August 29, 2015
— Open Blogger CoyoteBlog writes, I Have This Argument All The Time With The US Forest Service , but it could be with any government agency doing....anything. The pull quote is marvelous, and one that, while we as obsessed conservatives have internalized, is not common knowledge among those who aren't quite as rabid about political philosophy.
from page 114 of the 5th edition (2015) of Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics :
While capitalism has a visible cost -- profit -- that does not exist under socialism, socialism has an invisible cost -- inefficiency -- that gets weeded out by losses and bankruptcy under capitalism. The fact that most goods are more widely affordable in a capitalist economy implies that profit is less costly than inefficiency. Put differently, profit is a price paid for efficiency.
— Open Blogger I'm going blind from watching this over and over and...
How they sharpen pencils in a factory.. pic.twitter.com/OYO7vCjMaL— SciencePorn (@SciencePorn) August 27, 2015
and, which of you will try this at home? more...
— Open Blogger Greetings fellow gardeners! Your hostess is somewhere in flyover country at present in a large SUV filled (one hopes) with her belongings, including loving spouse and pets. So this week's edition of the Saturday Gardening Thread will be a minimalist affair:
As always, KT was prepared with plenty of juicy gardening content, but I didn't want to risk not being able to put it up this weekend. (TWHS!)
Here are a couple of pictures that Mr. Y-not took during the walk-through of our new house last weekend showing our new backyard:
— Open Blogger
H/T NDH (you should follow her on the tweet thing: @mflynny)
And of course Open Thread, because you maniacs do it anyway.
— Open Blogger Only nine more days to college football season.
August 28, 2015
— CDR M
Every presidential candidate's doppelgänger, according to face recognition software. Haha, Lindsey Graham only scored a 82 on the masculinity measurement. That's still too high though.
— Ace The "scandal" that isn't?
The Washington Post published a column Thursday night by David Ignatius that purports to clear leading Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton of wrongdoing in exclusively using a home brew server kept in her home that held top secret classified information during her four year tenure as secretary of state. The column is entitled The Hillary Clinton e-mail scandal that isnt.
Ignatius' lead defense witness for Clinton is one Jeffrey Smith who is given four paragraphs of quotes defending Clinton. Ignatius identifies Smith as "a former CIA general counsel whos now a partner at Arnold & Porter, where he often represents defendants suspected of misusing classified information."
Smith is the only named source in Ignatius column.
Ignatius and The Post failed to disclose that Smith served as a 'close' national security adviser for Hillary Clintons 2008 presidential campaign and that Smith has a history with the Clintons going back to at least President Bill Clintons election in 1992.
An April 2, 2007 New Republic article noted Clintons hiring of Smith...
Can't quote any more; go to the link to read Taylor's compilation of the Clinton-Smith connections.
Why did David Ignatius fail to note this connection? Is it because his column would have appeared even more laughable if he had properly informed his readers that the witness for the defense was an employee/crony of the accused?
Thanks to @RosenRosenRosen and Laurie David's Cervix.
— Open Blogger Good evening from the AoSHQ Weather Desk, Morons and Moronettes. I'm tmi3rd, and I'll be continuing my nightly eye on Erika until the storm dissipates. Some interesting things have happened over the last 24 hours with Erika, and I think we'll enjoy the media disappointment over it.
More below the fold... more...
— andy Morning dumper Ben K. joins Ace and Gabe on this week's episode.
Intro: Pride & Joy - Stevie Ray Vaughan
Outro: The Sky Is Crying - Stevie Ray Vaughan
Browse (and even search!) the archives
Follow on Twitter
Don't forget to submit your Ask the Blog questions for next week's episode.
Open thread in the comments.
— Ace This strikes me as, um, problematic, as all the kids say.
An FBI "A-team" is leading the "extremely serious" investigation into Hillary Clinton's server and the focus includes a provision of the law pertaining to "gathering, transmitting or losing defense information," an intelligence source told Fox News.
The section of the Espionage Act is known as 18 US Code 793.
A separate source, who also was not authorized to speak on the record, said the FBI will further determine whether Clinton should have known, based on the quality and detail of the material, that emails passing through her server contained classified information regardless of the markings.
Now you might think that sounds bad for Grandmonster Hillary.
