yuval Levin has presented a thoughtful and philosophically consistent essay underpinning the disparate ideas that have come to be regarded as the "reform conservative" agenda. He attempts a challenging feat: to offer a coherent and an inspirational case for what are effectively a series of dry public policy white papers. But when you set Levin's deep understanding of conservatism alongside the modern poll-tested policy bullet points of reform conservatism, the weakness of the reformocon agenda become readily apparent. Levin's lofty governing philosophy is at odds with the incongruent grab bag of policies that reformocons offer.
Levin's essay is infused with this tension. In the first half, we see expressions of common ground with those who believe in limited government: man is fallible and private institutions and markets are best. But in the second half, the policy approaches favor more activist government—which is run by man and inherently non-market—"to help society address the challenges it faces... and give people more reasons to play active roles in their communities." These two views cannot be reconciled, and no amount of "market-oriented" language—in reform conservatism as in Romneycare and Obamacare—can address government's inherent and fundamental flaws.
You really should read both articles and the rest in the series. This is an important debate going on and whichever candidate you wind up supporting in the primary is likely to broadly fall into one of these camps. Well, there's a third camp, the business friendly go-along get along GOP we all know and hate. But enough about Jeb.
Neither essay is terribly long (combined they are shorter than the traditional AoS movie review) but it was hard to pull a reasonable sampling of both because they cover a lot of important ground.
As you might guess, I'm in the Domench camp (save the libertarian love of nearly unfettered immigration). The faith "reformicons" place in nimble and responsive government doesn't exist in the real world. You can say the federal government will simply be a supportive player writing checks to worthy groups but the reality is always different. Government is control and control is destruction. There is no reforming it, there is no guiding it into wise and benevolent action. It's a wild beast that must be kept away from important and breakable things. You can never turn your back on it and you can never give those who claim to be able to use it in way you'll like an inch. It will quickly morph into a mile and you won't like the results. The "mediating institutions" that partner with the reform conservative style of government will find out it's a lot like partnering with the current style of government and they won't like it.
As our Andy so wonderfully put it, the ratchet only ever turns one way. Either you have faith in individuals to be the judge of their desires and the best ways to realize them or you think the government does. It's much more of a zero-sum game than proponents of government "help" on the left and right will ever admit.
Martinus Rørbye, "A Loggia at Procida" (1835)
Morning Thread (5-21-2015)
Every thread's better when it's posted from Texas. That's just #Science right there.
Overnight Open Thread (5-20-2015)
Only under the peculiarities of America's mainstream media could you have an interviewer interviewing a man who has written a book disclosing the dodgy donations to the Clinton Foundation without the interviewer disclosing that he himself is a donor to the foundation.
-- Mark Steyn
No, members of the mainstream media are presumptively hacks, and the pain and misery they endure as their organizations convulse and die should inspire laughter and joy. Sure, there are honest reporters out there, but that's only a fluke of statistics. There have to be some, if only because of the random vagaries of chance. They can get real jobs with the new media. But in general, MSM members' pain is our gain.
Remember, they hate us. Hate us. They don't merely not care about us. They don't simply misunderstand us. They hate what we think. They hate how we live. They hate what we believe. They hate us.-- Kurt Schlichter
What doesn't kill me, makes me sadder.
-- Victor Davis Hanson in Pathei Mathos
"Fancy a rump?"
-- The irresistible pick-up line of Welsh ladiesman, Mike Holpin, who's managed to father 'around 40' children, support none of them, and avoid having to have a jay-oh-bee for 13 years running. His secret weapons? Plenty of Fish, lowered standards, Costanza-ism, and an utter lack of shame.
I thought this might be a bit of hyperbole until I read the piece - and holy crap - Saletan really has managed to achieve a new density of general dumbness, logic FAIL, stolen rhetorical bases, strawmen, and deliberate, dishonest conflation within a single article.
In short his argument is that ISIS and the GOP say (and believe) in the same things. To wit:
- This is a war between Muslims and non-Muslims.
- Coexistence is impossible.
- Islam is a religion of war.
There's so much stupid thinking crammed into this one post that it could take a week of blogging to unpack it all but I'll just point out two problems with his argument to start you off with: 1) he takes it as a given that these statements could not possibly be true and 2) he can't seem to produce any actual quotes by GOP politicians or leaders making any of the above statements. And it goes downhill from there.
Meanwhile there's a new twist to the whole 'mattress girl' saga: there was fourth allegation of sexual assault - on a man - against Nungesser that was only dismissed this April.
But as in the other cases the complainant's own Facebook postings from the time severely undermined his story - to the point that investigators found his claims 'hyperbolic and illogical' and concluded that he was simply 'unreliable'. Nungesser seems to have had the misfortune of falling into a pit of vipers his freshman year, where members of the shared social circle were totally wiling to collaborate and concoct claims of sexual assault against him in order to show support for the victim of a rape that never occurred.
Now if this were a movie, Nungesser would get a law degree and then spend the next twenty years making all of his accusers' lives hell. Extra twist: He becomes a top defense attorney and has the guilty clients he gets off do all the dirty work for him. But in the real world the best he can probably hope for is to get some kind of settlement from Columbia and making sure that Google never ever forgets the accusers' names.
It's nice that they didn't feel compelled to add in any music. And I kinda like the young woman thumbing her nose at 1:38 - she's got spirit.
Will coffee give you cancer or cure it? Who knows - maybe both...or neither. But then I'm not going to stop drinking it regardless.
Well when you regularly take off your shoes in public, socks take on a whole new significance. And here you see a perfect example of Japanese focus and literalism:
And some of the wares within:
I wonder what ever happened to Kermit's sleestaky beatnik nephew anyway.
The Truth Revealed: Heels Are the Tools of French Oppression
Why can't we have beautiful, sexy tools of oppression like they do. Instead all we got are unconscious heteronormative assumptions, a few microaggressions, a sexist comet shirt, and the occasional furtive Sexual Gaze. Not exactly the stuff that makes a patriarchy proud.
The Group knows your sins but doesn't care.
Tonight's post brought to you by blogger struggles:
Notice: Posted by implicit permission of AceCorp LLC. Thanks to viewers like you we can bring this, uh, programming directly into your home. Don't cost nothin'. <burp>
Close it up
Liberals: We Just Can't Tell If David Letterman is Liberal Or Not
You could compare his extremely hostile interviews with Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh -- in one he snapped, without smiling, that what O'Reilly was saying sounded like pure "bullshit" -- with his fawning, Tell Me More interviews with Rachel Maddow and undisclosed (but obvious) liberals like Brian "Chopper Warrior" Williams and Tom Brokaw.
TV won't be the same without Dave. pic.twitter.com/9q5NHTf3b5— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) May 20, 2015
Tonight is Letterman's last show. And thank God. I'm sicking of reading media types churn out obligatory stories about how great Letterman was, without understanding why he was great.
Or... when he was great, which was approximately from 1982 to 1986 and barely ever since then.
Rush Limbaugh predicted that Letterman would fail at 11:30. He made this prediction even when Letterman was, get this, Number One at 11:30.
He said the people currently watching Letterman were not comedy fans, and did not get or like Letterman's (stale by then) transgressive, undermining comedy. He said they were watching just because the Media Elites had made such a big deal about Letterman being the Hip and Cool talk show host, and wanted to be Hip and Cool themselves.
He said Letterman would lose this audience and start losing to Leno. Again, he said this during the first few months of Letterman's show, when he was not only beating Leno, but beating him handily.
I didn't agree with Limbaugh then because I was a fan of Letterman's and wanted him to succeed.
I mean, I read The Late Shift like five times, and watched the movie ten times, and every time I watched it hoped it would have a different ending, where Dave gets the Tonight Show after all.
I thought Limbaugh was being churlish, perhaps jealous.
But you know what happened, right? Within a few months, Leno went ahead of Letterman and Letterman's ratings dropped to be well behind Leno's, and they would remain there, practically forever. (Very rarely, Letterman would win a week when he had on a big guest and Leno had on repeats.)
It was incredible, how Limbaugh had absolutely nailed that. I was really shocked, and I've always remembered Limbaugh's cynical prescience on that point.
One thing that helped the Limbaugh Prediction come to be: Letterman's disastrous Oscar hosting gig. That's when Letterman had the biggest audience of his life... and cemented the idea that he was Comedy For Other People.
Once Letterman had been humbled by that -- and no longer appeared to be the Hot New Thing -- people started watching Leno.
And he was terrible on the Oscars, even for someone who was still then a fan.
One of the types of comedy Letterman has long been far too enamored with is Time-Wasting Anti-Comedy. In the early days of his show, Letterman got a lot of laughs by doing pointless, time-wasting (and sometimes budget-wasting) stunts.
The best of these were things like Throwing Objects Off a Fifth Floor Roof, or throwing himself, in a suit of Velcro, at a Velcro wall to see if he would stick. (He did, in fact. Science!)
The worst of these was Letterman just wasting time, having pointless chats with Schaeffer (Letterman would probably claim the pointlessness *was* the point, or some stupid meta-comedy conceit like that), or, as Norm MacDonald wickedly parodied him, just repeating the same word over and over, believing that if he said "Ehhhh.... Got some gum?" enough times, it would become funny.
Letterman got away with this in his early days because the show's conceit was that the whole thing was an elaborate prank on the network, that they had no business being on TV, and that they were wasting the network's time and money by staging this deliberately stupid, pointless show.
It made you think -- if you were young, and fan -- like you were in on the joke, and that you were right there alongside Dave wasting precious Network Minutes and Dollars for this lame thing.
Here's what the Oscars did, though, at least for me: Letterman's time-wasting nonsense -- his "Oprah... Uma" introductions (between Winfrey and Thurman) that went on for two minutes and then was repeated later in the show -- finally made me see the light:
Letterman wasn't just wasting The Network's time with this sort of so-unfunny-it's-funny (but actually not) non-material.
He was wasting my time, too.
All long I thought I'd been in on the joke.
Suddenly, I realized: No, I was not in on the joke. I was in on one joke, the superficial one about vengeance against the network, but definitely not in on the deeper joke, the real joke.
