Overnight Open Thread (12-18-2014) - Six Shopping Days Left Edition
One Cuban young woman complains to another. "He lied to me! He told me that he was a luggage handler! It turns out, he's nothing but a neurosurgeon!"
-- Cuban joke (explanation here)
You know, I never thought that gay marriage would be the way fascism would come to America. People are doing all sorts of batshit crazy things in its name.
I'm old enough to remember when people like Harvey Milk were against the whole idea and considered anybody who brought it up to be bigoted and homophobic.Posted by: AmishDude at December 18, 2014 07:00 PM (L2xDv)
Not just disagree with or look down upon but actually hate them personally. Note that she posted this unashamedly, expects to receive accolades for it and fears no professional repercussions.
"I hate Republicans," communications department chairwoman and professor Susan J. Douglas boldly declares in the opening of the piece. "I can't stand the thought of having to spend the next two years watching Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Ted Cruz, Darrell Issa or any of the legions of other blowhards denying climate change, thwarting immigration reform or championing fetal 'personhood.'"
She writes that although the fact that her "tendency is to blame the Republicans . . . may seem biased," historical and psychological research back her up, and so it's basically actually a fact that Republicans are bad!
Reason #77 that the modern university system needs to be radically reformed and defunded or simply ended.
By the way here is the face of hate:
Well this might be one reason:
According to IMDB, Team America, while distributed by Paramount, was produced by Scott Rudin, the embattled (and uber-manic) Sony Pictures executive being eaten alive by the North Korean hacking scandal. I wonder if he put in a frantic call to Paramount to have Team America banned as a substitute for the latest anti-North Korean movie whose production he led. (If so, the Norks will likely let us know in their next round of hacks.)
...A couple of years after Team America snuck past Paramount's leftwing censors, Mark Steyn had Hollywood's number down pat: "Hollywood prefers to make 'controversial' films about controversies that are settled, rousing itself to fight battles long won"
And whose espionage in the DIA led almost directly to the death of Green Beret Sergeant Gregory Fronius.Sweden to Russia: Hey Your Fighter Jet Damn Near Hit Our Plane
Russia to Sweden: You Filthy Scandis are High
Okay I have to wonder if the writer of this article has ever met any actual criminals or even watched a full episode of Cops. Because the ideas proposed have about a 0.0% chance of ever eliminating the need to have police. Because human nature.
Now one or two of the ideas such as citizen patrols and mental health treatment are good ideas as adjuncts to an existing police force but the thought that these ideas would ever eliminate the necessity for police is just kumbayah nonsense.
3. Restorative Justice
Also known as reparative or transformative justice, these models represent an alternative to courts and jails. From hippie communes to the IRA and anti-Apartheid South African guerrillas to even some U.S. cities like Philadelphia's experiment with community courts, spaces are created where accountability is understood as a community issue and the entire community, along with the so-called perpetrator and the victim of a given offense, try to restore and even transform everyone in the process. It has also been used uninterrupted by indigenous and Afro-descendant communities like San Basilio de Palenque in Colombia for centuries, and it remains perhaps the most widespread and far-reaching of the alternatives to the adversarial court system.
Q: Can you take non-Muslim women and children captive?
Q: Can you have sex with them, even prepubescent girls?
Q: Can you sell them or give them as gifts to others?
Q: Can you give them as gifts after having sex with them?A: No that is forbidden.
Because air cargo deregulation.
This one says I have large boobies, questionable judgment, and Dad is not part of my life.
A note from a longtime Moronette:
Thought the moron horde might find this interesting and would be curious about their reaction. Happens to be a good friend and have watched the toll this has taken on him over the last few years.
I know at times you feel like you probably have a thankless job and wonder why you spend hours (or minutes) putting together threads.I have been following Ace for 10 years now and still wonder where some of the original "regular" commenters went like Tushar (after the birth of his twins, not a word...). Watching the blog morph as the years go on. Even in its new and improved, cleaned up, hoity-toity version, Ace's house feels like family. I am sure there are many others like me and one day we will actually respond to a "lurker show yourself" thread.
Yahoo group. That is all.
Come on be a smartie and join the yahoo group party! For the children.
And my lo-fi Twitter spew.
Tonight's post brought to you by a little love:
Notice: Posted by permission of AceCorp LLC. Please e-mail overnight open thread tips and juicy gossip to maetenloch at gmail. Otherwise send your scraps to RoneryAce. Do not taunt happy-fun ball. Bathrooms are for customers only.
Close it up
What Exactly Has North Korea Done That Progressives Don't Do Every Single Day?
A professor blogged a criticism of a teaching assistant, who'd discussed gay marriage in her classroom, but then shut down all dissent, claiming dissent to be illegitimate (per his claim).
Result? The university is "investigating" him and has suspended him from all teaching duties.
arquette University has suspended with pay and barred from campus the tenured professor who criticized a graduate student instructor in a personal blog, pending an investigation into his conduct.
John McAdams, an associate professor of political science at Marquette, last month wrote a controversial blog post accusing a teaching assistant in philosophy of shutting down a classroom conversation on gay marriage based on her own political beliefs. He based the post on a recording secretly made by a disgruntled student who wished that the instructor, Cheryl Abbate, had spent more time on the topic of gay marriage, which the student opposed. McAdams said Abbate, in not allowing a prolonged conversation about gay marriage, was "using a tactic typical among liberals," in which opinions they disagree with "are not merely wrong, and are not to be argued against on their merits, but are deemed 'offensive' and need to be shut up."
McAdams shared the text of an email he received from Richard Holz, dean of the Helen Way Klinger College of Arts and Sciences.
"The university is continuing to review your conduct and during this period -- and until further notice -- you are relieved of all teaching duties and all other faculty activities, including, but not limited to, advising, committee work, faculty meetings and any activity that would involve your interaction with Marquette students, faculty and staff," Holz wrote.
Apparently the academy is no longer the place for academic debate.
The Year in Outrage
I just picked on Slate but this is pretty terrific: every social media outrage of 2014.
Including some that weren't really outrages, because, like, they had to fill the whole calendar.
Still, some of those are fun. To mock the social media outrage mongers, Patton Oswald began claiming to have deleted offensive tweets he'd posted. The gag was that he had not posted the allegedly offensive tweets at all.
Meanwhile, from our friends at Free Beacon, here are our friends at MSNBC, bein' silly all 2014.
Byron York: No, Ted Cruz Did Not Let Harry Reid Confirm Appointments That Otherwise Would Have Failed
A few weeks ago, I noted that if an "expert" is not on your side, he's not a benefit to you. In fact, he's a threat.
What I mean by that is simple: An expert who's actually on your side can provide you with useful and true information and advice.
An expert who's not on your side can use his claimed expertise to bully you into accepting lies as the truth.
Witness Jonathan Gruber and all the alleged "Health Care Wonks" of the press who lied the public down the river.
Last week, Establishment types began claiming that Ted Cruz, by seeking a vote on immigration, somehow invoked a little-understood part of Senate rules which then permitted Harry Reid to ram through a bunch of stalled progressive appointments.
It was not quite explained how this rule operated or how Cruz had activated it.
The whole story relied on the bullying power of asserted expertise: Trust us, we understand Senate rules, and, while they're too complicated to explain right now, you'll just have to take our word for it that Ted Cruz permitted Harry Reid to do something he was otherwise powerless to do.
I don't like being told to just take things on faith, by anybody. I have not liked doing so since I was a child. Since I was a child, I rejected most claims of authority about what conclusions I should draw. If I don't understand the logic and facts which lead to the conclusion, I don't accept the conclusion as true, no matter how passionately the expert demands I take his word about things.
Which is not the same as saying I reject the conclusion as false: If I don't understand things, I can't say the conclusion is false, just as I can't accept it as true. I myself can draw no conclusions about it. I can cite the conclusions of experts, and even trust the conclusions of experts, but what I cannot do is take the conclusions of experts to be my own conclusions.
A man who's ignorant of the basic facts and principles in play does not get to have conclusions; he can only regurgitate the conclusions of others.
At any rate, I was skeptical of this claim not for any especially strong reason, but just due to pocket (fallible) heuristics, like: The people claiming this did not offer up a detailed explanation, permitting me to follow their logic and check their claimed facts. They just wanted me to Accept It.
People who have the truth on their side have no need of demanding I Accept things, given that they can prove them.
I also sort of didn't like the shabby sorts of people making the claim, like John McCain, who I know fancies himself as honorable and true but in fact is a low, sleazy liar in pursuit of his political goals. (See: "Build the dang fence.")
It's also the sort of Too Good to Be True/Proves All of the Arguments We've Always Been Making sort of claim. I've generally found these sorts of claims to be false.
Anyway, I didn't have strong reasons to doubt it, but I did have some reasons.
But, not having any real insight into the truth here, I refrained from writing about it.
That wasn't just me being lazy. I just get so fucking sick of having to offer Strong Opinions on things about which I know nearly nothing. Sometimes I like to implicitly confess my ignorance and not write about things about which I know nothing.
And now Byron York, someone I tend to trust a lot, has looked into it, and his conclusion is this was all nonsense.
Specifically, the accusation is that Cruz's initiative created a break in the consideration of the spending bill that allowed Reid to take the opportunity to set in motion the procedures necessary to get the confirmations underway. By doing that on Saturday, instead of having to wait until after the spending bill was passed on, say, Monday, the thinking goes, Reid got to pass more nominations than he might otherwise have. And of course, given that Democrats are about to give up control of the Senate, this was Reid's last chance to confirm Obama's nominees on his own.
