December 31, 2011
— CDR M
Happy New Year Moron Nation!! I don't know about you guys, but I'm so glad 2011 is over. Now on to 2012 where we all know we have a role to play in the Election of All Elections. Get involved. Some way, some how. Just do it.
Now here is your PSA for the evening. There is always a lot of focus on drunk driving but there is something else just as dangerous if not more so. The Perils Of Drunk Walking. Be very careful when you get your swerve on and stumble home.
For every mile walked drunk, turns out to be eight times more dangerous than the mile driven drunk. To put it simply, if you need to walk a mile from a party to your home, youre eight times more likely to die doing that than if you jump behind the wheel and drive your car that same mile.
Video of the greatest Drunk Walk ever caught on video below the fold. more...
— Dave in Texas Does it make sense? No. Is it awesome?
My favorite Christmas tree ornament packed away today.
Happy New Year you dorks. It's been a great year. 2012 will be even better because you'll still have me.
BOC, under the fold..
ALSO! Pick your football picks, you dummies. I hate you all and I can't wait to hate you even more in 2012. Be safe dear goofballs. more...
— LauraW So fresh, this story is from tomorrow!
Australia has already seen the New Year. So it will be old and slimy and covered with the webs of poisonous spiders by the time it gets to us. Bastards!
On the other hand, it takes four people to subdue a snake there. Yeesh.
"It was like any other night, half an hour of playtime before bed," Ms Sullivan told The Sunday Mail.
"We were throwing a ball to each other and it rolled behind me, so Kye went to pick it up.
"He then let out that horrible scream where you know something is very, very wrong.
"By the time I got to him, and we are talking a second or two, the snake had latched on to his foot."
The foiled snake then turned on the kid's father and neighbors had to help extricate him.
Kye was then transported to Cairns Base Hospital but he began throwing up, his heart rate dropped and he stopped breathing during the one-hour trip. He was revived using oxygen and was wrapped in a heat blanket.
Cairns doctors took swabs of Kye's wounds and did X-rays to ensure the python's vice-like grip hadn't broken any ribs. Both tests came back negative. Kye was discharged the next day, nursing four bite marks and bruising on his lower left leg.
"We didn't spend that first night at home," Ms Sullivan said. "We stopped in to get clothes but the kids wouldn't get out of the car, so we stayed at my mum's."
Yeah, no kidding. If I lived in Australia I'd probably do that 'don't let your feet ever touch the ground' game that a lot of house cats play.
If you go to the article link, you'll see that this story has an unhappy ending.
— rdbrewer Top ten New Year's resolutions from About.com:
- Spend more time with family and friends.
- Fit in fitness.
- Tame the bulge.
- Quit smoking.
- Enjoy life more.
- Quit drinking.
- Get out of debt.
- Learn something new.
- Help others.
- Get organized.
— CDR M Well, the ONT thread was getting a bit stale so here's a new one. Since it is the last day of the year and there will be a lot of drinking tonight, here are 12 Tips For Every Drinker. I can already think of a few changes though.
Staying in or going out tonight?
December 30, 2011
— CDR M
So. 2012 is nearly upon us and that usually means a plethora of new laws go into effect. What does your state have in store for you? Here's a taste of some of those new 2012 Laws. mpfs informs me that in CA, you will now be required to get a doctors prescription for cough syrup. WTF? That'll go over well. more...
— rdbrewer I know Ace believes he has found the greatest band ever, but that's just because he hasn't heard the goth-rock stylings of New Zealand's best, Lori Watt. more...
— Open Blogger In considering tax policy, the dominant school of thought in federal income taxation policy is that of a progressive tax structurethat is, those who are able to create the most wealth are subject to greater taxation than those who are unable to do so. (While income from investment and inheritance has been called unearned income, it is more appropriate to call this non-labor income. The nature of the question presumes facts not in evidence about the very concept of earning itself. Certainly and in any case, someone earned the income at some point.) This taxation goes to fund federal government actions authorized by the several branches and the vast and growing administrative state of the federal government, each with its own agenda and laws and regulations.
— Ace more...
— Ace I got nothin'.
— Open Blogger If you're on Facebook, it may be time to erase any personal info that might link it to you and sign off for good. In case you really need to be there, make a new account and beware: They are about to make everything you ever posted completely searchable with common search engines.
UPDATE: Alex in the comments: Well, no, not really.
Below the fold: A funny Internet video. more...
— Dave in Texas I'm told "this is the future".
I don't think I like it, but the future rarely asks for my little ol opinion.
