November 25, 2014
Because I'm tired and lazy tonight.
Someone on AR15.com collected these videos of the riots in progress.
A couple observations/notes:
- Fashion-wise it was still the 80s in 1992.
- Newscasters were even more woefully ignorant of guns then if that's possible.
- It's good to have friends. And armed friends who show up are best of all.
- The female reporter in video 3 is either very brave or very stupid or both.
- There's a gunfight between Korean storeowners and gangbangers starting at about 1:25 in video 3
- Riots are scary as shit (okay I knew this from being caught up in the LA riots but over the 22 years it's faded a bit)
— Ace Erin Burnett just trotted this insane theory out on CNN, claiming that there was arguably something to it.
So now even the rioting is also due to White Devil Police Men.
There's just a blame-shifting excuse for everything, huh?
Somehow, there's always an excuse for rioting in Ferguson. Remember the militarization of the police? Back in August, it was allegedly provoking otherwise law-abiding people into acts of mayhem because they were so angered by the sight of military-style equipment. Then, the police backed off and businesses were ransacked anyway. At another point, the authorities supposedly provoked more unrest by releasing video of Michael Brown robbing a store. Now, it is the timing of the announcement that Officer Wilson wont be charged that were told is responsible for all the property damage and arson. Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post had a theory on Morning Joe this morning that the announcement was timed to maximize the rioting so as to distract from the non-indictment.
The same media which engaged in endless Conspiracy Theory Shaming with respect to birtherism is now actually pushing this hyperpartisan fantasia.
— Ace Open warfare.
— Ace Ostensibly these Hipster Raves were for the purposes of discouraging an at-risk group (white hipsters) from smoking, because you know how much insecure young people who want to be seen as "cool" respond to government-sponsored anti-drug messaging.
But to get these white slackers to accept that not smoking was "cool," they had to throw in a lot of anti-conservative agitprop as the spoonful of sugar.
Oh by way the National Institutes of Health is spending this $5 million on Pabst Blue Ribbon for hipsters instead of ebola. You're welcome.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is spending nearly $5 million to get hipsters to quit smoking by starting commune dance parties in bars across California.
Researchers at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) are using taxpayer dollars to bring anti-tobacco marketing into bars by selling posters and t-shirts, including those that deride the views of neoconservatives, saying the political philosophy is as bad as world hunger.
The $4,904,466 grant was awarded in 2011, and runs through 2016.
"In our prior research, we identified a high-risk subpopulation of young adults in San Diego, CA: the 'hipster' subculture, a group focused on the alternative music scene, local artists and designers, and eclectic self-expression," the grant explained. "We developed a yearlong pilot social branding intervention to decrease smoking among this group, using social events and social leaders to promote a strong nonsmoking lifestyle."
Pamela Ling, a professor at UCSF School of Medicine, is leading the project. Ling was the "medical student who got her way" in the 1994 season of MTV's "The Real World" before becoming a doctor.
Now Ling wants to help UCSF's Center for Tobacco Control Research create a "smoke-free world" by appealing to hipsters' concerns about "social justice."
"Saying 'Smoking is bad for you' isn't relevant to them," Ling told the University. "But they do care about self-expression and social justice."
The group holds events, known as "Commune Wednesdays," every month at bars in San Diego, San Francisco, and Burlington, Vt., trying to appeal to hipsters through artwork, alternative bands, and Pabst Blue Ribbon.
You can read about the political messaging at the link.
You may already be infuriated, but prepare to be even more infuriated by this rhetorical question:
College-educated "hipsters" are not at particularly high risk of becoming habit smokers, at least not compared to other groups.
Another group much more likely to become habit smokers are non- college educated blue-collar whites.
A group that tends to lean Republican in politics and traditionalist on social issues questions.
Now, given that blue-collar whites are more likely to become habit smokers than hipsters, how many millions do you suppose were spent to attract blue-collar whites to bars to buy them their beers of choice, to hire them the bands they favor, and to try to reach them with political messaging of an anti-progressive, pro-traditionalist bent?
I've got a guess and I'm pretty sure it's not a guess, it's an actual correct answer:
Zero fucking dollars.
— Ace Lisa Bloom: I find the word "charging" to be "racially-tinged" and "offensive."
Oh, by the way, you know what the real cause of the Ferguson Riots is? "White rage."
A good recap of the media's lunatic gibberings through all last night.
— Ace Speculation.
What isn't speculation is that the National Guard was at the town, but did not move in to restore order until this morning, after dozens of businesses had already been looted and/or burned to the ground.
"What the vast majority of Missourians are asking this morning is, 'We see the National Guard rolling in this morning, where were they last night?' The law-abiding citizens, and businesses owners, and taxpayers of Ferguson and the St. Louis region have the right to ask this governor to answer some questions," Kinder charged in a Fox News interview....
