Jonah Goldberg has a good piece on this shell game, in which conservatives suddenly become bipartisan nice guys the moment they die, so they can be contrasted with current conservatives, who are always Worst. Conservatives. Ever.

I like this at the end:

While the encomiums to Reagan & Co. are welcome, the reality is that very little has changed. As we saw in the wake of the Tucson shootings, so much of the effort to build up conservatives of the past is little more than a feint to tear down the conservatives of the present. It’s an old game. For instance, in 1980, quirky New Republic writer Henry Fairlie wrote an essay for the Washington Post in which he lamented the rise of Reagan, “the most radical activist of them all.” The title of his essay: “If Reagan Only Were Another Coolidge . . . ”

Indeed, and if only Coolidge were another McKinley.

Posted by: Ace at 12:25 PM | Comments (109)
Post contains 180 words, total size 1 kb.

Oh Dear God.

Democrats are recasting Reagan as primarily all about bipartisanship, in an effort to claim that our last truly great president was in the tradition of, um, Obama.

Andrea Mitchell takes that still further, claiming it's wrong to claim that Reagan was an icon of conservatism -- he was, in her telling, an icon for bipartisan compromise and moderation.

Good God. It's MiniTruth.

If Reagan Was Such a Moderate... on things like firing the striking PATCO union members, on taking an aggressive policy against the Soviet Union (Reagan's view of detente: We win, they lose), on slashing tax rates, on greatly expanding the military and upgrading our nuclear deterrent, etc., etc., etc,. then what were liberals like Andrew Mitchell doing shrieking bloody murder and claiming Ronny Raygun was going to destroy the world in a nuclear war?

Boy... When the DNC puts out its talking points, Andrea Mitchell really takes them to the limit, doesn't she?

This idea of Reagan as Great Compromiser was born recently as a DNC strategy to claim that today's conservatives aren't like the only good conservatives (dead ones, of course) and so draft Reagan into the odd role of Obama supporter.

It's one thing for a political party to attempt this gambit. What the hell is a supposed journalist doing regurgitating such bullshit?

Or is Andrea Mitchell this stupid that the Obama Mind Trick worked so well?

Posted by: Ace at 11:50 AM | Comments (190)
Post contains 264 words, total size 2 kb.

It's no fun in the minority.

She'll become president of the Woodrow Wilson Institute for Liberals Who Want To Seem Smart About Foreign Stuff.

Posted by: Ace at 10:09 AM | Comments (136)
Post contains 36 words, total size 1 kb.

When you just flushed almost a trillion bucks down a storm drain, scraping up even a paltry $1B worth of "cuts" is simply too hard.

...The cuts are relatively small, however, in the larger scheme of things. In total, the $775 million in detailed cuts fall far short of demands by congressional Republicans and will do little toward tackling the deficit, which is estimated to be $1.5 trillion this year by the Congressional Budget Office...

How can you negotiate about solutions to a problem when the other party is in denial that a problem even exists?

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 09:22 AM | Comments (142)
Post contains 184 words, total size 1 kb.

Other Republicans need to begin pushing this, or else the idea is dismissed as "fringe" and one man's fantasy.

It really isn't. It's doable. Even if someone were to object and say it's too much -- well then how about we split the difference and aim for $250 billion?

An idea is going around -- I think maybe Don Surber wrote about it, but I can't find it now. (Update: He did.)

But the argument goes like this: If Congress took two years to increase the deficit by a trillion dollars, why the hell should it take any longer than that to ratchet it back down?

Were we notably underspending in 2008? No, we were not.

Hmmm... Political courage? You don't need that hard-to-find virtue when the public supports austerity:

Seventy-seven percent of likely GOP voters and 64 percent of independent voters said they donÂ’t want the debt ceiling to be raised. Even among Democrats, more oppose raising the ceiling (46 percent) than support it (42 percent).

I tend to give the GOP a pass when their supposed ideology conflicts with retail-level politics -- if you do something unpopular enough, you'll be voted out of office (probably), and then the Democrat will just do all the wrong things.

But what's the excuse when a supposed ideology is actually politically popular? What's the excuse not to push ideology then?

