Rangers v. Capitals a little after 3 eastern on NBC.

Capitals are up 3 games to 1 after the Rangers absolutely melted down in the 3rd period of game 4, so this is a potential elimination game.

If you sample hockey last year during the Olympics but haven't watched much since, this should be a fun game to watch (assuming the Rangers show up). The most dynamic player in the world is the Caps Alexander Ovechkin. I'm a Rangers fan and as much as he's killed the Rangers and probably will today or going forward if the Rangers survive but I love to watch him play. The reckless physical abandon combined with his off the chart skill is simply much watch stuff.

The Rangers best player is goaltender Henrik Lundqvist. Yes, he's a Scandi but he's one of the good ones. Plus, I bet the mononettes fficial&prmd=ivnsulo&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=CSSzTZqvBMW1twfI4enpDg&ved=0CCcQsAQ&biw=1366&bih=664">would be willing to vouch for him.

I predicted Rangers in 7 mostly with my heart, so I think they'll live to fight another day. We'll see.

If you're new to hockey and have any questions, feel free to ask them in the comments. tmi3rd should be around to answer them along with some of the other hockey savvy morons.

Posted by: DrewM at 11:07 AM | Comments (148)
Post contains 222 words, total size 1 kb.

All it will take is an increase in the current per barrel price of $112 to $175/bbl, and we'll see the highest price per gallon of gasoline ever. Current average price at $3.84 a gallon.

The price of crude oil is 55% of the cost of a gallon of gasoline.

And while we all know Obama is on record as thinking this is a "good thing", the make-believe-media is still busy covering his sloppy tracks. In this case, where he blamed a man who asked him about what the hell he's doing to address it by telling him to trade in his gas guzzling vehicle.

Yehzoved by the faithful.

It's the "speculators." It's the "ugly consumers."

It's not the lack of production (except for Brazil and China). Because in Obama's world, "supply and demand" are confusing and tedious concepts.

Shut up and go buy a high mileage Volt for fifty-thousand bucks or whatever the hell it costs.

Serf.

via Slublog

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 09:09 AM | Comments (197)
Post contains 172 words, total size 1 kb.

I've meant to write about this since yesterday since Thompson's article granted me an actual insight. I think it's actually an obvious insight, and I don't blame you for not being impressed with it, but it impressed me, if you know what I mean.

Here's Thompson:

In the minds of some commentators, the candidate who enters the fray late (by media standards) is by definition a dark horse, and therefore suspect. That is, the candidate would not be a dark horse if his heart were truly in it. If he had the fire in the belly, he would not be late entering the field. Some writers will go to extremes to make the facts fit their thesis.

Kilgore writes that by the time I announced my candidacy for the 2008 nomination “it was already becoming clear that he lacked commitment. Even before his appearance on Leno [in September 2007], there were abundant signs that he was not running for president, so much as walking — or even riding a golf cart — with abundant stops for rest and ice cream. His first Iowa appearance, in August, was at the Iowa State Fair, a must-do for any candidate, and particularly one like Thompson, who had already skipped the official Straw Poll that serves as the major fundraiser for the state GOP. With the eyes of the first-in-the-nation-caucus state on him, Big Fred showed up at the sweaty, extremely informal event sporting Gucci loafers, and proceeded to spend the day tooling around the fairgrounds in the aforementioned cart — a very big no-no for anyone who wasn’t either disabled or a major fair donor.”

I'm going to admit here Thompson's factual challenge to this entire claim -- he's saying it's just false, and I believe him. He seems to have documented facts on his side.

That's important, and you should read it, but for the purposes of my insight, it's just important to know that these claims are factually false. Not about matters of opinion, mind you -- I'm talking about just accepting false facts uncritically because they make things easier on your brain. That's the thing I'm interested in.

None of [the actual facts in another story] mattered, because such facts got in the way of the media narrative of the dark horse, the reluctant armchair candidate, the candidate with no fire in the belly.

Now here's the thing, and here's a confession: As "someone" and other pro-Fred Thompson supporters can tell you, I actually bought into this Narrative a fair amount and was always getting pushed back on it, vigorously, by the Thompson supporters.