"Why were they not in there at the first sign of an overturned police car, or a smashed police car window, with a show of force that would have stopped this? And heres my question that the governor must answer: Is the reason that the National Guard was not in there because the Obama administration and the Holder Justice Department leaned on you to keep them out? I cannot imagine any other reason," Kinder said.
Ferguson's mayor did request that the Guard be deployed -- and he was ignored.
Nice Deb makes a good point -- stop referring to violence and arson as "protests."
But that's their favorite trick, isn't it?
— Ace Oh.
This is surprising. Schumer is a safe senator from deep blue New York and doesn't have -- unless he's insane -- any delusions about one day being president.
He's not actually denouncing Obamacare but this is kind of close to that.
"After passing the stimulus, Democrats should have continued to propose middle-class-oriented programs and built on the partial success of the stimulus, but unfortunately Democrats blew the opportunity the American people gave them," Schumer said. "We took their mandate and put all of our focus on the wrong problemhealth care reform."
The third-ranking Senate Democrat noted that just about 5 percent of registered voters in the United States lacked health insurance before the implementation of the law, arguing that to focus on a problem affecting such "a small percentage of the electoral made no political sense."
The larger problem, affecting most Americans, he said, was a poor economy resulting from the recession. "When Democrats focused on health care, the average middle-class person thought, 'The Democrats aren't paying enough attention to me,' " Schumer said.
The health care law should have come later, Schumer argued, after Democrats had passed legislation to help the middle class weather the recession. Had Democrats pushed economic legislation, he said, "the middle class would have been more receptive to the idea that President Obama wanted to help them" and, in turn, they would have been more receptive to the health care law.
Schumer said he told fellow Democrats in the lead-up to the passage of the Affordable Care Act that it was the wrong time to pass the law.
"People thoughtand I understand thislots of people thought this was the only time to do this, it's very important to do. And we should have done it. We just shouldn't have done it first," he said. "We were in the middle of a recession. People were hurting and saying, 'What about me? I'm losing my job. It's not health care that bothers me. What about me?' About 85 percent of all Americans were fine with their health care in 2009, mainly because it was paid for by either the government or their employer, private sector. So they weren't clamoring. The average middle-class voter, they weren't opposed to doing health care when it started out, but it wasn't at the top of the agenda."
The Democrat Party can't "help" the middle class, because the middle class is where it gets all that money to redistribute from.
Van Gogh, "Blossoming Almond Branch in a Glass with a Book" (188
— Open Blogger
- In Case You Hadn't Heard, There Was No Indictment For Officer Wilson
- Protestors Honoring The Memory Of Michael Brown By Looting The Store Brown Robbed Before He Was Shot
- Am I A Bad Person For Enjoying This?
- Yeah, I'm A Terrible Person
- Alternate Reality Headline Of The Day
- Conventional Wisdom
- Oh Yeah, Protestors Not Buying Stuff Friday Will Wreck Our Economy Or Something
- Obama As Good At Stopping Riots As He Is A Picking NCAA Brackets
- Chuck Hagel Is Out As Defense Secretary, So You Know What That Means
- Hotel Denies Hillary's Claim Of Employing Illegals
- The Forgotten Americans
- Did A Texas Jury Send The Right Baby Killer To Death Row
- Japans Youth Fret As Recession Hits
- Yeah, They're Spending Your Tuition Money Wisely
- Feel Good Story Of The Day
— andy Looks like the media got what it wanted in Ferguson; arson, looting ... the works.
Pity the poor people who have to pick up the pieces after they move on.
AoSHQ Weekly Podcast | Stitcher | Download | Ask The Blog | Archives
November 24, 2014
So I spent all weekend working and then entertaining business visitors from Japan and more of the same today. Which means all you non-Premium members get la suckage d'ONT.
Properties also consistent with the truth...
And the left is already spreading its poison:
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said there were "phrases that serve as an excuse for not thinking." One of these phrases that substitute for thought today is one that depicts the current problems of blacks in America as "a legacy of slavery."more...
...Despite the grand myth that black economic progress began or accelerated with the passage of the Civil Rights laws and "War on Poverty" programs of the 1960s, the cold fact is that the poverty rate among blacks fell from 87 percent in 1940 to 47 percent by 1960. This was before any of those programs began.
Over the next 20 years, the poverty rate among blacks fell another 18 percentage points, compared to the 40-point drop in the previous 20 years. This was the continuation of a previous economic trend, at a slower rate of progress, not the economic grand deliverance proclaimed by liberals and self-serving black "leaders."
Ending the Jim Crow laws was a landmark achievement. But, despite the great proliferation of black political and other "leaders" that resulted from the laws and policies of the 1960s, nothing comparable happened economically. And there were serious retrogressions socially.Nearly a hundred years of the supposed "legacy of slavery" found most black children being raised in two-parent families in 1960. But thirty years after the liberal welfare state found the great majority of black children being raised by a single parent.
