Blame the Kids; If It Makes You Feel Better
— Gabriel Malor

Morning lameness and sadism:

So bend over, kiddies; you will now get the despotic, rapacious government you asked for, and thereby deserve — good and hard, and deep, too.

[...]

So yeah, sit back and suck on it, kiddies; you’re going to have many a long, long year to ponder your foolishness and folly in helping to elect a Savior instead of a President. No, bobbling the boy-beans (to steal a funny line from Ace) and swallowing at the end are NOT optional. You’ll find that Big Government’s appetite for buggering its subjects is insatiable, just as those of us with more than the most superficial acquaintance with history already knew — and you’re the ones who promiscuously offered your tender selves up to provide the “happy” ending. Gird your loins; Big Government likes to take its time, and wring every last frisson of pleasure out of its conquests. This will assuredly not be a three-minute man-on-top-get-it-over-with-quick sort of ride; Big Government is a 60 Minute Man. The fun don’t stop till Big Government says enough, no matter how raw, sore, bloody, and exhausted you might be by then.

Personally, I hope you enjoy every minute of the violent reaming youÂ’re going to get. Because I will damned sure enjoy watching you get it. IÂ’m a pervert like that, see.

I'm sure blaming Generation Y for Obama's presidency is cathartic, but by the numbers Gen X and the Baby Boomers contributed millions upon millions more votes to this folly.

It's also silly to blame the most naive and inexperienced voters for being...well, naive and inexperienced. Gen Y wasn't around to learn from the mistakes the Boomers and Gen X made. Actually, it doesn't look like all that many Baby Boomers or Gen Xers learned from their own mistakes, either.

Gleefully exclaiming that Gen Y is getting the crap kicked out of it by Obama's policies? Great, how's this for a rallying cry: "Awesome, our children are gonna be poor!" Oh, wait. Only a fucking idiot would cheer for that.

Now, I know I'm not talking to anybody here at the HQ. Nobody here could have been dumb enough to vote for Obama, no matter their generation. The fact is, we're all in this hole together, which means we probably should try working together to find our way out. Tearing each other to pieces (over identity politics, no less, are we Democrats now?!?) is less than helpful.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 08:18 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 423 words, total size 3 kb.

High altitude spy blimps
— Purple Avenger

The military wants high altitude "spy blimps" that will stay up for 10 years.

Q: Did anyone think about how they planned on dealing with high altitude winds,
which are often in the 100-200mph range?

My comments below the fold. more...

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 10:25 PM | Comments (5)
Post contains 257 words, total size 2 kb.

Overnight Open Thread: Pre-Spring Cleaning of the Bookmarks (genghis)
— Open Blog

We're working on getting the lace wig spam back up and running, so please be patient. I found a couple of links under the couch cushions so here they are:

Item #1: Looks like Ace has been holding out on us, not mentioning he was writing an autobiography under the pseudonym “David Matthews.” Here’s the opening from an interview he did with one Rachel Kramer Bussel from something called “Smith Magazine:” (Read the disclaimer below please before you start freaking out in the comments)

”I have to admit that I almost didn’t finish David Matthews’s memoir “Ace of Spades” about his childhood growing up in Baltimore in the 1960’s and 70’s as the son of a Black Nationalist father and absent Jewish mother. On page 18, a young Matthews is forced to eat a much-hated bowl of gazpacho, and winds up puking into it. Then his father’s girlfriend forces him to consume the entire “fetid bowl,” teaching him a lesson that seems unclear but horrifying. No less dramatic is the fork plunged smoothly into the child’s back.

Hmmm. This and many other horrifying anecdotes in the book could probably explain a number of things. Such as the fixation on hobos, who are much easier on the palette than gazpacho. And I think his fatherÂ’s girlfriend was trying to teach him early on some of the skills of urban hunting. Lesson learned? But if thatÂ’s not disturbing enough, letÂ’s move on to:

Item#2: JammieWearingFool sends in this comforting Public Service Announcement. (content condensed) UmmmÂ…thanks JWF?

