November 29, 2012
— Ace Ridiculous, of course.
Mitch McConnell has had a habit of justifying substantive caves for claims that he extracted some sort of concession that will prove to be a fruitful political issue.* I imagine any Republican even thinking about this deal expects Obama to break his promise -- in fact, the promise may not even be seriously offered. Republicans might even be just saying "You have to give us a fig leaf of cover."
So, the idea is that we just give Obama everything he wants substantively but we've extracted a promise from him, which he will then of course break, and so we "win" politically later by running against his broken promise.
This is the stupidest thing I ever heard. Not only would this plan be craven and dishonest itself (the plan to extract a promise you don't even believe will be honored as a "concession," and then act surprised it's being dishonored, is itself dishonest), but it has no chance of actually working in the first place.
1. Cuts are unpopular. Unpopular but necessary, of course, but unpopular. No one holds it against someone too much for breaking a promise to do something they didn't really want him to do in the first place.
2. Any "promise to cut" will involve some sort of later negotiations, and Obama can and will claim he intended to keep his promise, but Republicans once again sabotaged the "discussions."
Thus this whole idea is an attempt to avoid a major political confrontation which Obama would probably win... by setting up a later political confrontation which Obama also would probably win.
Let's not forget why we have the sequestration deal: We have it because Mitch McConnell decided it "wasn't the right time for a real political confrontation" and so put it off into the future. And now that that moment's here, surprise surprise, they're looking to concede, again and delay the actual confrontation until later, again.
And when that moment comes, what will they do?
If you can't fight now-- when the next elections are two years away -- when precisely would be a politically opportune time to fight?
Thanks to @benk84. This is from his headlines post.
* During the initial ObamaCare voting, when it was still in the Senate, Republicans had the opportunity to keep the Senate in session through the holidays and keep a filibuster against ObamaCare going. Instead, they agreed to hold a vote on ObamaCare -- and this was the vote that created ObamaCare -- and Mitch McConnell claimed he'd won an important political victory because Obama had agreed to hold a vote on the debt ceiling at some particular time that Mitch McConnell claimed would create maximum exposure on the issue and the maximum political problems for Obama.
Does anyone even remember that vote? It wasn't a big deal at the time, and we ended up losing on it too.
Plus, we got ObamaCare. Just so the Senators wouldn't have to stay at their jobs in DC over the holidays.
McConnell is forever justifying these major sell-outs by claiming he's so cleverly extracted a dynamite political concession that will wind up making the Democrats' victory a poison pill. It's either delusional or dishonest.
— Pixy Misa He just left his meeting with Turbo Tim Geitner. He seems to be throwing cold water on the talks and saying the White House isn't taking this seriously.
[Update: Press conference over. Video Below]
Boehner called on the White House and Democrats to publically name what cuts they would accept. Boehner called the current deal "way out of balance." He didn't mention what was in it.
"Revenue is only on the table if there are serious spending cuts that are part of this agreement.
— Pixy Misa
- Must Read: The Incestuous Bleeding Of The Republican Party
- Bend Over, We're About To Get F***ed Again
- Krauthammer: Republicans Who Cave On Entitlements And Buy Obama's Promise Are Fools
- MSNBC Personality Cracks Gay Joke About Lindsay Graham
- Germany Changes Their Mind On Voting Against The Palestinian Bid
- Former ACORN Honcho Wants To Unionize NYC Fast Food Workers
- State Senator Floats Idea Of Dissolving Detroit Into Wayne County
- Appeals Cout Issues An Injunction Against HHS Contraception Mandate
- We're Going Over The Cliff
- Lindsay Lohan Arrested Again
- The Rise Of Faux Diversity
- 96% Of Political Donations From Ivy League Schools Went To Obama
- Afghan Savages Behead 15 Year Old Girl After She Turns Down Marriage Proposal
- MSNBC Can't Tell The Difference Between Black People
- California Pension Fund Sues Bankrupt City
- All That's Old Is New Again
- Another Climate Confab Going Down In Flames
- Two Powerball Tickets Sold
- Deans, Deans Everywhere And No Professors To Teach
- "Independent" Regulator For UK Press?
Follow me on twitter.
— Pixy Misa Good Morning.
I'll leave you with this until I post the news dump. A Belgian man finds out his wife of 19 years was born a man. No photos at the link. I'm sure they'll leak out as this story gets legs.
November 28, 2012
Can you judge a human book by its cover?