The real joke is that while Letterman's show was gleefully slapdash, I was still a prisoner of it five nights a week, and voluntarily so.
The real truth was -- and perhaps Letterman intended us to understand this; and perhaps he should be praised for trying to make us understand this -- was that if you were watching TV, you were wasting your time.
Now I don't want to say that Letterman was never funny. He was -- at least I thought so. He was hugely funny.
But the thing is, all this media praise being directed at Letterman...? All the bits people are talking about -- the Top Ten, Stupid Human Tricks, Throwing Objects Off a Five Story Building, the Velcro Suit, the monstrously funny bits with Chris Elliot --
All of these were from the show's first five or six years of existence.
He's been coasting on his past glories ever since. Shit, the Top Ten hasn't been funny in twenty years. I do not know why they bother doing it still, except that it's a habit and it wastes three minutes of network time.
I can think of one funny gag Letterman has done "lately," and by "lately," I mean like sixteen years ago. That's when he had some odd-looking guy go around saying rude things to people; Letterman would tell him the rude thing to say through his earpiece, and the guy would say the rude thing.
That bit was funny. It was also reminiscent of the Jerky Boys and the Man Show Boy.
And like I say, that was sixteen years ago.
So what has he done, really, for twenty four years?
I'm not just not a fan of Letterman anymore; I actively dislike him. He used to seem amusingly cranky, but over the years, I saw this more as being truly sour, bitter, self-pitying, smug, and contemptuous.
I can't tell you how much it put me off when he was still bitter about not getting the NBC gig, still doing not-funny "jokes" (which were not jokes, but real barbs) about it on his CBS show, two years after it all happened.
Dude, you're getting paid $15 million a year. Get over it, or at least do what the rest of us do with Our Shit, which is hide it so that people don't have to see us airing Our Shit all the time.
And then, of course, the cheating, the intern, the out of wedlock child, the weird marriage (which he all but openly confessed on camera he wasn't that into, as if I, or anyone else, needed to know that), and more and more overt (and contemptuous) expressions of his bitter-hearted leftism.
As Letterman grew older, he decided that there was more to him than just the wiseacre who could crack snide about Hormel hams.
There had to be, right?
And especially after the heart surgery, he felt both freed and yet obligated to share The Real Dave with the world.
Well, I never really wanted to know The Real Dave. Even back when I was a raving fanboy, I was savvy enough to guess that The Real Dave was as prickly a dick as he pretended to be on TV.
And he was. And now I got to hear about his politics, and his open contempt for anyone who thought like me, twice a month.
Although, increasingly, then entirely, I only heard about this contempt second-hand, from sources like Newsbusters, because I had stopped watching him.
Letterman was seriously funny for five or six years. No one who is funny can deny he was funny.
But after that initial burst of creativity -- a burst which owed a great deal to off-kilter comedic minds like that of his onetime girlfriend Merrill Markoe, or the gifted, bizarre homonculous Chris Elliott -- he stopped trying to be fresh and new and just started putting in the hours for a paycheck.
The man has been phoning it in for at least twenty years.
Yeah, he got off to a great start. But then he did nothing for twenty years.
Tonight, Dave Letterman retires.
But he quit a long time ago.
Atrocious: FoxNews Will Limit Debate Participation to Ten, Based On... The Polls
What the hell good are the polls right now? People don't know enough to make informed judgments yet. That is the point of a debate -- and that's the point of a first debate, surely.
We are in the very beginnings of this process, and FoxNews is using polls of uninformed people (and I don't mean that negatively; most of us are uniformed at this point) to decide who is allowed to run for President.
And yes, this poll -- based on nothing but name recognition -- will in fact knock five or six people out of the contest entirely. Once you're excluded from a debate, you are labeled "fringe" forever -- and good luck trying to get free media, volunteers, and donors once you've been labeled fringe.
It is not the point of a news organization to make the news -- as FoxNews would be doing here. Based on their silly, meaningless polls, they would declare ten candidates as viable, and five or six non-viable.
Among those who'd be excluded at the moment: Bobby Jindal, long considered the future of the party, and generally acknowledged to be among the most policy-savvy in the entire party.
Rick Perry, former governor of the state that's responsible for half the new jobs in America since Obama's inauguration. I know Perry shit the bed last time, but he says that was due to just getting off back surgery and being on pain pills, and I'd like to know if that's true or not. Because if he's sharper now -- he's a real good candidate.
Carly Fiorina, former HP executive with a great biography and, she says, a thirst for Hillary Clinton's corrupt, murky blood. Well, she doesn't put it that way, but she says she can take her on.
These are serious candidates. Fox is proposing to exclude them, why?
Just to have a "normal" debate where all the candidates are on the stage at once?
For one thing, this isn't a normal year. We have a lot of serious candidates. So do we stick with the usual, or do we adjust our practices to take into consideration the unusualness of this season?
I think the latter. My proposal is that they split debate night into two panels, over two nights. (Or two panels on one night-- but that would be a long night, with around three hours total debate time plus time in between.)
The top six in the polls would do a random draw to be split between the panels, three and three. Everyone else would do another random draw to determine which panel they'd be in.
You'd end up having about 6-8 people per panel, which is a workable number.
Note that the Fox "solution" solves little -- having ten people on the stage, answering the same questions, will be a huge clusterf*ck! It's barely an improvement over having fifteen -- do the math. Assuming about an hour, all told, answering questions (once the questions themselves, commercials, and basic traffic direction are excluded), ten people would have about six minute each to answer questions.
Fifteen people would have four minutes each.
So we're fighting to get "four minutes of actual answers per candidate" up to six minutes?
This is an exceptional year in Republican politics, and conservative thinking, because virtually everything is up for grabs.
In the last post, I talked about the Patriot Act. The party is split between some who want the full Patriot Act back, some who want the USA Freedom Act, and some who want the entire program scrapped as an unconstitutional invasion of privacy.
There has not been an open debate between wildly divergent points of view like that in... forever?
At least since Reagan.
And it's not just that -- some ex-Republicans, like myself, actively want to increase taxes on the wealthy and corporations. (Well, I don't want cuts for them, at least.) My reasoning? I'm tired of the Ruling Class fucking over the rest of the party except when it comes to one thing, their taxation levels. I'm interested in some punishment, some discipline, and a message going forward.
I don't get yelled at a lot when I propose this, either.
This is an extremely fluid time in American politics, at least on the wide-open right, and it is precisely at this time that we do not need an Establishment, Corporatist entity like Fox artificially gaming the field just so that the future of our nation can fit into the Time Slot allotted to it.
“We support and respect the decision Fox has made, which will match the greatest number of candidates we have ever had on a debate stage,” RNC chairman Reince Priebus said in a statement.
Of course you do, Reince. Because the important thing is to keep the party nice and corporate and orderly, right?
The Republican Party needs to have a debate. We should have that debate, instead of falling into our customary pattern of letting the Establishment, Corporatist Ruling Class decided the parameters of our debate for us, so we can choose between Option A and Pretty Much Just Like Option A Option B.
Fox News should have a debate with all the candidates. All of them. And if that means tweaking the all-important convention, then so be it.
Chelsea Clinton Will "Publish" Her First Book
The first of many, I assume. She obviously has so much to say, and such a zest and charisma in saying it.
I note the New York Times says she will "publish" her first book. I guess they're leaving it an open question as to whether she will be writing this gem.
It's a children's book. Chelsea Clinton's whole schtick, until she began flacking for her mother (who is atrocious and vile), was to do vague, nondenominational uplift. She did that type of shit on NBC, celebrating "real heroes" or something in America, or whatever, who knows. Who watched?
Anyway they fired her for that, because no one wants to pay a Yawning Black Hole of Unwatchable Anti-Charisma $600,000 a year to do stories about a Lost Dog That Found Its Way Home.
Her "book," if I can call it that, will be more of that.
Her book, "It's Your World: Get Informed, Get Inspired and Get Going," is aimed at readers ages 10 to 14, said Penguin Random, which plans to publish it in September.
In a press release, Ms. Clinton said she intended to use the book to "try to explain what I think are some of the biggest challenges facing our world today, particularly for young people" and to "explore some of the solutions to those challenges."
All this is is politico-corporate empty buzzwording. "Challenges." "Explore." "Solutions."
Action Items! Blue-sky imagining! Power-verbing! Toolbox-Nouning!
This is progressive grant-proposal-writing, but directed towards the publishing industry.
If this suggests to you What Color is Your Parachute?, it suggested that to the book's mock-up cover artist, too.
Chelsea Clinton children's book to discuss poverty, gender equality, epidemics, climate change, endangered species. pic.twitter.com/baljenog3p— Jennifer Maloney (@maloneyfiles) May 20, 2015
Wow! Look at all that color! So diverse!
Why, it's almost as diverse as the Foundation for Clintons staff.
Rand Paul Currently Filibustering the Reauthorization of the Patriot Act
CSPAN has live video.
There are three alternatives before Congress.
1, reauthorize the Patriot Act, including Section 215, which has been claimed to authorize Obama's mass records collection, subpoenaing every 90 days the metadata/call logs of every single citizen in America.
Note that the principle author of the Patriot Act, James Sensenbrenner, says that he never imagined Section 215 could possibly have this meaning. And a federal court has ruled this executive "interpretation" as an unconstitutional aggrandizement of executive power.
Also note that the plan is to explicitly authorize the mass collection of data in this new version of the law. Thus, the court's finding that it was unconstitutional, as an impermissible "interpretation" of the law, would be moot. The law would now specifically authorize the president to collect All the Records.
2, dump the Patriot Act and pass instead the USA FREEDOM Act. "USA Freedom" is a long, stupid backronym (making up an "acronym" from words you pick just to get the "acronym," like SHIELD, in the movies) that says something about ending mass records collection.
USA Freedom would direct the phone companies -- which have your information anyway, as they must -- to store the data formerly (?) collected under Section 215 for a long period. The US could then subpoena needed records from the phone companies, not in a mass collection, it is averred, but rather seeking only those records responsive to specific search terms.
3. Let the Patriot Act lapse, and do not pass USA Freedom as a substitute -- essentially, stop the NSA from collecting phone records, and also permit the phone companies to continue destroying them after a fairly short period of time.