” Last year, the Oregon Urology Institute got plenty of press by encouraging people to get their vasectomies while watching the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament. Since a vasectomy requires a few days of rest, the people at ORI reasoned what better time to get vasectomy than March Madness, when you have a good excuse to sit on the couch? The folks at the Oregon Urology Institute did so well last year that they are following up with "Snip City 2009." The office has 24 prime slots to get the surgery during the first couple days of the tournament. Anyone who gets the surgery, which costs around $1,000 if you're paying out of pocket, gets to take home a kit that consists of an ice chest and frozen peas.

WhatÂ’s not to love? You get frozen peas. And an ice chest. Seems like an equal trade to me. And how can you not associate March Madness with vasectomies? ItÂ’s like baseball and hot dogs. In continuing good news:

Item #3: A few days ago Esquire provided us with The 75 Albums Every Man Should Own. Or burn. Yes yes, I’m sure it’s full of thoughtful and meaningful music with a social conscience that shaped the way an entire generation of music critics think. Also, it’s another one of those “click-through” slide shows that pisses everyone off.

Disclaimer and note below the foldÂ…if you dare go thereÂ….
more...

Posted by: Open Blog at 07:28 PM | Add Comment
Post contains 628 words, total size 4 kb.

For Discussion: Where Have All the Heroines Gone?
— Gabriel Malor

My drunk-ass brother wants to know.

We've got Ripley, the archetype. Sarah Connor, who followed. Those are the ones I love and think of immediately as soon you mention film heroines. In fact, I've mentioned before that I believe Ripley is the greatest film hero of all time, period, and I mean even when stacked up against the men. It's about going from your normal, every day life, into the shit.

Notably, the second films in each of their respective franchises are considered as good or better than the originals, although I still think both characters were better before they became gun-wielding soldiers. I would call it a cliche except I'm fairly certain they started that particular cliche, the Action Girl.

He mentioned Sidney Prescott (from the Scream franchise), Clarice Starling (from Silence of the Lambs), Carolyn Fry (doomed captain from cult classic Pitch Black), Is this mostly about genre and not about gender?

Discuss.

Oh. And almost immediately I think of a recent one: Elizabeth Swann from the Pirates franchise. That's a pretty good one, too, only driven partially off the rails by executive meddling in the middle of the second film. If you're watching carefully, all three films open with her (barring the summoning prologue in the third). She was the main character.

To be clear, I'm not looking for superheroines (Storm, Silk Spectre, Wonder Woman). There is nothing extraordinary about a superhero acting like a superhero. I'm looking for the ordinary woman that faces a situation in which she would be entirely justified in just throwing her hands up and announcing, "We're fucked, it's over." The waitress who beats the cyborg. The trainee-agent who beats the serial killer. Etc.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 06:10 PM | Add Comment
Post contains 298 words, total size 2 kb.

What Happened to Newspapers and Where Are We Going?
— Gabriel Malor

This is long, but very much worth a full read. A taste:

When someone demands to know how we are going to replace newspapers, they are really demanding to be told that we are not living through a revolution. They are demanding to be told that old systems wonÂ’t break before new systems are in place. They are demanding to be told that ancient social bargains arenÂ’t in peril, that core institutions will be spared, that new methods of spreading information will improve previous practice rather than upending it. They are demanding to be lied to.

There are fewer and fewer people who can convincingly tell such a lie.

He suggests that what is needed is journalism, not newspapers -- something the old guard cannot conceive of separately.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 04:16 PM | Comments (2)
Post contains 146 words, total size 1 kb.

Manuscript From ca. 1340 Mentions Robin Hood
— Ace

Ed Morrissey ties it to politics, though I'm not sure the brief mention...

“Around this time, according to popular opinion, a certain outlaw named Robin Hood, with his accomplices, infested Sherwood and other law-abiding areas of England with continuous robberies..."

...really establishes, as the article he sites headlines, that he was an unpopular figure. Or if Robin Hood is really a political figure with any relevance whatsoever. Yes, he stole from the rich to give to the poor. But what was his main beef? Confiscatory taxation rates. And tyranny.