But here's some context: I myself was a Fred Thomspon supporter. After I realized that Giuliani couldn't win and his lead was just name recognition (I knew he couldn't win when he announced "I'm pro-choice"), I looked about for another horse to ride and chose Fred Thompson.

I thought Fred Thompson was ideal. I thought he was the Super Candidate and yes, something of a Savior. I thought he could unite both wings of the party, easily and enthusiastically, and had every important box checked in the Standard Mainstream Conservative policy list, and furthermore, had a hell of a superheroic Origin Story and would be an absolute Rock Star in the campaign.

So I want to say that I was actually a Fred Thompson supporter when I bought a bit into this narrative. My problem here was not that I was undersupportive of Thompson, but rather, I suppose, that I was too supportive, and my expectations were too high.

So the Fred Thompson candidacy was, for me, a frustrating thing, because I expected so much. I expected him to dominate the primaries and simply catch fire.

I had a lot of eggs in the Fred Thompson basket. Still do, in fact. If Fred Thompson announces tomorrow-- which I strongly urge him to do -- I'm on Team Fred, all the way to the RNC.

But, as I said, I was frustrated, because he didn't dominate. He didn't catch fire. I think he edged into a third-place finish in Iowa, which kept him alive, but it also marked him as an unlikely winner, and therefore he never got the huge advantage of the bandwagon effect.

Now here's the thing. Here's the important thing. Here's the whole basis for my insight:

I did not understand then, and still do not understand now, why Fred Thompson did not almost immediately become the front-runner and sweep virtually every single primary and caucus.

I still do not understand. I still don't get it. I can point at a few things -- he seemed to have a bit of stage fright and discomfort when announcing on Leno -- but these things are not enough, I don't think, to explain the failure of his candidacy.

So I didn't understand. And because I didn't understand, but needed some way of explaining it to myself (and, also, to readers, if they wanted me to shed light on this perplexing circumstance), I was prey to an easy answer cooked up by someone else.

This someone else, I think, was Roger Simon at Politico, I think. (Not the good Roger Simon at Pajamas Media, the bad, awful Roger Simon at Politico.) He put out an easy-peasy-lemon-squeezey narrative to explain to me what was hard to explain -- why isn't Fred! crushing the field like the 260 pounds of rompin'-stomplin' sex he is? -- and I bought into that, a little, just because I had no other way to explain it to myself.

Now I have a different theory about it, which I won't bore you with, because it's besides the point, and further, it's my own personal Narrative, also all guesswork and supposition.

But the point is that these Narratives are begun, and started, to disguise laziness, incompetence, and ignorance. If we don't know the reason, and if we are too lazy or not skilled enough to find a good answer, we are prey to simplistic little fakey make-'em-ups. Not because they're compelling, and not because they're true -- the media knows half of the shit they say isn't true, like forever claiming Scooter Libby "leaked" the identity of Valerie Plame without noting it was liberal-leaning-RINO in good standing Richard Armitage who actually leaked it first-- but because it's easy and simple.

Easy and simple. Scooter Libby leaked that name; Fred Thompson doesn't have fire in his belly.

So this is my insight. I did warn you it was sort of obvious, didn't I? Yes, it's obvious, but for me, my own personal glomming on to an easy, simple narrative to explain that which is difficult to explain really brought this home: We all -- but especially the media -- make up The Narrative to paper over our insufficient knowledge.

If a Narrative has a strong through-line, as they say about scripts and fictions, then the momentum of that through-line, that main driving plot, will tend to carry the story over any plot-holes or weakly-motivated actions. If the through-line is strong enough, it will carry you over such logical gaps and Deleted Scenes and and Scenes Scripted But Never Shot because you're getting the big picture well enough to miss the fact that the little details are either absent or a muddle.

Which is why the media so heavily depends on The Narrative -- 90% of the time, their reportage is weak and incomplete. It is riddled through with missing details and unknown motivations.

But if you can affix to that set of incomplete facts a strong enough story that links together the few facts you have and, most importantly of all, suggests by inference what the missing details could be or should be, then what you have just done is turned an incomplete story without a much value or relevance into a "context-rich" story that helps people "understand their world."

