May 31, 2011
— Ace I wrote this as an update to the post below, but it's "Classic Ace," by which I mean it's smug, gloating, lecturing, hectoring, dickish, prickish, arrogant, condescending, superior, and douchey.
It's all those things. It's also kinda right.
I love how we're all wingnutz because we've been out of the house enough to know how human beings behave. Like if they're seriously victimized in a malicious crime, they tend to get rather angry. They don't toss off casual jokes about it and try to change the subject right away.
They dwell. They vent. They use ALL CAPS or shout in real life. They make threats of furious consequences.
They do not say "Hacked!," like "Jinx, buy me a coke!"
Do any of these guys know why detectives always want to tell the next of kin of a murder victim that the victim has been killed?
They want to see the reaction. Whether it's normal or off, whether it's genuine or counterfeit. Whether the person is out-thinking himself and trying to guess at how he's supposed to take the news, and guessing wrong.
Are they overdoing it? Are they underdoing it? Are they saying one thing but showing, emotionally, a completely different state?
Are they, simply, play-acting?
Did these guys ever watch Law & Order? You don't even have to talk to people just to watch Law & Order.
Any of this ringing any bells? How people? Are supposed? To really? Respond?
But we're wingutz. Because we figured out that if you were seriously victimized with bad intent, you'd be angry about it, and probably call the FBI.
Oh, and probably that's the first thing on your mind, not the part about the Tivo eating your hockey game.
This isn't because Weiner is dumb. It's because people don't act well, usually, when they've been caught doing something wrong. They panic. They lie, and what's more, they don't lie well.
Because they're kind of in shock. Right?
Is this making any sense?
Did any of Weiner's passionate defenders ever stop to just ask if Weiner was acting like any of the various human beings they have known, or perhaps had at least heard stories about?
Here's a little experiment if you don't believe me, or are unfamiliar with the emotion of justifiable rage. Go tell a friend that some teenagers just keyed the words "SAD LOSER" into his car.
You know what his reaction will not be?
"#Keyed! It happens!"
Yes, that will not be his reaction. But if you're unconvinced, try it.
Oh, and also be prepared for your friend to be extremely angry at you just for throwing that heart attack at him.
You know Weiner's best play after he made this mistake? To say, in all caps:
THIS IS A MAJOR BREACH. YOU HAVE JUST ENLISTED YOURSELF INTO A WORLD OF PAIN YOU'LL REGRET FOR TEN YEARS, CHIEF.
That's a real reaction. If he had said that, I wouldn't have dogged him. Because my thought would have been, "Uh-oh, someone on the right just hacked a Congressman and this is going to be embarrassing. Now we've got a real hellstorm coming our way. Better back off...!"
But he out-thought himself. Because he was conflicted. He was trying to play it two different ways -- one, claim a hack, which requires an angry response.
But that will drive attention to it, right?
So, two: A lighthearted dismissal in hopes everyone will just blow it off.
So this is the problem. He's got two different reactions going here, all mixed up, and isn't committing to one or the other, because he's trying to get the good benefits of one (claiming a hack) while also getting the good benefits of the other (making it just go away).
But since he's trying to do both, he winds up with neither. They don't make sense together. If it was a hack, he shouldn't be playing it down. If he's playing it down, he should't claim it was a hack.
He did both. It makes no sense. It never did.
And this may not be as persuasive as Charles Johnson's and Daily Kos' "smoking-gun" technical proof, but this sort of thing actually identifies a lot of murder suspects who are eventually proven guilty.
His Pantomimes were all mixed up. Pick one Pantomime and commit to it. Don't mix and match Pantomimes like you're ordering Chinese.
He's not dumb. He's probably a good liar. If he had time to think about this and compose himself, he might have picked the right Pantomime and stuck with it, and who knows, maybe gotten out of it.
But he didn't have time. He had a couple of minutes. He was panicking. He went with two Pantomimes that just don't go together. Like, ever. In 100,000 years of human history, the words "I HAVE JUST BEEN CRIMINALLY VIOLATED!" have never been genuinely followed by, "And hey, anyone catch the score in the Bruins game?"
Content Warning, but you've all seen it.
Gotta commit to a lie. Or just commit to the truth. more...
— Ace 1. A low-paid staffer, who will soon go on to a prize posting in the Obama Administration, after the media furor dies down, did it as a big goof, and I was protecting him, because I'm that much of a hero
2. I was Tweeting it to my wife, whom I love so very much; how dare you intrude into the sanctity of a marriage
I like 1.
Lee Stranahan Talks WeinerGate on Cam & Company Show: Just about right now. It's on Sirius/XM Patriot 125, but you can also watch live at that link. Over Now.
Come On, Now It's Too Much: The Weiner wedding officiated by... oh, it's too much.
More: At McCain's, Jeffrey Toobin of course was dismissive of the story. Plus lots of other stuff.