Seems like a bit of a muddle. And, given that many right-wingers do in fact fear they may be called upon some dark day to take up arms and become outlaws against a tyrannical state, I'm really not seeing the obviousness of deeming him some kind of left-wing icon.* Folklore and fiction can conjure up premises justifying pretty much anything. Start with the fantastical premise of The Matrix -- that everyone around you is in a computer-induced coma and/or an "agent" of the machine itself -- and presto-chango, you've just given your heroes justification to shoot policemen en masse.**

My primary interest in him is, of course, as one of the earlier Pulp Action Heroes. Sure, there were plenty of others before him, but usually connected to religious pantheons no one believes in anymore. Robin Hood's a Pulp Action Hero you can buy into without having to also buy into Zeus and the Babylonian God Marduk.

I knew there was "debate" on whether or not he existed, but I thought it was like the "debate" on whether or not King Arthur existed -- which is to say, look, everyone knows he's wholly invented, but we're going to trot out some scholars offering very vague and weak evidence and pretend they're offering serious evidence because We all want it to be true. In other words, History Channel crowd-pleasers of dubious scholarship.

I really didn't know there was any evidence at all he actually existed. Granted, this isn't strong evidence -- even the chronicler himself attributes the mention to mere "popular opinion" -- but it's surprising, at least to me, that there is any legitimate reason to think he existed at all.

* I know I am conflating folklore with whatever he might really have been, but we have no idea what he really might have been. We know him through folklore. I just never got the Randian thing of casting him as a villain. Given the premise of a tyrannical state, how is Robin Hood cast so easily as a left-winger? Isn't this the sort of thing Rand would have wished kulaks had done in her poor, abused Russia?

Besides that, every thief is first and foremost a capitalist, and if he was "stealing from the rich to give to the poor," let's just say I think he and his men were defined as First Among the Poor, and got almost all of the loot. And tossing out some money to the locals? Buying goodwill and protection. Same thing the Mafia does in its strongholds; same thing, in fact, Hezballah or Hamas do.

John Murtha, too. That's how criminals stay out of jail.

Hey, I like Robin Hood. What can I say. I don't want one of the earliest books I remember reading -- Howard Pyle's account -- tarnished as left-wing propaganda.

** And technically Robin Hood's "rich" -- in this fictional accounting -- were rich primarily because of the state created and state enforced monopoly on everyday activities -- such as hunting in a woods -- and such franchises were corruptly sold to those who would then "tax" the populace for doing stuff that should have been free.

Yeah, kind of all silly and a mixture of truth, exaggeration, and outright fabrication, but again, it's fairly easy to conjure up a starting premise which justifies anything, and that has little to do with real-world politics. It's dangerous to apply real-world politics to any historical period -- liberals kept insisting the Populares in Rome were like the Democrats, and the Optimates like the Republicans, no matter how many times my Roman history professor told them that comparison was jackass and reductivist -- and especially goofy to apply such politics to a fictional millieu which has been dreamt up for no other reason than to give the hero a swell background to swashbuckle about in.

I Seem to Be Unclear: Ken and Ed Morrissey wonder why I'm defending Robin Hood by comparing him to Hezballah, Hamas, and John Murtha, or saying every thief is a capitalist. (Not every capitalist is a thief, note.)

Well, I'm comparing him to those unsavory types just for the proposition that every "revolutionary" is not in fact really a revolutionary. Some "revolutionaries" are just posturing as such. Kinda like Hans Gruber.

I'm making the point that whether Robin Hood -- if such a figure even existed -- was driven by greed, desperation, vengeance, or justice, it would not hurt his PR to toss a few shekels to the locals to buy some goodwill.

An anti-monarchial left-wing revolutionary would toss money to the locals. So would a right-wing anti-tax crusader. So would an everyday thief with no particular purpose other than filling his own pockets.

I'm just questioning how much stock we could put into a thief's posture of "robbing from the rich to give to the poor." Does it indicate his real politics? Actual idealism? Or it just a business expense?

Jesse James and John Dillinger, I'm sure, were quite generous with money in the communities they relied upon to support and shelter them.

For any criminal to become a folk hero, he's got to have some people who like him. And few things make someone more likable than tossing a lot of money around.

Posted by: Ace at 11:55 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 981 words, total size 6 kb.

More Failure to Lead from Obama
— Gabriel Malor

The President and the Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, are catching flak for upholding an eleventh hour Bush Administration rule which took gray wolves off the endangered species list in the northern Rockies.