Well when it comes to faces, people can - albeit not perfectly but definitely better than chance.
Several years ago, a woman named Brook White appeared on the reality TV competition show American Idol. White was 24 years old, blond, and strikingly pretty. When she sang her song, "Like a Star," she struck a familiar chord among some viewers. White said nothing about her religion, but Mormons, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, were certain that she was one of their own.
"She has the Mormon Glow," one blogger wrote, referring to the belief that the faithful radiate the Holy Spirit. White mentioned that she never drank a cup of coffee or watched an R-rated movie-signs of a Mormon-like squeaky-clean lifestyle. But the "glow" clinched it, and it turned out that her fans were right. "I didn't know I was setting off the Mormon radar," White remarked later in an interview with The Arizona Republic.
Soon after, psychologists Nalini Ambady, then at Tufts University, and Nicholas Rule, at the University of Toronto, set out to test the Mormon glow. One way to do this is to see if even non-Mormons can detect it. The psychologists began their experiment by cropping head shots of Mormons and non-Mormons and asking undergraduate volunteers whether they could pick out the Mormons.They certainly could-and in just a glance. While random guessing would yield 50 percent accuracy, as in a coin toss, the volunteers accurately identified Mormon men and women 60 percent of the time. (Mormons themselves were only slightly more accurate.)
And people don't just have 'Mordar', they've also been proven to have 'gaydar' and even 'crimidar':
At Cornell University, psychologist Jeffrey Valla and his colleagues set out to test just how readily people can spot criminals based on facial appearance alone. They prepared close-cropped, expressionless, facial photos of clean-shaven Caucasian men in their twenties and asked volunteers to identify the murderers, rapists, thieves, forgers, drug dealers, and so on. Men and women alike could distinguish convicts from noncriminals with above-chance accuracy, but, interestingly, not violent offenders from nonviolent ones.more...
— Ace The GOP seems to think that raising taxes is some kind of a solution. It's not. It's a poison pill.
Obama does in fact want to take the country over the cliff. It's win-win-win-win-win.* He gets to raise taxes (including on the middle class, which he needs to pay for his welfare state), he gets some cuts to the the military he despises, he gets cuts for Medicare (not part of his coalition), he gets to blame the GOP for all of this, and, bonus, he gets to claim the coming recession he's already engineered is the GOP's fault, too.
The GOP is in a bad situation and will try to give the store away to avoid this. We shouldn't. Let Obama have the economy he wants, and let him take responsibility for it, too.
* Update: It's a political winner until he gets his fullscale global meltdown Depression 2.0. Then we'll see how much John Q. Sixpack really loves Obama.
— Ace I've been asking this too a lot.
Actually I sort of think this is barking up the wrong tree. A tree near the right tree, but still the wrong tree. I don't really love political messages in entertainment of either stripe. I roll my eyes at both.
Still, it's near the right tree.
— Ace I've avoided this topic because we've had it sixty three thousand times before and, especially right after the election, I thought it would be nice to decompress.
But at some point I guess we're going to have to have this argument.
Here's one guy making the case that RINOs once again didn't listen to TrueCons and destroyed everything.
I just have so little patience for or interest in this argument. To me it boils down to 1, "If Only They Had Listened To Me," a political evergreen, and 2, a gorilla-like dominance/aggression display that I've seen before -- a lot.
The article talks up about how wrong it was to nominate Romney without ever -- and this is the part of these arguments I find so childish -- without ever actually saying which of the other candidates would have been better.
See, this is that Pie Chart situation I talked about in politics. When you announce a specific policy -- or support a specific candidate -- you're defending a rather narrow wedge of the pie. The pie represents the Sum Total of All Possible Policy Responses (or Possible Candidates), so anytime someone criticizes your tiny slice of the pie without placing his flag on his own tiny slice of the pie, he's engaging in an easy political maneuver -- you have to defend a tiny bit of pie whereas his argument appeals to anyone who wanted any other slice of pie. That is, his vagueness on who we actually should have nominated allows the partisans of every other possibility -- Bachmann, Santorum, Gingrich, Cain, Huntsman (!), Johnson (!), Perry, and who-all else -- to say "Yes, I agree with that. Rather than that one piece of pie, we should have selected one of the seven or ten others."
But which one? If this guy came forward and said "and that's why we should have picked Santorum," he'd have a tougher case to make.
