If you happen to like baseball, do ya jibba-jabberin here.

And yes, I am a Rangers fan. Down 3-0 against the Steinbrenner-less Yankees right now.

Cubs fans, Astros fans, Orioles fans.. and Red Sox fans, the line for hugs starts way over there.

Mets fans don't get no hugs. Not with all that crazy eye stuff they got goin on.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 11:04 AM | Comments (424)
Post contains 72 words, total size 1 kb.

There's a nonprofit located near where I live called The Collings Foundation. Being located in Massachusetts, you'd think it would be dedicated to saving the planet from teh evil CO₂, exposing the savagery of Paul Ryan's "extreme" budget or some other lefty cause. Nothing could be further from the truth:

Mission & Purpose

The purpose of the Collings Foundation is to organize and support “living history” events that enable Americans to learn more about their heritage through direct participation. The original focus of the Foundation was transportation-related events such as antique car rallies, hill climbs, carriage and sleigh rides, along with a winter ice-cutting festival in Stow, MA areas. During the mid-eighties, these activities were broadened to include aviation-related events such as air shows, barnstorming, historical reunions, Wings of Freedom Tour, Vietnam Memorial Flights, joint museum displays and living history events.

Left unsaid in that mission statement is the fact that Collings has one of the largest private collections of vintage airworthy military aircraft in the world, including the only B-24J Liberator still flying

A couple of weeks ago, a ceremony was held to christen their latest addition to the fleet, and she returned to the skies carrying a very special passenger. more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 02:00 AM | Comments (219)
Post contains 684 words, total size 5 kb.

Updated: Thread title revised since it appears some of you actually pried yourselves off the couch you sleep on in your parents' basement, brushed/licked off the Cheetos residue from your fingers and briefly emerged into the outside world to watch a talkie. I know how hard it was for you to do that (well, actually I don't) but now you're back home, in your haven, far from the mocking of the cruel "Outside People" or whatever you call them.

Original Post:

It's spring bookmark cleaning time and you know what that means, don't you? Yep, the post equivalent of belly button lint or that crud that grows between your toes.

10 Movie Scenes That Were More Real Than You Knew

From Paste Magazine. Whatever that is. I'd read about the 'chestburster' scene from "Alien" but the others not so much.

Such as the chest waxing scene fro "The 40 Year Old Virgin." (language warning)

Even lamer stuff below the fold... more...

Posted by: Genghis at 06:51 PM | Comments (554)
Post contains 306 words, total size 3 kb.

Separation of powers? It's for you Constitution-lovin-homos. Not for me.

Not for me.

Therefore, the president wrote, “the executive branch will construe section 2262 not to abrogate these Presidential prerogatives.”

In other words: we know what you wanted that provision to do, but we donÂ’t think itÂ’s constitutional, so we will interpret it differently than the way you meant it.

In a mere few days, President Awesome yet again reverses himself on a major issue, one he hammered President Bush over, the use of "signing statements".

Here's how he felt about it before he felt differently about it.

He sure keeps his head on a swivel, in a vicious cock-fight.

tips from commenters Damiano and others in the previous thread (including mbt shoes! Thank you), and vid via Hot Air)

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 06:32 PM | Comments (71)
Post contains 144 words, total size 2 kb.

When have we ever cared so much about the outcome of a Wisconsin Supreme Court election?

County tallies finalized Friday showed Justice David Prosser defeated little-known challenger JoAnne Kloppenburg by 7,316 votes. State election officials said they will wait to declare an official winner until the deadline for Kloppenburg to seek a recount passes. She has until Wednesday to call for one.

Kloppenhopper can still and likely will request a recount since the state would pick up the tab. Somebody smarter than me, maybe it was Gabe, said 7000+ votes is "outside the margin of lawyer". Let's hope so.

Anyway, I'm as happy as a little girl.

via Monty

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 04:40 PM | Comments (150)
Post contains 123 words, total size 1 kb.

Damn fine analysis.

I won't quote his analysis of why that was necessary (click for that), but you'll probably enjoy him noting the precise way in which our Naked Emperor is unclothed.