There are some interesting things about the article. First, a Democrat Congresscritter (alas, unnamed) bemoaning the failure to politicize science:

"Making the decision to adopt the Bush administration's flawed delisting proposal the same week that the president pledged his commitment to the Endangered Species Act certainly calls into question whether the Interior Department was coordinating as closely as one would expect to have done with the White House," said Bob Irvin, senior vice president for conservation programs at the advocacy group Defenders of Wildlife. "This was a controversy that did not need to happen."

One House Democrat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, framed it in even more blunt political terms. "I just don't see what this does for us," the lawmaker said. "Here we are alienating people who did the most -- who did a lot to help us in the last election."

And so he or she confirms what we already know. There is no desire to get the politics out of science. That's just a phrase used to bludgeon whichever opponent can be made to look most "unscientific." On creationism in schools or stem cell policies, that would be the Right. On the Endangered Species Act, that is most definitely the Left. Increasingly, global warming is coming to be seen as an "unscientific" belief, something that warms me right down to my fossil-fuel burning core.

The article also lists two of Obama's most recent failures to lead, suggesting that Salazar's delisting of the wolves is another such failure:

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, a former House member from Illinois, veered off message last month when he suggested that the administration might tax motorists for every mile they drive. The White House made clear that the idea was not under consideration.

And Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, a former senator from New York, clarified the administration's commitment to human rights this week after stating earlier that such concerns "can't interfere" with issues on which the United States needs Chinese cooperation.

Of course, this is just a continuation of what went on during Obama's candidacy and during the transition. He fails to communicate a coherent policy or strategy to his subordinates, they go off and craft their own, then get smacked down when Obama (and his handler, Emanuel) finally gets around to noticing.

Don't get me wrong. I'm just fine with Salazar's decision to delist the wolves. And I'm downright tickled that environmental groups are threatening to sue "their president" over it. But the disconnect between what Obama says and what actually happens is all too noticeable and that's a danger for us all.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 11:46 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 482 words, total size 3 kb.

Murrow of the Modern Age Avoids Mentioning Stewart/Cramer Showdown Because Management Told Him To Lay Off Sister Network's Star; Says Me? No, Sayeth the Kossites and Kommenters
— Ace

"You really do find it incumbent on you to take your own network to the same degree of task... [or] it doesn't say much for [your] manhood." -- Keith Obermann.

I didn't mention it myself, partly because I sometimes get embarrassed and self-censor how many links I crib from Hot Air, but mostly because I find Stewart's shctick tedious.

Pay attention to where he admits -- in what is supposed to be taken as great candor -- that his show is "not fair" and that fairness is not his job.

The trouble is that he of course believes it is, and wants to the public to believe it is. Does he believe that this interview with Cramer is unfair and filled with cheap-shots? If he doesn't, and if the public isn't supposed to take it as a fair dressing-down, what on earth is it on TV show? It's not funny, so that can't be the attraction.

His tone is one of heroic and self-righteous outrage, not jocular, breezy comedy. So would this be one of his "not fair" moments? If it's "not fair," and he intends it to be so and so acknowledges it, what's with the Cocksucker Crusader attitude?

Forgive me for being a bit confused about whether I'm supposed to take him as a comic or serious journalist at this moment.

This is a variation of Allah's favorite complaint, actually formulated by Treacher, I believe -- Stewart's "clown nose on, clown nose off act" -- wherein he attempts to have it both ways at once by posing as a heroic seeker of truth and then, when his sloppiness, unfairness, and lack of substance are pointed out to him, declaims "I'm just a comedian with a silly TV show!"

Notice that as Stewart's hyperpartisan fanboys in the media praise him for his intrepid doggedness, Stewart notably does not correct them to say, "No, that was an unfair bit of impromptu dinner-theater by a TV clown." The "just a comedian' or "not our job to be fair" statements only arise when Stewart is criticized for his shallow demagoguery -- and never when he is praised for his shallow demagoguery.

And yes, whatever Cramer's sins are, he's had them for years. It's interesting -- by which I mean uninteresting -- that Stewart only suddenly notices Cramer's sins when the financial pundit challenges Obama.