But it makes the easy one -- we shouldn't have picked Romney, but instead one of the thousand other Republican office-holders or opinion-leaders who are Not Romney -- and anyone who likes any of those thousand other options can agree.
It's a silly bit of positioning which invites opponents to defend a flawed man, or a flawed position, while one nobly argues for The Hypothetical Ideal, and the Ideal is undefined so it can be one thing to one person and another thing to someone else.
Romney was a major disappointment to me. I feel responsible for this loss, as I was one of the people who got on the Romney train midway -- not at the beginning, but earlier than most, too. I feel that certain representations I made (and I believed) turned out to be false. I thought, for example, that this intelligence and ability and past successes would count in his favor; I thought people might like that in a candidate. (Actually, I earlier supported Pawlenty, and then Perry, precisely because I thought that a more blue-collar standard-bearer was better. But they lost, and Santorum, while having a certain blue-collar appeal I thought was attractive, seemed otherwise too flawed to nominate, so I wound up convincing myself that the public could embrace an aspirational, success-story figure, rather than grousing about how Rich That Guy Is.)
I thought that his "moderate New England tone" on social issues would make him more appealing to swing voters, particularly women.
I thought his prior ability to organize large sprawling concerns would wind up giving us a big advantage in get out the vote and such -- and it didn't. In fact, his campaign seems to have been much more poorly organized than most.
For these things, I'm sorry. I was wrong. I thought he would be a better candidate. I thought he would win. He wasn't and he didn't.
On the other hand, I'm still not seeing any good arguments for the notion that another candidate would have won. Now, no one could do worse than Romney -- he lost, after all. You can't do worse than losing. So there would not be any particular bad outcome attached had we nominated, let's say, Herman Cain.
But I'm still finding it rather incredible that the more flamboyant and/or limited-niche candidates would somehow have won, just because, supposedly, they would have been pushing Conservative Principles more effectively.
I think Romney pushed a fairly strong conservative economic policy -- mind you, without a very good conservative economic argument.
I just haven't seen the case made that we should have nominated this specific candidate, say Gingrich, and he would have won, as opposed to the kind of empty and vague statement that we should have nominated someone better.
I would have loved to have nominated someone better.
Anyway, it's unavoidable that we have just this "My Segment of the Party Is Quite Clearly the Most Popular and Victory-Producing Part of It So Let's All Gather Under My Flag" argument at some point. Unfortunately, after a loss, that's what people do. They have to do this. It's not even something I can really say "Hey let's not do this" to. It's something that has to happen. It's part of the process.
So let the knives be drawn and let the blood be spilled.
— Ace I saw part of a documentary on Monopoly (available on Netflix) and they mentioned this neat bit trivia.
Someone mentioned Hogan's Heroes in a comment. So, here was some Hogan's Heroes stuff. This was kept top secret for 45 years.
The British distributor of Monopoly, by the way, was in on the espionage.
It's a story that will forever change the way you think of the phrase, "Get Out of Jail Free."
During World War II, as the number of British airmen held hostage behind enemy lines escalated, the country's secret service enlisted an unlikely partner in the ongoing war effort: The board game Monopoly.
It was the perfect accomplice.
Included in the items the German army allowed humanitarian groups to distribute in care packages to imprisoned soldiers, the game was too innocent to raise suspicion. But it was the ideal size for a top-secret escape kit that could help spring British POWs from German war camps.
The British secret service conspired with the U.K. manufacturer to stuff a compass, small metal tools, such as files, and, most importantly, a map, into cut-out compartments in the Monopoly board itself.
The British maker of Monopoly, Waddington's, turns out to have already perfected, for another industry, printing on sheets of silk. This made them especially well-positioned to make maps for would-be escapees. Military maps had to be durable, and so were often printed on silk.
Here's another bit of trivia I learned from the documentary: The game wasn't actually invented by Charles Darrow (as most believe, and when I say "most," I mean "some of the very few people who know any trivia about Monopoly at all).
It was actually invented by a Philadelphia Socialite Socialist who wanted the game to be a subversive "teachable moment" sort of thing which would demonstrate to people that property was a tool of repression and unfair and enslaving and all of that. Her idea was that the game would be sort of cruel and random. That was sort of the point of the arbitrary "Go Directly to Jail" and the cruel misfortunes, and undeserved rewards, of the Chance and Community Chest cards.
And then people would learn capitalism was evil. The game is unfair, arbitrary, impoverishing, and rigged against you, you were supposed to learn.
