This is the funniest thing on the Internet since the last funniest thing on the Internet. Like, Cee Lo or something.

If you missed it, do yourselves a favor and check it out. There is a racial edge to it, so maybe read it after work, but do try to get to it.

To tease it: A black kid got slapped, BY A WHITE TEACHER!!!, at school, for fighting. The mother is hyper-racial, insane, and basically is raising her kid like a veal -- she seems to think he shits rubies and starshine -- so of course she dashes off a 40 page letter, declaring this WORST OUTRAGE SINCE THE TUSKEGEE EXPERIMENT (heavily referenced in the letter) and presents a bill for hundreds of thousands of dollars, and demands for yearly first-class tickets and accomodations to Disneyland and a host of other vacation spots, all for damaging her intellectual property, her son, after whose name she never fails to append a (C) copyright notice, to make it all legal-like.

And then goes on to CC Barack Obama and dozens of other elected officials and civil rights leaders and gadflies like Cornell West.

It's a scream. Every time I read it I find some new lunacy of hers that makes me chuckle.

Posted by: Ace at 08:53 AM | Comments (175)
Post contains 227 words, total size 1 kb.

Process-type stuff is sometimes a fig leaf, a way to avoid talking about substantive issues which are too politically hot to touch.

On the other hand, that's their advantage, too: If you change the rules to make it hard to spend and easier to cut, you can always run back to voters upset by hot-button cuts with the (semi-true) excuse: "The rules made me do it; my hand was forced." Controlling the rules usually means controlling the outcome.

Is this a fig leaf, then, or a legitimate attempt to change how Washington does its spending business? Hard to tell based on a brief story, but Republicans make it sound good at least.

House Republicans seem intent on blowing up the staid appropriations process when they take power in January — potentially upending the old bulls in both parties who have spent decades building their power over the federal budget.

The plans include slicing and dicing appropriations bills into dozens of smaller, bite-size pieces — making it easier to kill or slash unpopular agencies. Other proposals include statutory spending caps, weekly votes on spending cuts and other reforms to ensure spending bills aren’t sneakily passed under special rules.

On some level, their plans may create a sense of organized chaos on the House floor — picture dozens of votes on dozens of federal program cuts and likely gridlock on spending bills. And don’t forget that a lot of these efforts will die with a Democratic-led Senate and a Democrat in the White House.

But the intent is to force debate as much as to actually legislate — and make Old Guard Republicans and Democrats uncomfortable with a new way of thinking about the size and scope of government.

"Forcing debate" is not the same as "achieving results," so that right there constitutes a lowering of the bar for success. I think Tea Partiers will welcome a forcing of debate -- but only if it leads to results.

Still, it's a good thing that the right people are distressed by this:

Insiders who have made a living under the old system are sure to push back, and many fear that Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) may not understand what he is doing.

“John should talk with the professional appropriators about the complexities, rather than talk off the top of his head. His plans would take a huge amount of the House’s time, but what would it accomplish?” said a dubious former House Republican member of the Appropriations Committee who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Did you catch those two give-the-game-away words? Captain Ed did. "Professional appropriators?"

A former Democratic professional appropriator is also butthurt:

“On the practical side, it has to be nuts. Given the difficulty in passing the current bills, adding these changes would be a dream world. ... There could be a revolt by members, who will want to get home and campaign.”

It's good to know that professional appropriators all want to leave the office early and go home. And are willing to pork up bills to get easy votes so they can have more fishin' time.

Paul Ryan will be pushing for spending caps on all elements of government, and further, he doesn't want these to be mere rules of the House, but rather binding statutory rules.

In particular, he is intent on firm spending caps, which would require the Senate and president to agree to new federal law. Ryan added that he wants spending caps to cover defense as well as domestic programs.

This stuff seems somewhat tepid. It doesn't have the power of announcing which parts of government will be cut and by how much. And if these guys can't even propose such stuff, can't even dare to state the specific cuts intended, how can they ever come into being?

However, sometimes rule changes can force paradigm shifts, so that it becomes easier to announce sweeping cuts which apparently they currently can't agree to.

This isn't great, but it's not bad, either. It's not a finished house; not even close. But at least it's a bit of ground-breaking and a bit of concrete-pouring.

Posted by: Ace at 08:37 AM | Comments (66)
Post contains 728 words, total size 5 kb.

None of which went through committee. A rush job, as usual, an attempt to get stealth legislation by without a public debate. As usual.