Not only was ObamaÂ’s speech on Wednesday political, it was completely rote, by-the-book Obama politics. He couldnÂ’t even bring out an interesting twist to his stock partisan speech. HereÂ’s how it always goes, with Wednesday being no exception:

I. Introduction of some grand narrative of American history.

II. Introduction of the policy problem, making clear that Obama had nothing to do with it.

III. Argument that the proposal of ObamaÂ’s opponents is inconsistent with that grand narrative.

IV. Argument that ObamaÂ’s proposal is consistent with that grand narrative.

V. Conclusion that Obama’s proposal is the only “American” solution to the policy problem.

As I've always said, it's a false choice to ask if Obama is stupid, or if he is evil; such a question is a distraction from the deeper American value of (dramatic whisper) knowing in our bones that he's both.

Posted by: Ace at 02:31 PM | Comments (257)
Post contains 206 words, total size 1 kb.

Kaus talks about Jay Cost's article on Obama's incompetence at politics.

I'm not sure if Cost is quite right about that; Obama is good at some things in politics. The thematic stuff. And he successfully diagnosed the reason people had such irrational faith in him -- he actually called himself an empty screen on to which people may project their hopes.

That's a weird thing about Obama -- he sometimes just sort of says stuff like that. Maybe he's got an honest streak somewhere? Or maybe he's just been so coddled and endlessly promoted beyond his abilities that he doesn't realize people should keep things like that to themselves?

That is, if you're hoodwinking the public because they're gullible and have a general preference for Symbolic Ciphers over genuine accomplishment and qualification, maybe you should keep quiet and not draw attention to that, rather than confess out loud that your supporters are self-deluded naifs.

On the policy stuff, and on reading the mood of the electorate -- I don't know if he's a bad politician so much as a radical true-believing red-diaper baby lefty who is simply convinced that Socialism = Prosperity.

I think it's just that he's a true believer. This guy was part of the expressly socialist New Party, after all. Not that your media will tell you that.

At any rate, back to the point I actually wanted to make.

AmishDude brought up preference cascades. If you don't know what they are, read this archived Glenn Reynolds piece.

Now, Mickey Kaus is a neoliberal. Don't be fooled by the fact that he says a lot of conservative-sounding things. He does do that. But he identifies as a neoliberal and I think his self-identification is basically accurate (although I also think he's more of a conservative-tilting neoliberal than he thinks).

Point is, he's a neoliberal. The company he keeps is braying jackasses like Robert Wright and the rest of the crew from Slate.

Even though he usually gets a pass from these folks on his typical Devil's Argument/blasphemous truths style of criticism of liberal doctrine, there are some lines you don't cross if you want to keep your good standing among fire-breathing liberals. And not even neoliberals, but just plain old liberals, paleoliberals, and lefties.

And, this is one of those things you don't say:

Cost doesnÂ’t go into why Obama managed to get to the top of politics without being all that good at it. The answer is distressingly obvious: ObamaÂ’s the biggest affirmative action baby in history. When other pols are trying, failing, learning, while climbing up the middle rungs of the ladder, he got a pass[.]

Yeah, Cost didn't go into that, Kaus, because we often don't say what's obvious because of social stigma.

But you're right, it is obvious.

Kaus wasn't the first to say it; others have said it.

But he wasn't even close to have been the first to think it.

A lot of people have been thinking this.

This gets into my point about Obama and polling. Race undeniably helped Obama. This is also obvious.

But as people begin leaving wait-and-see mode and entering evaluate-and-judge, are they going to keep thinking "Well, he's black, so I should studiously scour any and all negative thoughts from my mind, even though he's brought my family and my business little but misery for three years" or are they going to think, "Gee, maybe I shouldn't have voted for him last time just because he was black. Maybe this time I should ask about his actual accomplishments and qualifications, apart from his general resemblance to a mash-up of a Heroic Young Crusader played by Will Smith and a Gentle Older Sage played by Morgan Freeman."

Preference cascade -- when once-falsified (falsified even to oneself)suppressed ideas are suddenly too glaringly obvious to be falsified any further and break, unexpectedly and tectonically, from the repressed subconscious to the conscious mind.