I'm not sure if Darrow removed or softened these elements from the game he began making (having now changed the names of the streets to, famously, the streets in Atlantic City). Or if people just decided they didn't care about the intended Lesson in Marxism and just wanted to have fun bankrupting their opponents.
One guy in this documentary pointed out that in a way this woman's socialist point remains in the game: One guy wins and has everything, and everyone else is in the poorhouse.
It kind of makes me want to play Monopoly, and for real this time. When I say "real," I mean... with trading.
When I was a kid, I never traded crap. I didn't even understand that was the main point of the game. I just wanted to go around the board and get lucky and buy Boardwalk and Park Place.
We almost never traded, ever. Ever. Like, I think it happened twice. I just could not get over the idea that if my brother wanted one of my Orange properties, I ought not to give it to him, because he certainly had malice on his mind.
— Ace Angus T. Jones, who plays the kid on the show (not really a kid anymore), has found Christ and now finds Two and Half Men's jokes -- which are largely about sex -- spiritually poisonous.
I only saw parts of this show twice -- once was on an airplane, when I had few other viewing options. (The airplane wasn't streaming TV; it was playing a few recorded TV shows, and Two and a Half Men was among my two and a half options.) I was surprised by two things: First, it was kind of funny, actually, although I was on a plane, of course, and thus desperate for distraction. And second, that every joke -- every joke -- was about sex. At least the episode I saw. It involved Charlie Sheen and his therapist, played by Jane Lynch. I saw part of another episode recently, and there the jokes weren't about sex.
Angus T. Jones is of course currently being gently ministered to by the Tolerance Brigade, which as usual is showing its tolerance through jeering, insult, and hate.
Also a good deal of jealousy, though at least that I can understand as response: A washed-up former actor like Zack Branff (or whatever his name is) is understandably annoyed by someone working on a hit TV show making at least $350,000 per episode. Envy isn't a good emotion, certainly, but at least I can understand it.
What I can't understand is the simple hate, the hate for hate's sake, the hate of The Other for the sake of Self-Affirmation. I especially can't understand the hate coming from the sort of people who will insist to you, quite seriously, that they have essentially purged all primitive and dark emotion from themselves and now exist on an elevated Oprah/Chopra plane of pidgin Zen harmony and balance.
There are two ways, it seems to me, to deal with the hatred that lurks in every human heart:
1. Acknowledge it, acknowledge one's flaws, acknowledge one's darker tendencies, and by acknowledging them, increase the control over them. Same idea as with alcoholism: You can't address a problem until you have acknowledged its simple existence.
Or, the route that I see most benighted "progressives" going:
2. Insist that there is no hatred in your heart, because you are simply that ennobled a human being. When your hatred (which still exists, despite your callow claims to the contrary) exhibits itself, engage in a silly semantic game in which you claim your "hate" isn't hate at all but something else, like, I don't know, "teachable moments" or whatever. Give free vent to all your spleen and all your venom and just insist, like a child caught with his pudgy fingers in a cookie jar, that he was actually looking for the healthy vegetables, and thought maybe they might be hidden among the Oreos.
All that said, I do not really understand this notion among Christians (or among many of the godly) that laughing at a human foible, or laughing at bad behavior, is something akin to taking delight in that foible, or engaging in that bad behavior oneself.
I know the idea is something like "If you can laugh at it, you're not taking it seriously" and thus "mainstreaming" it. But I heard the same thing in college, when I'd use the word "gay." "If you're saying 'that's gay,' you're not taking the problem of homophobia seriously, and you have genuine hate in your heart."
I didn't see the connection when offered from the left/secularists, and I still don't see the connection when offered by the right/religious. Enjoying a vengeance movie where the good guy slaughters the bad guys doesn't have much connection to a true intention to kill. I will concede that there must be some connection there -- which is why particular fantasies appeal to particular people, and why men tend to like Vengeance/Omnicompetence fantasies and women prefer, I don't know, Twilight, whatever the hell that is -- but it's such a thin and weak connection it seems to me to be a rounding error in the accounting of human flaws.
Instapundit used to joke about the feds announcing this or that crusade against a new moral panic: Well, I'm glad we've got all the other problems taken care of, then.
Likewise this sort of thing -- the "taking delight" or laughing at some kind of human flaw or sin -- is of such a de minimis or venial nature that I wonder if we overconcern ourselves with this sort of thing in order to avoid thinking too much about more serious things.