There are four problems with the anti-Cruz scenario. The first is that on Dec. 9, days before Cruz threw a wrench in the works, Reid signaled his intention to confirm all of Obama's remaining nominees, no matter how long it took.
"You know, maybe we'll have to work the weekend and maybe even work next week," Reid told reporters. "I know that's tough duty for everybody, but we may have to do that. We have a number of nominations we're going to do. We're going to -- we have nine judges left. We're going to do those. We're going to do [Surgeon General nominee] Dr. [Vivek] Murthy. We're going to do the head of Immigration Naturalization, ICE. Social Security administrator and other things. I've given a list to the Republicans and it's up to them to decide how long we stay."
Does that sound like a majority leader who is ready to pack up and go home without passing his party's nominees? No, it doesn't. And that leads to the second problem with the scenario, which is the nature of Harry Reid himself. It is simply impossible to believe that the man who made the Senate pass Obamacare on Christmas Eve would abandon the president's nominees out of the goodness of his heart so that Republican colleagues could go home to make scheduled dates at the ballet or visits with family. That is not Harry Reid's style. If Cruz had not acted, would Reid have said, 'Well, it looks like we would have to work all the way until Dec. 18 to finish these nominations, so let's just put them aside and go home and have a nice time, even though it's our party's last chance to pass them." Does anyone believe Reid would have done that?
You can read the other two points.
The best argument made for the Cruz-Ruined-Everything scenario is less persuasive. The idea is that while Senators must stay in DC to pass the CRomnibus, they could go home once that is done; so if the CRominbus passed earlier, Democrat senators might bug out of Washington to get an early start on their vacations, rather than stick around to vote on appointments.
I find this unpersuasive and silly in its speculation. First of all, we were only talking about a couple of days.
Second, there would have been Holy Hell to Pay from the leftwing blogger/activist base if Democrat Senators went on vacation instead of passing President Princess' oh-so-important progressive appointees.
I just can't think of who they have in mind, when they postulate these leftwing senators willing to use the nuclear option to get Obama's picks installed, but not leftwing enough to stick around the couple of days needed to do so.
Such people might theoretically exist, but no one's pointed to a specific senator and said, "Well, Al Franken totally loves his vacation, he would have been out of here."
Let me point out the obvious:
The Republican Establishment is very similar to the Progressive Establishment in the dim view it takes of the Tea Party, and also in the belief that it is itself "rational" and "fact-based," as opposed to those emotional, hot-headed fabulists in the Tea Party who just "make up facts to comport with their ideology" and who "just make shit up so they can yell about it on talk radio."
Let me suggest here that making up silly fantasies about Ted Cruz enabling Harry Reid to do what Harry Reid could always have done (and which he said he would do) does not convince me that the Establishment is as "fact-based" is it believes itself to be, nor as above "just making up silly partisan hokum to make people angry so they can yell about it."
In fact, it appears like The Establishment has all of these failings too. Wrapped in entitlement and arrogance, to boot.
So if The Establishment wants my vote -- and I am a gettable vote -- it has to actually act as if being "fact-based" and "above made-up nonsense smears" is something that's important to them, rather than just something they claim to be all about (as they gleefully make up silly nonsense to smear the Tea Party with).
Fall Out: New Regency Cancels Thriller Set in North Korea; Paramount Bans "Team America: World Police" From Theatrical Screening
And now, the corporate cowards are in full flight.
The chilling effect of the Sony Pictures hack and terrorist threats against The Interview are reverberating. New Regency has scrapped another project that was to be set in North Korea. The untitled thriller, set up in October, was being developed by director Gore Verbinski as a star vehicle for Foxcatcher star Steve Carell. The paranoid thriller written by Steve Conrad was going to start production in March. Insiders tell me that under the current circumstances, it just makes no sense to move forward. The location won’t be transplanted. Fox declined to distribute it, per a spokesman.
I guess I understand that move -- it's show business, and if wacky midget dictators are going to tank your project, you can't make money on it, and have to walk away.
I have less understanding about Paramount's gutless appeasement, though.
The Alamo Drafthouse had planned to show Team America: World Police instead of the pulled The Interview because Texans are awesome.
But Paramount, which I guess owns the rights to Team America, is now telling Alamo Drafthouse they have no right to do that.
From the Daily Beast:
The famous Alamo Drafthouse in Texas, Capitol Theater in Cleveland, and Plaza Atlanta in Atlanta said they would screen the movie instead of The Interview but Paramount has ordered them to stop.
Please note: Our Late Shift screening of Team America: World Police has been canceled by Paramount Pictures. pic.twitter.com/TlPVzIeICW— Capitol Theatre (@CapitolW65th) December 18, 2014
That is just outrageous cowardice.
Meanwhile, you can at least enjoy the scene that caused Fidget the Midget to go Full Spazz here -- Kim Jong-un's "death scene."
Oh and you won't be surprised to learn that Slate is fucking stupid and engaging in apologism for fascism.
Really, though, underneath all this not entirely unwarranted hand-wringing about bedrock American values, there’s a strong sense of someone sitting on the back of a large corporation and twisting its arm until the large corporation cries uncle. This, too, is frightening, sort of, but it should tell us that large corporations like Sony need to get their cybershit together, not that the Constitution’s in tatters and the terrorists have really, finally won. The fact that Sony chose not to release the film at all--not to VOD, DVD, VHS, or traveling hand-puppet reenactments—suggests that the calculus was less "How do we protect moviegoers while also standing up for free expression and artistic integrity" and more "Please, oh mighty lord in heaven, just make this go away." Simply put, at a certain point--given the accumulated damage in industry relationships, in corporate practices revealed, in class-action lawsuits from its own employees, in potential liability nightmares--The Interview was no longer the hill that Sony wanted to die on.
You stupid shits, that's what coercion always is -- escalating the pain (for a perfectly lawful action) until the person taking it decides they've had enough.
Slate, which is not worth the paper that people don't bother to print it on, seems to think there's some distinction between a real case of anti-free-speech censorship and this apparently shabby sort of corporate capitulation.
I mean, the party being attacked for daring to engage in free speech eventually said "I submit." Obviously then this isn't a real matter of free speech.
Real free speech battles always involve leftists talking about their peenies and gynies. Everyone knows that.
Update: Actually, If You Work For Slate, You Kind of Suck. I really hate Slate writers' default posture of being Above It All.
Note to Slate's writers: You are not "above it all." Proof of that? You work for Slate.
You are rather beneath it all, or at least beneath most of it.
There is an element of criticism which is inherently obnoxiously superior. One cannot criticize a thing without, implicitly, assuming a posture of being above that thing (or above the person who created that thing).
This is an obnoxious and unwarranted posture (how many movie critics could make a movie, or even write a short story?), but it is unavoidable, if one is to criticize at all.
But for God's sakes that doesn't mean you have to exult in it. You don't have to parade around in that unwarranted superiority.
The fact is, all of us bitchy little online critics, pedants, carpers, and snipers, all of us ankle-biters, jock-sniffers, apple-polishers, and boot-lickers -- and I include myself in this -- are rather low in the socio-economic pecking order. Pretty damn low.
And if you work at Slate -- even lower.
If we could do something else, we wouldn't be fucking pissant internet critics.
Slate's Stupid Business Model is to never admit the obvious. If it seems obvious that North Korea has committed a serious attack on Sony's Free Speech, Slate must come in and offer a #SlateTake, even if the opposite of the obvious is stupid and loathsome.
Now 10% of the time, this sort of doctrinaire counter-intuitive #SlateTake might be worth considering.
But 90% of the time it's just wrong. Because the obvious take is the correct take 90% of the time. Putin taking over Ukraine is bad for the Ukraine. That's obvious.
And a #SlateTake claiming Actually, Maybe Being Occupied by Russia Is Just What Ukraine Needs! is just stupid, prickish and prattish.
And then to package these outrageously-wrong brainfarts up with attitude -- as if being outrageously wrong is more charming when you're vomiting up unwarranted arrogance alongside it.
It's not enough to say something stupid -- no, they have to imply that other people are dumb for not thinking of the stupid #SlateTake themselves.
Only very clever people could be this determinedly stupid, their corporate credo seems to be. (And yes, Slate is a corporation: So if a hacker extorted Slate, would that not be a real first amendment issue, I wonder?)
One should not exert oneself this hard to be clever. Let the cleverness come naturally; don't force it all the time, laddies.
I'm reminded of the aphorism: The failure state of "clever" is "asshole."
This constant attitude from the silly little shits at Slate, who haven't done anything except blogposts, is repulsive.
Stop acting like you've fucking Done Something until you've actually Done Something, boys.
Greta Van Sustern: Sony Was "Stupid" and "Idiots" to Make NK Movie; Should Have Known They'd Be Hacked, Threatened with 9/11-Style Terrorist Attacks
anyone who has been to NK knows how dangerous it is and would not have been so stupid to make that movie;— Greta Van Susteren (@greta) December 17, 2014
North Korea has never engaged in this sort of retaliation before, and they've been similarly provoked. The awful James Bond movie Die Another Day featured North Korea as a villain, and had Bond blowing up half of a North Korean brigade; Team America: World Police featured a hilarious parody of Kim Jong-il, and showed him being killed ("assassinated," I gues) at the end.