I know some harder-core civil libertarians who support number 3. I don't.
I remember 9/11. And I remember that on 9/11, we all remembered the Church Committee. The Church Committee was a congressional inquiry in the 1970s to expose CIA wrongdoing in the previous two or three decades and prevent any of it from happening again.
What it was was a great overreaction -- America does not seem to react, only overreact -- which is widely believed to have damaged our intelligence-gathering and hence made us more vulnerable to 9/11 itself.
Now, that's a convenient narrative, which I'm sure is favored by the spooks who let us down before 9/11. The CIA never blames itself for losing an intelligence war; the fault is always that of Congress or the American people, for not giving it X surveillance power and Y means of targeting American residents.
But I do think it is substantially true. And I hear a lot of conservatives, deeply (and justifiably) suspicious of Obama and the Enemy State he rules over, wishing to limit the government's power to harass its citizens.
A government fully empowered to harass terrorists can also use that same power to harass its dissident citizens -- the ultimate terrorists, in the eyes of the power structure.
On the other hand:
A government crippled from ever even having the means of harassing its citizens can also never harass terrorists.
I just see a replay of the 1970s here. The post-9/11 overreaction will be "corrected" with an equally great overreaction in the other direction -- and then, after a major terrorist mass-casualty attack, we'll all go through the same process of overreacting the other way again.
I think it's important that this data be available, somewhere, in the case of a Ticking Time Bomb scenario. Which I think is a completely plausible scenario, and not some kind of wild fiction, as the many unimaginative dullards on the left believe it is.
(Always remember: If it hasn't happened before, it can't happen in the future! Muslim terrorists will never have the atomic bomb, even though the technology is more readily available every day that passes, because they haven't had it in the past!
That's #Science for the #StupidlyUnimaginative!)
Two years ago, when all of this broke, I proposed on the podcast that we pass a law requiring the telecom companies to preserve this data for long periods of time so that it would be available should the need arise.
That struck me as a decent enough proposal then, and it still strikes me as a decent proposal.
I'm told by those in the know that there are "still problems with USA Freedom." Whether they mean it permits the government to do too much, or permits it too little, I don't know.
But those who know also tell me it can be fixed by amendments and it will undergo further changes when (if) the House and Senate reconcile their own versions in conference.
I can't support Section 215 -- an illegal power grab by a paranoid and unbound executive -- but neither can I pretend, as some seem to, that the terrorist threat is over, and maybe never existed, and maybe was just something Dick Cheney made up.
It wasn't. It isn't.
So I support Paul's filibuster of the Patriot Act. Of course, establishment types like Mitch McConnell support renewing the Patriot Act, and adding in explicit authority to do that which Obama has previously simply assumed, because of course Republicans want the government to be as big and powerful as their Democrat counterparts do.
And I support the flawed USA FREEDOM bill, as atrocious as that stupid JV PR branding effort is, as a reasonable compromise.
Update: Mike Lee is now talking about the Church Committee (as part of Paul's filibuster).
Yes, this is because I'm psychic.
#Science: Co-Author of Sociological Study on Attitudes Towards Homosexuality Retracts His Part of the Paper, After "Irregularities" In His Co-Author's Data Collection Are Exposed
I can't swear to it, but this is sounding like a Michael "Arms in America" Belleiles situation, with #Science taking a backseat to political agitation.
This Washington Post story (which I got from Hot Air, of course) makes this all sound much less interesting than I think it actually is.
First, let's talk about the political agenda of the survey, which seems to be designed to push the idea that people's ideas about homosexuality can be fairly easily changed if a gay advocate just talks with them about it.
The study purported to show the ease with which peoples' minds can be changed on the subject of same-sex marriage after short conversations, particularly with gay advocates. It was described as being based on survey research conducted in California after voters passed Proposition 8, the referendum that banned same-sex marriage in the state and that has since been struck down by the courts.
The study attracted widespread attention in part because it seemed to fly in the face of conventional wisdom and scholarship about how people cling to their own points of view, sometimes regardless of what they read or hear to the contrary.
"One conversation can change minds on same-sex marriage, study finds," was the headline in The Washington Post reporting the conclusions in December.
"Gay political canvassers can soften the opinions of voters opposed to same-sex marriage by having a brief face-to-face discussion about the issue, researchers reported Thursday," a New York Times report said. "The findings could have implications for activists and issues across the political spectrum, experts said."
The paper got linked and discussed all over the place.
Now, one of the co-authors, Donald P. Green, is retracing the paper, and essentially accuses his co-author of... well, the Washington Post soft-plays it as "irregularities."
Green said two University of California-Berkeley graduate students who had attempted their own research "brought to my attention a series of irregularities that called into question the integrity of the data we present."
The other author, Michael J. LaCour, says, in a Hillary-like way, that he looks forward to addressing these concerns.
If you turn to the paper which discovered these "irregularities," you'll soon see the authors there aren't accusing LaCour of mere "irregularities."
The way I read this, is that they're accusing him of outright fabrication.
Here are some excerpts:
We report a number of irregularities in the replication dataset posted for LaCour and Green (Science, “When contact changes minds: An experiment on transmission of support for gay equality,” 2014) that jointly suggest the dataset (LaCour 2014) was not collected as described. These irregularities include baseline outcome
data that is statistically indistinguishable from a national survey and over-time changes that are unusually small and indistinguishable from perfectly normally distributed noise. Other elements of the dataset are inconsistent with patterns typical in randomized experiments and survey responses and/or inconsistent with
the claimed design of the study.
A straightforward procedure may generate these anomalies nearly exactly: for both studies reported in the paper, a random sample of the 2012 Cooperative Campaign Analysis Project (CCAP) form the baseline data and normally distributed noise are added to simulate follow-up waves.
I don't know exactly what they mean there, but I think -- think -- they're saying that they suspect the author took an already-available dataset and artificially added some "noise" to make it seem like a new or different study.*
Here's why I think that:
Timeline of Disclosure
• January - April, 2015. Broockman and Kalla were impressed by LaCour and Green (2014) and wanted to extend the article's methodological and substantive discoveries. We began to plan an extension. We sought to form our priors about several design parameters based on the patterns in the original data on which the paper was based, LaCour (2014).
As we examined the study's data in planning our own studies, two features surprised us: voters' survey responses exhibit much higher test-retest reliabilities than we have observed in any other panel survey data, and the response and reinterview rates of the panel survey were significantly higher than we expected.
We set aside our doubts about the study and awaited the launch of our pilot extension to see if we could manage the same parameters. LaCour and Green were both responsive to requests for advice about design details when queried.
• May 6, 2015. Broockman and Kalla launch a pilot of the extension study.
• May 15, 2015. Our initial questions about the dataset arose as follows. The response rate of the pilot study was notably lower than what LaCour and Green (2014) reported. Hoping we could harness the same procedures that produced the original study's high reported response rate, we attempt to contact the survey firm we believed had performed the original study and ask to speak to the staffer at the firm who we believed helped perform Study 1 in LaCour and Green (2014). The survey firm claimed they had no familiarity with the project and that they had never had an employee with the name of the staffer we were asking for. [!!! -- ace] The firm also denied having the capabilities to perform many aspects of the recruitment procedures described in LaCour and Green (2014).
Details omitted. Skipping ahed.
. • May 18-9, 2015. Green conveys to Aronow and Broockman that LaCour has been confronted and has confessed to falsely describing at least some of the details of the data collection. The authors of this report are not familiar with the details of these events.
So there's your #Science for you.
Whenever Science gets into bed with Politics, Science winds up taking it up the ass and then being kicked out the door at 3 am like a dirty smelly whore.
* I think that the original "researcher," LaCour, claimed to have conducted a survey about attitudes about homosexuality in the Los Angeles area, then used that as his baseline for his subsequent see-if-talking-to-people-changes-their-mind test.
However, what the authors of the paper pointing out these "irregularities" are saying, I think, is that LaCour actually conducted no Los Angeles area study to establish a baseline, but instead just took some already-existing national data and claimed it to be his Los Angeles study.
Evidence Suggests That MORE -- an ACORN Successor Group -- Paid "Protesters" to "Protest" in Ferguson
Apparently MORE is angering "protesters" by not paying them as they say they were promised.
On May 14, protesters, upset with not being paid their promised checks for protesting, protested outside MORE, Missourians Organizing For Reform and Empowerment, an ACORN organization which had received funding through George Soros to fund the protests.
Meanwhile, an anonymous protester is pushing back against Emma Sulkowicz's "neurotic attention-seeking" -- carrying her (dubious) "rape mattress" to her graduation ceremony (and to the stage) -- by posting posters of her with the legend "Pretty Little Liar."
Edgar Alwin Payne, "The Rendezvous" (1915)
McConnell: The House NSA Bill Could Make Us Go Dark
The Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
That seems pretty straightforward. It means that the Constitution protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. What gave rise to the Fourth Amendment in colonial times was Britain issuing writs of assistance. This was a form of a general or blanket search warrant, giving officials the right to search anywhere and anytime for smuggler's goods. And the writs were in effect open-ended, because who was going to ensure they were used only for smuggler's goods? They led to tremendous abuse, of course, because people are rotten.
The geniuses who framed the Constitution put a stop to all that and restrained governmental overreach as set out above in the Fourth Amendment. Authorities could still search, but they needed probable cause and a search warrant.
The House NSA bill seeks to end warrantless data collection. But according to Senator McConnell, the House NSA bill could make us go dark. Isn't that a little silly? We were not "dark" before the digital age, and those who would like to see bulk data collection eliminated are not talking about eliminating lawful searches or shutting down the NSA. We only recently gained the power to keep tabs on just about everyone. The digital age made that exceedingly easy. It is this new power law enforcement and statists like McConnell want to keep. But they're not interested in abiding by the Constitution and obtaining search warrants; they want to keep the power to search anyone's "papers and effects" as if the Fourth Amendment doesn't exist.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says House-passed legislation effectively could cause the country to "go dark" when it comes to collecting Americans' phone records.