Small problems and small sins are reassuring in that way, aren't they? People enjoy, say, worrying about leveling up in a videogame precisely because it is so meaningless and permits them an escape from more pressing problems.
— Ace We have so many of our own misfortunes we might as well consider someone else's.
Four pounds of coke. That's not like a little bag being surreptitiously slipped into an interior sub-pocket of your rolling suitcase. Four pounds takes some lifting. His defense -- that he was tricked by his dick -- was rejected as laudable but irrelevant. (I think that was the ruling, anyway.)
Paul Frampton, the Oxford-educated Louis D. Rubin Jr. Distinguished Professor of Physics and Astronomy, told investigators he was duped into unknowingly carrying the drugs after being lured first to Bolivia with a promise of meeting a famous bikini model.
As you might imagine I am in a state of shock and disbelief, Frampton said in a telephone interview Wednesday night. This is a gross miscarriage of justice. If this had happened in the United States, a jury would have obviously acquitted me.
Would an American jury have acquitted him? Well, here's the woman he was hoping to meet.
It looks like she's smuggling four pounds of heaven.
Not guilty. So say we all.
Apart from the joke, his defense is transparent nonsense. He wrote messages clearly stating he was aware he was carrying drugs, that he was worried about drug-sniffing dogs, and that he knew the value of the coke (on delivery to Europe) was in the millions.
Against this, it's claimed:
In prison, Frampton was diagnosed with a schizoid personality disorder that results in poor judgment in practical matters and could leave him vulnerable to being easily duped.
He claims he went to Bolivia on some sort of crackpot invitation to meet this woman, and then... I don't know, wound up in an airport with four pounds of coke. I tried to understand it, but it makes no sense. Whether he intended to smuggle the drugs for money or for the hope of sex, he still intended to smuggle the drugs.
He says he doesn't think the bikini model, Denise Milani, had anything to do with his drug smuggling. So, she's off the hook.
He's a professor at UNC-Chapel Hill.
For Further Review and Study: Would you?
— Ace I say this is CYA because the Post's editorial board would like to think of themselves as the sort of people who put statesmanship above politics, but in fact they supported Barack Obama in this past election, the Man With No Plan.
Now they're surprised that President Campaign Mode is sticking with his woobie of permanent campaign mode?
The Post editorial board, which endorsed Obama in part because the president understands the urgency of the problems as well as anyone in the country and is committed to solving them in a balanced way, now warns: Since his reelection, Mr. Obama has fueled a campaign-style effort to pressure Republicans to give ground on taxes. Thats fine, but it wont be enough. At some point, he has to prepare the American people and his own supporters most of all for the hard decisions required to put the country on a sound financial footing. That means spending cuts, it means entitlement reform, it means compromise, it means a balanced solution that will please neither House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) nor Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). Only one person is in a position to make it happen.
I realize this post seems to undermine the last, in which I said the media never notices the extreme partisan intransigence of the Democrats. But I still think I'm right. There is serious criticism and then there is just positioning oneself so that one can say, at some future point, "Oh, we told the Democrats to compromise too."
The Narrative of the last four years has been "Extremist Republicans won't compromise with the Democrats, who seek compromise and solutions." A couple of "Obama must rise above" editorials don't change that. A river isn't bent by the plunkings of a few raindrops.
— Ace So it'll be him and Michael Bloomberg. I'm sure there are a couple more but they escape me at the moment.
Too many people in Washington believe that leading consists of imposing their will on the opposition. It is true of both parties, Huntsman, a Republican, said during a conference call organized by the group No Labels. This all or nothing leadership is an attitude that may work on military battlefields or in competitive business markets but its a recipe for dysfunction in democratic politics.
Quick, can anyone name a Democrat who's joined No Labels?
I was listening to the news yesterday and I heard Harry Reid urging people to shed their ideological and partisan straightjackets and seek a statesmanlike compromise all for the good of the nation. Yes, Harry Reid, the one who said he would never, ever compromise with a President Romney on anything; Harry Reid, who is a leader of the No Reform caucus in the Democratic Party.
Incidentally, his call for "compromise" involved simply passing the Democrats' preferred solution on debt and spending -- tax hikes for the rich, no spending cuts.
The press just reports this without comment. Harry Reid? The most partisan hack in the Senate? That's the guy calling for compromise and putting party aside?