Also, when he died, the creature living inside of him -- an alien parasite, maybe, or a mutant demi-urge taking the form of an insect -- escaped. That creature inside him, representing his soul, was a cockroach.
So why would Sony know that they shouldn't make this movie?
Greta Van Sustern is just wrong here in so many ways. Her "solution" to terrorism is just to capitulate pre-emptively to potential terrorists -- Sony and all other media companies should just figure out which Evil Basket-Case Tyrannical States are willing to use terrorism as part of their PR apparatus, and make sure they never mock such countries.
So... We're not supposed to mock the most vicious regimes which are most deserving of mockery. If we self-censor, then we won't permit North Korean terrorists to censor us, I guess.
In a way I guess that's true, but in all important ways it's wrong.
It seems to me Van Sustern is demonstrating one of the most common, and stupidest, sorts of human behavior here.
Whenever a terrible setback befalls someone -- paralysis, cancer, rape, cyberterrorism by basket-case states run by midget maniacs -- human beings have a remarkably annoying, and sometimes offensive, need to moralize about the tragedy, and begin positing all the ways in which this horrific event could have been avoided.
Though usually not as overt as in Van Sustern's formulation, the suggestion is usually present: This tragedy was eminently avoidable, and the fact that it was not avoided suggests a defect, whether intellectual, moral, or characterological, on the part of the victim.
I think people do this partly due to their basic survival programming: Learn from the setbacks of others. Postulate methods of avoiding similar tragedies.
I also think they do it partly to reassure themselves so that they're not unduly frightened: People don't like accepting the fact that many dangers are very unpredictable and hence impossible, or nearly impossible, to avoid, so they are overly fond of claiming that each and every tragedy that occurs in life was eminently foreseeable and thus eminently avoidable.
It's kind of a psychological knock-on-wood reassurance.
I don't think this is true in many cases. I do not think it was so "obvious" as Van Sustern says that North Korea would of course resort to an entirely unprecedented and never-once predicted or threatened form attack.
If this was so obvious, I'm sure Ms. Van Sustern can quote herself warning of the attack's inevitability...? Or cite someone she read making that warning?
Even if that warning had come (it hadn't, but if it had), then she's just saying "We should give in to bullies and censors and terrorists because otherwise they'll make trouble."
And all this just so she call call them "idiots" and "stupid."
This is of course the really basic thing about human behavior: Humans love to discover new ways in which they are Superior to new people they had previously not realized they were superior to at all.
Somewhere in Van Sustern is a hungry ego, impatiently crying out to be fed, as there is in all of us; she sees here an opportunity to feed the crying beast, and seizes upon it.
If Van Sustern thinks it's "stupid" to provoke terrorists and bullies and censors, she should quit her job at Fox immediately, because of course Fox takes a less charitable view of ISIS, Islamofascists generally, Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and all the various leftwing soft-fascism organizations than any other news company.
Is she so "stupid" to put her own safety and privacy at risk by antagonizing these people?
I guess so.
The Mewlings of Cowards: Too often I see cowardice being credited as "wisdom."
Risk-taking is good. I don't love Seth Rogen all that much, but mocking a tyrant is a good thing, even if it's a risky thing.
Perhaps Rogen was foolish to not realize it was risky.
Perhaps. But I don't know that. Why should I assume he didn't realize this was risky? Why should I assume he's stupid?
People tend to fear bravery -- to the extent they'll mock it, and the person exhibiting bravery, when he stumbles.
I hate this tendency our safe modern society has of mocking bravery and risk-taking.
"Well those idiots didn't know the safe play."
That's the sort of thing a boring, vanilla, will-never-impact-the-world coward tells himself about risk-taking people to make himself feel better about his own safe, soft decisions.
Risk-taking people usually do in fact know the risks.
They also know "the safe play" that the softer-bodied people are always demanding everyone take.
They just choose not to make the safe play. They choose, knowingly, the risky play.
I think it is toxic for society -- a poison that saps at our vitality-- for the Safe Play People's voices to be so loud, and so numerous, while so few people actually stick up for a bit of riskiness and danger.
Hey, Safe Play People: I've got news for you. No one ever accomplished anything big by sticking to the Safe Play.
So keep on hectoring and picking at anyone who dares to step out of line, if that makes you feel better about your own choices.
The people taking risks will just have to content themselves with mattering and living lives full of color and steel.
How Progressivism Is Killing the Social Sciences
The parasite kills its host. Every time.
I have had the following experience more than once: I am speaking with a professional academic who is a liberal. The subject of the underrepresentation of conservatives in academia comes up. My interlocutor admits that this is indeed a reality, but says the reason why conservatives are underrepresented in academia is because they don't want to be there, or they're just not smart enough to cut it. I say: "That's interesting. For which other underrepresented groups do you think that's true?" An uncomfortable silence follows.
I point this out not to score culture-war points, but because it's actually a serious problem...
That's why I was very gratified to read this very enlightening draft paper written by a number of social psychologists on precisely this topic, attacking the lack of political diversity in their profession and calling for reform....
They start by debunking published (and often well-publicized) social psychology findings that seem to suggest moral or intellectual superiority on the part of liberals over conservatives, which smartly serves to debunk both the notion that social psychology is bereft of conservatives because they're not smart enough to cut it, and that groupthink doesn't produce shoddy science. For example, a study that sought to show that conservatives reach their beliefs only through denying reality achieved that result by describing ideological liberal beliefs as "reality," surveying people on whether they agreed with them, and then concluding that those who disagree with them are in denial of reality -- and lo, people in that group are much more likely to be conservative! This has nothing to do with science, and yet in a field with such groupthink, it can get published in peer-reviewed journals and passed off as "science," complete with a Vox stenographic exercise at the end of the rainbow. A field where this is possible is in dire straits indeed.
That's the stupidest thing I ever heard.
More "Science:" Hate is bad, but you can hate Republicans, because Science shows us that they are bad.
As I've said before, what really bothers me is their combination of asserted superiority and actual childishness.
A University of Michigan department chairwoman has published an article titled, "It's Okay To Hate Republicans," which will probably make all of her conservative students feel really comfortable and totally certain that they’re being graded fairly.
"I hate Republicans," communications department chairwoman and professor Susan J. Douglas boldly declares in the opening of the piece.
She writes that although the fact that her "tendency is to blame the Republicans . . . may seem biased," historical and psychological research back her up, and so it’s basically actually a fact that Republicans are bad!
Republicans now, she writes, are focused on the "determined vilification" of others, and have "crafted a political identity that rests on a complete repudiation of the idea that the opposing party and its followers have any legitimacy at all."
(Apparently, the irony of this accusation given the content of her own article was lost on her.)
I swear, a lot of Progressives are borderline stupid, but want to be smaaahhht, so they select a political philosophy that promises them they'll be smaahhhht if they just say the right things, no matter what their so-called "IQ tests" may say about it.
Thursday Morning News Dump
- 'Free Trade' With Cuba Is A Dangerous Fantasy
- The US Bows Down To The Norks
- Russians Flock To Stores To Pre-empt Price Rises
- Vermont Giving Up On Single Payer Health Care
- This Stirkes Me As One Of Those Stories That Will Turn Out To Be BS
- The Response To North Korea's Attack On Hollywood Is Disastrous And Cowardly
- How Academia's Liberal Bias Is Killing Social Science
- McSally Win Gives Republicans Another House Seat
- Man Who Waterboarded KSM Rips Democrat Torture Report
- Kerry: Cuba Policy Has Isolated The US For 50 Years
- Lets Learn From Canada's 'Bootstrap' Immigration Policy
- Blacks Falling Behind Under Obamacare
- Obama Claims He's Been Treated Like The Help
- Cool New Bullet Designed For The US Army
- President Obama Didn't Tell The Whole Story About Cuba
Morning Thread (12-18-2014)
FOR THE RECORD: We were still going to show #TheInterviewMovie…
FOR THE RECORD: We were still going to show #TheInterviewMovie…— Alamo Drafthouse DFW (@AlamoDFW) December 17, 2014
AoSHQ Weekly Podcast | Stitcher | Download | Ask The Blog | Archives
Overnight Open Thread (12-17-2014)
"When I started playing Bond it became apparent, in 1977, that I would have to leave the UK if I wasn't to pay ninety-eight per cent tax on my salary: an actor's life in the spotlight is short, so we need to look after our pennies, and that's why I decamped to Switzerland with its lovely snow-capped tax benefits."
-- Roger Moore
Only they actually aren't a lie and in fact are generally true. So here are some examples of their choice of 'lie' of the year:
Fox News analyst George Will claimed Ebola could be spread into the general population through a sneeze or a cough, saying the conventional wisdom that Ebola spreads only through direct contact with bodily fluids was wrong.
"The problem is the original assumption, said with great certitude if not certainty, was that you need to have direct contact, meaning with bodily fluids from someone, because it's not airborne," Will said. "There are doctors who are saying that in a sneeze or some cough, some of the airborne particles can be infectious." False.U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., described Ebola as "incredibly contagious," "very transmissible" and "easy to catch." Mostly False.