On the good side of things, all 42 Senate Republicans have signed a letter stating that they will block (filibuster, I guess) all Democrat-backed bills until the Bush tax cuts are extended. Note: That link states that it is not known (or wasn't known at the time of the article's writing) how many of the 42 Senators signed the letter, but the first link (the Fox link) says:

All 42 Senate Republicans signed a letter Wednesday vowing to block any legislation until a government spending bill is passed and the Bush tax cuts, set to expire at the end of the year, are extended. A couple of Senate Republicans could cross over once those issues are resolved, but Reid would still have defecting Democrats on his hands.

Ben Nelson (up for reelection in 2012) has already said, strongly, he'd block the attempt, so that's one on our side:

"I'm not going to support any legislation that I don't think adds to jobs, or to the military or to the economy. Consequently, I won't support any motion to proceed or any kind of cloture measure on the DREAM Act," he wrote. "In addition, I think that it must be part of an overall comprehensive solution to immigration once we have the border secured, and not until then."

Alas, the Maine sisters always check with each other and act as a pair -- but then, Snowe is up for reelection in 2012, too, and further, this isn't even an issue where a "moderate" position has an advantage.

I'm not happy that the letter was bargained down (most likely by the Maine sisters, plus Lindsey Graham, plus maybe John McCain) down to a commitment to block this not until the next Senate is seated, but to a mere commitment to block this until the tax and budgetary issues are handled. However, on the plus side, that might just be a fig leaf for the amnesty agents, who don't want to make a flat commitment against the bill but are willing to make a commitment that prioritizes other things first. That is, they might not want to be on record as supporting, flatly, a blocking of the legislation, but might actually be willing to do just that. If it's dressed up a bit.

The vow also has the effect of putting the vote off for a while, which is a plus for the anti-amnesty forces. We have gotten results before; we can probably get them again. We just need time and energy.

Not sure about the House: Sixty Democrats were voted out of office. The Democrats have something like a +32 advantage in seats at the moment. Would a little more than half of those voted out of office (all those Blue Dogs) vote with Republicans to block the bill? If only to preserve their future viability, or to honor commitments made to constituents?

Posted by: Ace at 08:04 AM | Comments (99)
Post contains 542 words, total size 3 kb.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:55 AM | Comments (382)
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.

With the Smithsonian subversives in the news, I bring you an oldie-but-goodie from Duchamp, who makes the modern mischief-makers look like bedwetting pantspoopers.

For generations, many tried to figure out why the lady in da Vinci's Mona Lisa has that unforgettable smile.

Marcel gave us a very moronesque answer to open tonight's thread:
more...

Posted by: CAC at 08:05 PM | Comments (61)
Post contains 206 words, total size 2 kb.

Welcome to tonight's semi-half-assed hump day ONT.

50 Things Every Guy Should Know How To Do

Okay this list isn't inclusive and I'd quibble with some of the choices. But at least 40 of these are solid ought-to-knows. So if you're over 30 and can't easily check off 35+ of these - well maybe it's time to start filling in those knowledge gaps before you get busted and face a Man card check.

50. Change a tire

49. Use a charcoal grill

48. Bong a beer

47. Throw a punch without looking like a sissy

46. Fry a turkey

45. Hook up the cable

Luckily for me even an effete, RINO, book-learning nancy-boy like myself could still pick up most of these skills by osmosis just by growing up in the South during the 70's and 80's.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:59 PM | Comments (337)
Post contains 484 words, total size 5 kb.

As expected:

WikiLeaks has been "ousted" from server space rented from the U.S.-based internet retailer Amazon.com, the website behind a massive disclosure of confidential U.S. documents announced Wednesday.

"WikiLeaks servers at Amazon ousted. Free speech the land of the free," the organization, which facilitates the anonymous leaking of secret information, posted on its Twitter page Wednesday evening. "Fine -- our $ are now spent to employ people in Europe."

I haven't seen an official statement from Amazon and several websites are speculating quite pedantically about which clauses of the Amazon AWS contract were invoked to kick WikiLeaks to the curb.

Strangely, Senator Lieberman is claiming credit for Amazon's decision to pull the plug:

U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee, said Amazon cut off WikiLeaks after inquiries from his aides. In a statement issued by his office, the Connecticut independent called on any other company hosting WikiLeaks to follow suit.

Um, okay?

