When I woke up this morning I just had a feeling I'd be talking about toilet behavior before the day was done. Okay, not really. Actually, not at all, but this is too good not to share.

Yesterday the Florida Court of Appeals overturned (PDF) a trial court ruling which transfered custody of a 15 year-old boy to his father. The appellate judges decided that the trial court was too interested in tinkling:

Instead, the trial court based its ruling on evidence that the father was more likely to ensure the child was engaged in productive, normal, and healthy extracurricular activities, and the child would benefit from a greater male influence in his life. The trial court concluded that the child's development was "disturbingly retarded." It went on to find that the child possessed unreasonable fears for his age, and had "unmanlike" toilet behavior.²

[FN 2] The child would sit to urinate and was self-conscious about urinating in the woods during excursions with the father.

Isn't it going to mess him up even more now that the poor pee-shy fellow's troubles are public? More than not being able to piss in the woods, I mean. And I'm almost afraid to open this can of worms, but...gentlemen (and ladies): sit or stand?

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 09:51 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 273 words, total size 2 kb.

Ace mentioned the other day they're having a hard time helping jughead. How much longer will they drag buckets for him?

A while longer it seems.

The drug industry, the American Medical Association, hospital groups and the insurance lobby are saying Congress must make major changes this year. Disagreements — chiefly between liberal and conservative Democrats — brought Congress to a standstill this week. But television ads paid for by drug companies and insurers continued to emphasize the benefits of a health care overhaul — not the groups' objections to some of the proposals.

Remarkably, even while noting their helpful helpyness, the piece is chock full of "blame the healthcare industry" vitamins and iron.

Allow me to offer a splanation. You see a zombie clawing at your head. It wants dinner. You attempt to put something else in it's gaping maw to survive.

Zombie's gotta eat and you don't have a shotgun. What would you do?

You have to love the sweetening in the story, the chief disagreements over this absolutely necessary and important thing, are between conservative democrats and liberal democrats. Yes. That's really the whole f'n problem right there, it's degrees of shit sammich.

I have to admit, this bullshit meme is a pretty good misdirect. "Everyone" says we must have reform, we just have to argue about the whore's price now.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 06:14 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 244 words, total size 2 kb.

Last week commenter blackrockmarauder posed this question (which he lifted from a Molson Canadian label:

Answer honestly. Would you prefer...

To have seen the rockets' red glare

OR

Fought at the Alamo?

It stuck with me all week and it's been harder to decide than I first thought.

This is an open thread.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:58 PM | Add Comment
Post contains 59 words, total size 1 kb.

No drilling revenues, and hey, let's snag 3.4BB from local govs and a little accounting magicness!

Of the $25 billion in budget "solutions," $15.5 billion come by way of cuts, with schools ($6 billion) taking the biggest hit. The University of California and California State University systems will be slashed by $2.8 billion; MediCal services are facing a $1.3 billion hit; corrections are facing an unspecified $1.2 billion in cuts, and three major welfare programs — the welfare-to-work CalWORKs program, In Home Supportive Services and the children's health insurance program — stand to lose a total of $878 million.

The rest — about $10 billion — is achieved through one-time raids on local government funding (for a total of $3.4 billion) and accounting maneuvers, such as deferring state employee paychecks by one day for a savings of $1.2 billion. Another $1.7 billion is saved by speeding up tax withholdings on individuals and businesses.

The controversial proposal to allow offshore oil drilling off the Santa Barbara coast in exchange for $100 million in selling the rights, the final issue taken up, fell well short, on a 28-43 vote, a major victory for Democrats and environmentalists.

The cuts likely translate to workforce reductions (those just tend to be beeg numbers), which, if some of out California morons can put me some knowledge, grew like crabgrass in my yard over the past 8 years thanks to Sacramento union snuggling.

Hey, if they can figure out how to do this without squeezin my big white Texas ass, God bless em.

ALL SERIOUSNESS ASIDE. I don't believe they can fix their little problems for one minute. But why pretend to do so? Legal constraints (again, put my some f'n knowledge Californicators)? Or an awareness that the rest of the country is quite prepared to offer up a big "Fuck you" to a California bailout?

