BieberDaddy?

Teen idol Justin Bieber allegedly lost his virginity – and impregnated a young woman – during a 30-second tryst after a concert in Los Angeles late last year, according to a paternity suit filed Monday.

RadarOnline.com reports that Mariah Yeater, 20, filed court papers on October 31 stating that Bieber is the father of her three-month-old child.

Yeater could also be opening her up to a potential statutory-rape probe, however, as Bieber would have been 16 when the alleged incident occurred.

30 seconds. Man, this woman should sell her eggs, because they are golden. They're like Magic Beans.

Obligatory link of Gold Digger.

She really nailed it. She's a groupie, she has some bizarre fixation on a child, and manages a one-and-done permanent connection with him. Nice.

Posted by: Ace at 10:53 AM | Comments (172)
Post contains 168 words, total size 1 kb.

I have heard this so many times I thought it was true.

Among the things that aren't true? Even the part about the wife having cancer.

So, to correct the record, here is what happened: My mother, Jackie Battley Gingrich, is very much alive, and often spends time with my family. I am lucky to have such a "Miracle Mom," as I titled her in a column this week.

As for my parents' divorce, I can remember when they told me.

It was the spring of 1980.

I was 13 years old, and we were about to leave Fairfax, Va., and drive to Carrollton, Ga., for the summer. My parents told my sister and me that they were getting a divorce as our family of four sat around the kitchen table of our ranch home.

Soon afterward, my mom, sister and I got into our light-blue Chevrolet Impala and drove back to Carrollton.

Later that summer, Mom went to Emory University Hospital in Atlanta for surgery to remove a tumor. While she was there, Dad took my sister and me to see her.

It is this visit that has turned into the infamous hospital visit about which many untruths have been told. I won't repeat them. You can look them up online if you are interested in untruths. But here's what happened:

My mother and father were already in the process of getting a divorce, which she requested.

Dad took my sister and me to the hospital to see our mother.

She had undergone surgery the day before to remove a tumor.

The tumor was benign.

Other than that, though, the story checks out.

Wikipedia claims it went down this way:

In the spring of 1980, Gingrich left Battley after having an affair with Marianne Ginther.[116][117] In 1984, Battley told the Washington Post that the divorce was a "complete surprise" to her. According to Battley, in September 1980, Gingrich and their children visited her while she was in the hospital, recovering from surgery, and Gingrich wanted to discuss the terms of their divorce.[118] Gingrich has disputed that account.[91] In 2011, their daughter, Jackie Gingrich Cushman, said that it was her mother who requested the divorce, that it happened prior to the hospital stay (which was for the removal of a benign tumor, not cancer), and that Gingrich's visit was for the purpose of bringing the couple's children to see their mother, not to discuss the divorce.

So even the actual tale that gets passed around does not have Gingrich asking for the divorce, but bringing up terms of a divorce in process, and the whole "cancer" thing is absent.

Look, if two people are getting a divorce under bitter circumstances (and the circumstances are almost always bitter), it's gonna come up in one way or the other. Even when they try to make nice-nice with the kids around.

So the actual baggage of Gingrich turns out to be divorced twice, had an affair (I'm guessing plural, but I just know of the one).

Which is kind of conventional. Not good, but hardly shocking.

Via Carl Paulus.

Posted by: Ace at 10:39 AM | Comments (145)
Post contains 560 words, total size 3 kb.

What legal reasons? He was a pollster for the National Restaurant Association and I assume that maybe he's bound by some no-derogatory-disclosure agreement with them. (Michele Bachmann is right now thinking, "But Ed Rollins told me those were unnecessary!")

Captain Ed thinks that this statement itself, that he saw the whole thing, would be a violation of such an agreement, but I don't know. If he's just saying he saw it, without specifying that he saw something bad, maybe it's non-derogatory and hence not in violation.

Of course, he's obviously hinting he has more to tell. I guess he wants to be released from the National Restaurant Association's no-tell clause too.

Interviewed today on KTOK’s Mullins in the Morning, [Chris] Wilson, of Wilson-Perkins-Allen Opinion Research headquartered in Washington, D.C. explained he was a witness to the incident. “I was the pollster at the National Restaurant Association when Herman Cain was head of it and I was around a couple of times when this happened and anyone who was involved with the NRA at the time, knew that this was gonna come up.”

Wilson described the woman as a low level staffer who was maybe two years out of college. “This occurred at a restaurant in Crystal City (Virginia) and everybody was aware of it,” he continued. “It was only a matter of time because so many people were aware of what took place, so many people were aware of her situation, the fact she left—everybody knew with the campaign that this would eventually come up.”