— Dave in Texas Seems like a few mourners for Dear Leader weren't appropriately toeing the line, so they got the Nikolai Yehzov treatment.
Disappearing in North Korea. Happens a lot.
Historical photoshoppin below the fold. Now you see a Kommissar, now you don't.
— Gabriel Malor Friday!
More bloggy stuff than news this morning, but it's a start:
Lawgeeks and other bloggers should check out this legal brief by pseudonymous blogger Aaron Worthing, who is resisting an attempt by a convicted bomber to out him. Aaron is a great legal blogger and that brief is an awesome legal take-down.
Old blog-fodder Keith Olberdumbass has apparently been sidelined by Current TV. I bet his bathtub's getting sick of him right about now.
Oh, and my best buddy and his wife are flying in today, so I won't be around until after the new year. My best to you all. Behave. Drink responsibly. I'll see you in 2012.
December 29, 2011
— Maetenloch Early but it wasn't like anything better was happening.
Not by changing to a kinder-gentler counter-insurgency strategy - but by adding a lot more troops and getting up close with the enemy and defeating him with classic vicious hard combat.
The corps commander in Iraq during the surge, now the Army chief of staff, General Raymond Odierno, reportedly said that nothing he was doing before the Army published its new counterinsurgency doctrine changed once it was published. A new doctrine did not break the back of the counterinsurgency in Iraq. That was done by the addition of 50,000 more soldiers and Marines to the fight. Note:These were not aid workers or even forces imbued with a new doctrine (most of them had never read it). Rather, they were 50,000 mostly combat troops, prepared to take the fight to the enemy. And it was a hard and vicious fight one that often required the full combined-arms panoply (armor, artillery, close air support) to win. Somehow, much of the true narrative of this fight is being lost in favor of one that emphasizes getting along with the locals, building schools, and helping farmers. All of these activities were, of course, important, but they pale in comparison to the benefits of increased security, which was only bought by hard fighting. One brigade commander captured it perfectly when he said, I know all about counterinsurgency doctrine. It means shake hands in the light and kill at night.more...
— Ace By the way, I'm taking tomorrow off. This one day off for Christmas thing just doesn't work for me. If anyone wants to guest blog, please do!
Oh, here's some more Ron Paul: I wrote most of the newsletters but not the "ten" or so sentences people don't like. Someone else (who? it's a mystery!) wrote those.
Dude, it's more than ten damn sentences.
He also confesses he wrote the "economics" parts, which is alarming, because racism, antisemtisim, and homophobia I understand. I get those. Those are kind of normal. I know how to deal.
The stuff I don't know how to process is an adult man freaking out over the "ugly" "New Money." Like a, what's the word?, bloody lunatic.
— Ace Perry flubs a question about Lawrence v. Texas. The question was how his support for limited government could be squared with his (putative) support for anti-gay-sodomy laws, as Texas once had, but which were struck down in Lawrence v. Texas.
He didn't recall the case.
A voter at a meet and greet asked him to defend his criticism of limited government in the case.
I wish I could tell you I knew every Supreme Court case. I dont, Im not even going to try to go through every Supreme Court case, that would be Im not a lawyer, Perry said at the Blue Strawberry Coffee Shop here. We can sit here and you know play I gotcha questions on what about this Supreme Court case or whatever, but let me tell you, you know and I know that the problem in this country is spending in Washington, D.C., its not some Supreme Court case.
In 2003, the Supreme Court deemed Texas anti-sodomy law to be unconstitutional in a 6-3 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, and the case nullified anti-sodomy laws in 13 other states at the same time. Perry, a strong opponent of gay marriage and the ability of homosexuals to serve openly in the military, served as governor when this case was decided.
Asked by Ken Herman, a columnist with the Austin American Statesman, for clarification on whether he knew what the case concerned, Perry responded, Im not taking the bar exam I dont know what a lot of legal cases involve.
When told that the Supreme Court case struck down the Texas sodomy law, Perry said, My position on traditional marriage is clear and I dont know need a law. I dont need a federal law case to explain it to me.
Everyone acts like they knew this stuff after they hear the answer themselves. If anyone's thinking "Duh, everyone knows that;" well, when prompted, you do. Personally I get this case confused with the one that came before it -- the one that actually upheld such anti-sodomy laws. Was that Bolling v. Texas? I forget.
Did you? Did you remember that just five or six years before a Scalia opinion upheld these laws? Can you name it?