Nah, don't sweat it, says as progressive cretin David Ignatius at the Washington Post, a totally unbiased paper, swearsies.
The Hillary Clinton e-mail 'scandal' that isn't
Splendid! It's not a sneer without sneer quotes.
By David Ignatius Opinion writer August 27 at 8:37 PM
Does Hillary Clinton have a serious legal problem because she may have transmitted classified information on her private e-mail server? After talking with a half-dozen knowledgeable lawyers, I think this "scandal" is overstated. Using the server was a self-inflicted wound by Clinton, but it's not something a prosecutor would take to court.
David Petraus disagrees.
"It's common" that people end up using unclassified systems to transmit classified information, said Jeffrey Smith, a former CIA general counsel whos now a partner at Arnold & Porter, where he often represents defendants suspected of misusing classified information.
Ah, the guy who defends people who mishandle classified information says it's no biggie.
You can read the rest if you enjoy bad writing which is dumb and partisan.
You may wonder, doesn't this deserve a flaming skull?
No. For some news, we note its import by an even more urgent signal than the flaming skull.
Some news is so enormous as to beg -- nay, demand -- a Realness Update:
— Ace Because "field," you see, while meaning to everyone else "outside the office, out in the actual field of reporting," he took it to mean "cotton fields," and ergo a racist assault on his dignity.
He also objected to the phrase "swinging' by a place," because, I guess, lynching.
Allahpundit notes that Charles Cooke is asking, in a different way, the same question I asked a few days ago.
I asked, "If 'backlash' is a real thing, presumably all races and creeds, and not just white (Republican!) Christians, are susceptible to having tribal/racial fires lit in their hearts by hot, sensationalistic coverage of another tribes' sins (or alleged sins); why does the media not seem to care about "backlash" when it reports sensationalistically on Dylan Roof's terrorist murders? Why in fact does it actively seek to make Roof's crime a crime of the entire White Race, who are collectively responsible for it, and who are, ergo, especially in the mind of a maniac, to be collectively punished for it?
If there is a danger that white (Republican!) Christians will go after innocent Muslims upon being sensationalized into anti-Muslim hatred owing to an Islamist's terrorism, does not the same danger apply to other races and creeds?
In fact, we know for a fact the same danger does so apply: "Bryce Williams" proves it, if Christopher Dorn didn't already.
The various assassinations of cops proves it.
But the media continues to pretend that "backlash" is something only white people can engage in.
Cooke wonders about all the hot "microaggression" rhetoric that fed directly into the Vine Assassin's "injustice collecting" -- the same nonsense in which perfectly innocent words are transformed into racial assaults:
Half-joking on Twitter, the Free Beacons Sonny Bunch reacted to this news [that "Bryce Williams" believed, among other lunacies, that 7-11's watermelon flavored Slurpees were a racist insult] by observing that, "instead of going on a killing spree, this guy shouldve gotten a columnist gig at the Guardian." As with all humor, there is some truth at the root of this barb. Certainly, the shooter was extreme in his willingness to take offense. But, really, he was no more extreme than many of the extremely silly people who write at Salon or sit on diversity boards or who stand up and make a nuisance of themselves on contemporary college campuses. If one believes that the culture causes people to pull triggers -- and again, I dont but many do -- then one has to be ecumenical about it. For what reason is this guy exempt? Why do we not need to have a "national conversation" about hypersensitivity?
The answer, I imagine, is politics, for this instinct seems only to run one way. The same people who tend to think that ugly strains within our culture lead inexorably to murder did not seem to care much that the man who killed three Muslims in North Carolina earlier this year was a progressive atheist with strong views about Islam. Likewise, they were not greatly interested that the guy who shot up the Family Research Council was inspired by the always hyperbolic output of the Southern Poverty Law Center, and they saw no connection whatsoever between protestors calling for the execution of police officers and a host of incidents in which angry men did just that. Hypocrisy.
This idea is getting some minor play on the right, but I personally think it should get a lot more. Pride of authorship, I'm sure, egotistically suggests to me this is a more important point than it might otherwise seem to me -- yet I cannot help but think that if the left wants to talk about the "tone" of discussion and the "hot words" used in politics, then we should in fact have a very serious conversation about all the actual, palpable venomous hatred the left stirs up daily in claiming that, for example, Amy Schumer is responsible for the Charleston terrorist attack because years ago she told a couple of jokes about Mexicans.