Thanks: To RD, for finding a link to the archived Reynolds article.

Posted by: Ace at 01:34 PM | Comments (136)
Post contains 675 words, total size 4 kb.

Read it and weep pop a schadenboner.

It could be gas prices, the budget debate, or simply the usual ups and downs of public opinion polling. But President ObamaÂ’s approval rating has dipped to a five-month low in GallupÂ’s daily tracking poll, reverting to post-midterm election lows.

...

ObamaÂ’s low approval rating is not the result of the major speech he delivered on Wednesday. Some of the polling took place before he delivered the speech. Rather, a Gallup official believes the results reflect broad public dissatisfaction with the economy.

I take two things from this:

First, Obama is more vulnerable than the professional permanent Beltway establishment understands.

That may seem obvious to many, but the conventional wisdom remains that this is his election to lose. I have usually believed that conventional wisdom -- it's just based on past re-election bids, after all, in which the incumbent usually wins -- but I am beginning to grow increasingly confident but I don't want to jinx things cautiously moving towards the idea that this election is a coinflip or maybe even slightly favors a qualified, non-threatening challenger.

Two recent presidents were denied a second term, after all. They were both denied that second term for the same reason: a sour economy and no plausible narrative about taking the country in a more favorable direction. One of those two presidents shared another quality with Obama: He was viewed as feckless, passive, reactive, indecisive, and weak regarding foreign threats.

Second, the theory advanced by both Mickey Kaus and what I like to call "Common-Sense Obviousness" is that Obama's polling probably only rose -- as little as it did -- post-election because the American people took a certain amount of satisfaction and reassurance in the fact that Obama had been checked.

That didn't mean they suddenly liked Obama. It just meant, as Kaus put it, if your spouse is driving you crazy with running up the credit card bills and one bank comes along and cuts one credit card in half, your "polling" on your spouse will probably rise a little, not because you suddenly approve of being spent into bankruptcy, but because you've seen a positive discipline imposed from the outside that might cause you to feel a little less anxiety and heartburn.

But what they didn't like about Obama before -- a lousy economy with no plausible plan to right it except to keep doing what has failed before (and even less of that, as one of his credit cards was cut in half), no plausible plan to stop pissing away our children's birthright except to "spend even more money" (or, as our diagnosably retarded Vice President alleged, yes, I'm telling you to save money we have to spend a bloody fortune), no plausible plan to reduce gas prices except, well, buy a new car, buddy!.

No plausible plan for Libya, no plausible plan for Afghanistan, no plausible plan for Iran, no plausible plan for Pokistohn.

In all of these cases, not only is there no good news and likely no lucky break on the horizon, but there is simply no plausible storyline about some mechanism whereas current action -- fruitless at the moment -- may wind up producing good results if we only give it time.

What's he doing? Nothing, basically. He's spending money, which most people think is the problem, not the solution, and even if it were the solution (as Paul Krugman is just sure it is), well, Obama really can't do that so much anymore.

Not to be cute, but I've blundered into it, so I'll go ahead with it: Not only is there no positive change on the horizon, there is no plausible hope for such either.

The public has given Obama a fair amount of time before reaching decisions. They have held off for quite a while. They've been patient -- more patient than I, a committed anti-Obama partisan, would have liked.

But they were patient nonetheless, but patient does not mean patient forever. At some point, this wait and see attitude will change to evaluate and judge, and that shift in voter mentality is unlikely to favor Obama.

He cannot credibly claim accomplishments, except for ObamaCare, which 60% of the public doesn't like and would like to see repealed.

In all objective aspects, about anything that can be quantified and measured, Obama's presidency is a failure. A miserable failure. And a failure producing more and more misery -- persistent, grinding unemployment, skyrocketing gas prices, and soon the bite of inflation -- for more people than any other miserable failure since Jimmy Carter, and quite likely before him, too.

So what will the public make, in the end, of this charming young man who gave them such good feelings and confidence in 2008? Will they stick to that narrative, created largely by an in-the-tank media and a campaign which wisely refused to discuss qualifications and accomplishments in favor of feel-good Hollywood Happing Ending Machine uplift?