If Stewart was motivated by speaking Truth to Power to the financial insiders who he claims caused this problem, why did he not take on Cramer before? Cramer was just as much an insider when he was supporting Barack Obama for President, wasn't he?

Incidentally, earlier in this dust-up Stewart presented an edited clip which purported to show that Cramer was claiming Bear-Sterns was a solid investment days before it went tits-up. This is a lie. I know it's a lie because I mentioned this here when it happened, claiming the same thing. I was immediately informed by commenters that Cramer hadn't been talking about investments in Bear-Sterns being safe, but merely deposits there, which are federally insured (up to $100,000 at that time, now $250,000) and that therefore there was no reason to run on the bank and withdraw such money.

When commenters told me this, I checked the tape. Guess what? They were right. It sticks in my mind because I, unlike Stewart, tend to remember when I got things wrong and had to issue a correction.

This was all known a year ago (when it happened) but Jon Stewart, Seeker of Truth, is still peddling the lie that Cramer told people to hold onto their Bear-Sterns stock.

Clown nose on, clown nose off. Hey, if he's unfair (and actually deliberately slanderous) from time to time, it's not his job to be fair, right? Just a comic on tv. Clown nose on.

But oh, by the way, keep those Hoseannas coming, boys. He is, as one media suckophant says, the "conscience" of the media. Clown nose off.

Incidentally: Yes, Olbermann will address this now, as he can take the Kossack and Kommenter postings and present them to his bosses, telling them his own star is being diminished by this ban, and of course therefore it's in MSNBC's interests that he cut loose and give Cramer his obligatory Worst Person in the World.

He now has to. And will. But that doesn't change the fact he rolled over for management when asked to. Now, I don't really care if someone rolls over for management. I think it's pretty normal. But Keith postures as a Champion of Integrity, and he is, you know, not.

I do sort of wonder how much management's edict had to do with this. After all, there are questions of ego too. Keith poses as the Murrow of the Modern Age; it cannot be easy for him to see a self-declared TV clown-boy so annointed.

Cramer's Real Sin: I think a piece on Slate noted that Cramer's whole show -- promoting, to day-trader types, specific stock buys and sells -- is a scam, because Cramer knows, as most serious investors know, that the dart-board technique is often better than all these tips and speculations and minor research.

And that his show, if it were perfectly honest, should just say the same thing day after day: Put your money into a broad-based money market account and leave it there and stop thinking that you have any special insight into how a stock might perform this week. And oh, by the way, by the time you, the average investor, has heard of a big tip, everyone else has already heard of it so you're effectively buying after all the information of the tip has been baked into the cake and is now reflected in its price. The hope you have -- that you information early and therefore have an advantage -- is a delusion which hurts your portfolio.

Of course, no one would watch such a show, so he doesn't say that.

And, again, Cramer's been doing this for years but apparently it wasn't such a big sin when Cramer was boosting Barack Obama for President.

Posted by: Ace at 10:37 AM | Comments (4)
Post contains 1072 words, total size 6 kb.

McCain: Out-of-Touch and Borderline Senile for Claiming "Fundmentals of Economy are Strong"
Obama: Optimism-Spreading Financial Genius for Saying Economy "Fundmentally Sound"
— Ace

But notice the difference -- McCain called the economy fundmentally strong while Obama called it fundamentally sound.

Nuance. And, of course: Such a fine line between stupid and clever.

A very fine line. Merriam-Webster tells me both "strong" and "sound" are synonyms for FIRM, HEALTHY.

Posted by: Ace at 09:50 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 87 words, total size 1 kb.

Palin's Earmark "Hypocrisy"
— Ace

Wherein the media attempts to deflect blame from the President, who vowed to end earmarks and who, critically, actually has the power to do so, and put some of it on a governor (from a small, tiny, insignificant state, as we're always reminded) who has no such power.

I wrote this in an email to the cobloggers and figured I might as well share my wisdom more broadly.

I don't see the problem, honestly. What many reformers -- even Coburn -- say is that they would like a regime of no earmarks whatsoever, and they press for that. However, that is not the current regime, and few will vote for it. So the alternative is to unfairly burden a state's population by a unilateral, so to speak, rejection of earmarks, to make a very incremental step at improving the national fisc? Coburn too got rapped (by MSNBC) for "hypocrisy."