(Emphasis added.) It's a little shocking he would say that with such ease. "Collecting American's phone records." He assumes people are fine having their private data collected. McConnell and his supporters also seem unaware section 215 of the Patriot Act does not and never did authorize bulk data collection. Or they don't care. They seem happy with errant FISA star chamber rulings that have driven section 215 past its original intent, allowing the mass data collection. They appear not to care the bulk data collected is routinely shared with other agencies for purely domestic purposes.
I get it; some of these senators know better than the Founding Fathers and are happy with warrantless bulk data collection, but the Constitution does not allow that. We have the right to be secure in our papers and effects, and this de facto NSA writ of assistance is precisely why the Fourth Amendment was created.
McConnell also says, "But we're talking about the security of the country here. This is no small matter." I would suggest the security of the country rests more upon a strong Fourth Amendment than it does concerns about terrorism* (keeping in mind Patriot Act "terrorism" apparently includes warrantless searches of Americans on purely domestic matters). As we've seen time and again, government and law enforcement are filled with people who are merely human. They do not shed their human foibles when they swear the oath. There are too many rotten apples in government for us to water down the protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment. The Founding Fathers were aware of that. And even if these people are wonderful professionals today, that does not mean the NSA and the agencies it works with will be wonderful and professional ten years from now.
Ostensibly, the Patriot Act was created to expand government’s counterintelligence capabilities because of terrorism. Terrorism, the threat from abroad. Remember? Terrorism is what sold it. The reality is the scare of terrorism was used to create a law that enabled all investigative agencies to use information gleaned without a search warrant for domestic purposes as well. Yes, they look for terrorists, but their track record of using bulk data collection to stop terrorists hasn't been that great.
*In a free country we accept a certain degree of risk. Yes, terrorism will strike again in the United States. We cannot protect against all of it, and we must do what we reasonably can to stop it, but we cannot change our way of life and erode Constitutional protections in the process. We must learn to keep the threat of terrorism in perspective. About a thousand people die every week in car wrecks, for example. We live with that risk, because the number is low when compared to the population, the risk to any one of us is low, and we need cars. We must learn to keep the threat of terrorism in similar perspective. The threat is exceedingly low--too low to fiddle with the Constitution and change our way of life.
Remember: Patrick Henry didn't say "Give me security..."; he said, "Give me liberty or give me death!" Security is an excellent goal, but we cannot overdo it. We cannot let an unreasonable fear of terrorism reduce our freedom and enhance the scope and power of government.
Update: According to the Washington Examiner, McConnell may be changing his mind because of the looming deadline. Key parts of the law, including section 215 expire on June 1.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., announced Tuesday he will allow a vote on the USA Freedom Act, despite his opposition to the legislation.
Close it up
Wednesday Morning News Dump
- Jeb Has Bigger Problems Than His Iraq War Stumble
- Sowell: "Just Asking"
- Want To Make Hillary Start Answering Questions? Ignore Her Campaign
- Government As Faction
- Iowa Democrats Can't Name A Single Hillary Accomplishment
- Stephanopoulos Helped Hatch Dem Strategy Dating Back To 2009
- Some Victories Against Common Core
- LGBT Activists Arm For Further War On Free Speech
- Still Peddling The Climate Change Stuff
- Just A Reminder, A Lot Of Shows Popular With The Media Aren't Popular With Most People
- I For One Welcome Out New Bear Alien Overlords
Overnight Open Thread (5-19-2015) – Under-Handicapped and Dangerous Edition
Well since Ace is going to slack off on a Tuesday, I figure I could do the same. So here's a short story to entertain you.
The year was 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren't only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.
Some things about living still weren't quite right, though. April for instance, still drove people crazy by not being springtime. And it was in that clammy month that the H-G men took George and Hazel Bergeron's fourteen-year-old son, Harrison, away.
It was tragic, all right, but George and Hazel couldn't think about it very hard. Hazel had a perfectly average intelligence, which meant she couldn't think about anything except in short bursts. And George, while his intelligence was way above normal, had a little mental handicap radio in his ear. He was required by law to wear it at all times. It was tuned to a government transmitter. Every twenty seconds or so, the transmitter would send out some sharp noise to keep people like George from taking unfair advantage of their brains.
George and Hazel were watching television. There were tears on Hazel's cheeks, but she'd forgotten for the moment what they were about.
On the television screen were ballerinas.
A buzzer sounded in George's head. His thoughts fled in panic, like bandits from a burglar alarm.
"That was a real pretty dance, that dance they just did," said Hazel.
"Huh" said George.
"That dance-it was nice," said Hazel.
"Yup," said George. He tried to think a little about the ballerinas. They weren't really very good-no better than anybody else would have been, anyway. They were burdened with sashweights and bags of birdshot, and their faces were masked, so that no one, seeing a free and graceful gesture or a pretty face, would feel like something the cat drug in. George was toying with the vague notion that maybe dancers shouldn't be handicapped. But he didn't get very far with it before another noise in his ear radio scattered his thoughts.
George winced. So did two out of the eight ballerinas.
Hazel saw him wince. Having no mental handicap herself, she had to ask George what the latest sound had been.
"Sounded like somebody hitting a milk bottle with a ball peen hammer," said George.
"I'd think it would be real interesting, hearing all the different sounds," said Hazel a little envious. "All the things they think up."
"Um," said George.
"Only, if I was Handicapper General, you know what I would do?" said Hazel. Hazel, as a matter of fact, bore a strong resemblance to the Handicapper General, a woman named Diana Moon Glampers. "If I was Diana Moon Glampers," said Hazel, "I'd have chimes on Sunday-just chimes. Kind of in honor of religion."
"I could think, if it was just chimes," said George.
"Well-maybe make 'em real loud," said Hazel. "I think I'd make a good Handicapper General."
"Good as anybody else," said George.
"Who knows better than I do what normal is?" said Hazel.
"Right," said George. He began to think glimmeringly about his abnormal son who was now in jail, about Harrison, but a twenty-one-gun salute in his head stopped that.
"Boy!" said Hazel, "that was a doozy, wasn't it?"
It was such a doozy that George was white and trembling, and tears stood on the rims of his red eyes. Two of of the eight ballerinas had collapsed to the studio floor, were holding their temples.
"All of a sudden you look so tired," said Hazel. "Why don't you stretch out on the sofa, so's you can rest your handicap bag on the pillows, honeybunch." She was referring to the forty-seven pounds of birdshot in a canvas bag, which was padlocked around George's neck. "Go on and rest the bag for a little while," she said. "I don't care if you're not equal to me for a while."
George weighed the bag with his hands. "I don't mind it," he said. "I don't notice it any more. It's just a part of me."
"You been so tired lately-kind of wore out," said Hazel. "If there was just some way we could make a little hole in the bottom of the bag, and just take out a few of them lead balls. Just a few."
"Two years in prison and two thousand dollars fine for every ball I took out," said George. "I don't call that a bargain."
"If you could just take a few out when you came home from work," said Hazel. "I mean-you don't compete with anybody around here. You just sit around."
"If I tried to get away with it," said George, "then other people'd get away with it-and pretty soon we'd be right back to the dark ages again, with everybody competing against everybody else. You wouldn't like that, would you?"
"I'd hate it," said Hazel.
"There you are," said George. The minute people start cheating on laws, what do you think happens to society?"
If Hazel hadn't been able to come up with an answer to this question, George couldn't have supplied one. A siren was going off in his head.
"Reckon it'd fall all apart," said Hazel.
"What would?" said George blankly.
"Society," said Hazel uncertainly. "Wasn't that what you just said?
"Who knows?" said George.
The television program was suddenly interrupted for a news bulletin. It wasn't clear at first as to what the bulletin was about, since the announcer, like all announcers, had a serious speech impediment. For about half a minute, and in a state of high excitement, the announcer tried to say, "Ladies and Gentlemen."
He finally gave up, handed the bulletin to a ballerina to read.
"That's all right-" Hazel said of the announcer, "he tried. That's the big thing. He tried to do the best he could with what God gave him. He should get a nice raise for trying so hard."
"Ladies and Gentlemen," said the ballerina, reading the bulletin. She must have been extraordinarily beautiful, because the mask she wore was hideous. And it was easy to see that she was the strongest and most graceful of all the dancers, for her handicap bags were as big as those worn by two-hundred pound men.
And she had to apologize at once for her voice, which was a very unfair voice for a woman to use. Her voice was a warm, luminous, timeless melody. "Excuse me-" she said, and she began again, making her voice absolutely uncompetitive."Harrison Bergeron, age fourteen," she said in a grackle squawk, "has just escaped from jail, where he was held on suspicion of plotting to overthrow the government. He is a genius and an athlete, is under-handicapped, and should be regarded as extremely dangerous."
A police photograph of Harrison Bergeron was flashed on the screen-upside down, then sideways, upside down again, then right side up. The picture showed the full length of Harrison against a background calibrated in feet and inches. He was exactly seven feet tall.
The rest of Harrison's appearance was Halloween and hardware. Nobody had ever born heavier handicaps. He had outgrown hindrances faster than the H-G men could think them up. Instead of a little ear radio for a mental handicap, he wore a tremendous pair of earphones, and spectacles with thick wavy lenses. The spectacles were intended to make him not only half blind, but to give him whanging headaches besides.
Scrap metal was hung all over him. Ordinarily, there was a certain symmetry, a military neatness to the handicaps issued to strong people, but Harrison looked like a walking junkyard. In the of life, Harrison carried three hundred pounds.
And to offset his good looks, the H-G men required that he wear at all times a red rubber ball for a nose, keep his eyebrows shaved off, and cover his even white teeth with black caps at snaggle-tooth random.
"If you see this boy," said the ballerina, "do not - I repeat, do not - try to reason with him."
There was the shriek of a door being torn from its hinges.
Screams and barking cries of consternation came from the television set. The photograph of Harrison Bergeron on the screen jumped again and again, as though dancing to the tune of an earthquake.
George Bergeron correctly identified the earthquake, and well he might have - for many was the time his own home had danced to the same crashing tune. "My God-" said George, "that must be Harrison!"
The realization was blasted from his mind instantly by the sound of an automobile collision in his head.
When George could open his eyes again, the photograph of Harrison was gone. A living, breathing Harrison filled the screen.