Either we can and should take one man's outrages and blame an entire race or religion for them or we ought not to.
The Racist Left, however, has played this game for years, speaking of whites and Christians as if they were actual demons on earth deserving of extirpation, all the time piously "calling out," mob attacking, and firing anyone who said anything untoward about any other group.
So I ask again:
Is the white race alone among races, and the Christian religion alone among religions, uniquely prone to "backlash" type attacks on innocent people?
And if the Left's answer is yes -- and indeed, their answer is in fact yes; they just don't say this aloud very often-- they they should be called to account and defend their obvious racism and Christophobia.
— Ace AllahPundit wonders about this. The Free Beacon wondered first.
I'ma blow your mind: Two cheers for the media for not making a big deal about this.
Because this is just Hillary attempting to use Obama's cynical "Stray Voltage" tactic.
Major Garret exposed this two years ago.
Whenever the White House is in trouble -- which is almost always, because they're socialist and hence incompetent -- they drop a rhetorical stinkbomb on the nation, a statement calculated to be trollish, controversial, enraging, and false.
They deliberately said false things about the women's pay gap, for example.
Why? Specifically to draw attention to the statement itself, which, while it may be a negative (in as much as Obama is lying as usual), is a sort of manageable, normal, routine-business sort of negative. Politicians argue about their claims all the time; they also frequently lie. Thus, to be in that particular fight was no big deal for Obama, because he's used to that, and while there may be a downside, it's just normal wear-and-tear downside, not major damage.
Keep in mind: While the public might be getting curious about Obama's ineptitude on the VA, or Healthcare.gov, or ISIS, or his thousand other failures, that is "stray voltage," flowing possible excitement of the national media mind, which could in fact damage him badly, should the circuits complete. That sort of electricity could electrocute him.
A top White House adviser told me last week's pay gap dust up was a "perfect" example of stray voltage. This time it was premeditated.
Obama's team expected, invited, and, to a certain degree, relished last week's hubbub. That's stray voltage in action.
As a theory, "stray voltage" exists in a kind of strategic void. It can't be dismissed or embraced as workable because creating controversy for the sake of controversy is, well, achievable. Like getting soup from the White House mess. It's also self-reinforcing and internally didactic. Everyone looks around and says, "See. There's controversy. It's working."
So this is why Hillary Clinton dropped her hot, wet turd on the country: to get us talking about this "outrage" instead of the fact that she is very close to having her security clearance revoked by the Intelligence Community, and even being prosecuted by the FBI.
She wants us talking about this, rather than that.
Hey, Hillary, you know who's a lot like ISIS?
You are. Because the FBI's counter-intelligence task force is investigating both of you, and your affiliated minions.
John Singer Sargent, "Poppies" (1886)
— Open Blogger Busy morning. Leave your positive comments here.
— andy Happy Friday.
August 27, 2015
i gotta tell you, sometimes I post my actual thoughts on twitter because I'm sick of being attacked in the comments for them.
on twitter, I can block people.
so... yeah, bad commenters drive out good ones. Every site in the world discovers this; the Wild West model is always proven to fail. Always.Posted by: ace at August 26, 2015 09:33 PM (dciA+)
585 The "abuse' Model of "argument" is not an attempt at discussion, but of shutting discussion down.
The goal is to make it socially painful to express a non-approved idea; some of the Trump supporters are trying to do just this, to make it socially painful to express an anti-trump sentiment here, by pouring abuse on whoever speaks one, thus making him keep silent, as well as any other people who witness it.
Well, it worked too well, to the point where I discovered I was saying things ON TWITTER I was too dissuaded to say ON MY OWN FUCKING BLOG.
Then one day I woke up and said "WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS BULLSHIT?" and like that, I decided I would force the migration in the other direction.
Spirited debate is fine; so is supporting Trump. I half support him myself. (You might not know that, because I keep trump commentary to twitter, because i've learned I cant' talk about trump on my own blog.)
But this idea that we are going to BULLY AND HECTOR PEOPLE INTO SILENCE is not a form of debate; it is the fascist's idea of stifling debate.
It will no longer be tolerated. And I don't just mean the Trump people (though they were the straw that broke this camel's back); I mean the trump-baiters, too.