Apart from Dana Bash, CNN Still On Team Weiner: Quote: "in Weiner's defense...the person behind this is andrew breitbart who has made a practice of targeting democrats..." I don't know who said it; just picked it off Twitter.
Ah, I should have guessed. In fact, I did guess, but didn't want to go with a guess. TRScoop confirms it was Jeffrey Toobin.
Oh! How Could I Have Forgotten About Charles Johnson?! Um, that question answers itself, doesn't it?
How could I have forgotten about a nobody who was only relevant back when Britney Spears was still kinda hot?
So I'll cut myself some slack on this
oversight perfectly functioning sight.
But if you want to know what Charles Johnson has been up to lately:
That's what he's been up to, stupid.
Yet Another Andrew Breitbart Smear Falls Apart
Fraudster is fraudulent
As soon as I heard about the scandal involving Rep. Anthony Weiner, and saw it being pushed like crazy by fraudster Andrew Breitbart, I knew it would turn out to be yet another phony story.
And thats exactly what happened. If you havent heard about the latest Breitbart scam, heres a pretty good summary (but they should check the spelling of their headline): Brietbart to use SEX SMEAR on Rep. Anthony Weiner.
In a nutshell, someone apparently hacked into Weiners Twitter and yfrog (a picture-hosting Twitter app) accounts, posted a lewd photo, then sent a screenshot of it to a student in Seattle. Wingnuts, of course, refuse to believe that Weiner didnt post it himself.
(Update: there was no hacking involved. The photo was never posted to Weiners account. Someone may have photoshopped a screenshot of a yfrog page to make it look like it came from Weiners page.)
(Update 2: the story changes again - apparently Weiners yfrog account really was cracked, and the image was posted there.)
The New York Times has a report, and I have to ask: when will the media stop treating Andrew Breitbart like a legitimate conservative source? The article doesnt even mention the numerous other frauds perpetrated by this right wing attack dog.
That's what I use updates for, too -- to become even more and more wrong and dumb.
When I don't think I'm stupid enough on the first try, I'll drop in a few bonus moron-updates to get even stupider.
Oh, I missed this. He's not finished being stupid in the post so he adds an extra stupid cherry on top with the postscript:
Breitbarts #TwitterHoax - How It Went Down (updated w/ smoking gun)
And that link? Is to the Daily Kos.
Well, that about wraps him up, huh?
He had ya fooled for a while there, huh? You know, I've never really gotten around to asking LGF'ers what the hell the attraction there was.
I remember I used to be jealous of everyone wanting to be a Lizardroid or whatever. I was like, wow, this guy really commands respect.
Then I'd read his blog and... uh... ooohhhh.... let's just say the pixels successfully stuck to the screen.
Eh, I won't razz you guys. I used to like Star Wars, before The Great Suckening.
— Maetenloch If you enjoyed Ace's super-blogging over the holiday weekend, now might be a good time to kick in a little donation for him. Even $5 or $10 helps keep the lights on in Little Endor. He's too proud to ever ask so we have to occasionally do it for him. And trust me - you do not want to see an ewok in a depressive funk
Contrary to most Europeans' views the US is not murder central, and actually has a pretty low homicide rate compared to to the rest of the world. In fact I recall reading someplace (alas I can't find the link now) that if you were to exclude a handful of certain notorious 'urban' areas from the US statistics, our homicide rate would be the same as Canada and the UK.
Places to avoid: Honduras and Jamaica. With a whopping 60 annual murders per 100,000 people they make central Africa seems positively Amish in its tranquility.
— Ace Did I not just say we were entering the "please respect my family's privacy" phase of this?
Looks like that tantrum of mine was utterly unnecessary, eh? CNN had the bomb and was about to blow it up.
Of course, no Democratic sex scandal is complete until Amanda Marcotte embarrasses herself. Like, claiming the NYT -- which actually spun for Weiner claiming that maybe he had a "staffer malfunction" --- was sexually harassing him by blaming the victim.
Her headline is that the NYT is picking on Weiner for wearing a skirt that's too short. See, like a rape victim.
The New York Times really takes the cake this morning by demonstrating that anyone, even a man, who is victimized by sexual harassment is eligible for victim-blaming. Their argument is that Weiner brought the sexual harassment onto himself (and this poor young woman, apparently) by wearing his opinion skirt too short. Also, by being a social networking slut.
I wish I could say this is the first time that I've heard that victims of sexual harassment deserve to be abused because they dare to have a presence online and they aren't ladylike or mincing. Granted, I never thought that the person accused of slatternly use of social networking bringing sexual harassment onto zirself would be a dudely congressman from New York, but okay. It just shows that "she had it coming" is incredible versatile.
In a way, it makes sense. Much of the mainstream media, and especially much of the New York Times, views Democrats as symbolically female. Therefore Weiner can be dinged, in their minds, for unladylike behavior. But still, it's kind of strange.