— Ace So I'm sure this is the last we'll hear of this.
A white police officer will not face charges for fatally shooting an unarmed black teenager in a case that set off violent protests and racial unrest throughout the nation, an attorney close to the case said Monday night.
A St. Louis County grand jury declined to indict officer Darren Wilson, 28, for firing six shots in an August confrontation that killed 18-year-old Michael Brown, said Benjamin Crump, an attorney for the family. The decision had been long awaited and followed rioting that resembled war-zone news footage in this predominantly black suburb of St. Louis.
"The jury was not inclined to indict on any charges,'' Crump said after being informed of the decision by authorities. Prosecutors scheduled an news conference to announce the decision.
Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon, a Democrat, called for calm after calling up National Guard troops to stand by in case of unrest. Speaking before the decision was announced, he urged that "regardless of the decision, people on all sides show tolerance, mutual respect and restraint.''
Super Awesome Update: Prevaricator In Chief Barack Obama scheduled to address the nation at 10 pm, assumedly with more lies.
Gunshots Heard; Cars Vandalized.
— Dave in Texas So the Jets are playing the Bills in Motown. Because of this.
It's not the MNF game but they had to find a place to play so they did and that's that.
Monday Night Football is Baltimore at New Orleans which has no snow problems today. So that's nice.
Those are nice too.
— Ace It's what we figured, but Gateway Pundit says they have a source in the prosecutor's office confirming it.
So now we'll have some wonderful, wonderful riots.
— Ace I have to read it myself one of these days.
Here are points 15 and 16.
15. Did we mention that there was nothing good about the talking points?
Yeah, so, late in the report we learn that "the Administration's initial public narrative on the causes and motivations for the attacks were not fully accurate." You dont say! Also that "The process and edits made to these talking points was flawed."
And for this, the GOP should be ashamed? Really? Its almost like a less obsequious press might think something else might be amiss.
Much of the report wishy-washily explains that there is a fog in intel gathering that makes things difficult to assess and that this kind of sort of excuses all the horse manure that was shoveled by the administration during the campaign-season terrorist attack.
Now, earlier in the report were told that "[Ansar al Sharia] posted a video on YouTube on September 12, 2012, claiming participation in the attacks" and we know that the head of al Qaeda called for attacks on the U.S. in Libya the day before the attack. We know that the attack took place on September 11, what even the most casual observer might note is a significant date. We're told that the Defense Intelligence Agency said the attacks were pre-planned on September 12.
But you see, man, like a few weeks later the CIA totally thought it just happened to fall on September 11.
Let me be clear, as President Obama might say, if you're a reporter reading this and think this sounds even remotely plausible and you think that this section is anything other than a great explanation of how idiotic the CIA can be, you are an idiot.
Everything about this section is groan-inducing. Such as that when a cable came from Tripoli to the CIA on September 14 that was the "first indication that there may not have been a protest," according to deputy director Mike Morell, he wasn't sure if he'd read it. Nevermind that we later learn that folks in Libya had within hours assessed that there was a lack of protests that day. I just have a hard time believing that the deputy director wouldn't care if a Tripoli intelligence cable came around. Either way, by September 15, he'd gotten an email specifically saying there'd been no protest.
And when did Susan Rice go on television blaming a YouTube video for sparking a protest that somehow magically transformed into this super-effective double-location onslaught that took four American lives including an American Ambassador's? That would be September 16.
That was when she said the actions in Benghazi were a "direct result of a heinous and offensive video that was widely disseminated."
This report that supposedly makes Republicans look bad notes that Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes wrote on September 14 that "one of the goals of Administration public statements should be 'To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.'"
Exactly the opposite, Ben.
Anyway, this report then claims, more or less completely implausibly, that Rice couldnt have really known until afterwards that her assessments were incorrect. Um, OK. But maybe when you're, I dont know, trying to "underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy" because you're focusing on campaigning more than truth-telling, you end up underscoring something that isn't true. I dont care if we have some difficult-to-swallow bureaucratic BS explanation that avoids tough questions and instead pats Susan Rice on the head as if she couldn't be expected to do better. Or, rather, I dont see why we let certain administrations get away with this type of explanatory defense while nailing other people to the wall for the smallest slight.
16. Wait, what's this about Mike Morell again?
So the same Morell who accidentally didnt read a memo related to a horrific terror attack and forgot to tell anyone about the cables from Tripoli also was this guy:
"Finding 12: Deputy CIA Director Michael Morell made significant changes to the talking points"
Wait, what? Are you kidding me?