Clanking, clownish, and huge, Harrison stood - in the center of the studio. The knob of the uprooted studio door was still in his hand. Ballerinas, technicians, musicians, and announcers cowered on their knees before him, expecting to die.
"I am the Emperor!" cried Harrison. "Do you hear? I am the Emperor! Everybody must do what I say at once!" He stamped his foot and the studio shook.
"Even as I stand here" he bellowed, "crippled, hobbled, sickened - I am a greater ruler than any man who ever lived! Now watch me become what I can become!"
Harrison tore the straps of his handicap harness like wet tissue paper, tore straps guaranteed to support five thousand pounds.
Harrison's scrap-iron handicaps crashed to the floor.
Harrison thrust his thumbs under the bar of the padlock that secured his head harness. The bar snapped like celery. Harrison smashed his headphones and spectacles against the wall.
He flung away his rubber-ball nose, revealed a man that would have awed Thor, the god of thunder.
"I shall now select my Empress!" he said, looking down on the cowering people. "Let the first woman who dares rise to her feet claim her mate and her throne!"
A moment passed, and then a ballerina arose, swaying like a willow.
Harrison plucked the mental handicap from her ear, snapped off her physical handicaps with marvelous delicacy. Last of all he removed her mask.
She was blindingly beautiful.
"Now-" said Harrison, taking her hand, "shall we show the people the meaning of the word dance? Music!" he commanded.
The musicians scrambled back into their chairs, and Harrison stripped them of their handicaps, too. "Play your best," he told them, "and I'll make you barons and dukes and earls."
The music began. It was normal at first-cheap, silly, false. But Harrison snatched two musicians from their chairs, waved them like batons as he sang the music as he wanted it played. He slammed them back into their chairs.
The music began again and was much improved.
Harrison and his Empress merely listened to the music for a while-listened gravely, as though synchronizing their heartbeats with it.
They shifted their weights to their toes.
Harrison placed his big hands on the girls tiny waist, letting her sense the weightlessness that would soon be hers.
And then, in an explosion of joy and grace, into the air they sprang!
Not only were the laws of the land abandoned, but the law of gravity and the laws of motion as well.
They reeled, whirled, swiveled, flounced, capered, gamboled, and spun.
They leaped like deer on the moon.
The studio ceiling was thirty feet high, but each leap brought the dancers nearer to it.
It became their obvious intention to kiss the ceiling. They kissed it.
And then, neutraling gravity with love and pure will, they remained suspended in air inches below the ceiling, and they kissed each other for a long, long time.
It was then that Diana Moon Glampers, the Handicapper General, came into the studio with a double-barreled ten-gauge shotgun. She fired twice, and the Emperor and the Empress were dead before they hit the floor.
Diana Moon Glampers loaded the gun again. She aimed it at the musicians and told them they had ten seconds to get their handicaps back on.
It was then that the Bergerons' television tube burned out.
Hazel turned to comment about the blackout to George. But George had gone out into the kitchen for a can of beer.
George came back in with the beer, paused while a handicap signal shook him up. And then he sat down again. "You been crying" he said to Hazel.
"Yup," she said.
"What about?" he said.
"I forget," she said. "Something real sad on television."
"What was it?" he said.
"It's all kind of mixed up in my mind," said Hazel.
"Forget sad things," said George.
"I always do," said Hazel.
"That's my girl," said George. He winced. There was the sound of a rivetting gun in his head.
"Gee - I could tell that one was a doozy," said Hazel.
"You can say that again," said George."Gee-" said Hazel, "I could tell that one was a doozy."
In short: relegation.
Last Tuesday evening, northbound Amtrak Northeast Regional train No. 188 derailed on a curve in Philadelphia, killing eight passengers. The train was traveling in excess of 100 mph, while the curve had a passenger-train speed limit of 50 mph. In response, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is issuing formal emergency orders that will require Amtrak to make sure automatic train control systems work Northbound through Philadelphia at and near the site of the derailment. The FRA is also requiring that Amtrak assess the risk of all curves along the NEC and increase the amount and frequency of speed limit signs along the railroad. FRA's emergency order is newsworthy because Amtrak's existing signal system could have been configured to prevent a train from exceeding speed limits, according to the Wall Street Journal.
No word on how evil Republican non-spending increase-cuts somehow managed to prevent them from enabling the safety system in both direction.
Lawyers for a 19-year-old accused of sexually assaulting several girls at his former school have claimed the alleged victims lied about the accusations and decided to "teach him a lesson" after being inspired by a Hollywood movie.
Tyler Kost appeared in court on Monday after being arrested last year when he was accused of a series of sexual crimes against 13 girls aged between 13 and 17. The Associated Press said that most of the girls were former classmates at his school in Arizona.But lawyers filed documents with the court that included a group Facebook chat where three of the accusers and three witnesses made plans to target Mr Kost and referred to the movie John Tucker Must Die, in which ex-girlfriends take revenge on a former boyfriend. The exchange happened weeks before the women accused Mr Kost of sexual assault.
Well it's possible that he is in fact guilty of the charges but then there also seems to be actual evidence that three of the girls conspired to accuse him of sexual crimes. Evidence that the prosecution seems very uninterested in. Meanwhile Kost is still in jail after a year.
And by without evidence he means nothing as in zippo, nada, and bupkis. After her initial accusations were not backed up by teachers the girl stopped cooperating with police and prosecutors were not able to find any evidence that the man had ever communicated with her online.
Yet the prosecutors office under Democrat Mike Feuer chose to charge Scott Hounsell anyway, dragged their feet for over a year before finally dropping the charges due to lack of evidence, and essentially ruined his professional life. The fact that Hounsell was executive director of the Republican Party of Los Angeles County at the time was probably just a coincidence.
One particular activist, nicknamed "Food Babe," has taken away some of America's best foods. Because of her, the composition of Subway's bread is altered, and now the Kraft blue-box Mac and Cheese recipe is, as well.
What is perhaps the most infuriating aspect of the Food Babe's activism is the fact that her crusades, which she claims are for our collective good, have no basis in science. She has written nonsensical polemics against microwaves (just for them to disappear down the memory hole). To say she is the Dr. Oz of the food world is being generous-he at least has a degree in medicine. But just as Oz has come under fire for being a snake-oil salesman in a lab coat, so too has the Food Babe, aka Vani Hari...."Hari's superhero origin story is that she came down with appendicitis and didn't accept the explanation that appendicitis just happens sometimes. So she quit her job as a consultant, attended Google University and transformed herself into an uncredentialed expert in everything she admittedly can't pronounce."
But she still knows what's best for you.
Why yes, yes you can.
Obama's EEOC has ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964-which prohibits discrimination "based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin"-was violated by the Army when it refused to allow a transgender, male-to-female, civilian employee to use the women's restroom.
The individual met with Army supervisors and discussed her transition from male-to-female, agreeing to a written plan that would allow him/her to use a single-user restroom rather than the general women's restroom, at least until the individual had his external male genitalia removed. When he/she found the single-user restroom closed for repairs, he/she decided to use the women's restroom, triggering understandable discomfort by other women in the office. He/she then filed a civil rights claim with the EEOC, claiming he/she was being harassed "based on sex" due to a "hostile working environment."
All those crazy fears from the 70s now coming true:
I remember when, as a kid, my mom used to tell me that she didn't support ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment because she believed it would result in the elimination of separate men's and women's restrooms. I thought that sounded scary back then, and it still does. But hey- no need for a constitutional amendment!-we can just pack the EEOC (and federal courts) with progressives and accomplish the same thing.
Dr. Greene, working with a student, has also found that "squirrels understand 'bird-ese,' and birds understand 'squirrel-ese.' " When red squirrels hear a call announcing a dangerous raptor in the air, or they see such a raptor, they will give calls that are acoustically "almost identical" to the birds, Dr. Greene said. (Researchers have found that eastern chipmunks are attuned to mobbing calls by the eastern tufted titmouse, a cousin of the chickadee.)
No telling how far up this conspiracy goes. What if Fido and Fluffy are just engaging in some kabuki animal theater too?
And you have got to check out the YouTube video of the whole thing! Oh wait never mind it was just some
hipsters hippos fighting.
So what about the study on those poopy beards? There wasn't a real study, just a TV news station swabbing a few beards and sending the samples off for testing. (Revealing germs in allegedly surprising places is a time-honored pastime of TV news shows.) Beards are, however, fairly clean. We know this from actual scientific research, like this study published last year in the Journal of Hospital Infection, which found that bearded hospital workers don't carry more bacteria on their faces than clean-shaven ones. (In fact, they were less likely to carry certain potentially disease-causing bacteria.)
And we all know that TV stations are famous for their rigorous scientific standards and dedication to the absolute accuracy of self-performed study results when it comes to pseudo-scientific scare-the-moms stories. Cui bono? Big Razor that's who.
The Yahoo group is for closers only.
Tonight's post brought to you by it's a delicacy on Endor:
Notice: Posted in spite of the efforts of AceCorp LLC. Don't worry, Ace probably wouldn't eat you until he was really hungry. But you should also politely but firmly decline his suggestions of an intimate tenderizer soak for two. Please remain stationary until the ride has come to a full and complete stop. Thank you and come again!
Close it up
Sorry, I'm just dragging today.
But here's an optimistic note: Josh Earnest says that Obama's counter-terrorism policy has been "an overall success," despite losing three key states to ISIS.
What would a failure look like?
Hillary Clinton Refuses to Answer a Question from a Reporter, Preferring to Continue Talking to Her Plants
Her "everyday Americans," I mean, who always turn out to be an assortment of Planned Parenthood Brand Managers, College Democrats, and one of her two obese, money-grubbing brothers.
Ben Domenech: Lindsay Graham Is An Unhinged Kook Who Shouldn't Be Taken Seriously
I think this is an important piece. Domenech is right; Lindsay Graham is afforded by media progressives as being an "adult in the room" on foreign policy, at least as far as those stupid Republicans go.
But why should he be?
As Domenech lays out, Graham has a very simple, direct, and clear idea of the farthest reach of Executive power: to wit, that there isn't one.