And of course, the closing paragraph is about how, even though the victim has been punished by a cranky old asshole who uses sex as a weapon against people he doesn't like, the victim isn't going to learn his lesson, roll down his skirts, cross his legs, and shut the fuck up.
Unabashed! Unashamed! Weiner is such a slut. Doesn't he know that Democrats who don't keep their opinions to themselves deserve to be buried under penis pictures?
I suppose we should be grateful, at least, that the author of this piece, Ashley Parker, didn't blame the other victim in this, the young woman who received the penis picture.
Mm-hm. That's a perfectly reasonable reaction to this story: Anthony Weiner, rape survivor.
Exactly, Ms. Marcotte. Nailed it, dude.
I Believe In Weiner: Democrats circling up the wagons to guard the rape victim.
— Ace Ben Stiller is now some kind of top administrator with a hospital, and has two kids with wife Teri Polo. Difficulty for his marriage presents himself when a cute pharmaceutical rep, played by Jessica Alba, comes in to flatter and flirt.
Meanwhile, her husband's dad, the imposing ex-spook Robert DeNiro, tells him the family has always needed a patriarch, and asks Bill Stiller to be "the God Focker."
Owen Wilson then shows up, making Ben Stiller jealous with his perfection and his strong ongoing friendship with his wife. more...
"Refer to My (Spokesman's) Statements;" "Allow Me To Make A Point About The Debt Ceiling"
— Ace Vid up at Mediaite; thanks to Drew.
I have linked it below, because I need it on my site, but do Mediate a favor and like everyone whose last name begins A-L click on the link above, everyone else watch below.
It's already good. I might get "hacked" myself right now, if you know what I'm sayin', and I think you do.
My dick is so hard right now it's yelling at me to "let me make a point about the debt ceiling."
Dana Bash? Is this the video?
Dana Bash sure sounds pretty unsatisfied with Weiner's answers.
But this is from earlier, and people seem to be talking about a more recent package.
Thanks to DebForFreedom on Twitter; but I'm still looking for a more recent one.
Florida Congressman Demands Investigation Into Cybersecurity Issue Raised by Weiner Hack: Uh huh. Yeah yeah, that's what I want investigated too, the... "cybersecurity issue."
— Ace Doesn't he get lobbied by FaceBook and Twitter?
If he wanted an investigation of this nefarious hacker, couldn't he just pick up the phone and call people eager to please him and tell them to find this horrible Teabagging hacker?
Wouldn't that investigation occur post-haste and on the snap?
Look, I actually apologize to everyone I jumped ugly on.
I am burned out.
This is an emotional thing at this point.
No, this is not the biggest story in the world. It is not as big as 200 other stories. I get that.
But it is a story.
I made it my crusade because the bigger stuff is beyond me. I understand that. I have tunnel-vision on my own tiny piece of the news here.
I get that.
But it is a story.
Biggest story? No. But pixels are cheap; they won't run out anytime soon.
And I don't understand, at this point, why it is is being treated as almost beneath mention.
I think I need a break.
Open blog, for a while. Will be back later.
Oh: If he was compromised on this, should he sit on committees overseeing companies that now kinda-sorta have leverage over him?
Like -- if my suspicions are correct, and there is no
hacker prankster coked-up staffer having an epileptic fit and randomly dialing Weiner's passwords with his tongue -- wouldn't Twitter know that and have evidence of that?
Wouldn't that put Twitter in a rather good position in future meetings with Rep. Weiner?
— Ace I agree now too.
I thought it was news when a Congressman tweeted a picture of his erection to a 21-year-old coed, but I've been reliably informed this is all just a misunderstanding not worth pursuing.
Byron York Notices That Weiner's Non-Responsive Answers Aren't Very Convincing: But he's wrong, this is not a story.
As the distinguished gentleman Rep. Weiner says, it's time to "move on" from this "distraction" which we are "loathe" to pursue any further.
Also Noticing: Taranto, but this could have happened to anyone, and who are we to judge?
Move on, stupid bloggers. This is not a story.
Let's Give Rep. Weiner A One-Free-Boner Pass
Because God knows he'd do the same for you.
Some video of the fair-minded, honest Rep. Weiner below. I could link a thousand of these.
But he's a nice guy. Let's go soft on him. Let's give him every benefit of the doubt.
It's the right thing to do.
Like the NYT says, spinning on its own authority, this was probably just some unnamed staffer pulling a prank.
Yeah, that's it. That must be it. We've gone from hack on Friday, prank on Sunday, "staffer malfunction" from the NYT on Monday, and pretty soon we'll be entering "Please respect my family's privacy," so yes, let's just continue to pretend none of this has happened.
Welcome to 72 hours ago. Let's set the WayBack machine to Friday at 10:00 pm.
— Ace I'm spinning this off into a main post. If I'm going to call people out, I should do it prominently.
This is my problem.
Some people took some chances and developed this story and kept it alive and discovered stuff and advanced it.