These questions, they haunt me.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 03:56 PM | Comments (1)
Post contains 322 words, total size 2 kb.

Another escalation. Dip, It, My Balls. Some assembly required.

House healthcare talks break down in anger

House healthcare negotiations dissolved in acrimony on Friday, with Blue Dog Democrats saying they were “lied” to by their Democratic leaders.

The seven Blue Dogs on the Energy and Commerce Committee stormed out of a Friday meeting with their committee chairman, Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), saying Waxman had been negotiating in bad faith over a number of provisions Blue Dogs demanded be changed in the stalled healthcare bill.

“I’ve been lied to,” Blue Dog Coalition Co-Chairman Charlie Melancon (D-La.) said on Friday. “We have not had legitimate negotiations.

“Mr. Waxman has decided to sever discussions with the Blue Dogs who are trying to make this bill work for America,” Melancon said.

Although those Blue Dogs were supposed to be headed back into another meeting of the Energy and Commerce Democrats, their anger was visible.

If the two sides cannot reach an agreement, the only hope for passage of the bill in the House will be to go straight to the floor, an option leaders shied away from endorsing but said was an option.

But the Blue Dogs issued dire warnings to leaders contemplating that approach.

"Waxman simply does not have votes in committee and process should not be bypassed to bring the bill straight to floor,” Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), the lead Blue Dog negotiator, said on Friday. “We are trying to save this bill and trying to save this party.”

Melancon said there would be 40-45 “solid no” votes from the 52-strong Blue Dogs, among other problems throughout the caucus. And Melancon said there are more Democrats who will vote against the bill.

“If they try to bring it to the floor, I think they’ll find out they have more problems than the Blue Dogs.”

Thanks to AHFF Geoff.

Alternative Abba vid:

Posted by: Ace at 12:24 PM | Add Comment
Post contains 328 words, total size 3 kb.

So says Rep. John Carter (R-TX):

“It came to me from the Franking Commission and I have the email from the Franking Commission here if you’d like to see it,” Carter said. “We held a telephone town-hall… When you hold telephone town-halls you have a recorded message that introduces the town-hall and the subject matter you’re going to be talking about. You have to now submit that language to the Franking Commission.

“What we proposed as language was as follows, ‘House Democrats unveiled a government-run health care plan,’” Carter said. “Our response from Franking was, ‘You cannot use that language. You must use, ‘The House majority unveiled a public option health care plan,’ which is Pelosi-speak or ‘just last week the House majority unveiled a health care plan which I believe will cost taxpayers…’”

Scant information, but not inherently unbelievable. I'm looking now to see if there's more about this.

Here's a FoxNews report on it, with more information. Apparently, the Republicans want to send out a chart that says "government-run healthcare"?

I left messages with the Republican office of the Franking Commission and with the Committee on House Administration (which oversees the Franking Commission). Maybe they'll get back to me.

UPDATE (12:55pm): Okay, somebody at the GOP office for the Committee on House Administration emailed me a one word answer to my question "Is it true that House Republican John Carter was instructed not to use the phrase "government- run health care plan" in a mass communication?"

The reply: "Yes."

Actually, I added the period. Somehow I feel like I'm not getting enough bang for my tax-payer buck. DETAILS, PLEASE!

Here is the GOP CHA-Franking page. Contact form is at the top right. Maybe one of you will have more luck than me.

And here is the DEM CHA-Franking contact page. Bug them too.

UPDATE (1:55pm): David in San Diego writes:

Started with Dan Lungren (R-CA03) office since he is the ranking Republican on the Franking Commission (there are 3 Democrats and 3 Republicans). Got sent to the commission staffers who, at least the ones I talked to, are friendly and professional.

In a nutshell: anything that is mailed out using tax $$ requires these six people to approve of the contents of he mailing. And approval requires a simple majority. And a 3-3 tie is not a majority.

The objection that there was to the phrase "Government-run Healthcare" is that the current bill, such as it is, is not 100% government run. We still have the private option (that discussion is probably for a different posting).

