High on the list of things I'm thankful for ...

Posted by: andy at 10:47 AM | Comments (89)
Post contains 16 words, total size 1 kb.

We appreciate the sacrifices you make today and every day. God bless you.

Soldiers eat their Thanksgiving meal on Combat Outpost Cherkatah in the Khowst province of Afghanistan, Nov. 26, 2009. The Soldiers are deployed with Company D, 3rd Battalion, 509th Infantry Regiment.

Posted by: andy at 08:04 AM | Comments (95)
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.

The Shat with safety tips for you turkey fryers out there today, via Andy.

Some of that footage comes from this UL video, which has been around for years. It's awesome. 7 different ways to burn your house down and/or burn your face off.

The UL still isn't approving them but they're as popular as ever. So be careful. Read the warning label, heed Shatner's advice, and have a great Thanksgiving.

Of course, you could do what I do. Make your brother in law cook it over at his house, and if he survives, bring it to yours.

Oh, also, football picks.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 06:02 AM | Comments (149)
Post contains 114 words, total size 2 kb.

Posted by: rdbrewer at 04:20 AM | Comments (187)
Post contains 4 words, total size 1 kb.

SOON

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:44 PM | Comments (706)
Post contains 696 words, total size 6 kb.

Pet theories department.

I don't watch Mythbusters, but this should be a good episode. The Monty Hall problem is fascinating. It's a mindbender, and it reveals something important about perception. It's on tonight at 9:00 Eastern on Discovery Channel.

One explanation for the Monty Hall problem is "working memory overload." According to that theory, The Monty Hall problem requires us to hold too many things in our heads at once, and we end up dumping some before the problem is solved. Thus, at the end of the problem when we decide on a course of action, we're not plugging in all the facts.

That's the gist of it. Now imagine that applied to, say, politics. Notice how we on the right are presented with the opportunity to make the same argument over and over that runs along these basic lines: Someone on the left has said or done something that is inconsistent with his or her prior acts or statements. Now, everybody does that from time to time, but people on the left seem to do it endlessly. Proof? Think of how often we find ourselves pointing out media double standards.

Here's another example: Remember when Governor Christie was confronted by a teacher at a town hall meeting? On the one hand for the teacher, it was all about the money. That was her big concern. But. On the other hand, it was all about the children. That was her motivation. She was in it for the love of teaching. While in either state of mind, the teacher seemed to have no awareness of the other state. It was as if there were two different people standing there from moment to moment.

I recall the MBM repeatedly using the word "polarizing" to describe the Arizona immigration law a while back--from memory, a law that was supported by 70%. I do not recall them ever using the word "polarizing" to describe Obamacare. I hope that's not just a case of confirmation bias on my part. Another example: A while back, a Mediaite journalist referred to Sarah Palin's kids as "props." There will never be a time when this same journalist refers to President Obama's children as props. Because, different.

One last example. Governor Christie himself brought up a nice example of a double standard in another town hall meeting when he talked the crowd about tone. The head of one of the teachers unions had encouraged his members to pray for his death. That union schmuck was not fired, and there was no outcry on the part of teachers.

Of course, the examples are endless. Pointing them out is a regular feature here at the HQ. It's evergreen. For the most part, I don't believe these people see themselves doing it, and I think working memory overload might be the reason why.

At the point of deciding about a given fact situation, a person's general political stance becomes the basis of of that decision--not all the material facts that might have a bearing on the issue. This is because keeping those general forms in mind is much easier. "I don't recall what I said/reported yesterday about the identical situation, vis-a-vis the Other Group, so I'm going to phrase it completely differently today. Besides, I like this group." So this ballpark-it way of deciding works as a solution to working memory overload, but it also serves-up endless opportunities for rebuttal.

I know Ace has some different ideas about this stuff. Maybe he'll talk about that soon.

Follow me on Twitter.

Update: Good grief, that was weak. I put a better explanation of the problem and the solution below the fold. more...

Posted by: rdbrewer at 03:31 PM | Comments (327)
Post contains 618 words, total size 4 kb.

They're not calling him dumb because they can't. He's not dumb.

But they go to the next best thing -- Is he as smart as he thinks he is? Is he that smart?

Honestly I'm having trouble throwing a red flag here because, well, I wonder about this myself. I distinguish between cleverness and deep intellect, and I think Gingrich has plenty of fast-firing brain muscle (cleverness), but I don't know if he's a deep intellect.