Except that as Patterico points out that the CDC published this poster in October which makes the very same claim that George Will was making:
And in regards to Rand's statement of opinion about Ebola Patterico makes this note:
Looking at it another way, "at least anecdotally" (and, let's face it: fact-checkers around the globe universally agree that anecdotal evidence is the Gold Standard for fact-checking), one might anecdotally observe that health-care workers who believed they were taking every precaution and yet inexplicably ended up contracting the disease might come away from that experience saying: gee, it seems like Ebola is easier to catch than I realized!! Why, one might even call it "incredibly contagious" or "easy to catch"!
Because if Paul's statement were in fact truly false, then there would absolutely no reason to wear these kinds of suits when working with ebola patients.
Meanwhile Don Surber points out the REAL lie of the year which alone has caused untold amounts of national harm:
The lie of the year is Dorian Johnson's statement to Wolf Blitzer about the shooting and death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, last August: "I saw the officer proceeding after my friend Big Mike with his gun drawn, and he fired a second shot and that struck my friend Big Mike. And at that time, he turned around with his hands up, beginning to tell the officer that he was unarmed and to tell him to stop shooting. But at that time, the officer firing several more shots into my friend, and he hit the ground and died."
That was a lie. The autopsy and testimony from at least a half-dozen witnesses confirm that Dorian Johnson lied through his teeth.
The campus Cultural Revolutionaries have now made discussion of forbidden topics and disagreement a crime. And a crime to be dealt with via a Kafkaesque mockery of due process.
Marquette University, the Jesuit school in Milwaukee, has shot itself in the foot again. Weeks ago in a "Theory of Ethics" class, philosophy instructor Cheryl Abbate listed several possible topics of discussion, but said one of them -gay marriage-could not be addressed because any opposition argument would offend homosexual students, and besides society has already agreed that gays can marry. This is a strong pattern for the campus left: topics they want to talk about (e.g., the Keystone pipeline, abolishing fraternities) are discussed endlessly, even in classes where the topics have little or no relevance. But topics they don'twant discussed are banned as "already settled" or as harassment.
Did Marquette overrule Abbate and say that gay marriage can certainly be discussed in class? Or that Catholic doctrine cannot be off limits at a Catholic university? Well, no. Like so many other universities, Marquette passed on the free speech issue and went after a lone professor-John McAdams-who had criticized Marquette's woeful reaction to Abbate in his blog, "Marquette Warrior." The next step was very predictable: Marquette suspended McAdams, said he is under investigation and banned him from the campus, without listing any charges against him. Presumably the unannouced charge is harassment, since the letter from Dean Richard Holz to McAdams ended with a sentence saying "I am enclosing with this letter Marquette's harassment policy..:"
I used to think of universities as loony playgrounds for a few professors (while most did actual work) that ultimately had little impact on the rest of society. But now the toxic insanity is spreading outside of its campus incubators and so I'm now actively rooting for the downfall of modern universities - which is sad because I love learning and intellectual pursuits and hate to see it get torn down along with the circus of dangerous fools that most campuses have become.
Voters are tired of a dysfunctional Washington and want leaders who can make the government work.
But Moe Lane says no way:
...and yet, every trend in American politics since November 5th, 2008 has been in support of a dysfunctional Washington. I know that the Beltway hates hearing this, but the voters keep telling us at the ballot box that they never want to see the horrors of the 111th Congress - the mutant, deranged poster-child for 'functional' government - ever again. That's why we flipped the House in 2010, and the Senate in 2014. That's why we took so many governorships in 2010 and managed to keep them in 2014.
I've never been a fan of Bill Nye "the Science Guy." Partly it's because I'm from a different generation. I grew up with Isaac Asimov and Carl Sagan as my introduction to science, and Nye always struck me as a cheap substitute. I find something condescending in his hyperkinetic manner, as if science couldn't actually be interesting and exciting in its own right, as if it could only be interesting if the guy trying to explain it to us is bouncing off the walls. It all seems like Science for People with Attention Deficit Disorder. So you get travesties like Bill Nye supposedly explaining evolution using emojis. It's as dumb as it sounds, which is a shame given how important the theory of evolution is.
All of that is harmless enough, I suppose-more a waste of an opportunity than any active kind of evil. If not for the fact that the "science guy" is out undermining the basic creed of science.Nye has joined with 47 "scientists, science writers, and other experts" who issued a statement "taking the media to task for using the phrase 'climate skeptic,' saying that the word 'denier' is more accurate."
Nye was a little after my time and I've never been a fan of his frenetic style either. Which as Tracinski points out seems to reflect a lack of faith on Nye's part that science is interesting by itself. And then you have the lecturing...
And guilty of classism and privilege.
Of course, if you laughed at that little sight, you're probably a bad person. At the very least, you're engaging in some "casual classism." Here's Bovy:
"The question is, why this mean-spirited (if sometimes quite funny) meme, and why now? Aren't we supposed to be living in an era of hypersensitivity? Why hasn't the privilege of users of this hashtag been called out? (According to a few minutes of Googling, it has not.) [Emp. mine]"This is a rather glaring example of one of the Internet's least attractive qualities: grievance hunting. Consider that second parenthetical: Bovy has literally gone looking for outrage about this thing, found none, and told you that you should, in fact, be outraged by it. Or, at the very least, made to feel shame for chuckling about it.
A-10s are now back in the fight. Again.
This is supposed to be an outrage or something but last I checked dumping soiled mattresses on someone's front door was considered harassment and likely to get you charged with littering among other charges.
In October, Carry That Weight activists - who are helping Columbia University student Emma Sulkowicz carry a mattress similar to the one on which she was raped in order to bring attention to the university's negligence of rape victims - staged a protest in which they left 28 mattresses at the doorstep of university President Lee Bollinger, one for each of the students who had signed a Title IX complaint against the university. In a breathtaking and unintentionally meaningful move, the university promptly threw the 28 mattresses in a dumpster and fined the activists $471 for damaging the mattresses.
In response, the activists left a mattress-sized check (well, OK, it was a check painted onto a mattress) for Bollinger at his doorstep again, asking Bollinger to support the activists. The actual fine has been covered by women's rights nonprofit Ultraviolet, who may have another few dollars to pay out, now.
Ignore the snark about shooting stuff and marvel over what boy's magazines used to look like. What I remember most about reading Boy's Life occasionally in the middle to late 70s was that its blend of articles on shooting/hunting/sports, biographies, history, stupid jokes, and a bit of man etiquette along with self-improvement was precisely tuned to the exact things that boys would be interested in reading about. I don't think anything like that exists today.
Can you tell the difference?
The Group knows what you did.
Tonight's post brought to you by today you are a man:
Notice: Posted by implicit permission of AceCorp LLC. Please e-mail overnight open thread tips to maetenloch at gmail. Otherwise send tips to Ace.
Close it up
Michele Obama: Someone Asked Me to Reach Something for Them at Target So That Was Racism
This is an odd thing. I actually live in fear of asking someone for help at Target who doesn't work at Target. I have a phobia about asking someone where the vitamins are, only to have him turn angrily on me and announce, "Just because I'm wearing a jazzy red polo shirt and loose-fit khakis, does that mean you own me??!"
So I kind of don't ask people, unless I see someone else asking them. Or I see them stocking stuff.
But you can get into trouble that way, too. Because if you ask the guy stocking the Coke where the bacon is, he might go, "I don't work here, I work for the Coca-Cola distributing company. And go fuck yourself for that insult, Sirrah!"
Anyway, not making this up, I really do have a phobia about this.
On the other hand, I ask people for help who I know don't work at the store.
It's a weird thing. I get panicky about mistaking someone as store help, but I have little problem asking someone I know does not work for the store for information, just on the theory that hey, we're in this store together, why shouldn't we help each other out?
Have you ever been a male in the spice aisle looking for, I don't know, corriander, and not being able to find it (Yeah I know they're in alphabetical order, but just go with me on this), so you see someone who seems to be knowledgable, and sure, this person just happens to be female, so you ask, "Do you know where the corriander is?"
I always want to say, "I know you don't work here, but that doesn't mean you don't know the basic layout of this super-market you obviously come to twice a week" before asking them, but I don't.
Anyway, the point is, Michele Obama, sometimes people, get this, ask other citizens for help, advice, or information, not thinking they're (horrors!) an employee making only a dollar or two above the minimum wage (aah! the social insult! I shall not live), but just thinking, "This person could help me and I see no good reason why I shouldn't ask her for help."
But Michele Obama goes through life like a china shop in a stockyard, looking to be shattered by hoof-fall.
Sheppard Smith, Arch-Progressive Crank
Yes, in the middle of FoxNews' broadcast day, they have smug, condescending, reflexive and dogmatic progressive anchoring the news.
As Shep Smith said about the threat of Global Warning: It's true. It's true.
The #SmartTake today among progressives on Twitter was to fret about Obama's Cuba initiative, not for being insufficiently anti-communist, of course, but for exposing that Tropical Communist Paradise to decadent running-dog capitalism.
“The last thing they need is a Taco Bell and a Lowe's," Shep Smith says, worried about America poisoning Castro's utopia, and that we will "ruin" it. Quote unquote.
Incidentally, Jay Thomas, supposedly an actor and allegedly a comic, hough I mostly know him as a blowhard minor celebrity turned progressive radio host, makes a joke that if North Korea launches a nuke and kills Seth Rogen and James Franco, it will be a "Hell of an ending to their careers."
I'm not offended, I'm just annoyed that so many people, especially those on the left, seem to think "clever" is synonymous with "obnoxious."