Isn't it terribly strange that Harry Reid is considered by the press to be non-partisan while any Republican pushing a conservative policy preference is an ultra-ideologue?
Meanwhile, Salon Magazine (WHO?) urges no compromise and suggests instead taking us over the "mythical" fiscal cliff.
December 03, 2012
— andy [Update]: The first round of IPs I forwarded to Pixy were found face down in the spam filter wearing lace wigs, Nike shoes and a smile. They've been recovered, fed, and given shots of penicillin, with emails sent to the affected commenters. If you haven't gotten an email reply, you were in the second round of IPs I sent over to Pixy, and he's busy delousing you now.
If you missed this post and are having trouble commenting, please follow the instructions below.
While we wait for Ace, I thought I'd see if I could get commenters who are having trouble posting back among the living.
There are about a dozen ways a comment can be blocked at the HQ, so some information from you will be helpful.
First, if you're seeing the error message below, your IP address is on the "this mofo is no longer welcome to comment here" blocked list. It may take a pardon from the Head Ewok to get you back among the living, but give it your best shot.
But if you enter a comment and it never makes it to the blog, or if it makes it to the blog briefly but then goes away, I should be able to get that cleared up pretty quickly if you'll email the following information to andy at aoshq d0t ©om.
- Your IP address*
- Your IP hash (if you know it)
- The primary nickname you use when commenting
* The IP address you provide needs to be the one the Internet sees you at. The easiest way to determine this is to click the following link on the device you're unable to comment from and scroll down until you see the address: WhatIsMyIP.com
Open thread in the comments. more...
November 28, 2012
— Pixy Misa
- Germany Won't Back Palestinian State At UN
- 100,000 Anti-Morsi Protestors Gather In Tahrir Square
- 2/3 Of British Millionaires Left Britain To Avoid 50% Tax Rate
- Man Who Brought Us Leno At 10pm To Rescue CNN
- It Does Appear That CNN Will Try To "Out-Left" MSNBC
- Obama Looking For Any Excuse To Go To Mexico
- Fitch Downgrades Argentina And Predicts Default
- Puerto Rico: Greece Of The Caribbean?
- Kristof's Breakthrough
- Catalonia Tilts Toward Independence
- Is Jesse Jackson Jr. Faking Bi-Polar Disorder?
- Obama Finally Does Something Right
- Jon Huntsman Defends Susan Rice
- Laura Ingraham Leaving TRN
- Hunter Kills Rare White Deer
- Five Hundred Million Dollar Powerball Drawing Tonight(warning:autoplaying video)
- Republican Senators Float National Dream Act
- The GOP Should Give Obama What He Wants
- America's Lost Decade In One Simple Chart
- The Coming Middle Class Tax Hike
- Review Of Red Dawn Remake
Follow me on twitter.
— andy On the so-called "fiscal cliff", it seems like the last time we were being stampeded to do something now or there will be DOOM!!11! was the 2009 stimulus, and before that it was TARP. There's no way to prove the counterfactual, but it sure seems like we'd have been better off today without either of those ... the former in its entirety and the latter at the very least in the open-ended form it took.
Maybe I'm just in the "let it burn" mindset, but if it takes sequestration to get a spending cut, bring it on. And as far as letting the "Bush tax cuts" expire goes, maybe it takes that to move beyond "blame Bush". Plus, everyone knows that you can't just raise tax rates on the rich and generate enough tax revenue to close the gap to spending (skip to about 2:00 below if you're short on time).
As a matter of fact, we simply can't tax enough for D.C.'s spending appetite, so arguing about the details of who pays what is pointless. We've never collected more than 20% of GDP in tax revenues for any sustained period of time, and nothing indicates that we can do it now. Obamasized government's opening bet is about 25% of GDP. Good luck with that.
But, alas, this probably isn't going to happen. Our erstwhile guardians of the public fisc would rather explain why they did something ... even if it was the wrong thing ... than why they did nothing. So there will be a compromise, and it will kick the can down the road making the ultimate resolution of the problem even more painful.
There's no easy way out of the hole we've dug ourselves. The sooner we admit that, the better.
— Gabriel Malor Happy Wednesday.
Huh. Gennifer Flowers claims Bill Clinton called her for a get together in 2005.
November 27, 2012
Since no one really reads the ONT especially on a Tuesday I'm just gonna phone it in.