And now, the story is all but proven. Did you see Weiner saying he was "loathe" to pursue this?
That happened. That wasn't a dream.
And yet even still we are getting the brush-off from the establishment voices of the conservative press.
Yesterday I had to talk to a friend, another blogger covering this, who was feeling nervous and upset and exposed on this. I had to give him a little bucking up.
That was our weekend.
How was yours?
Now that the weekend is over, can we stop with this CYA bullshit?
You don't need to claim you know the answers.
How about this-- does the evidence lean in a certain direction?
Can we stop the almost monolithic conservative establishment press embargo?
Do we get to take off some time now, or are we expected to continue to be the only ones covering this?
With no encouragement, no congratulations, no support, and no approval?'
Oh and by the way the Make Believe Media is reading into this reluctance the go-ahead to embargo it, too, which is what they desperately wish to do.
They know he's lying-- but they have decided the best course of action is to wait for smoking gun, absolutely unchallengeable proof, which is a very sweet standard for Representative WeinerShot.
And with the entirety of the conservative establishment press cheerleading the liberal press on not covering this, you guys are all enabling them to bury it.
I don't get it.
I just don't get it.
Honestly: If you have questions, if you need to be caught-up, write to me, I'll answer them.
I am answering questions for liberal-leaning media outlets which seem more interested in this than our conservative press.
I hate calling people out, and I have avoided it, but does anyone at National Review read the news besides Jonah Goldberg? Update: And the indespensible Jim Geraghty, who did a lot on this in his Monday Morning Jolt.
How about the Weekly Standard? Love you guys, but we who've been covering this are becoming extremely unfond of your absence. Is this to be the extent of The Weekly Standard's coverage?
What the hell is going on?
If you guys have some reason to believe this is fake -- an opinion not shared, by the way, in the liberal media -- please tell us so so that we do not further expose and embarrass ourselves.
And if you don't -- STOP THE EMBARGO.
We're Used To... embargoes from the liberal media establishment.
Having to fight the conservative establishment media establishment is one too many fights for me.
I was informed by a reporter that the story could only get cooking on Tuesday, when DC came back to work, and so I thought if we kept the story going by today the cavalry would come in.
But there is no cavalry. Still the same twenty bloggers covering it.
If you want the story to be buried, it will be buried, because I think I speak for a lot of us in saying we're about to give up. It's one thing to get the finger from the liberal media; it's another thing to get it from our most prominent champions.
If there's some reason the conservative press wants to run interference for the noxious anteater Anthony Weiner, fine, you're about to win.
We did our part.
Edited: I had a freak-out and threw a guy I know a little and like a lot under the bus.
A subsequent post notes that Goulding was addressing only the question of the technical side of things, not the circumstantial case, and that his conclusions were limited to the technical side. As he found the technical case did not prove one thing or another, he limited himself to that conclusion.
I have apologized to Nathan Goulding by email.
Update: Sure Would Be Nice If We Had Some Kind of Counter-Liberal Conservative Press Which Could Report Things Like This
— Ace Oh, and of course, no police involvement in an alleged hack on a Congressman.
Several questions still remain unanswered, however. For instance, TheDC has asked Arnold at least four times if the man in the photo was Weiner. Arnold has not answered.
TheDC also asked Arnold if there will be an official investigation into who might have hacked Weiners accounts and how it was done. Arnold has not answered that question either.
I suspect the picture is actually of Andrew Breitbart's junk, and I feel safe in making that claim, because he doesn't read the actual posts.
Please don't repeat my allegation in the comments.
Did You Mean to d Me or to @ Me? I've had it confirmed, why I didn't just check myself is a mystery for the ages, that Twitter has a short-code for private and public messages.
To send a private message, you hit "d," then space, and then the handle.
To send a public one, you hit "@" and the handle.
I had heard that but didn't know that for sure. I don't know this tech stuff all you kids are so into.
I send my dic pics via the God Blessed United States Postal Service, in a discrete brown parcel marked "Grandma's Birthday Surprise."
So this is probably just a case of him excitedly hitting the more-often-used "@" when he intended to add the less-used, but sexier, "d." And thus the tweet went public rather private.
By the way, I was going to do a post on this,and maybe that's too tough, but for the love of God everyone in the liberal media knows he's guilty -- that's the word I get -- so Conservative Establishment Media, it is "safe" for you to start doing your jobs.
I don't want to call out my confreres but this is getting ri-goddamn-diculous. The entire Conservative Establishment Media has a tighter embargo on this than CNN, for crying out loud, apart from Jonah Goldberg's two mentions and Carl Cameron finally "breaking" the story on Fox an hour ago.
Can we man up here, Ladies?
Or do we actively wish to be scooped by N frigging P frigging R?
Iowahawk: Justice 4 Weiner.
Oh, and over the weekend, Jonah Goldberg tweeted a Carsenio-style Answer Then Question.
Answer: Anthony Weiner.
Question: Who had a different Memorial Day weekend than he expected?