But importantly -- the "context" you're providing, and the "understanding of the world" you're supplying, are not in fact facts you've verified. It's just some crap you just made up (through insinuation) that fills in the gaps of fact and logic in the meager reportage element of your story.

The liberal media resorts to this often due to laziness or partisanship. But they also do so because sometimes they themselves really just don't understand.

Let me propose a thought experiment. Imagine ten liberals and ten of us. We're each asked a series of political questions. Our task is not to answer as we ourselves would answer, but instead to guess at what our liberal counterparts will say, and not just as far as conclusions, but also as far as reasoning and assumptions and secondary premises.

Who do you think would do better at this task-- we or they? We would. Because while we are fed a steady litany of liberal assumptions and assertions on a daily basis, a liberal is entirely free to ignore the conservative movement's beliefs altogether by simply never consuming any conservative media.

And 95% of them, of course, choose to do just that.

We on the right would probably make that choice, too, if it were allowed to us -- but it's not. We can't escape the liberal media, even when we try.

And we wouldn't just win this experiment on points; we'd destroy them, three knockdowns and then one knockout (and there'd be more knockouts if the ref let us keep pounding on their unconscious heads).

Even the most pro-life among us could, if asked why liberals are so strong pro-choice, trot out the reasons the liberals would give: an embryo is not a life unless it can exist independently of the mother, a woman shouldn't be punished by unwanted pregnancies, a woman shouldn't be economically disadvantaged by unplanned babies, a woman's personal decisions are sacrosanct, there is a right to privacy between woman and doctor, etc.

I'm not saying the pro-lifers would agree with those premises: But they could name them.

On the other hand, the liberals' guesses about our beliefs would be, once you got past the fifteen synonyms for "Because they're stupid" (more on that in a bit), would be the vaguest guesswork about words they've barely heard us say. "Because, um, it's in the Constitution? Or something? I hear them talk about that a lot. They probably think something in it says something about something." That would be a rather good guess on their part.

Now, liberals, therefore, have an abject lack of competence in describing the conservative mindset. They don't understand how we think, and they don't even care to find out -- they never bother asking us, you'll notice. They tend to inform us of what we think and then tell us why those thoughts they just claimed we have are in fact wrong, ignorant, and evil.

I'm always asking liberals, "Why do you think that? What is the assumption you're starting with?" They tell me. I already knew the range of options from the media, but when they tell me, I know the particular bits of liberal assumptions they're specifically relying on.

And because I've asked, and they've answered: I know.

They never ask. They don't care, because they think we're ignorant and therefore no question asked of us can ever yield useful information.
more...

Posted by: Ace at 07:43 AM | Comments (476)
Post contains 3054 words, total size 18 kb.

They have all been the "pet projects" of Michael Gartner, the bowtie-wearing journalist, businessman AND Renaissance d-bag who currently resides in Central Iowa.

Last night, I got a call from a co-worker who saw a "teaser" on a local 6 PM newscast for a big story coming up at 10 PM. Cityview, the local free weekly "alternative" paper in Central Iowa decided to suppliment their usual fare of 27 pages of advertisements disguised as "dining and bar scene reviews" and personal ads for "Furries seeking Furries" with a comprehensive list of EVERY person who has received a Concealed Carry permit in Polk County, Iowa since the first of the year. All 5,200 of them.

(analysis and gratuitous character assassination after the jump)

more...

Posted by: Russ from Winterset at 06:06 AM | Comments (79)
Post contains 1147 words, total size 8 kb.

Now with 100% 3,000% less content.

Why?

Because Breitbart only reads the comments, that's why!

Posted by: andy at 04:46 AM | Comments (236)
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.

Urf Day/Good Friday edition. Now with 100% more Dondi!

I've always harbored this suspicion that whenever I closed the 'funny papers' (grandpa's term) Billy from The Family Circus would sneak out of his comic panel and head over to Dondi's place, where he would beat the living shit out of him for being such a cloying and whiny character. Then quickly beat a path back home while somehow erasing those telltale dotted line tracks that he usually left whenever roaming around the comic 'hood.

Occasionally Billy would stop by Nancy's house on his way home with the intention of trying to cop a quick feel, but that never really panned out. For obvious reasons to the rest of us, but Billy never was all that perceptive.