Okay, well look: If "everyone" was aware of it, one of those people must not have signed an NDA. Even if they are only hearsay witnesses, they can at least tell us what was so awful.

There's some skulduggery hinted at, as this guy now works for a PAC that boosts Rick Perry. I guess people can make the obvious connection, and further make the wrong assumption (Garsh, if it weren't for Perry, the media never would have discovered some dirt in plain sight about a Republican candidate!), and also avoid asking if Cain had played by speak-no-evil rules himself.

[B]efore conservatives start rushing to the aid of the “victim” in this case, it’s worth remembering just how Herman Cain reacted when he was asked to comment on an even more thinly-sourced, vaguely-worded report in a higher-profile publication about one of his rivals for the GOP nomination. It didn’t happen so long ago that it should have fallen down the memory hole by now.

In fact, it was just a few short weeks back that Herman Cain, when presented with the opportunity to demonstrate some semblance of personal integrity by withholding judgment against a fellow conservative, chose instead to use a flagrantly biased piece of shoddy journalism as an opportunity to gain an advantage over Rick Perry. For all the endless complaints about dirty tricks and “another high tech lynching” from Cain’s defenders, no one can make the case that Cain is somehow above exploiting similar attacks on his conservative Republican rivals when the opportunity presents itself.

Thanks to RD for that last link, taken from the sidebar yesterday.

Posted by: Ace at 09:54 AM | Comments (268)
Post contains 561 words, total size 4 kb.

She attacks Gingrich anew as "sexist," "disgusting," and "lame," all for Gingrich's comment about her -- "How would she have a clue?"

And why would Gingrich say that? Because Meghan McCain had previously attacked him.

IMUS: Well, Newt, Newt has the luxury of being really smart, I think. But so personally repulsive, and so much—

MCCAIN: I donÂ’t like him.

IMUS: No, of course, who does? You go in and your wife is dying of cancer in the hospital and youÂ’re presented with divorce papers. No, youÂ’re a creep.

MCCAIN: Yeah, youÂ’re, obviously

IMUS: And hounded poor ole Bill Clinton out of office over perjury I realize, but youÂ’re having an affair at the same time?

MCCAIN: I mean, a little before my time, but yes.

IMUS: So was the French revolution, but you know about it, donÂ’t you?

MCCAIN: I know.

IMUS: OK.

MCCAIN: I have been told to me before. That has been said to me before. I know about it. But, I just don’t care about Newt Gingrich. He’s so passé and I don’t agree with a lot of the things he says.

IMUS: But don’t say when somebody says to you, “That’s a little before my time.” Well, a lot of

MCCAIN: YouÂ’re like my father. Every time I come on itÂ’s like being lectured by my father, literally. But IÂ’m saying he is not relevant. Newt Gingrich is not pop-culturally relevant to my generation who IÂ’m trying to get involved in politics. You see what IÂ’m saying?

IMUS: HeÂ’s running for president. Hello?

Yes, Imus is like her father, in that he is insistent that Meghan McCain is quite wrong when she claims "If it hasn't happened since JT released SexyBack, that it's irrelevant to political history."

What old coots!

So why would Gingrich ask if this person even has a clue? This person, who is given over to saying that candidates are not, and I quote, "pop-culturally relevant to my generation"?

Meghan McCain's schtick -- the pretext for hiring this dolt in the first place -- is that, while she doesn't know anything about anything (and is paraliterate, which is word I'm coining -- not subliterate per se, but apparently writing in a language which bears resemblances to English, but is not in fact English) she is "young" and can speak for "her generation."

And she rides that pony to death. All she knows is that she's young. (But will be moving out of the "young" category in three years and Oh boy I cannot wait for that!) And so everything is this proudly retarded sneer: If it happened in the nineties, I don't care; it's not "pop-culturally-relevant" to me.

As if we're talking about Martha Quinn and the first MTV VJs.

And for questioning whether this paraliterate, bubbleheaded dolt has a clue or not, Gingrich gets a stream of fresh insults -- disgusting, sexist, ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous at all to ask what a borderline-stupid uneducated dunce of a teenybopper has done, or has studied, to be qualified for whatever new job the Nincompoop Nepot gets.

Posted by: Ace at 09:26 AM | Comments (196)
Post contains 529 words, total size 3 kb.

B-b-but! Everyone knows!

We're all supposed to pretend to believe Teachers should be paid as much as doctors or lawyers and We want to pay teachers so much that it will induce the "best and brightest" to seek jobs in teaching!