Hot Air Tepidly Breaks Embargo: Linking Weiner's "I don't want to talk about this outrageous crime that has been perpetrated against me by Teabagger hackers even though I could get ten viral YouTube videos out of it which is all I'm about" interview.
Im still not convinced much of any particular explanation, but Weiners response raises a lot more questions than it doesnt answer.
I don't get it.
Thanks very much for the link and recommendation that people come here -- honestly -- but I do not understand this whole attitude.
No one believes him. Not even the liberal media.
It is safe to say so.
I understand caution. I do. I understand fairness.
But facts are facts, and the facts all pile up on the same side of the street.
It is not "innuendo" to note this. It is not "innuendo" to note the facts here point to a specific conclusion.
The facts are the facts. The facts are not to be blamed, or treated dismissively, simply because they imply a conclusion that is rather bad for Weiner.
This is nuts.
— DrewM I blame, er, the Jews?
A senior Egyptian general admits that "virginity checks" were performed on women arrested at a demonstration this spring, the first such admission after previous denials by military authorities.
"The girls who were detained were not like your daughter or mine," the general said. "These were girls who had camped out in tents with male protesters in Tahrir Square, and we found in the tents Molotov cocktails and (drugs)."
The general said the virginity checks were done so that the women wouldn't later claim they had been raped by Egyptian authorities.
"We didn't want them to say we had sexually assaulted or raped them, so we wanted to prove that they weren't virgins in the first place," the general said. "None of them were (virgins)."
Apparently the General is unaware women can be sexually assaulted with out vaginal penetration. He should call Dominique Strauss-Kahn for the details. Oh and Lara Logan could tell you it's not just virgins who can be sexually assaulted but hey she's a filthy infidel whore or something.
A lot of Arabists or Muslim apologists bemoan America's support for Israel. Hey guys, here the reason and it has nothing to do with crafty and far reaching Jewish conspiracies...it's because of stories like this that point up how little we have in common with their culture. You want true US support and not just some bribe money? Join the 20th Century (yeah, I know but I'd settle for that at this point).
— Ace She's going to spare us all the self-embarrassment of a court challenge.
— Ace First I thought maybe it was just over-eager security programs; but I am getting a lot of complaints about this.
I am looking into several issues. Could it be comment-spam? Could there be links in there known to lead to security threats and so Norton and the like are warning off?
(By the way, my security software never tells me the site is a problem.)
One thing we might have to do -- unless we can get comment registration -- is simply disable all HTML in the comments.
Can anyone think of any possibilities? YouTube vids? What?
Answer: This is the information I have, from our very nice ad server representative, who keeps me from eating dog food.
This is driven by the user's and their browser history. The intent is for the user to visit a familiar web page and react poorly because they see a "trusted" website. :-/ -sc
This only happens for Safari users. Apple is about to release an OS patch to help clear this up.
Also, below please find steps to take if anyone gets infected by this virus. Hope this helps..thanks!
Steps to remove Mac Defender
Move or close the Scan Window
Go to the Utilities folder in the Applications folder and launch Activity Monitor
Choose All Processes from the pop up menu in the upper right corner of the window
Under the Process Name column, look for the name of the app and click to select it; common app names include: MacDefender, MacSecurity or MacProtector
Click the Quit Process button in the upper left corner of the window and select
Quit Activity Monitor application
Open the Applications folder
Locate the app ex. MacDefender, MacSecurity, MacProtector or other name
Drag to Trash, and empty Trash
Malware also installs a login item in your account in System Preferences.
Removal of the login item is not necessary, but you can remove it by following the steps below.
Open System Preferences, select Accounts, then Login Items
Select the name of the app you removed in the steps above ex. MacDefender, MacSecurity, MacProtector
Click the minus button
— Ace A horrible, vile woman.
Oddly the media doesn't challenge her on her transparent question-dodging and topic-changing.
As I've been saying for years: It's not that the media won't ask the Democrats tough questions.
They will. They will ask the Democrats tough questions in order to allow the Democrats a three minute sound-bite dump to help the Democratic cause.
What the media will not do is ask the Democrats tough follow-up questions.
They let them have their sound-bite, and then move on.
— Gabriel Malor Starting in about 2008, the global warming hoax slowly started to come apart. Scientists started to recant as none of their models accurately predicted current temperatures or sea levels. Then came ClimateGate. Just a few months ago polls showed that just 35% of Americans -- a new low -- believe in anthropogenic global warming. Just last week the G8 nations finished abandoning the Kyoto Protocol.
Faced with the widespread decline in their pet theory, what are global warming believers to do? Hit the panic button:
That is Newsweek's latest cover and it comes with a hysterical fantasy from the so-called science editor. The article is one of those piece of media paranoia that is so wrong it is hard to know where to start. Since I haven't got time to fisk the whole piece, here are five obvious errors.