Or was Lawrence v. Texas the one that upheld the laws and then the Kennedy-authored one came later?
Bolling v. Colorado? I don't know. There was then an opinion upholding so-called "special rights" for gays.
I know the holdings, and I've read these opinions, but I've always been a bit spotty on the case names.
But he's dumb so whatever.
This is the Jeopardy Effect. When I play Jeopardy (on TV, I mean), I "know" 80% of the answers... after I hear them. After I hear them, I say, "Of course, duh, I knew that."
But how many do I know before I hear them, and actually call out? About 60%. There's a 20% gap here. But a lot of people seem to credit themselves for "knowing" that 20% of answer they didn't really "know," until they were reminded.
After everyone heard Charlie Gibson's version of the Bush Doctrine (which was wrong, by the way), everyone "knew" that too.
I guess I was alone in the country in actually not really being able to recall the actual Bush Doctrine. I guess that's because I'm stupid. Or, that I'm actually smart and don't need to always tell myself "I knew that, now that I'm reminded of it!!!" I can just sort of admit, "I forgot that. But now that you mention it, yes, now I remember. Whereas before I did not."
But we all "know" things. It's important to us to always feel like we "know" things. Even when we don't. We make up stories about our own perfect recall.
Santorum leaps into third, according to Rasumussen, but it's the holiday season, and polling is difficult. In that poll Romney and Ron Paul are in a dead heat. Apparently the Republican Party is still deciding whether or not "racism" is a bad thing or not.
But in Real Clear Politics Poll of All Polls, Perry has a slight advantage in most ground gained.
But Santorum must be rising some, because Perry has released an ad knocking him on his Compassionate Conservatism big-spending ways:
— Ace But how do you know if it's male or female? Doesn't matter if it's Arcturian (Where?)
Anyway, I don't see a future for this.
Let's be realistic: The costumes will be awful. Furthermore, they probably should be awful. Who wants to have sex with an alien Xenomorph?
Okay that one guy raising his hand nervously in the back. But for everyone else, the only possible alien you could have sex with is the Green Orion slave girl. Okay, she's green. Wowsers. All the other hookers -- I mean, "ladies of whoring" -- will just be wearing alien deedle-bopper antenna.
Or Spock-ears. Which are no different than Elf-ears. And I've already had sex with a hooker wearing elf-ears, at the Tolkein-themed Whore of the Rings bordello.
I would like to see two aliens fight in the cathouse, though. That could be sexy. more...
— Ace Life is like a Katharine Heigl movie: Horrible.
This is the one from Tuesday, but it's now downloadable rather than streaming.
UPDATE: Loyalty Oath is Illegal?
— Gabriel Malor Ugly.
Anyone who wants to vote must sign a form at the polling place pledging to support the eventual Republican nominee for president. Anyone who refuses to sign the pledge will be barred from voting.
During a brief meeting Wednesday at the state Capitol, the State Board of Elections voted 3-0 to approve three forms developed by the election boards staff to implement the loyalty pledge requested by the state GOP.
The board also held a drawing that determined Texas Rep. Ron Paul will appear first on the primary ballot, followed by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the only other candidate who qualified for the ballot.
It's designed to weed out spoilers from the Democrats, who won't be having a primary, and probably also from among the Ronulans. But do they really think that folks that would vote simply to upset the election are going to abide by a loyalty pledge?
And, on the other hand, aren't they more likely to weed out folks who do take oaths seriously and who cannot commit to supporting all of the possible GOP candidates? I know I can't take that oath in good conscience because there is no circumstance under which I will support Ron Paul for president.
Comments poll: Would you take that oath?
Update: This was too good not to promote up to the main post:
83 Here's how we're going to enforce this:
If you say, "I swear I'll vote for any Republican in the general election" 15,000 times, we'll just take your word for it.
If you say it between 10,000 and 14,999 we're going to need to verify your vote in some fashion.
Posted by: The Virginia GOP at December 29, 2011 12:55 PM
Stupid Party, your table is ready.
The Oh-It-Gets-Worse Update: The loyalty oath requirement is probably illegal.
State election law requires that primary election requirements, like, e.g., a loyalty oath, be approved by the State Board of Elections at least 90 days before the primary. The State Board of Elections approved this change only yesterday. Virginia's election is on Super Tuesday, March 6, which is only 68 days away.
On the one hand, great, I can plan to vote that day. On the other hand: goshdamn these state parties are filled with complete idiots.
Thanks to Slu for the link.
44 queries taking 0.0198 seconds, 232 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.