But, the report says, it's OK because, um, well, you see, he didnt know Susan Rice or anyone else in the Administration would use talking points he made. And then the report says something about excellent beachfront property for sale cheap. No, actually it says he "made a large number of edits after a September 15 White House Deputies Committee meeting." Oh dear.
Earlier drafts of the talking points mentioned al Qaeda but by the time Morell was done with them, he didnt even include "Islamist" in them. Because our CIA is full of people who do not commit intelligence failures but cant figure out that an al Qaeda attack on September 11 might be related to Islamism.
By the way, the CIA's office of public affairs also stripped language about attacks and changed it to "demonstrations" and I am sure that had nothing whatsoever to do with it being an election year or their bosses allowing a major attack on the anniversary of September 11.
By the way, the report only examined failures by the intelligence agencies -- that is, the CIA -- in Benghazi. It did not examine the White House or State Department or Department of Defense.
— Ace They're almost openly campaigning for a second look at the guillotine.
Dame Vivienne Westwood, the fashion designer, has declared that people who cant afford to buy organic food should "eat less" and stop getting fat.
The millionaire designer made the comments as she delivered a petition to Downing Street protesting about genetically modified food.
When a BBC Radio 5 Live interviewer suggested that "not everybody can afford to eat organic food", Dame Vivienne replied: "Eat less!"
Told that many people in Britain are visiting food banks because they dont have enough to put on their tables, so "to eat less isnt an option", Dame Vivienne was dismissive.
"They dont have any choice this is the point, isnt it," she said.
"Youve got all these processed foods, which is the main reason people are getting fat. Theyre not actually good for you - they don't give you strength, they give you weight.
"I eat vegetables and fruit. I dont eat meat. I believe meat is bad for me so I dont eat it. Its also bad for the animals.
"If there was a movement to produce more organic food and less of the horrible food, then organic food would obviously be a good value price, wouldnt it?"
— Ace ...in losing effort. Of course.
Still, there's that catch.
Now, he was fouled on this play, and drew the flag. I celebrated that. I had no idea he caught the ball. I was happy with the flag.
I didn't imagine it was possible to catch the ball -- it was thrown out of reach, and the Cowbow DB is clearly pulling down on him.
It took me ten seconds to realize he'd f***ing caught the thing. And not even sloppily. No ball movement here. He just catches it.
— Ace The sketch itself is okay, but it is critical of Obama's lawlessness, which makes it absolutely remarkable for SNL.
The Washington Post has actually endeavored to "Fact Check" the sketch.
Demonstrating that serving as the Palace Guard for Dear Leader is a 24-7-365 enterprise, Zachary A. Goldfarb, policy editor at The Washington Post, somehow felt the need on Sunday morning to critique the Saturday Night Live opening skit which appeared the previous evening.
Twelve hours after the skit was first broadcast, Goldfarb, whose whose full archive going back to August indicates that he has not written a WaPo item for Sunday publication in the past four months, nitpicked a comedy skit for oh the humanity! failing to distinguish between an "Executive Order" and "executive action"....
The guess here is that the SNL skit -- and especially its three pushes [of "The Bill" down the Capitol Hill steps] -- really got under the White House's skin, perhaps even to the point where they felt like they had to lean on someone at the Post to play some defense on their behalf. Whether or not any communication actually occurred, it seems clear that the Post's apparently equally thin-skinned Goldfarb felt it necessary to get up on a Sunday morning to critique a fundamentally accurate ... (still having a hard time believing it) ... comedy skit.
Goldfarb's piece isn't particularly hacky. Oh, I think it's pretty ticky-tack in making a distinction between an "executive order" and an "executive action," but it doesn't zealously defend Obama from the charge of unconstitutional action the way that, say, Vox would.
So I wonder: Why publish this embarrassment at all?
All I can figure is that Tom Blumer's guess is right, and that the White House did indeed call them asking for a "Fact Check," so the Washington Post obliged.
If this scenario sounds familiar, your memory is not deceiving you: Back in 2010, Wolf Blitzer presumed to fact-check an SNL sketch that made the point that Obama had no real accomplishments to his name.
Why are only sketches critical of Obama subject to this ridiculous, partisan exercise of "fact" checking? Obviously neither the WaPo nor CNN has ever "fact" checked SNL's dozens of Republican-bashing sketches.
The exercise itself is partisan-- putting people on notice that there is one subject (Barack Hussein Obama) about which there can be no joking whatsoever.
Update: Holy F***ballz: Here's the hacktastic, zealous "fact" checking defense of Obama, courtesy of the Daily Beast.
— Ace So we've got that going for us.
The Ferguson grand jurors had apparently intended to render their decision on Friday, but held back, deciding that they needed to think about it some more. They re-convened today to discuss the case again, and now say they're ready to render their opinion.
— Ace You just need to get that Big Bus' engines revving.
42 queries taking 2.8263 seconds, 279 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.