First, remember when global warming believers said that single-year activity (for example, the annual lows in the 2000s) didn't equate to a climate trend? She doesn't:
Even those who deny the existence of global climate change are having trouble dismissing the evidence of the last year. In the U.S. alone, nearly 1,000 tornadoes have ripped across the heartland, killing more than 500 people and inflicting $9 billion in damage.
Is the "nearly 1,000" line, which is supposed to sound like a lot, even out of the ordinary? A glance at the NOAA's annual tornado statistics suggests that it's not.
And, as I wrote last week when Oklahoma and Missouri got hit, do not under any circumstances believe that graph demonstrates a trend. As the NOAA itself admits, tornado-detection is a much more advanced science modernly than in the past. Merely comparing numbers of tornadoes, is not a meaningful comparison. Contra Newsweek's panicked editor, the IPCC concludes "There is insufficient evidence to determine whether trends exist in.....small-scale phenomena such as tornadoes, hail, lightning and dust-storms."
Second, she overlooks the obvious:
The Midwest suffered the wettest April in 116 years, forcing the Mississippi to flood thousands of square miles, even as drought-plagued Texas suffered the driest month in a century. Worldwide, the litany of weathers extremes has reached biblical proportions.
If the Midwest was wetter 116 years ago, you've got to wonder whether phenomena other than global warming are responsible. Say, a coupled ocean-atmosphere phenomenon, perhaps.
Note the personification of the Mississippi. Ordinarily we would say that a wet spring caused the Mississippi to flood, not that the Mississippi "was forced" to flood, as if it would have resisted were it not for the cruddy humans causing global warming.
Third, she exaggerates or, well, lies about measured temperature increases.
And the temperature keeps rising: 2010 was the hottest year on earth since weather records began. . . . there is wide consensus that the 2 degrees Fahrenheit of global warming of the last century is behind the rise in sea levels, more intense hurricanes, more heat waves, and more droughts and deluges.
Note the curious circumlocution "hottest year on earth since weather records began." NewsBuster's Noel Sheppard correctly points out that the Newsweek panic editor overstated the amount of warming by almost 50%.
Fourth, she exaggerates or, well, lies about the weather of the past to imply that the weather of the future will be different.
From these and other extreme-weather events, one lesson is sinking in with terrifying certainty. The stable climate of the last 12,000 years is gone.
What "stable climate" of the last 12,000 years? Little Ice Age ring any bells, "Science Editor"?
Oh, on a lighter note, I believe that she's terrified. I just don't believe she's terrified of global warming. She's afraid that people aren't buying it anymore. And, since she has to resort to such obvious lies and exaggerations even to gin up some good-old-fashioned mob panic, you'd have to be a mental defective to fall for it.
And that's the fifth obvious problem with her article: the title -- "The Reality of Climate Change is Upon Us." Of course, rather than discuss reality, a good chunk of her article is made up of paragraphs that start "Picture [dystopian future not based on science, but on fear]." That's not reality. It's fantasy.
Moreover, it is not Newsweek's first panicked fantasy about the weather. Remember this?
Another Newsweek article cited the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, killing more than 300 people, as among the ominous signs that the Earths weather patterns have begun to change dramatically. But that article was published on April 28, 1975, when Newsweek listed the US tornado disaster of 1974 as one of the harbingers of disastrous global cooling, heralding the approach of a new ice age.
Pathetic, as is anyone who would fall for this bullshit.
— Gabriel Malor
May 30, 2011
— Maetenloch It was two years ago on a night just like tonight that the infamous Memorial Day ONT happened. It shocked even veteran moron-types, brought down anger and pinch-faced scoldery from on high, and damn near got the ONT canceled.
So in memory of that debacle, for tonight only the usual ONT rules are partially suspended. So curse all you want and empty out that disgusting potty mouth of yours.
In fact there's a new rule for tonight - everyone must curse at least once in their comments. Failure will be punished by mockery until the next poor bastard screws up. It's not a flame war though. Oh and Vegas rules also apply - what happens on tonight's ONT, stays on tonight's ONT. Afterwards let us never speak of it again.
Okay actually most of the usual blog rules do apply - no racial BS, no Penthouse Letters, and no creepy sexual stuff. more...
— Ace Whew!
Well, he doesn't say that, exactly. But when we have confirmation the police have not been contacted, and Weiner is "loathe" to purse a "pranking," well well well well well, I tell you I just sighed a sigh of vindication.
You want a lawyer to advise you on the next step? The next step, after you've been the victim of a serous crime? You need advice on the next step?
How about from a blogger? Let me tell you the next step, free of charge:
CALL THE COPS, ASSHOLE.
I know, sounds crazy, but there's all sorts of precedent and caselaw on this sticky fact of law.
You're "loathe" to pursue this any further?
I bet you are.
And now it's "prank"? We went from #Hacked!, which well-nigh demands law enforcement intervention, to #Pranked!, which conveniently does not?
All that happened?