Bad Movie Palooza
Bacon ipsum dolor sit amet andouille pork chop tri-tip pork belly chicken capicola strip steak jowl shank meatloaf filet mignon kielbasa pork loin beef ribs sirloin. Shank pastrami capicola brisket beef ribs filet mignon.
Prosciutto corned beef filet mignon brisket turkey. Short ribs t-bone shank hamburger. Tri-tip sausage ham hock pork meatball jerky. Prosciutto corned beef cow ribeye beef sirloin tri-tip chicken pork loin.
Cow t-bone shankle, shoulder bresaola chicken chuck ham. Turducken jerky meatball brisket, drumstick chicken leberkas tail beef ribs prosciutto bresaola tri-tip jowl filet mignon sirloin. Venison 'Food Fight'
Fugiat exercitation ullamco laborum. Pork belly pancetta pork et. Anim ball tip beef ribs aliquip "deep hurting" sirloin corned beef. Sirloin sausage rump, doner filet mignon short loin exercitation. Tri-tip sed sausage, fugiat shankle turducken short loin venison incididunt. Bacon pig beef reprehenderit venison, anim id ham hock.more...
— Ace Hounddog.
Flowers, who enjoyed a lucrative modelling and acting career as well as top book sales following her announcement in 1992, has claimed that Clinton called her as recently as 2005, begging to see her.
'I picked up the phone and it was him,' she told host Susan Roesgen. 'And he wanted to come by my house and talk to me. I was taken aback; that was the last thing I expected.'
She added that, even when she refused to allow him to visit, he persisted.
'I said, "No you can't come over here",' she continued. 'He said, "I'll put on a hoodie and I'll jog up there" and I said, "No, I want you to leave me alone". And that was that.'
Yes, the Clinton marriage is as strong as ever. The media says so and everything.
— LauraW After the presidential election, there were a lot of angry people on the internet, and a lot of racist tweets about the president. Some of these racist things were tweeted by kids.
Adults who express violent or racist sentiments are one thing.
But should teenagers who say stupid things on the internet be 'outed' to their schools and peers, and should their youthful history always show up on any google search of their name forever and ever?
Morrissey collected the offensive tweets, along with the names of the students (the majority of whom are assumedly younger than 18 ), a gleeful accounting of the activities theyd likely list on college applications such as their sports teams and pageants their schools, the responses from school officials the few who responded expressed disapproval and the news that in most cases, the student had since deleted their Twitter account.
A deliberate effort seems to have been made to make sure this information shows up in a google search of these kids' names, for years to come.
Calling the president terrible names is a crime that should haunt people- even rash children- for the rest of their lives? Okay. You're about ten years too late, but okay, I'm game.
Did Jezebel do similar legwork to 'out' the people threatening to riot if Obama lost the election? Physical threats seem a bit more dire than name-calling, no?
How about the Bush-haters on Twitter and elsewhere? Certainly we know that many, many vicious thoughts were uttered about Dubya- including assassination fantasies. No Jezebel expose on that? Curious.
More to the point: have right-wing sites ever persecuted young kids who tweeted mean things about George Bush, John McCain, or Mitt Romney? No. They have not.
Is this really the kind of investigative journalism Jezebel wants to encourage, or become famous for? Where kids are subject to being haunted for the rest of their lives by the stupid things they did and said while in their formative years?
We need to stop pussyfooting around, and establish definitely that punishing children for ThoughtCrime is now an acceptable function of the political operatives who pretend to be journalists.
Because, we can go there. If they want to go there, we can do that too.
We are not required to behave honorably to opponents who are so bugfucking cuckoo for a politician now, that they can't hold their fire from young kids.
I hate to point this out, but: leftists have kids who misbehave and act stupidly in public, too.
This is the world you live in, kids. Everything you say in public and even private forums on the Internet has the potential to go more public and to become a permanent part of your Google footprint. Stupid, offhand remarks at 16 may mean you dont get a job at 26.
Did those rags at Gawker really contact the schools these dumbass kids attend? They should be shunned for thisit isnt Gawkers job to rat these kids out. That isnt journalism or even advocacy.
Yeah, I'm over the whole 'journalism' aspect. There is no such thing, and the sooner we embrace this new reality of ruthless Total Political War, the better.
Let's get on to the whole 'sauce for the gander' chapter of this saga, because that's where the action is now, frankly.
Thanks to Spongeworthy.
43 queries taking 2.087 seconds, 279 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.