Details of the Unilateral Executive Cuba Deal
Loosened travel restrictions
A dozen different licenses allow Americans to travel to Cuba, and requirements for getting them will be relaxed....
Authorized travelers will also be able to use their U.S. credit and debit cards in Cuba, something not previously allowed. That could make it much easier for people to go to Cuba.
Bringing back goods
Under the new rules, authorized visitors will be allowed to bring back $400 worth of goods -- including $100 worth of alcohol and tobacco products combined. In the past, it has been illegal to bring back any of Cuba’s famed cigars and rum.
It will be easier for people in the U.S. to send money to Cuba under the changes....
Billions already are sent annually by Cubans living in the United States....
Republicans are ripping the deal for doing little to improve human rights in Cuba. The White House appears to have dropped its opposition to a Cuban presence at the 2015 summit of the Americas in Panama, but says has that Cuban civil society “must be allowed” to participate.
I'm not sure I really care. The previous policy, whether the right policy or not, has not yet toppled the Castro regime. I think this new policy will almost certainly increase the chances the Castro regime continues, near to mid-term, but I think we're talking about increasing the chances from 98% to 98%, so I'm not especially bothered.
I supported the anti-Castro plank because the Republican-voting Cuban exiles in Florida wanted me to. But lately, they seem to voting for Democrats, and they don't seem to care about the Cuba embargo as much.
So I guess I don't really have any incentive to continue to support a policy I was only supporting as a favor to a political ally.
Below, Marco Rubio tears Obama as the worst negotiator in the modern era, noting that Obama got "nothing" out of this deal -- no structural undertakings towards freedom on Cuba's behalf -- except freeing 53 political prisoners. (Who could be re-imprisoned in a week.)
With the Guardians of Peace (aka North Korea) Now Threatening 9/11 Style Attacks on Theaters that Exhibit "The Interview," Five Theater Chains Cancel The Film's Showings
The country's top five theater circuits have decided not to play Sony's The Interview, a knowledgeable source tells The Hollywood Reporter.
Regal Entertainment, AMC Entertainment, Cinemark, Carmike Cinemas and Cineplex Entertainment have all decided against showing the film.
This, following new threats that the "Guardians of Peace" (aka the North Korean external intelligence services) would kill people at theaters screening the film.
"The world will be full of fear," the message reads. "Remember the 11th of September 2001. We recommend you to keep yourself distant from the places at that time. (If your house is nearby, you’d better leave.) Whatever comes in the coming days is called by the greed of Sony Pictures Entertainment."
For those thinking "Oh, North Korea would have to be crazy to do that!!!," @ComradeArthur reminds you: They are crazy.
I think Sony will pull the film.
And then it will be released on Pay Per View, where it will make 75% of what it would have made in the theaters.
And the word will go out. No movie company is going to name a real repressive regime as a heavy any more. You can't create a $300 million product and let it be held hostage by nuclear-armed fruitbats.
So from now on all bad guys, and not just 90% of them, will be White Male Christian Businessmen, or made-up countries like "Qurac."
Pay-for-Passage: Senator Robert Menendez Pulls Strings for Visa for Woman Banned from US Travel, Due to Visa Fraud, So She Could Work at an Obama Fundraiser
And when I say she was involved in "Visa fraud," what she was actually doing was sneaking women into the country claiming them to be "business associates." Their real purpose? Maids for her parents' estate.
Ecuador characterizes that Visa fraud as a "form of human smuggling."
Oh, and the woman's father is fighting extradition back to Ecuador on charges of banking fraud and money laundering.
The family members donate lots to Obama -- and to Senator Menendez.
A former US ambassador to Ecuador said that pulling strings to secure a Visa for someone accused of Visa fraud would be "highly unusual" -- especially if that person was not actually a constituent of the Senator pulling the strings (and the woman in question is does not live in the state of NJ, which Menendez allegedly represents).
Obama Moves to Normalize Relations With Cuba, After Cuba Releases Hostage It's Held for Five Years
Rubio says that this announces to the world that the way to wring concessions from America is to take a hostage. But that's silly. Obama already announced that with Bowe Berdahl.
The monster is speaking now.
Near the end of the speech, after announcing a raft of "executive actions," he concedes the embargo is a creature of Congressional law, and that he "looks forward" to discussing the lifting of the embargo with Cuba.
Obama: "Todos sommos Americanos." Which I assume means "We are all Americans."
Um... no we're not. What they'll do is say "We are in fact all inhabitants of The Americas," and make fun of dumb conservatives for "not knowing" this.
But given his unilateral immigration move, I think he's actually sending out the signal that we are literally all Americans, anyone who wants to be and who can jump a fence.
Nicholas Roerich, "Battle in the Heavens" (1912)
Breaking: US And Cuba Exchange Prisoners. Set To Normalize Relations?
Cleaning up one of the last bits of the Cold War.
Cuba released U.S. citizen Alan Gross from prison Wednesday after five years in captivity. The U.S. released three alleged Cuban spies in return. The exchange is a result of a year of secret backtalks between the U.S. and Cuba. Raul Castro and President Obama will both speak, separately, around noon Eastern time.
Apparently the talks were and are so wide ranging as to encompass the resumption of diplomatic relations. The two countries have had official relations since the Eisenhower administration.
A lot of people on the right and in the Cuban-American expat community are going to go ballistic about this but let's be honest, it's time. Yes, the Castro regime is a brutal dictatorship but we do business with a lot of thuggish regimes. Some are even our friends (Hello Saudi Arabia). I think we've made our point after 60 years. We're basically the only country that doesn't have some sort of relationship with Cuba so it's not like we're breaking down some grand coalition here.
The Russians are using Cuba as part of their plans to reinvigorate their power projection plans. Now with the Ruble in free fall and Russia teetering on the edge of economic collapse (thanks fracking!), maybe we can peel Cuba away from them.
Plus...really cheap Caribbean vacations for Americans and the chance for more Cubans to come here will do a lot to bring down the decrepit shell of Castro's revolutionary paradise.
On the domestic political front, it will be fascinating how Hillary and Jeb react to this. It's a touchy issue in the all important swing state of Florida.
So it turns out I have a job and occasionally need to do some work.
Morning Thread (12-17-2014)
AoSHQ Weekly Podcast | Stitcher | Download | Ask The Blog | Archives
Overnight Open Thread (12-16-2014)
Because sometime work gets in the way of the ONTery.
From Jim Geraghty's Morning Jolt:
The latest edition of my pop-culture podcast with Mickey White goes up today. I discuss a Christmas television special that our family watches every year - and I was unnerved to see that James Lileks also wrote about the Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer Christmas special as well. Luckily, the two of us headed in different directions in our assessment. He wonders how today's Left would re-edit it, while I lament that for all of the warm feelings it stirs . . . this children's classic makes almost no sense.
First, I get that this is a parable about tolerance of those who are different, and appreciating "misfits" who "don't fit in." Perhaps that was a particularly powerful message in 1964. But the story's need for an intolerant society to depict means that a lot of previously-beloved characters associated with Christmas get turned into absolute quasi-fascistic villains.
Donner, Rudolph's dad, is one of the worst. He's horrified by his son's shiny nose, literally from the moment of his birth. Everyone just accepts that because of the shiny nose, Rudolph will never be able to pull the sleigh. Nobody ever explains why. They treat this as some sort of horrible genetic mutation. In the entire story, no one in Christmastown other than Clarice and Rudolph's mother - who never even gets a name! - can tolerate it. Everyone else instantly reacts with shock, horror, and disgust.
Santa comes across as even worse. He's a jerk who doesn't care about the elves' musical number. The first sign of snow - in the North Pole, where he really shouldn't be that shocked - and he's ready to cancel Christmas. He's got one job!Finally, when Rudolph is exposed at the reindeer games, Santa tells Donner, Rudolph's dad, he should be ashamed of himself. For what? His son's nose? A birth defect? For polluting the gene pool? Is this Nazi Christmastown?
Read the rest here.
Note that in a quarter of these cases the lying women went on to become lawyers.
Or how segregation can happen even without racism (or shapism in this case).
Tonight's post brought to you by December:
Notice: Posted by permission of AceCorp LLC. Please e-mail overnight open thread tips to maetenloch at gmail. Otherwise send tips to Ace.
Close it up
Phone Numbers Provided by Jackie for Her Imaginary Boyfriend Were Created on Website That Enables Cellphone Spoofing
That is, it's actually a computer website that can pretend that it's sending texts from a cellphone of a number the user makes up and assigns to the spoof account.
This explains how the Mystery Man "Drew" sent texts to Jackie's friends, despite not actually existing:
Today the Washington Times adds significant new detail to the story. It turns out the cell numbers provided by Jackie, "are registered to Internet services that...can be used to redirect calls to different numbers or engage in spoofing." The site, known as Pinger, is an app that allows people to text for free but it can also be used to set up free texting accounts on the web. It's at least possible then that the accounts Jackie's friends were texting were not connected to a phone at all. Told about the source of the texts, one of Jackie's friends, Alex Stock, tells the Times, "That definitely raises some red flags."
This raises a possibility which I must stress is merely a possibility, a possible explanation for some contradictory claims.
I wouldn't offer this speculation, because I'll get killed by the SJWs, except that it's so obvious it's essentially right there on the surface.