So for your edification the Commission members are (I'll save what comments I know about some of them for later, if at all):

Democrats:

Susan Davis, Chair (CA-53)
Brad Sherman (CA-27)
Donna Edwards (MD-04)

Republicans:
Dan Lundgren, Ranking (CA-03)
Kevin McCarthy (CA-22)
Dr. Tom Price (GA-06)

It's nearly 5:00 pm in Washington. Call 'em if your pissed.

Thanks, David!

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 11:54 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 513 words, total size 4 kb.

Escalation, obviously, trying to rally a violent coup that will put him back in power.

This won't end until he's killed. That is what he's begging for.

You get deposed, you take your lumps, you take exile. If you continue agitating for a violent return to power, you get the Mary Queen of Scots treatment.

No one puts up with wolves on the border for long.

Posted by: Ace at 11:43 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.

Update: FoxNews print article with accurate quotes (I presume). They note it's not really an apology, too.

...

Note: Extended quotes are approximate only; I was typing as he spoke; I can't quite keep up with the pace of spoken speech.

CORRECTION/UPDATE: This was all typed extemporaneously. My word choice -- "apologizes" -- was inaccurate. He did not apologize per se. He did not say "I apologize" or even "I'm sorry."

He did allow that he chose his words in such a way as to give an "impression" he now says he didn't intend. He says that if given the chance, he would "re-calibrate" his original remarks.

Not really an apology. Just a statement that he did not mean to say what he said.

In fact, pressed on whether it was an "apology," Gibbsy says he declines to get out ahead of the president, which seems to confirm an apology would be "further" than what Obama offered.

As I said, the key thing here is that Obama is just saying "Stop covering this." He's not admitting fault. He just doesn't want it to be an issue.

I thought I'd resolve this as it's generating argument in the comments.

Juan Williams, by the way, calls it only a "walk-back" and says it's "at the edge of an apology" but not actually an apology.

...

But: Continues to dig in on "overreaction" regarding arrest.

Also: Gates himself overreacted.

"Sense is that you got two good people in a circumstance in which neither of them was able to resolve the incident in a way it should have been resolved or how they would like it to be resolved." (Approximate quote.)

Underscores continuing tensions, or something.

Basically tells media to stop covering story.

Yammers about mistrust of African Americans regarding police and "misunderstandings" that occur.

Goes with liberal nonsense, stating it can serve as a "teachable moment."

Defends intervention in case, stating that "race is still a troubling issue," claims that commenting on this case is "part of his portfolio." (Odd -- he hasn't commented on the dismissal of charges against the Black Panther thugs. In that case, presumably, it's not part of his portfolio and he can duck the issue as he likes.)

Not an apology, though he did allow his words were not as they ought to have been.

Reporter's Question: Will Obama sit down and have a "discussion on race" as Clinton did?

Gibbsy says we're already having that conversation. (Translation: Not on your life.)

Photoshop: By Treacher.

Gibbs: We Only Regret the "Distraction" Caused by Media's "Obsessions" with Issue: Four hours ago Gibbs stiffed the cops on an apology, only regretting the media's "obsessions" with this "distraction."

“I think he would regret if he realized how much of a overall distraction and obsession it would be, I think he probably would regret distracting you guys with obsessions,” Gibbs said.

He also said at that time Obama wouldn't call Officer Crowely, and that there would be no apology.

Asked if he would apologize to the officer involved, Gibbs was non committal, but did not indicate that such an apology was forthcoming.

“I think the president believes and understands just how hard job law enforcement is. He has great respect for the men and women that keep us safe. I think he’s said most of what he’s going to say on it.”

So the question of whether this was an apology or not seems resolved by Gibbs -- he refused to characterize it as an apology both before and after Obama's statement. Ergo, not an apology.

Thanks to AHFF Geoff.

Posted by: Ace at 10:36 AM | Comments (7)
Post contains 644 words, total size 4 kb.

A habit of liberalism which has reached his apotheosis under Obama: Only count as legitimate the criticisms of your political correlegionists; dismiss all other criticisms as "partisan." (And never admit, of course, that liberals' support of Obama is just as partisan as conservatives' opposition; no, in LiberalLand, only the other side can be partisan and have agenda-driven opinions.)