I don't know that he's not, either. And I'm not really sure we'd want a deep intellect in high office, either way.

But I do know this: The people in the media who are marginally intelligent, and deem themselves geniuses or better, have the same type of intelligence Gingrich does. Quick, facile, idea-connecting, synapse-connecting cleverness.

And when they think about themselves, they think that sort of intelligence is the Gold Standard. Conveniently forgetting that the real intellects do not make surface connections between thoughts, but rather plumb deeply into one thought.

Clinton had that kind of facile, glib intelligence, and was called a genius.

Obama aspires to have that kind of intelligence. I don't really think he has any aspect of intelligence (cunning, cleverness, intellect) in any appreciable quantity, but it seems to me his best suit is cleverness.

So, Gingrich, perhaps, is merely a genius in the cleverness department. The same department the media has some ability in.

But now suddenly that's not a good thing.

Human beings have a strong tendency to champion those virtues and abilities they themselves possess while disparaging those they do not posses. Hence, the standard statement by anyone who's cunning but not actually a deep thinker that intellectuals are merely "book-smart." And a hundred variations, as each person attempts, in his own mind, to put his own ability-set upon the highest plane, and others' abilities on a lower one.

Standard human behavior, really.

The media loves glib speakers -- the sort of people who did well on the verbal part of their SATs -- because that's what they are, by and large. If the media is good at it, well then, in the media's eyes, you'd better best bet that the ability to speak facilely (but not deeply) about various subjects is the most important thing in the universe!

Again, this is standard. I've seen the media do this throughout my entire lifetime.

What's new here is that they're now disparaging Gingrich, who possesses the same type of intelligence they do (he just has more of it).

Gingrich's problem? That damnable (R) after his name.

Suddenly cleverness, which the media adores (as that's their bag, baby), doesn't quite stack up to deep intellect.

Meanwhile, no one at Politico ever asks if Obama's reputation as a scholar is earned or, frankly, contrived by hero-worshipping well-wishers.

Posted by: Ace at 02:14 PM | Comments (239)
Post contains 485 words, total size 3 kb.

Black cloud watch.

A west Georgia business owner is stirring up controversy with signs he posted on his company's trucks, for all to see as the trucks roll up and down roads, highways and interstates:

"New Company Policy: We are not hiring until Obama is gone."

"Can't afford it," explained the employer, Bill Looman, Tuesday evening. "I've got people that I want to hire now, but I just can't afford it. And I don't foresee that I'll be able to afford it unless some things change in D.C."

Hi, Bill Looman. You are about to get "vetted" by the media, Joe Wurzelbach style. I wish you luck. But the media has decreed that anyone who threatens their privileged princeling will be destroyed.

Posted by: Ace at 01:50 PM | Comments (95)
Post contains 152 words, total size 1 kb.

You have an absolute right to free speech, as long as your speech is approved by the dominant faction.

A couple of people at Occupy LA wanted to make the point that the movement was being controlled by "communists and leftists."

To disprove his claim, a group of communists and leftists kept him from speaking, and then went back to controlling the movement.

Posted by: Ace at 11:08 AM | Comments (254)
Post contains 83 words, total size 1 kb.

Wow.

Remember a couple of weeks ago when it was reported that the indictment against one of Terry's alleged killers had been sealed?

Is this leaked information the reason it's being covered up?

Five illegal immigrants armed with at least two AK-47 semi-automatic assault rifles were hunting for U.S. Border Patrol agents near a desert watering hole known as Mesquite Seep just north of the Arizona-Mexico border when a firefight erupted and one U.S. agent was killed, records show.

The original article doesn't say why they were "hunting" Border Patrol agents, but the area where Terry was murdered is a drug-smuggling corridor, so it might have been a case of turf-protection.

And they were armed with AK-47s, courtesy of the US Government.

The U.S. attorneyÂ’s office in San Diego, which is prosecuting the case, would confirm only that it was sealed. Also sealed was the judgeÂ’s reason for sealing the case.

Whoops! Terry was a Border Patrol agent, of course, not an ATF agent, as the headline first had it. Obviously, "ATF" was in my head, and then wound up in the headline.

Added: Commenters suggest re-emphasizing "armed with US-provided arms," which I actually emphasized in my Twitter post on this, but didn't in the blog post. Yes, that's important. I took that as assumed, but it's best to state it directly.

We armed the killers of Brian Terry. Why? They refuse to say.

Posted by: Ace at 10:17 AM | Comments (153)
Post contains 262 words, total size 2 kb.