Sabrina Rubin Erdely has claimed that she in fact contacted "Randall" (now identified as Ryan) but he said he would not comment on the story "out of loyalty to his frat."
Ryan, for his part, says he never spoke with Erdely, and that she never contacted him at all. He says he would have spoke to her if Erdely had asked.
So, given this business with the spoofed cell phone numbers: Is it possible that Sabrina Rubin Erdely was tricked into thinking she was texting with Ryan when in fact she was just communicating with spoofed accounts run by someone else?
I don't know. That scenario would permit both Ryan and Erdely to be telling the truth, as it appeared to them, and yet be in complete contradiction with one another. Ryan would say "Erdely never contacted me," and would be truthful, and Erdely would say "I contacted Ryan but he refused to be interviewed," and would not be lying, though she would be wrong.
Even if that were true, I don't know if that totally lets Erdely off the hook. I don't know if you just assume you've gotten through to an interview subject without any kind of actual confirmation of that.
I'll mention this again -- STEPHEN GLASS'S MIDDLE NAME IS RANDALL.
It's turtles all the way down on this one, people.
What The Hell
What happens in tuckus, stays in tuckus pic.twitter.com/F7rTgVfTSI— iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) December 16, 2014
"The notion that Jeb Bush is going to be the candidate is a fantasy nourished by the kind of people who used to run the Republican Party."
I don't have much use for Ben Smith but he seems right.
Oh -- Jeb Bush is apparently on the board of Mike Bloomberg's Bloomberg Foundation.
No labels, baby.
I've actually met him only once, in a gorgeous breakfast room atop Manhattan’s Bloomberg Tower, in front of a sweeping view of the East River. The breakfast was part of a series with a distinctly Bloombergian vibe: editors rather than reporters, healthy snacks, elite centrism. I asked Jeb there about the Republican Party, whose mantle he's now apparently considering seeking. He didn't need much prodding, either, to go after his fellow Republicans or to blunder into making news. "Ronald Reagan would have, based on his record of finding accommodation, finding some degree of common ground, as would my dad -- they would have a hard time if you define the Republican Party -- and I don't -- as having an orthodoxy that doesn't allow for disagreement, doesn’t allow for finding some common ground," Bush said, adding that he views the hyper-partisan moment as "temporary."
"Back to my dad's time and Ronald Reagan's time --they got a lot of stuff done with a lot of bipartisan support," he said. Reagan "would be criticized for doing the things that he did."
The notion that Jeb Bush is going to be the Republican presidential nominee is a fantasy nourished by the people who used to run the Republican Party. Bush has been out of a game that changed radically during the 12 years(!) since he last ran for office. He missed the transformation of his brother from Republican savior to squish; the rise of the tea party; the molding of his peer Mitt Romney into a movement conservative; and the ascendancy of a new generation of politicians — Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Scott Walker, Ted Cruz, among them — who have been fully shaped by and trained in that new dynamic. Those men occasionally, carefully, respectfully break with the movement. Scorning today’s Republican Party is, by contrast, the core of Jeb’s political identity.
Bush was in the Bloomberg Tower for a board meeting of the personal foundation of the former New York mayor, whose aggressive campaigns for gun control make him, after President Obama, perhaps the most hated figure among pro-gun Republicans. The foundation’s focus includes two particularly bitter pills for Republicans: shutting down coal-fired power plants and campaigning globally for the kinds of new taxes on junk food whose introduction in New York City infuriated the right.
Yeah I don't get this. It's like when they said they had made a movie called RIPD, about dead cops who come back as ghosts to fight supernatural criminals, and that it starred Ryan Reynolds and Jeff Bridges.
And I said, "Why would you do that? Who is that for?"
And they said, "It's for everybody! It's got Ryan Reynolds! And Jeff Bridges!!!"
And I said, "They were more relevant like six years ago..."
And they said, "But imagine!!! Ghost Cops!!!"
And I said, "Isn't this just Men in Black with the supernatural instead of the sci-fi?"
And they said, "Yes! Exactly! That's why everyone will love it. Plus-- Act of Love!!!"
But they didn't love it, because it was a really dumb idea that exactly no one was asking for.
Oh: And the new news is that, allegedly, the Bush Brand is a now a benefit rather than a hindrance, as George W. Bush (and his dad) have risen in public esteem (or just fallen in public antipathy).
I don't have as much of a problem with the Bush Brand as other people; I have a problem with the Jeb Bush Brand.
I think it's absurd for a candidate's main selling point to be how much he hates the party whose nomination he's seeking.
You know, I don't believe in "The Base," whatever that is. I have arguments with those who claim to speak for this mythical Base.
I have a basic problem with claimed orthodoxies.
But I also have a problem with being an obnoxious idiot, and just flat-out running on a campaign of You Republicans Are Stupid And Everything You Believe Is Hatred and Distemper is an obnoxious idiot move.
I have literally not heard this guy say One Thing he likes about Republicanism or conservatism. All I hear is is List of Ways In Which We've Disappointed Him.
Well, I've had six years of one entitled narcissist telling me I have to elevate my game to gain his (His?) approval.
That's enough for me. I've had a snootful.
I'd like to be pandered to a little bit now, Thank You Very Much Drive Through.
Who are these dumb fuckers who think I want to be "challenged" all the time?
Pro-Tip: No one wants to be "challenged," including, especially, those who claim the loudest to seek "challenging" points of view.
How About a Non-Boomer Candidate for 2016?
Look, the Boomers have run the country now since 1993, and, well, look at the place. It's a mess.
Their fiscal wreckage is being left to Generation X and my own to clean up- generations they continue to leave the bill for while gorging themselves like so many Creosotes. Why give them another four years? Why not take a wafer-thin mint to the whole lot, at least this one time?
I made this argument, not very seriously, on Twitter the other day, but it really got me thinking since.
Who would both parties be left with as possible contenders in 2016 if we eliminated every candidate born after January 1 1965 and before the debut of MTV?
Yeah, there are a few favorites on the left, but there's a parade of terribles that come with 'em.
Really, which set of choices would you rather pick from?
Note: the exact starting point for Gen X isn't exactly agreed upon. I'm using The Harvard Center's defined period from 1965 to 1984.
Close it up
Professor Has Simple Answer to Screechy Student Demanding Delay in Exams Due to Heart-Ache Over Ferguson
A professor at Oberlin -- Lena Dunham's old stomping grounds -- of all places.
You can read the letter at Reason, or in this link.
When I read this, I thought what I'm about to quote below was a joke.
It's not. It's real. This really happened:
After receiving his professor;s response, the student posted the exchange publicly to Facebook, with the message: "TRIGGER WARNING: Violent language regarding an extremely dismissive response from a professor. This is an email exchange I had with my professor this evening. ... We are obviously not preaching to the choir. Professors and administration at Oberlin need to be held accountable for their words and actions and have a responsibility to their students."
More: An op-ed from a Harvard Law student, explaining that his classmates aren't whiny and entitled. Just really really serious about Justice.
Delaying Exams Is Not a Request from 'Coddled Millennials'
Drawing comparisons to events surrounding the Civil Rights Movement and other times of intense turmoil, these opponents portray today's law students as coddled millennials using traumatic events as an excuse for their inability to focus on a three-hour exam. In essence, law students are being told to grow up and learn how to focus amidst stress and anxiety -- like "real" lawyers must do.
Speaking as one of those law students, I can say that this response is misguided: Our request for exam extensions is not being made from a position of weakness, but rather from one of strength and critical awareness. . . .
Where some commentators see weakness or sensitivity, perhaps they should instead see strength--the strength to know when our cups of endurance have run over and when the time for patience has ended. Perhaps they should instead see courage--the courage to look our peers in the eyes and uncomfortably ask them to bear these burdens of racism and classism that we have together inherited from generations past. We have taken many exams before, but never have we done this. We are scared, but no longer will we be spectators to injustice. . . .
No, I see it as more excuse-making for the generation which does very little except make excuses as to why they can't handle the most basic aspects of their jobs.
Pennsylvania District Court Finds Obama's Executive Action on Immigration to be Unconstitutional
If I understand this right, Obama's executive order became an issue because party in a deportation action sought to claim protections under Obama's lawless order.
The court found Obama's order to go "beyond prosecutorial discretion" and therefore beyond the permissible extent of executive action. He thus discarded consideration of the action in handling the case before him.
Today: Taliban Butchers 130 Schoolchildren; Sets Teacher on Fire In Front of Class
Last Week: Hillary Clinton Claims We Need to "Empathize With" Our Enemies
Which aspect of them shall we empathize with -- their raping of women, or their massacring of children?
Or perhaps their raping of children?
"This is what we call Smart Power," Hillary says.
Oh? Doesn't sound that smart to me.
Incidentally, how are Obama's negotiations with the child-massacring Taliban faring, eh? Have we negotiated how many children they will murder down from 2000 per year down to 1000 per year?
Another Viral Media Story Turns Out To Be, Get This, Completely Fabricated
New York magazine ran a piece about Mohammad Islam, a Bedford-Stuyvesant high school senior who made a whopping $72 million playing the stock markets.
Rumors, on Wall Street, can be powerful. A whisper can turn into a current that moves markets, driving a stock price up or sending it tumbling. There may be only one other place where gossip holds such sway, and that is high school.
Late last year, a rumor began circulating at Stuyvesant that a junior named Mohammed Islam had made a fortune in the stock market. Not a small fortune, either. Seventy-two million.