McCain and Graham both share this same conception of civilian society as basically the same as the military hierarchy: Our freedoms must always give way to the Organization's goals, and there is a definite chain of command, and he at the top is, for all intents and purposes, King.
And, of course, we should bomb everywhere on earth that troubles us, early and often.
I think the progressives credit Graham as an "adult in the room" for this very reason that Domenech identifies: Graham's concept of government and society is precisely the same as the progressives' -- we are not important; only acting collectively in the corporate whole can we achieve great things.
This is a conception of society that is abhorrent to the Republican tradition, never mind -- again, as Domenech points out -- the American Constitution itself.
The US military is a fantastic institution. Some who have served in it, like McCain, and, to a lesser extent, Graham, come away with a more profound respect for it than any civilian could have.
However, we are in fact civilians, and if we wanted to serve in an armed forces, we would volunteer. Grahamism is a philosophy which blurs the lines between solider and civilian in very much the same way that Lenin and Stalin did.
I respect the diminished liberty that soldiers have volunteered to live under in order to efficiently protect my life. However, my respect stops well short at embracing those diminishments of liberty for myself.
Related: Chris Christie says, regarding the NSA and Patriot Act, "you can't enjoy your civili liberties if you're in a coffin."
I'm not saying that puts him in Graham's Executive Uber Alles class of statist; but if I don't link this here, I won't link it at all. Christie is plainly no longer a threat to be president.
Page Six: Chelsea Clinton Nearly As Loathsome as Her Vile Mother, Former Foundation for Clintons Insiders Aver
Chelsea Clinton is so unpleasant to colleagues, she’s causing high turnover at the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, sources say.
Several top staffers have left the foundation since Chelsea came on board as vice chairman in 2011.
"A lot of people left because she was there. A lot of people left because she didn't want them there," an insider told me. "She is very difficult."
Onetime CEO Bruce Lindsey was pushed upstairs to the position of chairman of the board two years ago, so that Chelsea could bring in her McKinsey colleague Eric Braverman.
Chelsea has embraced all the trappings of a corporate CEO, with a personal staff almost as big as her father's. "He has six. She has five," said my source.
Progressives and the media (but I repeat myself) keep suggesting that donations to the Foundation for Clintons weren't direct payoffs to the Clinton.
That's a lie. The Foundation for Clintons apparently pays for five or six man personal staff teams -- that's something like a $200,000 to $500,000 emolument for years.
Imagine this hypothetical: A charity wants to bring you aboard, part-time, as an officer. They say they can't pay you a salary. However, they will provide you with a personal staff of five people, pay for a car and a chauffeur, and pay for first-class travel all over the world as their corporate emissary.
In addition, you'd have a swank office at their headquarters. Corner office, 1000 square feet. A little secret sleeping room for when you just want to nap.
Would you say that there was no personal financial inducement in that offer?
BREAKING: Men Like Beer And Attractive Women
Guys! Guys! Think Progress has a major scoop....men go to places like Twin Peaks and Hooters to look at attractive women and not to have deep, meaningful conversations with the waitresses.
Game Status: Changed!
Twin Peaks attributes its success to a basic understanding of the sexes. “Men are simple creatures and so you don’t have to get too crazy to get them in the door,” Kristen Colby, the director of marketing for Twin Peaks franchise, told the Huffington Post earlier this year. She said that beer, sports, and beautiful women are all it takes.
Fact check says: No shit.
TP seems to think this is insulting...to men.
But the restaurant chain’s internal memo aimed at “guys-guys” is a reminder that deeply entrenched gender roles can also impact men. In a society where men are assumed to be “simple creatures” who never want to talk about they’re thinking or feeling, there isn’t a lot of room for more nuanced explorations of masculinity — something that researchers confirm has demonstrably negative consequences for men’s health.
It's not that men "never" want to have serious conversations. It's that they don't really want to have them at a downscale chain restaurant with women they don't know and probably wouldn't come across in any other situation.
The idea that men will be insulted that marketers are capitalizing on the idea we have egos and like to have them stroked (even in a phony way) by hot women to escape the pressure of the day is laughable. This is why guys GO TO PLACES LIKE THIS. It's a feature, not a bug. The only people who are surprised by the nature of the transaction at work here are the type of people who write and read Think Progress.
Liberals want to control every aspect of your life but so much of what they believe only makes sense if you know nothing about basic human behavior and have never met any actual human beings.
How To Solve The Crowded GOP Debate Stage Problem
At last count everyone who has ever held office as a Republican is running for President. This creates a problem for the RNC, which had hoped to stage manage a nice clean set of debates followed by a quick primary season.
Best laid plans and all of that.
So now everyone is worried about how you fit 12-15 (or more) candidates on a stage and give them enough time to make it worth while. I mean, what can you glean from a candidate who has maybe 3 minutes total over the course of a two hour debate to trade barbs with other candidates and the moderators?
There are lots of solutions being proposed from limiting the field (which is tough since polling is so close and even candidates with almost no support are relatively accomplished figures with some following/notoriety) to ditching the moderators and letting the scrum sort itself out to just rolling with big fields.
Here's my idea: Kill the debates.
These are not debates in any sense of the word. Even in the no-moderator format it's just going to be a bunch of people trying to one up each other with quips that will make the cable news shows and if they are lucky get played on Rush Limbaugh.
So what to do? Candidate forums. Just bring out each candidate and let them respond to two or three questions from a panel of conservative journalists and/or policy experts. Jim DeMint hosted one of these on Labor Day 2011 to great effect. There's no reason it can't be replicated.
You'd still have time constraints but I'd rather have someone like Rand Paul, Rick Perry or Scott Walker, spend 3-5 minutes straight answering a handful of questions with the spotlight on them than the Gong Show type spectacles we've seen the last few go rounds.
Since the candidates wouldn't be responding to each other, you could then break the field up and hold the events over two nights. It wouldn't matter who got to go night one or night two since there wouldn't be any group dynamic to even out. Do a couple of rounds of these and you'll really see the candidates in action. You can go back to the tradition nonsense or the moderatorless format once the field starts to thin out.
If cable networks didn't want to devote this much time, ditch them. There are plenty of ways to reach even the non-base voters that don't involve CNN. But I think they'd be open to it because it's not like they are going to have any Democratic debates to show. There's no way Hillary agrees to the same number as we saw in 2008 or even as many as the GOP has already agreed to.
Either treat these events as a real opportunity to see how the people who want to be President respond to questions conservatives care about or ditch them entirely. Just please spare us the clown shows.
Area Liberal Pundit: Being A Conservative Means You Have To Defend Every Government Program
Ryan Cooper (not Rory Cooper who you should totally follow to make up for my screw up) is a liberal who thinks he’s got a rather clever way to embarrass conservatives into supporting Amtrak (via Hot Air Headlines).
But Republicans, as the ostensible party of conservatism, have an obligation to consider the extant fact of Amtrak, which is a critical institution for millions of Americans. By supposed conservative principles, it is not appropriate to sacrifice the current needs of existing people in pursuit of an ideological utopia.
Michael Oakeshott famously described the conservative temperament as follows:
To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss. [On Being Conservative]
From there he launches into not only why conservatives must not only leave Amtrak alone but actually increase funding for it.
This is typical liberalism. All big government gains are locked in forever and always, while any conservative gains (such as tax cuts) are always on the table to be negotiated.
Here’s the problem with Cooper’s use of Oakeshott, he’s relying on philosophical conservatism when Amtrak is mostly an issue of political conservatism. They are related but not the same.
As a philosophy, conservatism is about caution. We tend to be leery of big sweeping promises to change complex systems and even the fundamental realities of human nature. We tend to think that society has evolved in a certain way based on innumerable unknowable examples of trial and error. We think it’s the height of folly and hubris to accept that a few self-appointed experts can order things better than the collective wisdom of free people attempting to maximize their personal liberty and happiness.
What conservative philosophy does not demand is the unthinking perpetuation of big government programs because “that’s what’s always been done.” This is especially true when “always” means “since 1971”.
Cooper himself admits that there are other successful models for running a railroad including, “mostly private [ownership] in Japan.” So what advocates of reforming and even privatizing Amtrak are calling for isn’t some wild experiment in bringing forth a libertarian Utopia. It’s simply acknowledging there are other models that would in fact serve people better (unless rail enthusiasts want to argue that Amtrak is superior to Japan’s rail system).
While conservative philosophy provides a cautionary note when faced with upsetting long held positions, it is not an unthinking philosophy that compels devotion to the status quo simply because "that's the way it is and has always been". While we are well served by recognizing the dangers and potential costs of change, it does not mean we should be cowed into supporting things we know to be wrong simply because at some point liberals had enough votes, usually with the help of Republicans, to enact something. We must also be able to discern how important the thing is and act accordingly.
For example, conservatives are rightly convinced there are many costs and unknown dangers to throwing over the traditional meaning of marriage on a whim. We were also right when we warned that overthrowing the health insurance market would lead to the exact problems we are seeing in terms of costs and access. It’s funny but liberals never credit conservatives with intellectual modesty in those case. Then conservatives are motivated by hate and a desire to kill the poor.
But the real foul Cooper is committing here is conflating conservative philosophy with conservative political programs.
“Conservative” in the American political sense tends to mean a vision for government that is more modest in terms of size and scope than establishment Republicans and their close relatives, Democrats and liberals. It’s a political program more in line with the constitutional limits placed on the federal government at the founding.
In the political sense, conservatives aren’t Philosopher Kings they are actual politicians and activists. While many of their positions are grounded in a conservative philosophy, the things they wish to conserve have been diluted or discarded. In the political arena, conservatives can and must be an offensive force, not simply wedded to the status quo. To deny that conservatives can advocate for political and policy change is to deny the legitimacy of any political action not approved of by the left.
In reality, political conservatives have an agenda that we want to see enacted. That the means to achieving these goals may sometimes be in tension with our philosophical beliefs and temperament should not be an excuse for inaction or require us to support policies we oppose.
Accepting that human nature is imperfect and often involves these kinds of tradeoffs and inconsistencies is also part of conservative philosophy. If we deny this and prize theoretical consistency over all other things in the political arena, we will always lose to those who prize nothing more than the accumulation of government power.