I can't think of one. Though I assume a lot of go-along-to-get-along Polite Company Conservatives are scrambling to invent reasons.

Posted by: Ace at 09:16 AM | Comments (135)
Post contains 302 words, total size 2 kb.

Science.

Men were instructed to gaze at women's chests during a math quiz, is the gist of the thing.

the study examined how being visually “checked out” by a member of the opposite sex affected each student’s performance on math problems.

“We found that the objectifying gaze caused decreased math performance for women, but somewhat ironically we also found that the same women that were objectified also wanted more interaction with the person that had objectified them,”

Ironically? Getting the idea that someone finds you attractive is a distractingly pleasant little pellet of affirmation. One might seek out that good feeling again if one had a chance.

Just sayin'.

The paper also found that when roles were reversed, men's math skills were utterly unaffected by women looking at the men's chests.

Get the fuck outta here.

Unscientific MoronThought: men really don't give a fig if you stare at their heaving mams, right? Because they generally don't have any, and if they do, it's not a selling point.

This is sloppy. The researchers should have first made the effort to establish some comparable behavior that women could use to subtly show their interest in the male subjects. A bit of overly-extended eye contact, maybe.

Comments at the link are pretty good too.

Thanks to skinbad.

Posted by: LauraW at 06:47 AM | Comments (298)
Post contains 232 words, total size 2 kb.

O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:46 AM | Comments (275)
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.

Come for the crazy, stay for the Viagra email spam.

...effort to reshape a fallen Internet icon... [can you reshape a corpse?]

...AOL will be adding Huffington Post co-founder and media star Arianna Huffington to its management team as part of the deal... [She was the 2nd choice, the Obama turned them down]

...Huffington will be put in charge of AOL's growing array of content... [I can't wait, can you?]

...The price that AOL is paying is "really just the hiring fee to get Arianna,"... [Translation: she found some greater fools]

...makes a lot of sense. This could put AOL back on the map."

Pic of Tim Armstrong, AOL CEO, surveying his investment strategy below the fold. Last year AOL only lost $782M. Armstrong said "2011 is the year we stop working on the turnaround and start working on the comeback." AOL doesn't need a turnaround specialist, it needs Jack Kevorkian.

[Update] DaTechguy makes an astute comment about what AOL is getting as a "freebie" along with the HuffPo framework:

...When you are buying something like the HuffPo you are not only buying the structure and the “writers” so to speak, you are also buying the commentators...

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 01:27 AM | Comments (122)
Post contains 227 words, total size 2 kb.

Hey all you Super Bowl multi-taskers out there - the ONT is over here.

Taking A Ride To The Edge of Space

Here James May of Top Gear UK takes an emotional ride aboard a U2 spyplane. At 70,000 feet they're twice the height of commercial flights and the only humans higher than that are astronauts at the International Space Station.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:29 PM | Comments (564)
Post contains 776 words, total size 7 kb.

Update
The Packers have won Super Bowl 45. Congrats to Aaron Rodgers, the Packers Defense(who won the game) and their fans!

Ah, Super Bowl Sunday is finally upon us. This yearÂ’s contestants are the Packers of Green Bay and the Steelers of Pittsburgh. Much to Kratos delight, there are no cheerleaders for either team. Oh and Brett Favre has sent Aaron Rodgers a text wishing him good luck.

The Green Bay Packers squeaked their way into the playoffs with a little help from losses by the Giants and Buccaneers.The Packers are on a five game winning streak including their last two regular season games. They entered the playoffs as the NFC Wild Card at the lowest ranked 6th seed and have taken to the road to beat the Vick led Eagles, Ryan led Falcons, and Cutler/Collins/Haine led Bears.

Since the 1990 season when the NFL expanded the playoffs to twelve teams only one 6th seed has won the Superbowl.

The Pittsburgh Steelers entered the playoffs as the 2nd seed after winning the AFC North. The Steelers won three of the first four games of the season without starting Quarterback Ben Roethlisberger who had been suspended for some unpleasantness in the offseason. The Steelers have had home field advantage throughout the playoffs. They beat the Ravens and Jets on the way to their franchiseÂ’s eighth Superbowl appearance.

more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 12:42 PM | Comments (1984)
Post contains 588 words, total size 5 kb.