As the news spread, Mo’s stock went up. The school paper profiled him, Business Insider included him on a list of "20 Under 20," and Mo became "a celebrity," as his friend Damir Tulemaganbetov put it on a recent Friday night at Mari Vanna near Union Square. "A VIP!"
Mo got into trading oil and gold, and his bank account grew. Though he is shy about the $72 million number, he confirmed his net worth is in the "high eight figures." More than enough to rent an apartment in Manhattan--though his parents won’t let him live in it until he turns 18--and acquire a BMW, which he can’t drive because he doesn't yet have a license.
The 72 million dollars figure turns out to be slightly exaggerated.
"Mo's" real take from the stock market is more modest: Zero dollars. Zero point zero dollars, and zero cents.
It was just kids making up a story, but Business Insider ran it, then New York, and then the New York Post.
You seem to be quoted saying "eight figures." That’s not true, is it?
No, it is not true.
Is there ANY figure? Have you invested and made returns at all?
So it's total fiction?
Are you interested in investing? How did you get this reputation?
I run an investment club at Stuy High which does only simulated trades.
If you had been playing with real money, would you have done really well?
The simulated trades percentage was extremely high relative to the S&P.
Where did [New York magazine writer] Jessica Pressler come up with the $72 million figure?
I honestly don’t know. The number's a rumor.
She said'‘have you made $72 million'?
[I led her to believe] I had made even more than $72 million on the simulated trades.
At this point the PR reps jumped in with Law & Order style objections. A conference outside the room ensued. Back into the room came Mr. Islam.
All I can say is for the simulated trades, I was very successful. The returns were incredible and outperformed the S&P.
And I've won the championship eight times straight on simulated seasons of Tecmo Bowl.
Welcome To 2016: Jeb Bush Officially Announces He's Running (Sort Of)
Oh yeah, Bush 2016 is real and it's going to be spectacular!
Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah!
Like many of you, our family was blessed with the opportunity to gather together over the recent Thanksgiving holiday.
Columba and I are so proud of the wonderful adults our children have become, and we loved spending time with our three precious grandchildren.
We shared good food and watched a whole lotof football.
We also talked about the future of our nation. As a result of these conversations and thoughtful consideration of the kind of strong leadership I think America needs, I have decided to actively explore the possibility of running for President of the United States.
In January, I also plan to establish a Leadership PAC that will help me facilitate conversations with citizens across America to discuss the most critical challenges facing our exceptional nation. The PAC’s purpose will be to support leaders, ideas and policies that will expand opportunity and prosperity for all Americans.
In the coming months, I hope to visit with many of you and have a conversation about restoring the promise of America.
Best wishes to you and your families for a happy holiday season. I’ll be in touch soon.
Finally! The party that has nominated George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, George W. Bush, John McCain and Mitt Romney will have the White Knight moderate it needs to wrest control of the party away from those dirty conservatives.
Why is Jeb doing this so early?
I'm guessing because the Romney 2016 thing was getting real. All the talk from Team Mitt about how, "the field wasn't that great and he as much as he didn't want to run again
Well the Great White Moderate Whale has just thrown his hat in the ring. Now donors who want to unite behind someone are going to have to start picking sides. In just a few weeks there will be an address to which they can send checks. Attendance will be taken, so take the holidays to decide if you're on the Bush bandwagon or not.
It'll be interesting to see who else this forces into the same move. If you're in the establishment bracket of the GOP primary (hello Chris Christie and yes you Mitt Romney) Bush just fired the starter's pistol. Either you get in now or you risk being left behind.
While we enjoy this moment of pure glee at an amnesty loving, Common Core front runner for the GOP nomination, let us have a moment of silence of Rubio 2016. Bush's entry ends any hope Rubio had this cycle. They are personally close and share too much of the same donor base.
Excuse me while I go buy some popcorn futures. Demand is about to skyrocket.
Tuesday Morning News Dump
- Why Gun-Control Advocates Lie About Guns
- Ph.D.'s And Other False Gods
- Read This, Laugh At Him, And Then Weep For Our Future
- Cruz And Lee Want to Go On The Record For Executive Amnesty
- Noting Succeeds Like Liberal Secession
- Leftists Fret Over Imaginary Anti-Muslim Backlash That Never Happens
- Obama Is Delusional
- Russia Increases Key Interest Rate To 17%
- Eight Campus Rape Hoaxes Eerily Like The UVA Rape Story
- File This Under The No Sh*t File
- Taliban Attack On Pakistan School Kills At Least 125
- That New York Mag Article About A Boy Genius Was BS
- Airlines Charging Sky-High Prices As Oil Costs Plummet
- The Campus As California
Morning Thread (12-16-2014)
Yesterday 10 families affected by the Sandy Hook shooting sued Bushmaster and the entire distribution channel that sold the gun to the shooter's mother. The complaint is an interesting read in that it looks like it was cut-and-pasted from anti-gun comments on Daily Kos.
According to the #SandyHook lawyers, the Bushmaster "ejects" bullets at 4,000 feet per second. Probably out of 30-caliber magazine clips— Bob Owens (@bob_owens) December 15, 2014
Bob followed that up with a good piece on the history of the AR-15 and why this suit is doomed.
Also ... oops:
The Sandy Hook complaint omits a rather important intervening fact here, relevant to "entrustment": pic.twitter.com/RzinbMaVMT— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) December 15, 2014
UPDATE: Somehow the myth that an AR-15 wasn't used at Sandy Hook but was found in the shooter's car still lives on after 2 years. Nope.
AoSHQ Weekly Podcast | Stitcher | Download | Ask The Blog | Archives
Overnight Open Thread (12-15-2014)
A recent terrorism survey (Global Terrorism Index) found that five nations (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria and Syria, in that order) accounted for 80 percent of all terrorism related deaths in 2013 and even more in 2014. Four Islamic terrorist organizations (ISIL, al Qaeda, Boko Haram and the Taliban) account for nearly 70 percent of all terrorist deaths. Many of the lesser terror groups are also Islamic. In fact, of the top ten nations by terrorist activity (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria, Syria, India, Somalia, Yemen, Philippines and Thailand) only India and the Philippines had a significant minority of terrorist deaths that were not carried out by Moslems. In those two countries the minority terrorists were leftist rebels who had not noticed the collapse of radical socialism in 1989.
In which third year HLS student and Very Special Snowflake, William Desmond, explains how the exquisite moral sensitivity and general superiority of current HLS students means that it's simply impossible for them to take the exams on time. Warning: Take any prescribed blood pressure medication before reading Desmond's arrogant jackassery.
Speaking as one of those law students, I can say that this response is misguided: Our request for exam extensions is not being made from a position of weakness, but rather from one of strength and critical awareness.
Although over the last few weeks many law students have experienced moments of total despair, minutes of inconsolable tears and hours of utter confusion, many of these same students have also spent days in action-days of protesting, of organizing meetings, of drafting emails and letters, and of starting conversations long overdue. We have been synthesizing decades of police interactions, dissecting problems centuries old, and exposing the hypocrisy of silence....Our focus and critical thinking are at an all-time peak while the importance of our textbooks is at a low. It is not that law students are incapable of handling their exams. It is that we are unwilling to remove ourselves, even for a few days, from this national conversation..
Somehow I don't think this guy would put up with any of this I'm-too-special-for-exams BS.
This seems like a perfectly legitimate question based on current events to me. And it doesn't even ask the students to pick a side but merely to discuss the issues involved. But apparently that's now 'racist'.
Professor Robert Goldstein said the exam question was designed to test students' ability to analyze the line between free speech and inciting violence. It cited a report about how Michael Brown's stepfather, Louis Head, shouted, "Burn this bitch down!" after a grand jury decided not to indict Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson in the death of Michael Brown.
The question then asked students to imagine that they are lawyers in the St. Louis County Attorney's office and had been asked to advise the prosecutor "whether to seek an indictment against Head" for inciting violence. The exam reads:
"[As] a recent hire in the office, you are asked to write a memo discussing the relevant First Amendment issues in such a prosecution. Write the memo."But students complained, and writer Elie Mystal at the popular legal blog "Above the Law" opined that the test question was "racially insensitive and divisive." Mystal also incorrectly alleged that the question asked students to "advocate in favor of extremist racists in Ferguson."
But the precious little snowflakes were offended and so the professor had to apologize and abase himself.
Ettling has spent his summers working as a park ranger at Crater Lake National Park in Oregon for nearly a decade. He is on a mission to teach visitors that man-made global warming is real. But climate change can be a touchy subject. So Ettling devised a strategy. When a park visitor casts doubt on global warming, he makes an appeal to their pocketbook.
"I try to shift the conversation away from polar bears and ice caps," Ettling says. "I tell people there are a lot of things they can do to save money on their electric bill that will also help the environment. Usually, I can get through to them that way."
Note: Telling the truth is not an iterative process.
One of the friends, a 20-year-old, third-year student referred to as "Randall" in the Rolling Stone article but whose real name is Ryan Duffin, told the AP that not only did he encourage the alleged victim to go to police, but he started to dial 9-1-1 on his cellphone until she begged off saying she just wanted to go back to her dorm and go to sleep.
"I couldn't help but notice that everything that the article said about me was incorrect," Duffin said.
