We had a DDoS attack coming (mostly) from Turkey targeting the comments server. Should be blocked now, but there may be some hiccups if someone in that part of the world manages to find an unblocked IP address.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 12:27 AM | Comments (48)
Post contains 46 words, total size 1 kb.

[Note - comments seem to be down. People have been notified, but since it's 2am Mars time, it could be a while until pixy reboots the hamsters. Until then you can play here]

Thanks to a confluence of work and personal business today I've had zero time to work on the ONT. So tonight's gonna be Teh Sux0r.

But hey no one reads the items anyway so no harm, no foul right?

However I can offer you this new meme - Emilio Estevez.

Sure he's not as entertaining as Charlie, but he's also a lot less likely to strangle you for kicks during a coke binge.

And those reports of Charlie Sheen waving a machete from a building rooftop in Beverly Hills - not a parody. That's how Charlie always celebrates Monday. more...

Posted by: Maetenloch at 06:10 PM | Comments (29)
Post contains 493 words, total size 6 kb.

Ah, the day fretting Rule Class drones have been waiting for: the first Republican 2012 debate has arrived, though it's officially styled a "candidate forum" hosted by the Iowa Faith & Freedom Coalition and there will only be five candidates there.

Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, and former Louisiana governor Buddy Roemer, will get 10 minutes each to make their first case to Iowa primary voters. The first four need no introduction and their presidential aspirations are well known. Roemer is new to the race; he announced an exploratory committee last week.

The other major contenders, including Palin, Thune (before he dropped out), Romney, Huckabee, Paul, Johnson, and Barbour were invited, but declined to appear.

Also not appearing will be the little-known, no-chance dude running for president on the "I'm a gay Republican who only wants to talk about gay issues" ticket, who is so stomping mad about being excluded that he filed a complaint with the FEC. He's insulted that the organizers don't view his gay rights platform as a legitimate run for the White House. Heh.

Anyway, if you're interested, it'll be on C-SPAN at 8pm ET. For my money, the only one worth anything is Cain, but I haven't heard Roemer before, so maybe he's okay. If I had my way, election season wouldn't start until January 2012. On the other hand, the GOP has -- since 1952 -- apparently always had a clear frontrunner at this point in the race. We don't this year, so maybe we need some time to work it out.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:06 PM | Comments (764)
Post contains 273 words, total size 2 kb.

Trolls 1, Vatican Assassin Warlocks 0.

Terse statement from CBS.

"After careful consideration, Warner Bros. Television has terminated Charlie SheenÂ’s services on Two and a Half Men effective immediately."

I expect an equally terse statement from Charlie Sheen.

In related news, Will Arnett needs work.

I read in a NYT article that Sheen had kept out any morality clause from his contract. Well-played, man. So presumably, while he may be fired, he's also still under contract, at least unless the show ends, right?

Old Wish: That Charlie Sheen's next venture would be trainwreck reality TV

New Fear: That Charlie Sheen's next venture will be porn

Sheen Already Responded:

"This is very good news. They continue to be in breach, like so many whales. It is a big day of gladness at the Sober Valley Lodge because now I can take all of the bazillions, never have to look at whatshiscock again and I never have to put on those silly shirts for as long as this warlock exists in the terrestrial dimension."

Which is about three months according to my bid in the Dead Pool.

Okay, well I expect that that will be the reserved Mr. Sheen's last statement on the matter.

Posted by: Ace at 01:24 PM | Comments (219)
Post contains 220 words, total size 1 kb.

I always say that substance now is much, much better than some procedural change which is hoped to make cuts easier in the future.

But that's not to say the latter is useless.

Given our Appropriations Committee is, as usual, staffed with Appropriators, maybe this could be a useful bit of pushback.

Udall’s backing of the “anti-appropriations committee” is one of the most significant moves to embrace spending cuts by a moderate Democrat in the Senate and gives the proposal momentum and cover from potential critics, insiders say.

...

The committee itself would consist of six Republicans and six Democrats. At least once a year, the committee would introduce legislation to reduce or eliminate duplicative or wasteful programs that would receive an up-or-down vote under the “reconciliation” rules that prevent a filibuster.

Crucially, the committee would also have subpoena power to investigate potentially wasteful government programs.