What a weekend. What a blessed weekend.
Yeah, don't call the cops. Do exactly what I predicted you would do two days ago: Retain a private firm to "advise" you. People you pay and control.
To say what you want them to say.
Damn, too bad the FBI doesn't have that kind of pay-for-play deal, huh?
Sure, I said he'd hire a private security expert, and he will do that; but for now, he's got himself a lawyer-- not to protect himself, you understand, just to suggest he might sue people for saying there was no hack.
Um, bluff called, dude. As Derek Hunter said:
Victims call cops.
Perps call lawyers.
So, thanks for the confirmation, feller.
As a funny Tweeter said (sorry, can't remember who), calling the police would only result in the classic horror movie reveal: We've traced the hack! And the hack is coming from... INSIDE THE HOUSE!!!
What are you doing here? Do you know how young this girl is?
I have an explicit tweet here -- no, let me show this to you.
It's a picture of a penis. Is this your penis?
What did you think was going to happen here?
Corrected: I got two ideas mixed up. In fact, CNN reported there was no police involvement, and that Weiner was "loathe" to pursue it. That was not the full foreswearing of LEO involvement I suggested. But... close enough.
Distraction? You have something better to do, punk, than bring down the "Teabagger" bloggers who "hacked" you? Isn't that your whole job? Isn't that what you do day-in and day-out in those stupid YouTube videos where you peacock around for your lefty moron fans?
— Ace Couple of biases: 1, I thought the first one was okay but to this day do not understand what the fuss was all about. I thought the first film's premise was stronger than its actual execution. I was expecting an almost mystery-like plot as they retraced their steps, such that finding out what happened would be exciting as well funny, but I didn't think they really did that. There weren't any sudden comic pieces-coming-together realizations or intersecting plot lines (a la Seinfeld); they mostly just retraced their steps. Funny enough, but not clever, I thought, and nowhere near as funny, or wild, or I-can't-believe-what-I'm-seeing as others seemed to think.
2, I've been stuck looking at a dude's dirty gray drawers for two days and he's not even hot. So I was primed to laugh.
So my expectations were pretty modest and I was a good audience for the movie. That said, I thought it was better than the first one, at least a half-star better.
On the plot, yes it's a nearly-beat-for-beat rewrite of the last plot, but, what could be expected? That plot wound up being a surprise smash, and that plot is the entire franchise, so you betcha, this plot follows the last one's major beats. They got out the stopwatch and timed the beats from the first movie. I can't blame them. If I had this assignment, I would have gotten out the stopwatch myself.
There are differences, though. The first Hangover began the "hangover" plot of the movie with a slow pan over a super-luxe Vegas hotel room, displaying the comedic aftermath of a night of really really hard partying, including an abandoned baby, a chicken (do I remember that right?), and of course a Bengal tiger. Funny, but almost funny in a Mad Libs sort of way -- let me top you next with my crazy aftermath item, then you top me, then we write it into a scene. Silly and funny, but kind of light-hearted, despite the desperate circumstances the movie suggests they're in.
The "hangover" plot here starts a dingy, roach-infested Bangkok hovel, and the vibe here is less Tom Hanks' Bachelor Party Turned Up to 11 and more Hostel 3: Bangkok Limbhackers. It's not as funny, not in a laugh out loud way, but to me it's a little funnier, because it's so dark: Okay, last time was just some fun and games, but this time they're really in a bad way. To me, at least, turning up the grimness and darkness was actually kind of funny, not because I'm so dark-hearted, but because now I felt that edge of genuine danger and calamity I thought the last one was trying for, but pulling punches on.
I think the vibe they were going for was "Urban Legend" -- like "A man wakes up in a tub full of ice to discover his kidney is missing..." That sort of dark opening. And, in patches, it does get a little worse than that.
There's a flip-side to this, though: As far as content, the entire movie goes far further into sickness and darkness and just plain awfulness than the first movie. Funnier, I think, but stronger than usual hard-R content warning for a nearly unrelenting indulgence in every crime and depravity known to man. I have edited that word in-- "depravity" -- thoughtfully. It applies.
Funny? Yes. I laughed consistently throughout it. And, as I said, there really was a pall of danger over the proceedings, and anything awful could happen at any moment, so the movie had the feel of a thriller, too, with genuine moments of shock. And relief.
Although I didn't realize I liked the characters from the first one all that much, it turns out I guess I did, because from the first moments of seeing "The Wolfpack" back together again I felt a nice feeling of good-to-see-them-again. Bradley Cooper has sharpened up his character some, as the guy who thinks he's pretty damn cool, and actually is pretty damn cool, but he's not nearly cool enough to get away with the substance abuse he's indulging in; Ed Helms, too, as the safe, bland guy who under no circumstances wants to go back to that hell again.
Chuckles here and there and Ed Helms makes various pronouncements about what will not be happening in the future, because, of course, we've seen the trailer. We know how terribly wrong he is.