The AP also spoke with the other two friends portrayed in the article: third-year, 20-year-old U.Va. students Kathryn Hendley and Alex Stock, known as "Cindy" and "Andy" in the article. None of the three friends was contacted by Rolling Stone's reporter, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, before the article was published; each of them rejected multiple assertions made in the article, which has since been retracted.All three say Erdely has since reached out to them, and that she has told them she is re-reporting the story. Hendley told the AP Erdely apologized to her for portraying her the way she did.
But make no mistake - this is all due to white privilege.
Given that he had just barely turned 18 this makes you wonder what lurks in his juvenile record.
Never mind - this seems to be a different Michael Brown.
The NLRB Is Not Even Pretending Anymore
But the company is not allowed to monitor the emails. Yet the company is also liable for any emails sent from its servers.
And companies must give union activists employees' personal email addresses and home phone numbers.
But then angry mobs are very dangerous things.
That members of the protest were capable of violence is self-evident; after some in the crowd started screaming that the two men were undercover officers, the officers identified themselves as police and the taller officer deployed an ASP baton (but did not use it) as the crowd advanced upon them.
One protester them bum-rushed the shorter officer in the green and yellow hat, allegedly punching him in the face and tackling him. That officer then body-slammed his attacker to the ground, and as the crowd surged forward, the officer in the brown jacket pulled his gun to defend himself and his partner against a hostile crowd of up to 50 that was gathering around them, threatening to swarm.
It turns out that the man Mark Wahlberg beat, Johnny Trinh, had already lost his eye while fighting in the South Vietnamese Army. He also thinks Walberg should be pardoned. On the other hand how do we know this 'Johnny Trinh' isn't just some random Asian guy that Wahlberg hired to forgive him.
Eh - this does lower the severity of Wahlberg's crime but I'd like to see how many non-celebrity types get pardoned (and regain their gun rights) after youthful felonies before extending this to Marky-Mark.
Sounds crazy but basically the court just retroactively recognized a common-law marriage after the man's death. On the other hand if you're 78 years old, maybe you should just marry the old lady or at least give her power of attorney.
The Yahoo AoSHQ group - it's got electrolytes.
And my twitter thang.
Tonight's post brought to you by my favorite day:
Notice: Posted by permission of AceCorp LLC. Please e-mail overnight open thread tips to maetenloch at gmail. Otherwise send tips to Ace.
Close it up
—Dave In Texas
Sorry for the lateness, last night of the Christmas music tonight. I owned that friggin D sharp LIKE A BOSS.
Bears, Saints tonight. Also Dallas is 10-4.
I am informed that the Chicago O-line is stinkin it up tonight.
Fresh Off Their UVA Triumph, Radical Feminists Find Something New To Obsess Over
"Surf" laundry detergent decided to do a limited edition packaging suggestive of mega-selling mommyporn book Fifty Shades of Gray.
The packaging urges buyers to "Remove your flirty shades of Surf," and then says that Surf has "Scentual Oils."
Yes this is all pretty stupid and makes no sense.
I don't get it, but whatever. They didn't write the book for me, and they're not making the special laundry detergent packaging for me either. If someone out there feels like they might get a little sexy boost doing laundry with "Scentual oils," I won't stand in her way.
Radical feminists, however, are devoted to the proposition that not a leaf may fall from a tree without a hysterical denunciation.
And so they've stepped up, demanding that Surf take this #WarOnWomen laundry detergent from the shelves.
Remove your 'flirty shades' Surf product from sale #boycottsurf
I started this campaign after seeing an advert for Surf's Flirty Shades liquid. It glorifies and normalises abuse of women and is not appropriate to be sold as a laundry product. Laundry products should not be sexualised and children should be protected from seeing this. This product needs to removed from sale by Unilever ASAP and a public apology should be made to all of those women who have suffered abuse. Thank you kindly for you time and support.
Hysterical, dour, grim-faced puritan lunatics.
Some people might say that these are bored, unfulfilled suburban women with diagnosable tendencies towards hysteria, looking to inject some drama into their safe, easy, uneventful lives, creating histrionic narratives of oppression in their dreary day-to-day shopping routines.
Other people say that Pluto is not a planet.
Obama Speaks at Fort Dix, Where His Friend Bill Ayers Attempted to Murder Servicemen at a Dance
The base is now called Joint Base McGuire-Dix, as two bases were combined into the current one.
In 1970, Ayers summarized the Weathermen’s philosophy: "Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home. Kill your parents."
One of the Weather Underground’s bombs went off early, thank God.
Weathermen (Weatherpersons?) Ted Gold, Diana Oughton (Ayers’s then-girlfriend), and Terry Robbins, fatally detonated themselves on March 6, 1970. They were constructing a bomb inside a townhouse at 18 West 11th Street in Greenwich Village. Within the debris, cops discovered an anti-tank shell and 60 sticks of dynamite.
What was their target?
Were they better bomb makers, Ayers’s comrades would have set off a nail-filled bomb at a dance for non-commissioned officers and their dates and spouses at Fort Dix. As Ayers has observed, the bomb would have ripped "through windows and walls and, yes, people too."
Obama's likening to troops to "Santa in fatigues" didn't wow the crowd at For Dix.
Meanwhile, there are more demonstrations in New York protesting the deaths of Gentle Giant Michael Brown and Other Gentle Giant Eric Garner. The protesters chanted, "What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!"
Barack Obama has said of these protests, generally, that they they are "necessary," and that "power" never concedes anything without a challenge.
Apart from that, the protests were mostly peaceful, which of course means largely violent.
Gunman On Loose In Suburbs Outside Philadelphia; Six Dead
The shooter is a white male. He looks like a real champ.
I point this out only to note that no one in the press is currently saying things like, "The most important thing to reduce the blowback against white males," nor are any white males saying "I'm chiefly worried about how this will effect me."
Authorities have identified the man sought in a Montgomery County killing spree that left six people dead and one person wounded.
Bradley William Stone, 35, of Pennsburg, Pa., remains at large.
All of the victims had a 'familial' relationship with Stone, the Montgomery County District Attorney's Office said.
The Montgomery County DA says Stone is described as 5'10" tall and weighs 195 pounds. He has a red or auburn beard and mustache with closely cropped hair.
Stone is known to use a cane or walker to assist him, the DA said, and he may be wearing military fatigues, in either sand or green color.
The DA says: "Stone should be considered armed and dangerous. Anyone with information about Stone's whereabouts is asked to call 9-1-1 immediately. Do not approach him."
"Police are conducting an extensive search in and around Pennsburg, at both known and outdoor locations where Stone may be located."
"Known Wolf Syndrome:" The Problem Isn't Connecting the Dots So Much as It's Arresting the Dots
With the hostage situation resolved... this seems to be yet another case of what I termed here at PJ Media several weeks ago as "Known Wolf Syndrome."
Monis came to Australia in 1996 from Iran and his immigration status was that of political refugee. He has since had other well-known run-ins with law enforcement. In 2009, he sent a series of hate messages, which he deemed as "flowers of advice," to the families of Australian military members who had been killed in action. He likened their deaths to the deaths of Hitler's soldiers, as well as to families of Australian victims of international terrorism attacks. He was given 300 hours of community service.
In another case, Monis was charged with 50 counts of sexual assault, where it was claimed that he lured victims in and assaulted them claiming it was a "spiritual healing technique."
Yet again, we have a case in the West in which a domestic terrorist was well-known to law enforcement authorities and yet action sufficient to prevent the tragedy at hand was never taken despite the opportunity to do so (in this instance, he was out on bail).
Police Enter Lindt Coffee Shop, Ending Sydney Siege; Gunman and One Other Dead, Three Seriously Injured
The gunman who held hostage at least a dozen people for up to 17 hours, is one of two reportedly killed in a dramatic shoot-out at a Sydney cafe during the early hours of Tuesday which abruptly ended the seige.
Police fired automatic weapons and lobbed stun grenades before storming the Lindt cafe in Martin Place in the heart of the city's central business district.
There were that at least three others were injured, but this could not immediately be confirmed.
Now we enter the most important phase of a terrorist outrage: Being lectured for a month that Islam is Peace.
The gunman seems to be a lunatic.
The man who held more than a dozen people hostage, placing Sydney's CBD into lockdown is no stranger to the NSW police or the judiciary.
Self-described cleric, Man Haron Monis, 50, first came to attention of police when he penned poisonous letters to the family of dead Australian soldiers seven years ago.
Last year he was charged with being an accessory to the murder of his ex-wife and mother of two.
Most recently, he was charged with more than 50 allegations of indecent and sexual assault relating to time allegedly spent as a self-proclaimed "spiritual healer" who dealt with black magic at a premises in western Sydney more than a decade ago.
Monis, who has also gone by the names of Sheikh Haron and Mohammad Hassan Manteghi, was born in Iran and most recently has been living at Bexley North in Sydney's south.
Police at the scene of the siege on Monday night. Photo: Andrew Meares
He recently likened himself on his own webpage to Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, claiming the most recent charges against him have been laid for "political reasons".
He was charged in November 2013 with being an accessory before and after the fact to the murder of his ex-wife Noleen Hayson Pal.
Ms Pal was stabbed and set alight in a Werrington apartment block.
He may have been a lunatic, but he's a "cleric" in a religion that favors lunatics:
His former Facebook page, pulled down on Monday night as the siege continued had 14,725 "likes" when it was shut down.