Additional dreck below the fold as usual...
more...

Posted by: Genghis at 05:55 PM | Comments (844)
Post contains 1090 words, total size 8 kb.

Popular, in the media's eyes, means "disapproved of by most." That's what it must mean, as Obama has had negative job approval for a long time.

This is not a recent phenomenon. Nor is it a sometimes type thing.

He has been unpopular, consistently, for a long time.

Just in case words still mean what they used to B.O. (Before Obama, as Spike Lee's proposed new dating system had it.)

Stolen from Hot Air.

Posted by: Ace at 05:19 PM | Comments (128)
Post contains 146 words, total size 1 kb.

Bear in mind, the world's first and only unlicensed freelance obstetrician is just being more insane than usual today, because Salon called him out as a deranged punk:

[Salon, being quoted:]
Sullivan's refrain on this issue is that he does not endorse any conspiracy theory, he is merely asking questions. He simply wants Palin "to debunk this for once and for all, with simple, readily available medical records." He has proposed, for example, the release of "amniocentesis results with Sarah Palin's name on them."

It's worth noting that this posture is identical to the rhetoric used by Obama birthers (for instance, WorldNetDaily Birther czar Joseph Farah employs the "just asking for definitive piece of proof x" line here).

[Sullivan answering:] This is absurd. Obama has produced the most relevant, clear, unimpeachable, if humiliating, piece of empirical evidence that he is indeed a native-born US citizen. In fact, he produced it a long time ago. (I think he was right to do so, and the press was easily within bounds to ask. That's how these things should work.)

And there is a huge difference between someone asking for exactly that kind of proof, however distasteful, and someone continuing to ask for it after that proof has already been produced.

See, in Andrew Sullivan's world, Obama deserves special praise for releasing the COLB, because it is, in his words and his italicization, "humiliating." It was humiliating for Obama to have to produce a run of the mill birth certificate, necessary to produce every time you get a new job (which Obama sought), and of course required, as a minimum level of proof, as to the Constitution's age and natural-born citizenship requirements.

See, that's humiliating. Obama was humiliated having to do that.

So obviously He wouldn't have humiliated himself otherwise, except to go that extra step to appease his fiercest critics.

You know what's not humiliating, though?

The official document of birthplace, that's not humiliating, even though you hand that to a stranger who puts it on a copier machine and adds it to a permanent file every time you change jobs and fill out an I-9.

But what definitely is not humiliating, is, say, demanding that woman who you accuse of being a lying whore with the sexual metabolism of a Tribble release, get this, in Sullivan's won deranged words, "amniocentesis results with Sarah Palin's name on them."

That COLB thing, that's humiliating and invasive, but asking for someone's "amniocentesis records" with their name attached?

That's just a normal, everyday sort of routine bureaucratic transaction.

Other day I wanted to buy batteries at Radio Shack. "What's your address?" they asked, and I told them. Then they asked me "Please produce your mother's amniocentesis tests with her name on them," and of course I likewise produced those.

Sullivan can't quit while he's ahead, though, and, even though his employer has demanded he not explicitly say Palin did not give birth to her child but rather instead hint around that, he can't help himself, and does his typical silly-bitch passive-aggressive gay-gossip insinuation act:

How To Fake A Pregnancy

A teenager tells us how - in a school project. Seven people were in on the hoax. No one outside this seven guessed she was lying. It's remarkable what a prosthetic belly bump can do.

Apropos of nothing, I'm sure.

Be a man. If you're such a brave free-mind, then say what you believe instead of kowtowing to your employers.

Craven bootlickin' bitch.

But anyway, I'm not here to call him names. I'm here to tell you, before he catches on, that he's been

P U N K E D.

See, on the same day he's telling the world what a viable and reasonable and worthy-of-investigation theory Trig Trutherism is, he's simultaneously, between these posts, denigrating Birthers as crazy and hateful.

Shyeah, right? Heh.

But anyway, he gets tipped to someone, he says, who explains the psychological roots of Birtherism, and he links it gladly.

But you tell me -- is he being punked or not? Is it just a coincidence that this applies much more to his Trig Trutherist derangement?