Zak Galifanakis is good, but not as good as in the first outing, where the character was a surprise original, and on top of that, I don't think they've given him lines that are equally as funny. I can't remember anything quotable like "reh-tard." He is still funny though. More of a matter of him losing 10% off his game while the other two elevate by 10%.
One disappointment for me was that they didn't work Doug into the movie this time, and they could have. I guess I just felt bad for Doug, the actor himself, sort of getting short-shrift in a surprise blockbuster, and had expected them to work him more into this one; but, in fact, I'm pretty damn confident there's less of him. Just seems unfair. And it might have been a little funny to have Doug along, who did not go through the horror-hangover plot of the last film, seeing what this is like, while the other three -- now old hands at this -- say things like, "Yeah, this happens."
One minor thing is that I really wanted a certain horrible thing to be fixed at the end, or undone, or demonstrated to have been not as bad as assumed; they didn't do that, but left the horrible thing as the horrible thing. Ah well.
The closing pictures of the night's events contain, again, some of the biggest laughs in the movie, and I think they might have outdone themselves from last time.
Overall: I think this is minority opinion, because I was in the minority last time of not thinking the first Hangover was so great, but I think this one is better. But it is pretty darned dark for a comedy -- not just raunchy, but dark -- and isn't for everyone.
Here's the Difference, I Think: In the first one, I felt there was a sitcom-y, gaggy nature to the proceedings. This is naturally sort of reassuring, in that it's distancing; you're aware this is a goof, so it's not really serious.
That helps people deal with the awfulness, that feeling of unreality.
I think this one pushes away from comic unreality more towards naturalistic/horror reality -- not all the way there, of course; this is still a comedy -- and that makes it darker, more dramatic (in the sense that this feels more playing-for-keeps and less madcap-romp), and for me, funnier, because I thought the humor was more rooted in reality.
On the other hand, there's less of that reassuring distancing, so if you're put off by awful material, there's less comfort that this is just a gaggy movie.
And there is some awful material here. If the question is "Would you recommend this to your mom?," the answer is no, I would not recommend this to my mom or yours or anyone's.
Reconsidering/Re-Warning on Content: Dr Spank and others remind me that despite my being down on the first Hangover -- liked it, didn't love it -- there really was a lot of funny material there. And it was, overall, cheerier.
So maybe this one isn't funnier. I think this one is more desperate and grounded in a dark reality. Maybe as funny, or nearly the same level. Others find the first funnier.
And I also think that I should offer a stronger warning than I had. Without wishing to tell you the exact nature of the material here (that would spoil jokes), I will note the original featured drugs and prostitution. This is a sequel. The rule of a sequel is "bigger," or, for this type of movie, more extreme.
And I do not want to give spoilers, but let me stress there is very objectionable, raw, hard-R material here that may upset some.
For the sequel, they had to go further, and they did.
What the hell they could do in the next one, short of amputation or forced gender reassignment surgery, I have no idea.
I guess Martin Lawrence says it best, as he says everything best.
— DrewM Ok.
A spokesman for Rep. Anthony Weiner, New York Democrat, told The Daily Caller the Congressmans team has retained counsel and is exploring the proper next steps after his official Twitter account posted a picture of a mans erect penis underneath gray boxer shorts. The internet-driven scandal has come to be known online as #Weinergate, a pun on the Congressmans last name.
Weve retained counsel to explore the proper next steps and to advise us on what civil or criminal actions should be taken, Weiner spokesman Dave Arnold said in an email. This was a prank. We are loath to treat it as more, but we are relying on professional advice.
So in Wiener's World hacking multiple social media platforms of a sitting US Congressman in what's clearly an attempt to damage his reputation and limit his participation in debates of national importance is just a "prank"?
Most people would call it something else...a crime.
I'm not a high priced NYC or DC lawyer but allow me to offer some advice. Call the FBI.
Now in an effort to help out the Congressman in his battle to clear his name, here's how to report a cyber crime.
On second thought, perhaps I'm being too hard on Congressman Weiner. I mean every PSA I've ever seen about crimes always urges people that if you are the victim of a crime or see one committed you should immediately
call the cops retain counsel to help you consider your options.
I bet the idiot who illegally accessed Palin's emails wishes he'd picked on Weiner instead. She called the cops but apparently Weiner is more forgiving of being violated.
I think it's wonderful that Weiner is such a let bygones be bygones kind of guy but doesn't he owe it to the Comley Coed to bring the perpetrators of this 'prank' to justice for the anguish they've caused her?
If liberals are so sure this is an Andrew Breitbart or conservative hit job, shouldn't they be hounding Weiner to call the FBI? I mean if they could send a conservative to jail for something like this, it would be a big plus for them, right? I wonder why they aren't. Oh, right.
Weiners office did not answer specific questions about the photograph, whether he has contacted authorities or the Seattle woman who received the photograph.
45 queries taking 1.7727 seconds, 281 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.