They can't run that campaign again. You get to run as a feel-good Symbolic Cipher once.

Once.

The public's good feelings about Obama are abstract and superficial, whereas their bad feelings about the deficit, the crushing joblessness, the stagnant/falling real wages, the rising inflation, the zooming price of oil, the daily diminishment of America and the once-bright American Future -- the public's feelings about these things are tangible and deep.

Gallup shouldn't be scrambling to explain Obama's drop in polling.

They should be racking their brains to explain why it took two and a half years.

Posted by: Ace at 12:49 PM | Comments (141)
Post contains 945 words, total size 6 kb.

Give him the click here.

Or watch below.

This guy makes an outstanding point. The numbers -- billions and trillions -- are so far beyond typical real-world comprehension (we have no sense of them) that this deficit and debt are incomprehensible and unreal as they stand.

To understand them, divide by one hundred million.

Let’s start with federal spending. The FY 2011 federal budget is approximately $3.82 trillion (3.82×10^12). Of that, approximately $2.17 trillion will be paid for by taxes collected and the remaining $1.65 trillion will be borrowed from our grandchildren. If we divide everything by 100 million, the numbers begin to make more sense.

We have a family that is spending $38,200 per year. The familyÂ’s income is $21,700 per year. The family adds $16,500 in credit card debt every year in order to pay its bills. After a long and difficult debate among family members, keeping in mind that it was not going to be possible to borrow $16,500 every year forever, the parents and children agreed that a $380/year premium cable subscription could be terminated. So now the family will have to borrow only $16,120 per year.

Posted by: Ace at 12:25 PM | Comments (76)
Post contains 201 words, total size 2 kb.

Apparently passing a $3.5 trillion spending plan with, um, only 1 trillion dollars in deficit is something to be excited about.

Only in America as Don King says.

The final tally was 235-193, with four Republicans supporting it and every Democrat opposing it.

It will now be considered by the Senate, where it is considered dead on arrival.

Earlier in the day, 124 Republicans had cast a vote in favor of an alternative budget from members of the Republican Study Committee (RSC) — more than the number of Republicans in opposition.

Republicans likely saw the RSC bill as a free vote that let them give a nod to deeper cuts, while Democratic opposition would ensure defeat of the bill.

But most Democrats voted "present," which forced Republican leaders to adjust their votes at the last second in order to ensure the defeat of the RSC budget. Even after adjusting to the Democratic procedural move, 119 Republicans voted for the RSC budget, and 120 Republicans voted against it, and it failed in a 119-136 vote.

And therein is the difference between Republicans and conservatives. The only reason not to support the deeper cuts is that you don't want to take the false hits of being called baby and old people killers. Two things...first, Democrats and the MFM (BIRM) are going to do that anyway. Second, when you cut the inevitable deal, with Obama and the Senate Democrats people will only remember the end point, not the starting point. You might as well start at the bigger number and compromise down from that. You'll get a better deal in the end. That of course assumes that Republicans (vice conservatives) think cutting more is "a better deal". I'm not sure there's a lot of proof to support that contention.

Added: I grudgingly admire the Democrats for playing hardball by voting "present" on the RSC budget and making the Republicans kill it. I advocated for Republicans to do the same thing with the Stupak Amendment back during the health care votes. The GOP refused to that at the time and gave the Democrats an easy out. It's like one side plays for keeps and the other not so much.

Added 2: I should be a bit more clear about Republicans v. conservative thing. I don't think Ryan is a squishy sellout, far from it. But he, Boehner and the rest of the leadership can't get too far out in front of what will get at least 218 GOP votes. The House majority is not monolithic (obviously). Not everyone of them is a tea party poster child. Leaders have to keep a heard of cats together. It's not a gig I'd sign up for.

Also...going on record to reform the major social "entitlement" programs? As Joey Biden would say, that's a Big F'n Deal.

Still, more cuts as a starting point leading to the inevitable compromise would have been better.

Posted by: DrewM at 10:40 AM | Comments (203)
Post contains 495 words, total size 3 kb.