Cops? Screw them. They voted for McCain.

I was thinking this wasn't such a big story, or a particularly harmful story, for Obama, but Team Messiah is doing its level best to prove me wrong.

Earlier in the day, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs dismissed a suggestion that the backlash from police groups could be distressing to the White House, given that Obama has enjoyed a positive relationship with the law enforcement community.

"I think the Fraternal Order of Police endorsed McCain," Gibbs fired back, referring to Obama's Republican opponent in the 2008 election. "If I'm not mistaken."

When a reporter pointed out that Obama had won the support of the Policemen's Benevolent Association, Gibbs conceded: "We got some."

In Cambridge, however, even the more measured speakers were sharply critical of the president's comments this week.

Alan J. McDonald, an attorney for the police unions, stopped short of calling for an apology, but said he was hopeful both the president and Patrick would issue one.

"We're not demanding an apology from anyoneÂ…hopeful that upon reflection, they will realize that their statements were misguided and will take the appropriate action in the form of an apology," McDonald said.

"In our view there was nothing stupid about what happened," he continued. "The president suggested that somehow there was a link between problems between people of color and law enforcementÂ…it wasn't true in this case. There is no evidence that the arrest was race-based."

The Messiah and his Mewling Minions really don't react well to criticism, do they?

As I said repeatedly during the campaign: Obama only appears "cool" and "even-tempered" because he's never challenged. His "vetting" by the media consisted chiefly of juicy-mouthed nether-kissing.

It's not difficult to appear "cool" under those circumstances. Anyone who freaks out and goes to pieces because he's being praised too much is a lunatic.

The MSM's "hard questions," mostly along the lines of 'What makes you so awesome?," were not likely to produce a bad reaction.

The few occasions Obama was challenged during the campaign -- his testy taking-ball-going-home end to that press conference in Chicago after a few pointed questions, for example -- demonstrated that he in fact wasn't cool or even-tempered at all, but thin-skinned, self-pitying, entitled, and hot-headed.

But here's the real Obama, possessed not of Chris Buckley's imagined "first-class temperament" but rather a first-class egotism and first-class sense of entitlement. All criticism of The One is, by definition, illegitimate and motivated by bad intent.

"Shut up," he explained.

Thanks to AHFF Geoff.

Posted by: Ace at 10:20 AM | Comments (2)
Post contains 509 words, total size 3 kb.

Conservatives have long accused liberals of lying on Iraq and Afghanistan. Liberals' claims to be all gung-ho to win in Afghanistan, we've maintained, were dishonest. They didn't want to win in Afghanistan any more than they wanted to win in Iraq.

Their position was contrived, we claimed, to give them political cover for advocating defeat in Iraq. They thought, correctly as it turns out, that they could blunt their calls for defeat in Iraq by claiming they only wanted to lose in Iraq because they were so determined to get their "eyes back on the ball" in the War That Must Be Won At All Costs, Afghanistan.

Were we right?

It appears so.

President Obama has put securing Afghanistan near the top of his foreign policy agenda, but "victory" in the war-torn country isn't necessarily the United States' goal, he said Thursday in a TV interview.

"I'm always worried about using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur," Obama told ABC News.

The enemy facing U.S. and Afghan forces isn't so clearly defined, he explained.

"We're not dealing with nation states at this point. We're concerned with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, Al Qaeda's allies," he said. "So when you have a non-state actor, a shadowy operation like Al Qaeda, our goal is to make sure they can't attack the United States."

Obama made a lot of hay out of the resurgence of the Taliban. Now he says it's not so terribly important to keep the country out of the Taliban's control, merely that we make sure they can't attack us again.

Problem? They didn't attack us under President Bush after the invasion, either, so by Mr. Obama's newly-announced conditions of non-victory President Bush had succeeded in Afghanistan.

Odd that he didn't seem to give Bush credit for what he now says is the only relevant condition of non-victory in Afghanistan. Odd that he promised to win the war as a a candidate but as a president dismisses that scenario as unnecessary.

Posted by: Ace at 09:28 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 382 words, total size 2 kb.