I don't know about you, but I'd rather have "the best and brightest" working on cures for cancer and designing skyscrapers and leading a SEAL Team.

I'd rather have people a couple of steps under "the best and brightest" teaching second graders their times tables. I think that's probably the most efficient use of limited "best and brightest" resources.

I say these things not because I hate teachers but because I hate thoughtless political sloganeering, so daft as to verge on lies, all designed for the purpose not of "educating our children" but in ever jacking up government union workers' salaries.

I'm especially disgusted at the "we have to pay teachers enough to attract stellar new talent to the profession" lie. Let's think this through: If I want to engineer a system of pay such that I will attract the top people graduating every year, I'll be stealing them from law, medicine, and business; so first things first, I have to ask, "Do I want them diverted to teaching? And if they do divert to the teaching profession, where will the current teachers go? Will it be a straight swap where they now enter law, medicine, and business and engineering?"

But I already covered that.

The bigger question is, "If I'm going to be jacking up salaries specifically to lure new, super-qualified, top-dollar go-getters into the teaching profession, why does every such scheme include the provision that the currently serving teacher core -- not the "best and brightest," according to even their own political sloganeering -- also gets this top-flight salary?"

Does that make sense? They're willing to do the job now at $65,000 p.a. or whatever but we're now going to pay them... $130,000 to do the same job?

If this bonanza of salary is supposed to lure new teachers, why don't we restrict it to new teachers, and specifically the sort of new teacher we supposedly want, i.e., best and brightest?

Gee, seems to me this "pay teachers more to bring better teachers into the profession" scheme just coincidentally winds up paying the old teachers higher salaries, and those are the very teachers this particular political slogan impliedly deems second-rate and in need of an uprgrade.

Anyway, the article:

“The idea that teachers are constantly tempted by the promised pay in the private sector and that its very difficult for them to remain as teachers,” said Jason Richwine, co-author from The Heritage Foundation, “that is true for some teachers, but for average teacher it’s not true.”

The study is already facing criticism from education groups. Kim Anderson, advocacy director for the National Education Association, a labor union representing over three million public school employees, said she questions the reliability of the research.

“Talented individuals turn away from this rewarding profession because they are forced to choose between making a difference in the lives of students and providing for their families,” Anderson said. “Does AEI honestly purport that paying teachers even less will help raise the quality of teaching in American’s schools?”

That's not the study's claim. The study merely debunks the Teachers Unions claim that paying teachers more will suddenly make them better at their job (or else attract sterling new talent to the field, and, once again, why not then restrict that sterling new pay scale specifically for the sterling new talent it's designed to attract?).

According to the study, workers who become teachers see a wage increase of roughly 9 percent, while teachers who switch to non-teaching jobs see their wages decrease by about 3 percent. Public school teachers, the research says, also earn higher wages than private school teachers.

“This is the opposite of what one would expect if teachers were underpaid,” Richwine and co-author Andrew Biggs, of the American Enterprise Institute, wrote.

The authors argue that public school teachers have greater job security and more generous benefits than other workers of their caliber, bringing even greater value to their jobs.

Posted by: Ace at 08:56 AM | Comments (201)
Post contains 763 words, total size 5 kb.

I'm going to quote his comment. I've tried googling to find out if this biographical sketch is accurate, but can't find anything beyond "Cain worked for the Department of the Navy as a mathematician during the Vietnam War."

Assuming this is accurate, or even mostly accurate, then Cain couldn't possibly have not known China was a nuclear power, and was just misspeaking (as usual).

Herman Cain spent the Vietnam war evaluating the capabilities of the Chinese to deliver a nuclear weapon onto the heads of our forces in South Vietnam.

He examined the test launches of the Dongfeng 1 (SS-1) and plotted out the trajectories for a 500kg warheads.

When China started testing the Dongfeng 2 (CSS-1) Cain plotted out the trajectories and capabilities of itÂ’s delivery of 15 kiloton nuclear weapons.

Both of these missiles were provided to the PRC by the Soviets, Cain analysed data from the Russian test launches and determined the risk to U.S. troops in SE Asia.

Cain also observed the development of ChinaÂ’s first domestically produced missile, Dongfeng 3 (CSS-2) and plotted out itÂ’s use with ChinaÂ’s 15-20KT fissile devices as well as ChinaÂ’s new thermonuclear devices.

Finally, Cain was involved in the determination that ChinaÂ’s Dongfeng 4 (CSS-3) was capable of delivering both fissile and thermonuclear devices to both Moscow and Guam as well as cover the entire deployment of U.S. forces in SE Asia.

More: Should put the baby to bed.