I understand why liberals, who give no thought to the damage their never ending appetite to expand government cause, want to enlist conservatives as their unthinking protectors. There’s no reason for us to actually agree to it.
Tuesday Morning Open Thread
It's Primary Election day here in Pennsylvania. If you are a Pennsylvania resident, be sure to go out and cast your ballot today.
I'll be doing some volunteering at the polls, so I don't have time to put together a news dump.
Morning Thread (5-19-2015)
So a Clinton lied? I am shocked.
Overnight Open Thread (5-18-2015)
Dire predictions are the bread and butter of the climate alarmist community. In January of 2009, NASA scientist and climate zealot Dr. James Hansen predicted eco-doom just a little sooner. "We cannot afford to put off change any longer," said Hansen. "We have to get on a new path within this new administration. We have only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world. America must take the lead."
Which hasn't happened. As an odd twist of fate, America has reduced its carbon emissions, though only as an inadvertent byproduct of economic decline and stagnation, something President Obama would rather not take credit for.-- Benny Huang
The Pentagon has an unrivaled comic genius when it comes to naming its operations. General Weidley is Chief of Staff, Joint Task Force for "Operation Inherent Resolve". If one had to name the single quality most obviously lacking in local ground forces, in the "60-nation coalition" and in US strategists, that would be it. Iraqi troops fled their US-supplied government buildings and then, at the edge of town, abandoned their US-supplied Humvees to melt into the local population, hopefully with nothing US-supplied about their person to give them away. The Humvees and the buildings are now in the hands of Isis. That's the great thing about taking on a "60-nation coalition". When you roll over them in nothing flat, the stuff they leave behind is world-beating state-of-the-art.
Almost exactly twelve years ago, I spent two days in Ramadi - one coming, one going. I wandered around the streets, browsed the shops, ate in the cafes, all in the same suit-and-tie get-up you can see me in on stage and telly. And I got the odd surly look but no beheading. Because, in the spring of 2003, the west was still believed to be serious. Now they know we're not.-- Mark Steyn
So the result of Obama's extension of an olive branch to the mullahs, his pursuit of realignment and peace in the Middle East, is a regional nuclear arms race.
There is a pattern here. In Iraq, Obama and his advisers were persuaded that the most malignant factor on the ground was the United States itself. So we withdrew our troops, effectively to zero. Meanwhile, Syria descended into civil war, and after some initial, ill-considered bluffing, Obama finally showed his hand, which is the same hand he always holds and always plays: He was going to take no effective military action.
...The resulting administration grand strategy is not realism, but a kind of loose noninterventionism with just enough pinpoint military action to kill the occasional terrorist and to give Americans a vague sense that something is being done to keep them safe. It is what Joseph Joffe memorably calls "self-containment," or "isolationism with drones."-- Aaron MacLean in Isolationism With Drones
"Our culture has become obsessed of late with the virtues of the locally sourced: local vegetables, local meats, local soaps. We've heard much about the moral worth of do-it-yourselfism and the soul-enhancing virtues of shop class. But there's a darker side to locophilia and the DIY movement, a place where the self-reliance of the woodshop putterer meets the libertarian zeal of the garage gunsmith. If the growing black market in homemade firearms evokes a bygone era of small-scale experiment and chance invention, it presages a frightening future of proliferation and lethality that medieval gunsmiths could hardly have imagined."
-- Bruce Holsinger in Slate
Remember: when leftists say they want a "conversation about race," they mean-you shut up and confess your white guilt. Oh, and raise taxes.
-- Steven Hayward in Civil War on the Left, Part 19
Life's never as good as it looks on Facebook or as bad as it sounds on Twitter.
Hillary 2016, Michelle 2024, Chelsea 2032, Sasha 2040, Malia 2048
There must be a special term for government where the top office merely alternates between members of a handful of families - limited sequential oligarchy?
During her training Rebecca Wax, 33, failed the Functional Skills Training test many, many times. In fact she was only able to even finish it a single time - and that was with a time 5 minutes over the cutoff.
But thanks to her skills in political connections and threatening lawsuits she now gets to join the force anyway. Note that she already got a special waiver in 2011 to be allowed into training after the cutoff age of 29.
The FDNY for the first time in its history will allow someone who failed its crucial physical fitness test to join the Bravest, The Post has learned.
Rebecca Wax, 33, is set to graduate Tuesday from the Fire Academy without passing the Functional Skills Training test, a grueling obstacle course of job-related tasks performed in full gear with a limited air supply, an insider has revealed.
"They're going to allow the first person to graduate without passing because this administration has lowered the standard," said the insider, who is familiar with the training.Upon graduation, Wax would be assigned to a firehouse and tasked with the full duties of a firefighter.
And note that other women in her class were able to pass the same test and are not happy with Wax's special treatment.
While Wax fell short, two other female probies in the graduating class passed the FST with flying colors.
"They're kicking butt. They're doing better than 50 percent of the class," the insider said. "When they get assigned to a firehouse, they'll be welcomed with open arms because they've done what everyone else has gone through."
Other female firefighters aren't pleased about Wax's treatment, either."A lot of the girls in the field are pissed because they feel like they're getting lumped into the same category of a female getting special treatment and not meeting the same standards as the males," the insider added. "It devalues what the women in the field have accomplished."
Actually they're not flawed - they're simply lies made up by activists and swallowed uncritically by the MSM.
But 1-in-5 isn't the only statistic being used to create these new policies. Now that the issue is consistently in the news, other statistics with equally dubious origins are cropping up.
One is that only 2 percent of rape accusations are false. This factoid traces back to a single source (Susan Brownmiller's 1975 book Against Our Will), which in turn cites a police officer talking about a study that no one has been able to find. But from this dubious claim springs the dogma that one must therefore believe all rape-accusers to be true victims.Couple the notion that all accusers must be believed to another statistic - that relatively few men commit the majority of sexual assaults - and the prevailing logic becomes that anyone accused of sexual assault must immediately be treated as a serial rapist, because they likely are or will be.
SJWs may have sound and fury but they don't usually have any staying power. And standing your ground during the Mad Week also buys you a kind of counter-mob credibility.
The social justice left is only truly strong when it exercises lawful power - such as when it runs your company, your school, or your government. Yet even then it's often constrained by the Constitution, statutes, regulations, and contracts. When the social justice mob is confined to public shaming, its cultural power is limited to the credibility and seriousness others give it. In other words, if a target can withstand a week's worth of hashtags, Buzzfeed will post another battery of kitten photos and pop culture quizzes ("What Does Your Fave '90's Cartoon Say About Your Personality?) and the angry kids will move on.
Sometimes, however, targets can fight back and actually profit off a social shame campaign. Just ask Protein World....This is a valuable insight. Capitulation doesn't make the other side love or respect a company - nor will it make them buy the company's products - but standing up for your products can be seen as equivalent to standing up for the choices and values of your customers. They'll love you for it and spread the word. This is a lesson American companies - and American politicians - would do well to learn.
If you'd like to consult women in the best ways to secret milk from their breasts, look no further than the International Board of Lactation Consultant Examiners. It seems you may need to have some clinical experience in lactation and breastfeeding, but for those of you who have put in your hours, getting validated online is a cinch.
I wonder if they sell a t-shirt with your certification on the front so that your uh 'patients' know you're all legit and stuff.
Back in 2007 and he manages to make his rock bottom both funny and poignant: "one thing led to another, and I forgot to kill myself that day."
It ain't just for colonoscopy prep any more.
The hydration drink, usually targeted at infants and children, now aims to alleviate your nausea, dry mouth and pounding headache. The company has launched a "See the Lyte" social-media campaign and is introducing packets of Pedialyte in orange and strawberry-lemonade flavors, handy for the purse or pocket of any partier, according to NBCnews.com.
The company's latest advertising tagline is "When last night's party threatens to ruin today, those in the know reach for Pedialyte."
The Yahoo AoSHQ group - it's got electrolytes and shit. Works for hangovers too.
And my twitter thang.
Tonight's post brought to you by it's the time:
Notice: Posted by permission and approval of AceCorp LLC (not affiliated in any way with AceCorp Inc.). Please e-mail your tips to maetenloch at gmail. Otherwise pester Ace. This transaction may be recorded for quality assurance purposes.
Close it up
Clinton Political Advisor Sydney Blumenthal Has Been Paid by the Clinton Foundation for Years;
"Advised" Hillary on Libya at Same Time He Was Seeking Business Opportunities There
I keep calling the Clinton Foundation the "Foundation for Clintons" because that's clearly what it is.
Not only does the Foundation pay for the Clintons' travel, not only does it create shopportunities for foreign governments to pay the Clintons $500,000 a speech for Administrative action, but the Foundation for Clintons also serves to keep the Clintons' key political people paid between Clinton presidencies.
Otherwise these people would have to find real jobs besides plumping Hillary for President.
Well, Sydney Blumenthal turns out to be an employee of this fraudulent charity. Blumenthal's previous charitable works consist of spreading the slander that Monica Lewinsky was a delusional stalker to the press.
What the hell is this slimy monster doing working for a "charity"?
Supposedly he's guiding them on "messaging." That is a Political concept, not a charitable one.
The Foundation for Clintons is NOT a charity. It is a criminal political enterprise that does some charity as window dressing to conceal the grubby, selfish motives of the organization.*
And we're finally seeing some news breaking on that.
[A]s Hillary Rodham Clinton embarks on her second presidential bid, Mr. Blumenthal’s service to the Clintons is once again under the spotlight. Representative Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, a Republican who is leading the congressional committee investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, plans to subpoena Mr. Blumenthal, 66, for a private transcribed interview.
Mr. Gowdy's chief interest, according to people briefed on the inquiry, is a series of memos that Mr. Blumenthal -- who was not an employee of the State Department -- wrote to Mrs. Clinton about events unfolding in Libya before and after the death of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. According to emails obtained by The New York Times, Mrs. Clinton, who was secretary of state at the time, took Mr. Blumenthal's advice seriously, forwarding his memos to senior diplomatic officials in Libya and Washington and at times asking them to respond. Mrs. Clinton continued to pass around his memos even after other senior diplomats concluded that Mr. Blumenthal's assessments were often unreliable.