I don't think it's hypocrisy. It would be hypocrisy for Coburn to propose a bill that ended earmarks altogether... except for his own. Of course he has not. He wants to end them all. But, that proposition having not carried, what is he to do? Should his state alone give up earmarks for the sake of the national fisc, which is something everyone should be concerned about?

This is a "tragedy of the commons" type problem. If there's a common area of farmland with no owner, then everyone will come in and farm it to death, because one person refusing to farm will not save the land, as everyone else will just overfarm it to make up for that. What is needed is an owner -- or, if not an owner, at least someone with sovereign power over the commons to set rules and to make sure everyone only farms his share, to make sure it doesn't get overfarmed and destroyed as productive land.

The Senators (and Congressmen) are the farmers. The only person capable of overseeing the land is the President -- and the President has refused to do so, telling everyone "Farm the living hell out of it!"

Sarah Palin, as governor, isn't even at the commons. She's six villages away merely asking the farmers for some of their imprudent bounty.

Unlike Senators, who may be said to have an equal responsibility to the federal system and their state constituency, Palin has her state constituency as top priority. The federal thing is decidedly secondary.

In my view:

President: National, federal only responsibility

Senator: Equal(ish) responsibility to state and national interests. I'd say that the national interest must come first, but apparently a lot of senators don't agree.

Governor: responsibility to state first

Further: It is McCain's (not Palin's) position that there should be NO earmarks. I am sure Palin has urged this previously herself -- but as the deputy of/advocate for McCain. Holding her to every position she took as McCain's chief advocate seems, what's the word, silly. We all know how this works. Palin's real position seems to be that there should be limited earmarks, far fewer of them. I don't put a lot of stock in this "gotcha."

Palin offered herself up for the position of VP, where she could actually influence federal policy. The public rejected her. So she is now back as state governor. I don't see why she should be burdened with all the responsibilities of VP when she does not actually have the office.

Particularly when those who sought and won those offices -- Obama and Biden -- refuse to exercise that responsibility themselves.

And the attempt here by the liberal media -- including Tapper, who's more fair than most, but still liberal as all get-out -- to attempt to deflect blame from PRESIDENT Obama and VICE PRESIDENT Biden and put it on a state governor is absurd.

It's an attempt at "everybody does it" -- while studiously ignoring the elephant in the room that while "everybody does it," not everybody has the power to stop people from doing it. Only one person does, and that's Obama, through his power as leader of the Democratic Party and through his power of the veto pen.

The President -- and Vice President -- stand unique as having an exclusively federal jurisdiction and national responsibility. Sarah Palin doesn't even have the joint responsibility to state and nation that Senators do -- so how the hell is she even remotely responsible for Obama's failures?

The attempt to spread Obama's personal failure around to hundreds of people who have neither his responsibility, his office, his unique jurisdiction, or his constitutional power is yet another example of the MSM attempting to cover for him. The MSM did everything in their power to deny Sarah Palin the federal jurisdiction of Vice President, but now they're insisting that she act as if she won that.

Nukes: Say the US suddenly comes out for full, complete nuclear disarmament. Russia and China refuses. Should the US give up its own nukes to prove itself not a "hypocrite"?

Of course not -- one is not a hypocrite if one argues for a position, which must be agreed to jointly, that fails, and then one continues to abide by the terms of the actually-existing regime. The US never (in this hypothetical) said it would be preferable if it alone gave it nukes -- it argued that it would be preferable if everyone gave up nukes. It's childishly dishonest to read the proposition "We must all give up our nukes" as "Our nation alone should give up nukes," and then claim hypocrisy when that nation does not.

Same deal with any particular Senator urging, say, an end to the home mortgage deduction as unnecessary. If his proposition fails (which of course it would), is he required to give up his own mortgage deduction? Why would he? He argued that a different system was better, and he lost on that fight. But he was arguing that a different system was better. He never argued the country's fortunes would be improved if he personally, and solely, gave up his own mortgage deduction.

Posted by: Ace at 09:25 AM | Comments (23)
Post contains 1020 words, total size 6 kb.