The Psychological Roots Of Birtherism

David P. Redlawsk explains it:

The reality is that “facts” are unlikely to mean much to those who believe in their gut that Obama is not American. Political psychologists call this “motivated reasoning.” It goes something like this: I dislike someone; I learn something positive that should make me feel better about him; instead, I dislike him as much or even more.

Gee, who does that apply to? Hm, Sarah Palin carried a Downs Syndrome baby to term; that should make me feel better about her, instead, I dislike her even more.

[Punking Artiste David continuing:] This is clearly irrational, but our feelings about people are complicated, and we tend to hold on to them even in the face of contradictory information. [!!!!]This is not unique to those who dislike Obama.[!!!]

I don't know how else I can possibly call attention to the words Sullivan is quoting but apparently not actually reading. Maybe he'll catch it this time.

Here's a hint, Sullivan:

Might even apply to those who dislike Palin, for example.

Get it? No? Still nothing?

We are all somewhat impervious to new information, preferring the beliefs in which we are already invested.

Shhhh. No one tell Andy. He's not in on the joke yet.

We often ignore new contradictory information, actively argue against it or discount its source, all in an effort to maintain existing evaluations.

Sullivan is still nodding along, still not getting it.

Reasoning away contradictions this way is psychologically easier than revising our feelings. In this sense, our emotions color how we perceive “facts.”

He's still not getting it. He's quoting this, and if you think he's going to argue with it, you're wrong: He agrees with it.

As far as Birthers go, mind you.

Now, finally, Sullivan answers:

They do; and it's important always to keep this in mind. But there remains something called fact, rather than "fact", and empiricism is our only real recourse in public debate.

Ah. So there are some "facts" that are stupid to challenge. We must be guided by empiricism, not fancy.

By the way, did I mention the very next post is an insistence that Trig was born of some other mother?

That's why producing a birth certificate is dispositive. It should end the discussion. I might add that merely asking a presidential candidate to produce such a certificate does not seem illegitimate to me. It may be maddening or unfair. But that's the price of public life. And the sign of a mature politician is his or her ability to see that and allow the ethic of transparency trump the humiliation of exposure. Obama easily passed this test.

And so on.

Is that not precious? He's sitting there quoting a guy telling him that when we don't like someone, our minds are gullible and start believing any old horseshit about this person (who might not even be Obama, this guy notes), and once we start believing that horseshit, we become immune to facts and new evidence and airily dismiss contrary information, because it's "psychologically easier" that way.

And Sullivan posted this right after his own "Palin faked her pregnancy" post.

Unbelievable. The stupidest, most un-self-aware jackass in the history of the internet doesn't merely beclown himself today, as usual; he beclowns himself Champion.

Sullivan, please diagram the following sentence, noting noun, verb, connecting words, and independent clauses:

AN GALLON OF IRONY SPILLED BUT NOT A DROP SPLASHED UPON HIM.

Thanks. Make sure you send that to me, and I'll send it back with corrections attached.

By The Way: I do have to admit -- Sullivan, if you're reading this (and I know you will, since you are dumb, and vain), there is one bit of evidence against Palin I can't dismiss completely.

I don't think it proves anything, but yes, I admit: This does not exactly show a pregnant Palin.

But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Posted by: Ace at 04:27 PM | Comments (263)
Post contains 1341 words, total size 9 kb.

It only took 75 or so dead to get President Awesome to take a break from his two day, six fundraiser trip to California to issue a written statement chastising the Syrian regime for attacking its own people.

The United States condemns in the strongest possible terms the use of force by the Syrian government against demonstrators. This outrageous use of violence to quell protests must come to an end now. We regret the loss of life and our thoughts are with the families and loved ones of the victims, and with the Syrian people in this challenging time.