...

“Many government programs were created with good intentions, but in too many cases, Congress has also created other redundant and sometimes wasteful programs rather than strategically targeting resources where they’re needed,” Udall said in a written statement. “An ‘un-authorizing’ committee would add teeth to our efforts to streamline our government, pare down our national budget, save taxpayers’ dollars and strengthen the private economy by making sure the government is as lean as ever.”

It's something.

Posted by: Ace at 01:06 PM | Comments (61)
Post contains 232 words, total size 2 kb.

Funny because it's true.

Actually it's not funny. It's disgraceful and maddening. more...

Posted by: Ace at 12:03 PM | Comments (227)
Post contains 431 words, total size 3 kb.

Robert Vacca wrote his work The Coming Dark Age back in the eco-70s. His basic premise was that our technological and logistical infrastructure was becoming so complex and inter-dependent that a major failure somewhere would trigger a domino effect, causing civilization to grind to a halt. Vacca underestimated the ability of complex systems -- particularly those with humans involved -- to adapt and work around failures.

But now we face blackouts that are intended, all in the name of "renewable energy". This from England:

Electricity consumers in the UK will need to get used to flicking the switch and finding the power unavailable, according to Steve Holliday, CEO of National Grid, the country’s grid operator. Because of a six-fold increase in wind generation, which won’t be available when the wind doesn’t blow, “The grid is going to be a very different system in 2020, 2030,” he told BBC’s Radio 4. “We keep thinking that we want it to be there and provide power when we need it. It’s going to be much smarter than that.

“We are going to change our own behaviour and consume it when it is available and available cheaply.”

Holliday has for several years been predicting that blackouts could become a feature of power systems that replace reliable coal plants with wind turbines in order to meet greenhouse gas targets. Wind-based power systems are necessary to meet the governmentÂ’s targets, he has explained, but they will require lifestyle changes.

Under the so-called “smart grid” that the UK is developing, the government-regulated utility will be able to decide when and where power should be delivered, to ensure that it meets the highest social purpose. Governments may, for example, decide that the needs of key industries take precedence over others, or that the needs of industry trump that of residential consumers. Governments would also be able to price power prohibitively if it is used for non-essential purposes.

The sheer idiocy here is breathtaking, as well as the rampant opportunities for abuse, corruption, and social engineering (but I repeat myself). To see a 21st Century world power deliberately embrace aspects of a third-world lifestyle boggles the mind. Let this be a lesson to us all. Hat tip to Climate Depot. ..fritz..

[Cross-posted from And Still I Persist]

Posted by: Open Blogger at 11:45 AM | Comments (173)
Post contains 380 words, total size 3 kb.

Apparently having an affair and paying off the woman and her husband is bad for your political career. Who knew?

Ensign would be the 8th Senator to announce he's not running for reelection in 2012. 5 Democrats, including Lieberman and now 1 3 Republicans.

Ensign was facing an uphill climb in the GOP primary where he's consistently been trailing Rep Dean Heller by double digits.

UPDATE: He's not leaving before his term is up.

Posted by: DrewM at 10:50 AM | Comments (178)
Post contains 90 words, total size 1 kb.

Via Drudge, the prelude to hyperinflation. $223 billion in deficit for the shortest month of the year.

Bush's 2007 yearly deficit was a mere $161 billion.

Obama always claims he hasn't raised taxes on the middle class. He has, of course, via a bunch of taxes apart from straight income tax, but the more important point is that given his spending, we only have two choices: Jack taxes up on the middle class (it's unavoidable -- the middle class is too large to not be taxed; you can't tax the few billionaires enough to make this kind of money) or tax them indirectly by inflating the shit out of the dollar. (And I don't even think that would work, given that the biggest drivers of increasing spending have cost-of-living adjustments built into them.)

Posted by: Ace at 10:13 AM | Comments (157)
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.

Yesterday on David Gregory's show, two people remained relentlessly on-message. Michelle Bachman was determined to make, and repeat, the charge that Obama had deceptively and corruptly procured $105 billion in "pre-funding" for ObamaCare that apparently binds future Congresses.