Anyone who takes someething to a personal place that doesn't need to be in a personal place.Posted by: ace at August 26, 2015 09:52 PM (dciA+)
It's a very sad day when a man can't post his own thoughts on his own goddamn blog without being personally abused and insulted by his so-called fans.
Frankly the Trump thread on Tuesday was the straw that broke the camel's back for me. If this blog were a bar, I wouldn't want to hang out in it because of the ugly crowd it's attracted. After browsing through all the vitriol in the comments I told Ace that I didn't like this place any more and wasn't sure I wanted to post here any longer. It's been taken over by the raging nasties who take everything personally and feel that their anger at...well everything gives them a license to asshole. Note: It doesn't. Well at least not here.
And if I'm feeling this way - and Ace as well apparently - then there are probably dozens, even hundreds of others who feel the same way but have just walked away from the blog entirely. That's the silent insidious damage that this kind of atmosphere does. Not only does it devolve all discussions to insults and attacks but it quietly drives away the good commenters who have the most to offer. This is how online communities eventually wither and die.
Now some of this behavior is due to the very human tendency to take out your anger on a person of convenience rather than the actual, deserving target - especially when there's so much free-floating and well earned anger around. This is why people often end up being the nastiest to the loving people around them since a) they're close at hand and that's so much easier than having to track down the real target b) it feels so good to rage at and insult someone - anyone - even if they had nothing to do with the cause of the rage and c) deep down the ragers know that their chosen targets will take it without any real consequences. The fact that this kind of anger displacement is so easy, satisfying, and mostly cost-free is why it's such a common human failing. And when there's no cost at all you get the cesspool of internet comment sections.
Then you have the trolls and assholes (trassholes? asstrolls?). But calling them that is really glossing over some of the nuances of their behavior. Because a good percentage of the people most angry and unhappy about politics are in fact just angry and unhappy people in general. And 'politics' becomes a safe, more socially acceptable way to vent and act out all these pent-up feelings.
As Ace has pointed out before a whole lot of what would be considered disturbed, even somewhat crazy behavior in other areas of life suddenly gets a pass when it's presented as 'political' passion. So a lot of psychological energy in these types of people gets dressed up as 'politics' since that's more socially tolerated and you can get away with a lot of shit that would get you tossed or beaten/arrested elsewhere. But being an asshole because 'you just love america so much and hate what they have to done to it' still means that you're being an asshole - albeit with above average rationalization abilities.
Anyway whatever the reasons these vitriolic and personal attacks are ending.more...
— Open Blogger Hello from the AoSHQ Weather Desk, Morons and Moronettes. Though Erika isn't likely to become a major hurricane, it's still likely at this point to strike the continental United States as a hurricane, and that merits a post from us.
If you're along the Atlantic coast of Florida, it's a good bet that you're going to see at least tropical storm conditions (high winds, high surf, torrential rain, and perhaps a weak tornado here or there) starting Sunday into Monday, and if you're along the Georgia, South Carolina, or North Carolina coast, it's time to make sure you've got your hurricane gear ready to go *if* it comes your way.
If you're along the Gulf Coast, wait until it turns north before you start letting your guard down.
Details below the fold... more...
— Ace Well I don't know about that but they are actually panicky.
Even ultra-spinning in-the-bag hack Greg Sargent at the Washington Post's Plum Line (note that no conservatives get their own political column) admitted that this makes it official: The Democrats are actually panicking.
Biden is now the guy they have their hopes pinned on.
If you can believe that.
You all be nice to each other! Lot of people seem to really dig the friendlier, less angry vibe; let's keep that going and see how it all shakes out.
— Ace She says he was mentally ill, and he says he was victimized -- so she has no reason to doubt him.
Personally, I sort of doubt spree killers who are mentally ill, but Sally Kohn sees no reason to doubt this guy. He was #Black, and #OnlyBlackLivesMatter.
— Ace Well slap my face with a fish and call me Swedish.
Oh you think the Dems will have the votes to block the GOP's override of Obama's veto?
Ha-ha, you're so yesterday, Squares. Obama won't even have to veto it, because the Stick Together On Every Vote Democrats will have enough votes to even filibuster the GOP's vote against it.
Oh well, we tried! Guess you'll just have to vote for us harder and send us more campaign donations!
42 queries taking 1.892 seconds, 279 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.