But an examination by The New York Times suggests that Mr. Blumenthal's involvement was more wide-ranging and more complicated than previously known, embodying the blurry lines between business, politics and philanthropy that have enriched and vexed the Clintons and their inner circle for years.
While advising Mrs. Clinton on Libya, Mr. Blumenthal, who had been barred from a State Department job by aides to President Obama, was also employed by her family’s philanthropy, the Clinton Foundation, to help with research, "message guidance" and planning of commemorative events, according to foundation officials. During the same period, he also worked on and off as a paid consultant to Media Matters and American Bridge, organizations that helped lay the groundwork for Mrs. Clinton's 2016 campaign.
Much of the Libya intelligence that Mr. Blumenthal passed on to Mrs. Clinton appears to have come from a group of business associates he was advising as they sought to win contracts from the Libyan transitional government. The venture, which was ultimately unsuccessful, involved other Clinton friends, a private military contractor and one former C.I.A. spy seeking to get in on the ground floor of the new Libyan economy.
Among the friends was that Drumheller guy, a former spy who was the head of the Haggard Queen's private intelligence service.
See AllahPundit's update for yet another Hillary lie exposed. Hillary has claimed that she only used her "hr22" email address for State Department business. When another email address surfaced -- "hrod17" -- she claimed she had only begun using that after she left State.
Guess what the newest disclosures indicate, vis-a-vis the truthfulness of a Hillary Clinton statement?
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is offering -- well, I should say her people are offering, as she won't speak to the press -- spin on her refusal to answer media questions.
She says -- I mean, Those Who Speak On Behalf of Her Atrociousness say -- that Hillary has answered 20 questions from "Real Americans" -- you know, those hand-selected Democratic plants who ask gauzy questions like what she will do to put the "heart" back in education, whatever that means.
[The Queen's memo] lists every one of those questions -- from "Give me a sense of your experience with that?" (Iowa) to "Do you want to share your story?" (Nevada).
And The Queen's Guard further says that Hillary has asked these "Everyday Americans" 117 questions.
That is, during those scripted events, she asked the plants 117 questions. She wants credit for being a Different Kind of Leader, one who doesn't answer questions, but instead answers them.
Has she ever asked those Plants what the hell Sydney Blumenthal was doing advising her to go to war in Libya while he was sniffing out business ventures for a post-Ghadaffi Libya?
* I am frequently reminded that SPECTRE hid behind a charitable front group -- specifically, one seeking to aid displaced persons (refugees, etc.)
SPECRE had its own private intelligence service, too.
The Banning Nation: Democrats Target Online Ammunition Sales
House Democrats are pushing legislation requiring face-to-face ammunition sales.
Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.) has introduced the Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act of 2015. The bill unveiled Tuesday would require federally licensed ammunitions dealers to confirm the identity of individuals who arrange to purchase ammunition over the Internet by verifying a photo ID in-person.
The bill would also require ammunition vendors to report any sales of more than 1,000 rounds within five consecutive days to the U.S. attorney general if the person purchasing ammunition is not a licensed dealer.
"Far too many times, we have seen the shocking images of unspeakable gun violence that could have been prevented," Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.), one of the bill's original cosponsors, said in a joint statement. "Our bill to limit the online sale of ammunition is a long-overdue common sense reform that I am hopeful will spark Congress to put aside party difference and come together to help prevent such senseless tragedies."
I don't know which unspeakable gun crime he is citing which would have been prevented by this law.
But I guess that's besides the point. They never even bother to make any kind of logical nexus between the law they're proposing and the outcome they're seeking. It seems enough to them that this is vaguely "anti-gun" and criminals, I guess, are "pro-gun," so even though this would not prevent any of the mass shootings we've seen in the past few years, it's... I don't know.
A religious devotion? An offering to the God of Government?
The Democrats' proposed laws increasingly look like prayers in legislative language.
Economist: The Economy Might Stink For a Long Time to Come
Rush Limbaugh was just talking about this article, which had been published in the New York Times. His take was that as it had been excerpted at Yahoo News, Low Information Voters and Millennials (but I repeat myself) would actually see it when they came to Yahoo to read about "Jay-Z, Beyonce, and Jennifer Lopez and her butt."
The economy might stink for a while.
Writing in the New York Times this weekend, economist, author, and blogger Tyler Cowen says that we might need to get used to the idea that the economy will continue to underperform our expectations.
Cowen says that right now there are two core outlooks on the economy, both of which are inherently optimistic.
One says that things like low wage growth and low interest rates are phases that will pass, and the other is that we merely didn't appreciate how long it would take to recover from the financial crisis.
But is it a foregone conclusion that things will just get back to "normal"?
Tyler Cowen writes in the New York times that we may be experiencing a "Great Reset," in which the economy is shifting for a permanent reduction in output and wealth.
Let's consider an analogy to see how this might work in practice.
Well before the recent recession, many colleges and universities realized that they could not afford so many full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty members, and they began to increase their reliance on lower-paid adjuncts. Few institutions fired large numbers of full-timers suddenly, because that could have left them understaffed if trends reversed. Longstanding protections of tenure were also a constraint. Instead, many administrators added modestly to the number of adjunct faculty members, sometimes over decades, relying on retirement and attrition to manage the shift in a relatively smooth manner.
That evolution reflects a more general principle: Institutional rigidities don't permit adjustments to occur all at once, but by studying continuing changes we may be able to peer around a corner and see where a sector is headed.
Such processes are scary because we may be watching the slow unfolding of a hand that, in its fundamentals, has already been dealt.
There are signs that a comparable story may apply to the American economy more broadly.
In manufacturing, for example, Ford, Chrysler, General Motors, Caterpillar and Navistar (formerly International Harvester) all pay many of their new workers much less. In some of these two-tier structures, the new wage may be as little as half the old one. In addition to this rapid change, the companies also seem to be reducing the ranks of highly paid workers through slow attrition.
All of these factors could indicate that our economy is evolving into one that will offer far less favorable long-run wage prospects....
In short, are these economic problems transitory, or are we glimpsing the beginnings of a grimmer future?
Cowen notes that the negative effects -- reduced wages, chiefly -- fall disproportionately on the young, aka The Obama Generation, so the next generation is being taught to accept lower wages, both now and in their futures.
Limbaugh's take -- apart from the fact that the ignorant would finally see some news about the Obama economy -- is that this article is still making excuses for Obama, still suggesting that this is entirely due to tectonic structural forces that Obama couldn't possibly have anything to do with, and obviously, then, he should not be blamed.
It is astonishing to see how our economy has essentially been downsized to Italy West, and yet the elites are so heavily invested in Obama they 1, try to ignore this fact, and 2, when forced to confront it, claim that policy is entirely irrelevant when dealing with such large-sized structural forces.
Obama wanted to transform America into a European country.
Well, he got his wish.
Why don't the elites celebrate this, instead of trying to cover it up?
Former Stephanopoulos Colleague Carole Simpson: Stephanopoulos Isn't Really a Journalist
How many of them are, though?
On CNN's Reliable Sources media criticism program, Stephanopoulos’s former ABC News colleague, Carole Simpson, unloaded on the former top aide to Bill and Hillary Clinton that she said she likes and respects.
"There is a coziness that George cannot escape," said Simpson, who toiled for two decades at ABC News, notably as the weekend anchor of World News Tonight from 1988 to 2003. "Qhile he did try to separate himself from his political background to become a journalist, he really isn't a journalist."
"I wanted to just take him by the neck and say, 'George, what were you thinking?' Clearly, he was not thinking. I thought it was outrageous," Simpson said. "And I am sorry that again the public trust in the media is being challenged and frayed because of the actions of some of the top people in the business."
She goes on to note ABC's dilemma, which is the same as NBC's dilemma with Brian Williams: What do you do when the guy you've made the face of your organization turns out to be a liar?
Peter Schweizer, meanwhile, whom Stephapoulos grilled on political connections and political bias without revealing his own, says he wants a "rematch."
ABC has thusfar not agreed to one.
DIA Memos Prove Obama Administration Knew Benghazi Was a Planned Attack on September 16, The Day Susan Rice Was Sent Out To Lie to the Country
Via the Right Scoop, the motive was known:
According to another memo dated September 16, 2012, just FIVE DAYS after the attack on the 'consulate' in Benghazi, the Obama administration via the DNI concluded that the terrorist attack had been planned at least 10 days before the attack occurred and that it wasn’t a coincidence that it happened on the anniversary of 9/11. If you recall, the Obama administration was lying about it, saying it was a demonstration against a film about the Prophet Muhammad that got out of control. They were saying this on the very same day this DNI memo went out to different agencies including the National Security Council and the State Department.
They not only concluded that it was planned ten days in advance, they also wrote why the attack was planned in this same Sept. 16 memo:The intention was to attack the consulate and kill as many Americans as possible to seek revenge for the U.S. kill of Aboyahiye (Alaliby) in Pakistan and in memorial of the 11 September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center buildings.
Ed Morrissey notes September 16th was the date that Susan Rice was sent out to talk up a "spontaneous attack" inspired by a YouTube video.
Video of Catherine Herridge reporting at both links.
Update: The memo also talks about arms being sent from Benghazi to the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria.
Sexton based that article on already-known documents. The MSM just didn't seem to want to connect the dots on already-existing information about Benghazi.
Monday Morning News Dump
- Report: The Saudi's To Buy A Nuclear Weapon From Pakistan
- Who Caused Baltimore's Collapse
- Obama's UN Ambassador Is Just Slightly Out Of Touch
- What Having A Dog Can Teach You About Life
- The IRS Seized $107,000 From This Man's Bank Account
- Stephanopoulos Must Go
- At The Mercy Of Climate Jihadists
- Ted Cruz, The Only Republican Arrogant Enough To Be President
- Jay-Z Posting Bail For Rioters In Baltimore And Ferguson
- GOP Set To Save Obama's Trade Bill
- AL Sharpton's Daughter Suing NYC For An Ankle Injury
- It's Time For An Equal Tax
- Biker Gang Fight In Waco Leaves Nine Dead
- How Trolling Could Become The New International Language Of Diplomacy