WikiLeaks is now bemoaning the state of the First Amendment in the United States, having apparently no idea what the First Amendment actually contains.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 12:59 PM | Comments (233)
Post contains 199 words, total size 2 kb.

That didn't take long:

The United States would be ready to support the extension of the European Financial Stability Facility via an extra commitment of money from the International Monetary Fund, a U.S. official told Reuters on Wednesday.


"There are a lot of people talking about that. I think the European Commission has talked about that," said the U.S. official, commenting on enlarging the 750 billion euro ($980 billion) EU/IMF European stability fund. "It is up to the Europeans. We will certainly support using the IMF in these circumstances."

As per the post last night, it's a matter of: do you let the countries fail or the banks fail? Hat tip to the Drudgester. ..fritz..

Posted by: Open Blogger at 12:28 PM | Comments (80)
Post contains 133 words, total size 1 kb.

Margaret Cho. I remember her on DTWS. I watched the first one. I think maybe we liveblogged it?

Anyway...

"I heard from someone who really should know (really should seriously know the dirt really really) that the only reason Bristol was on the show was because Sarah Palin forced her to do it," Bristol's onetime fellow contesant wrote on her blog yesterday, in an entry titled "Pistol Whipped."

"Sarah supposedly blames Bristol harshly and openly (in the circles that I heard it from) for not winning the election, and so she told Bristol she 'owed' it to her to do DWTS so that 'America would fall in love with her again' and make it possible for Sarah Palin to run in 2012 with America behind her all the way," Cho continued. "Instead of being supposedly 'handicapped' by the presence of her teen mom daughter, now Bristol is going to be an 'asset'—a celebrity beloved for her dancing."

Someone who should really really really know? And who you'd be talking to, a hyperpartisan idiot lefty? And who would seek out F-list "celebrities" to email?

You mean Levi Johnston, don't you? Why not just say so? Why the deception about who your source is, Fatty McLovehandles?

Okay, yeah, I do have to give Sarah Palin a limited pass on the personal stuff, given the unending personal, nasty attacks from the left.

You Know What I'd Like To See? The next time a "reporter" like Anderson Cooper mentions this sort of a rumor/claim against Palin, absent even a named source, under the guise of "just reporting what people are talking about," I want a conservative to embarrass him by demanding to explain why he feels free to report baseless claims against Palin like this, apart from ideological dishonesty, and why he won't mention other stuff people are "talking about," like Barack Obama's affair with Vera Baker.

Some Old Margaret Cho Jokes: from way back -- January 11, 2004, like the second week the blog existed.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 12:08 PM | Comments (362)
Post contains 1683 words, total size 10 kb.

Here's my problem:

1, they sure made this sound bigger, with all that "embargoed until Thursday" crap.

2, they are connecting this up with ETs by using it as evidence that life can take hold in very adverse conditions. But, like, didn't we already figure that? Evidence: The giant space slug in Empire Strikes Back. No, but really, we know stuff can live in the incredible pressures on the ocean's floor, or in magma vents, or in friggin' Antarctica; I think it's a good thing to know life can live with arsenic, but it's not exactly blowin' my paradigms of what is and what isn't possible.

So, here's the big secret.

Nasa scientists are set to announce that bacteria have been discovered that can survive in arsenic, an element previously thought too toxic to support life, it can be revealed.

In a press conference scheduled for tomorrow evening, researchers will unveil the discovery of the incredible microbe – which substitutes arsenic for phosphorus to sustain its growth – in a lake in California.

The remarkable discovery raises the prospect that life could exist on other planets which do not have phosphorus in the atmosphere, which had previously been thought vital for life to begin.

On that bit about phosphorus being necessary for life, this guy presented a paper making that case:

Phosphorus is a key element in biological systems, acting in cell replication as RNA and DNA, in cell structure as phospholipids, and in metabolism as ATP. Given its ubiquity in biochemistry, phosphorus was likely present in the origin or early evolution of life. I will discuss sources of phosphorus on the early earth, concentrating primarily on extraterrestrial sources of reduced oxidation state phosphorus compounds, and evidence that these sources were used by early biochemical systems. Additionally, I will show how these reduced oxidation state phosphorus compounds could act in prebiotic or early biochemical systems to generate both key biologic compounds and metabolic energy.

To which I can only say:

PWN3D, you stupid dick!

Just kidding.

Posted by: Ace at 11:59 AM | Comments (92)
Post contains 372 words, total size 3 kb.