China's build up of nuclear, military and space technologies to rival the U.S., and its saber-rattling over Taiwan's independence, signals a commitment to more red, not green.

I don't think he meant "nuclear powered aircraft carriers." That really doesn't make sense, as the actual concern is about their aircraft carriers, period (just being built now), not about the specific capabilities of their engines.

He likely messed up the verb -- he meant "building up" or "expanding" rather than "developing."

Or he just meant "developing," but "developing" as in "building up," not developing as in "initiating" as I took it to mean.

Thanks to JimA.

Posted by: Ace at 07:56 AM | Comments (339)
Post contains 399 words, total size 3 kb.

Some urges, apparently, never die.

Video report below.
more...

Posted by: CAC at 07:40 AM | Comments (64)
Post contains 50 words, total size 1 kb.

ADP reports that the economy added 110,000 jobs in October. Nothing to be overjoyed about, but it could be a lot worse. (EDIT: However, the ADP number does show the continuing erosion in America's manufacturing employment. I don't think this means we're making less stuff; it just means that we need fewer people to do it.)

How American civilization can avoid collapse.

Are the Greeks preparing for a coup or trying to prevent one? Either way, this isnÂ’t good news.

Greece is finding out that when things go to s**t...they go to s**t fast. (Italy and Spain nod and say, “How true! How true!”)

Greece may discover that revenge tastes great, but is less filling. A note about this Greek “referendum”: it doesn’t matter whether it takes place or not. The damage is already done, the demons already set loose. The Greeks have already voted “no”, whether they know it or not.

Next up on the DOOM parade: Italy.

Peter Wallison gives a pretty good technical summary of the Eurozone's crisis. (The confusion over what banks are, what they do, what they're for, and how they're regulated is mind-boggling. I'm trying to find time to do an "Econ 101 at AoSHQ" post about it, because I think a lot of people really, really, really don't understand much about banking, especially modern fractional-reserve banking.)

B-b-b-but...didnÂ’t Teh Bernank tell us that inflation was nowhere to be seen? WhaÂ’ happen?

Two economists explain the NBA lockout.

Jon Corzine may be looking at a long vacation in the greybar hotel. Maybe he can bunk with Bernie Madoff. (Hey -- maybe there’s a sitcom in this! DIBS!) It also turns out that Jon Corzine is quite the fabulist. Who knew? This is another cautionary tale about how many financiers view “acceptable risk”. Which is to say, they totally ignore the downside and take the upside as a given. Which is great when the bet pays off -- you look like a genius. But when Dame Fortune frowns upon you...well, like I said, things can go to s**t with terrifying speed. A prudent man hopes for the best but prepares for the worst.

When is 50% really 22.5%? It's math like this that got the nations of the world into the fix they're in right now.

Katrina vanden Hooberjooberglooberdoober wants you to know that she doesnÂ’t like Republican obstructionism. Not one little bit. It reflects badly on her boyfriend Barack, and this makes her stamp her tiny little foot in rage.

Your bailout/tax dollars, hard at work: bankrupt (and bailed-out) firms Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac paying out more than $12 million in bonuses to 10 executives. I wonder when the “occupy” idiots will set up camp out on Fannie’s front lawn....

Where Keynes went wrong.

Keynes assumed that the initial deficient level of aggregate demand would remain unchanged until the stimulative (“pump-priming”) effect of additional government spending kicked in. In other words, increased government spending, or its anticipation, would not further diminish pre-existing levels of consumer demand and investment demand. However, KeynesÂ’s failure to consider the possibility of an adverse effect from government spending​—​that it might lead to still further decay in the prior levels of consumption and investment​—​was a fundamental flaw in the theory.

UPDATE 1: Mister Corzine chose...poorly. And since this is the NYT, they prescribe the same medicine that has thus far totally failed to work: more regulation.

UPDATE 2: Via Insty, many of the "occupy" retards are pretty well-heeled retards. It stands to reason, I guess: most genuinely poor people can't afford to just stand around all day chanting nonsense. The rent's gonna come due whether you're outraged or not.
more...

Posted by: Monty at 04:43 AM | Comments (199)
Post contains 617 words, total size 6 kb.

Time once again for the monthly straw poll. Well, slightly more-than-monthly in this last case. I forgot to put it up last week. Believe it or not, there was just a ton of stuff in the news to get distracted by last week.

Prior AOSHQ straw polls: September, August, July, June, May.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 03:30 AM | Comments (395)
Post contains 81 words, total size 1 kb.

Let's get down with the trumpets.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:51 AM | Comments (82)
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.