How?, you might ask. I would ask that too. David Gregory, however, did not; as relentless as Bachman was in making the point, David Gregory was equally relentless in refusing to even ask a question about it.

But the media will portray this as a case of one person offering an interview with an agenda. Not as two people doing this.

I have a lot of questions about Michelle Bachman's charge. I'm curious about several things. Is it true, as she alleges, that almost no Congressmen at all knew about this $105 billion in pre-funding? What is the actual money for? I saw a stray reference to the money being procured to make sure ObamaCare passed; does that mean it consists largely of earmarks for reluctant Congressmen's districts, pork in exchange for a dangerous vote? How does one Congress bind the next Congress with such spending demands? Has this been done before?

Those would be my questions for Representative Bachmann. And note, even if you're an Obama-worshipping liberal like David Gregory, those questions should occur to you, too: If your goal is to refute Bachmann, how can you do that without getting her to commit, on the record, to the specifics of her charge?

But David Gregory would have none of that. Here's an alleged newsman, interviewing a newsmaker, who is in fact attempting, with all of her heart, to make news. She is offering a new charge. She's debuting it here. Premiering it. Giving David Gregory a scoop. Trying her best to get a supposed newsman to take an interest in new news.

She tried; she failed. David Gregory had no interest whatsoever in this. And again I stress: Even a committed liberal (as Gregory is) should have an interest in figuring out the details of this, if only to try to claim she's lying.

David Gregory relentlessly stayed on his own message: asking and re-asking if Bachmann would shut the government down over these "political" spending questions. (Later in the show, he made a strict distinction between spending cuts which are "not political" and spending cuts -- to liberal favorites NPR, Planned Parenthood, and ObamaCare -- which are "political" and therefore unreasonable. He never explained why cuts to programs other than these should be considered "not political.")

Let me turn to Gregory's agenda: He kept asking the same question. He was attempting to get Michelle Bachmann to commit to either shutting the government down or not shutting it down.

It's a trap question, because any answer she gives helps Obama. If she says she'll shut the government down over these "political" spending cuts, then Gregory and Obama can paint her as an "extremist" who refuses to "compromise" and therefore pressure the GOP to relent on these questions -- Heads Obama wins.

If she says she's willing to compromise and give on these points, then she has absolutely no negotiating position when she goes to the table, and Obama himself can threaten to shut down the government because he knows Bachmann will fold -- in this case, she would have already announced she'd fold, after all. Tails Bachmann loses.

Now, why isn't Obama asked these questions? Why wasn't Richard Daley (the previous guest) dogged again and again with the question? Why isn't Obama being forced to admit he's either an "extremist" who will not compromise, or someone so interested in compromise that he'll sell out his own position in a heartbeat?

Because that would hurt Obama's position. So they don't ask him. They don't ask anyone in the Obama administration. Nor do they ask any of the Democratic congressmen and senators allied with Obama. They are allowed to keep a strong negotiating position without committing themselves to a policy of no compromise (which would sound bad in a soundbite), but damnit, no conservative shall be allowed this useful posture.

So again and again Bachmann presses with her agenda, and again and again David Gregory refuses to ask a single question about what she's actually talking about, demanding she answer to his agenda, which is "Announce you're either an 'extremist' or announce you're folding on all of your policies."

There is no question that when a politician does what Bachmann did, she winds up looking a bit robotic and scripted and inhumanly on-message. It looks bad.

But this is precisely what the liberal media demands conservatives do if they want any hope of getting their message out. If a liberal makes news in this way, David Gregory will of course go exactly where the liberal wants to take the discussion. He'll start asking lots of questions about this new, shiny line of attack.

But when a conservative attempts to do so? He goes into Stepford Wife mode and just repeats the same trap question over and over.

Correction: This wasn't actually a true scoop she was offering; apparently she talked about it in Greta Van Susstren a few days before.

Okay, not a true scoop, but I hadn't heard the charge, and apparently neither did David Gregory, so it was new to most of us.

My point still stands. It is insane that someone comes on to an interview show attempting to make news and the alleged newsman interviewing her "refuses to play her game."

What, the game of eliciting information from a guest?

You're above that, David Gregory?

Posted by: Ace at 08:27 AM | Comments (259)
Post contains 963 words, total size 6 kb.