The Syrian Government's moves yesterday to repeal SyriaÂ’s decades-old Emergency Law and allow for peaceful demonstrations were not serious given the continued violent repression against protesters today. Over the course of two months since protests in Syria began, the United States has repeatedly encouraged President Assad and the Syrian Government to implement meaningful reforms, but they refuse to respect the rights of the Syrian people or be responsive to their aspirations. The Syrian people have called for the freedoms that all individuals around the world should enjoy: freedom of expression, association, peaceful assembly, and the ability to freely choose their leaders. President Assad and the Syrian authorities have repeatedly rejected their calls and chosen the path of repression. They have placed their personal interests ahead of the interests of the Syrian people, resorting to the use of force and outrageous human rights abuses to compound the already oppressive security measures in place before these demonstrations erupted. Instead of listening to their own people, President Assad is blaming outsiders while seeking Iranian assistance in repressing Syria's citizens through the same brutal tactics that have been used by his Iranian allies. We call on President Assad to change course now, and heed the calls of his own people.

We strongly oppose the Syrian governmentÂ’s treatment of its citizens and we continue to oppose its continued destabilizing behavior more generally, including support for terrorism and terrorist groups. The United States will continue to stand up for democracy and the universal rights that all human beings deserve, in Syria and around the world.

Well, that should take care of things. I'm sure the UN will be springing into action any second now. What? This isn't Israel's doing? Well, forget going to the UN (for whatever that's worth) then.

Keep in mind this is another bit of evidence that Obama's outreach efforts to brutal regimes around the world has been, wait for it, a miserable failure. It was just a little more than a year ago that Obama sent a US Ambassador to Damascus after a 5 year absence. You can see how impressed Baby Assad was by the gesture.

Don't forget it was just a few weeks ago that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made it quite clear there would be no concrete action forthcoming from the US over Assad's crackdown on protesters. Sounds like someone got the message loud and clear.

Silence on Iran, vacillation on Egypt, absolute confusion over Libya and now an off-camera statement on Syria. It's like this guy is in way over his head or something.

President Empty Suit
Via The Slublog Collection

Posted by: DrewM at 03:19 PM | Comments (148)
Post contains 551 words, total size 4 kb.

Gabe's post on Dearborn attempting to repeal the first amendment, to protect Muslims from the incivility of challenge to their religion, must be read.

And this isn't the first time. Maetenloch covered the Dearborn police arresting Christians charged with the crime of proselytizing their religion last September.

Technically, the charge was "breach of the peace," by which everyone understands they expected Muslims to breach the peace and to avoid this decided to cancel the constitutional rights of Christians.

The intellectual swells chuckle at us when we say that there is a campaign to impose sharia law in the US. How silly.

Yes, how silly. They're not imposing sharia; they're just imposing tolerance, respect, and civility.

It's just that -- coincidentally enough -- the new code of tolerance, respect, and civility has an odd manner of tracking, sura by sura, the precise contours of the Koran's major prohibitions upon dhimmis.

Now, you may say, "Wait, I don't like that I'm now under more government compulsions and prohibitions than I was before."

But you're not looking at the big picture. In the big picture, some people are now actually under fewer compulsions and prohibitions, so it all just balances itself out.

Okay, maybe you don't like the fact that some people now have the freedom to break the law with impunity. But why be angry just because someone else has a few extra freedoms?

You're pro-freedom. Aren't you?

All coincidence, I'm assured. It just keeps coming out that way. It's not sharia because we're calling it something else. It's not sharia; it's merely sharia-compliant.

Wait, that sounds like someone's being forced to comply with someone else's religion. Okay, take two: It's not sharia, and it's not sharia-compliant. It's just sharia-coinciding.

Okay. I guess I'm convinced. So long as we call it something else, though. You promise me on that, right? Because that's all that's important to me -- not the actual reduction in constitutional rights or the imposition of a foreign religion, but just that we call it something else.

As long as we call it something else, hey, I've got no complaints.

Always remember: It's not that you have less rights than someone else, it's just that they have a few more; and it's not that you're a second-class citizen; you're still first class, same as ever.

It's just that some are first-class-plus.

Just look at the positive side of things and it will all be okay.

Thanks to David, who I met yesterday, for reminding on this. And to Maet too, who told me, "Hey, guess what? That was actually covered on the blog."

How To Properly Behave During a Muslim Massacre: Andrew Klavan has some important do's and don't's of slaughter-etiquette.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 02:20 PM | Comments (118)
Post contains 474 words, total size 3 kb.