I don't mean that to make fun of anybody. I include myself in that "our."

Me, personally? I am kind of really desperate for someone to come along I can just say "That's the guy!" to. (Or "That's the gal!")

Is Rick Perry a possible "That's the guy!" guy? I don't really know. Allah seems jazzed.

[W]hy not Perry? He has more than a decade of experience leading one of AmericaÂ’s biggest states, can boast economic growth at a moment when voters are desperate for relief from the malaise, would enjoy key regional support as a southerner, has budget-cutting cred to spare thatÂ’ll please tea partiers, and flashes enough personality to make him easily stand out at debates against other top-tier candidates like Romney, Pawlenty, and Daniels.
Rick Perry has that great quality I look for in a candidate: I don't know anything about him so I don't have any reason to be against him.

Perry has that "X Factor," and by "X Factor," I mean: I have no real idea who the heck he is.

Perry has something other candidates don't: I have not yet formed a hard opinion on why he is so awful.

But the way this year is going I give it 24 hours before pictures surface of him in a three-way with Elmo and Oscar the Grouch.

Posted by: Ace at 03:07 PM | Comments (582)
Post contains 232 words, total size 1 kb.

Parallel lines. Thus it is proven.

This is called "confirmation bias." We saw Denninger do this earlier when he claimed the Long Form's notation of a 7:24 time of birth proved it was fake, because gee, why did the long form have the same time of birth as the "Kenyan birth certificate" hoax? Gee, that must mean the Kenyan birth certificate is real, and this long form one is a forgery.

Or, gee, the 7:24 was included on the "Kenyan birth certificate" because Obama's time of birth was known for years -- it was on the short form. And it's also on the long form because, um, the long form is real and the short form is derived from it.

Oh, and having made such a foolish error, and having missed such an obvious possibility, he rewrote the post to cover his tracks. Credibility.

Confirmation bias is seizing upon any hope of evidence because you're not looking to evaluate a theory as true or false, but simply to prove it. Evidence isn't looked at skeptically. It's just all scooped up in a "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" effort.

Like the Truthers. Exactly like the Truthers. Own it.

Please don't send me these tips anymore. I am tired of having to see this half-baked crap. No one on the birther side ever seems to evaluate this crap themselves and determine if it's "ready for prime time." No, this bullshit is just shoveled out as it's crapped out of the bull, and everyone else is expected to then take it seriously and "disprove it if you can!"

How much bullshit can be thrown at the non-birthers here before we can step up and say, "Hey, how about you prove some crap first before demanding everyone else disprove your increasingly torturous illogic"?

So, Denninger has some smoking-gun proof, kind of like he did last time, except he didn't last time, but he does now.

He's an expert on this stuff, apparently, because he says so.

Seems to me the birth certificate conspiracists are choosing their experts according to whether or not the expert opinion is that the document is a forgery. If you say yes, you're an expert, even if you have no expertise whatsoever.

Meanwhile, if FoxNews goes out and just contacts a real expert -- like an expert in Photoshop, who actually makes a living fielding non-birth certificate conspiracy questions -- and that expert says it's genuine, well that doesn't count. Obviously that guy doesn't know his beans.

Unlike Denninger, of course. He's an expert. He says it's weird that a document has "layers;" an actual paid expert, not a blogger with free time on his hands, insists it is weird; of course we believe that latter guy.

Because we're expert-shopping, as lawyers say. Just looking for that one guy willing to claim what you need him to claim on the stand.

At this point, birtherism is a deliberately self-isolating subculture, in which adherents only talk with each other and reject outside voices. That's fine.

But let it be a subculture then. If you want birther porn, fine. Enjoy your birther porn.

But this is not a general interest discussion topic. This is for a hardcore fringe of conspiracists.

Oh, and WND has some truly startling new theories about the arcane topic of birth certificate registration numbering in Hawaii circa 1961.

They also have some Magic Beans. Both are delicious.

Posted by: Ace at 02:46 PM | Comments (155)
Post contains 611 words, total size 4 kb.

Welcome to your PC Navy.

James Gill, a spokesman for General Dynamics NASSCO in San Diego, said Monday the company suggested the name to honor its mostly Hispanic work force and the mostly Hispanic neighborhood, Barrio Logan, where the boat builder is located.

The other 13 cargo ships built by NASSCO for the Navy have been named after such notable Americans as explorers Meriwether Lewis and William Clark, and famed aviator Amelia Earhart.

Actually, all the ships in this class of supply ship have been named after notable explorers or figures in the US Navy. That is until the most recent ship, the USNS Medgar Evers. Evers of course was a noted civil rights activist who was assassinated in 1963, though he appears to have no connection to the US Navy. Chavez did serve two years in the Navy towards the end of WWII, which he described as, “the two worst years of my life.”

Congressman and Marine veteran Duncan Hunter of California is not pleased.

The decision “shows the direction the Navy is heading” by making a political statement instead of honoring Navy history and tradition, Hunter said in the statement.

“If this decision were about recognizing the Hispanic community’s contribution to our nation, many other names come to mind, including Marine Corps Sgt. Rafael Peralta, who was nominated for the Medal of Honor for action in Iraq,” Hunter said.

I disagree with Hunter on one point, as important as supply ships are, Sgt. Peralta's name deserves to be on a combat vessel.

The Navy's got a lot of problems with the way it names ships. We need to cut the crap about naming them after political figures and stick to the basics...states, cities, battles, heroes and traditional names like Constellation and Enterprise.

Before anyone points to this and cries "Racism!" let me just say, I'm opposed to naming the next carrier and a whole class after Gerald Ford. I'm sure he was a nice guy and I know he served in the Navy but no, just no. I think the George H.W. Bush is pushing it but barely makes the cut on a curve and the Vinson and Stennis should be right out.

Traditions are important. Sailors should serve on ships whose names reflect credit on the US Navy and provide an example of the services traditions. Political figures of any stripe or figures selected for reasons of racial pride, simply do not fit the bill.

Thanks to Slu for the heads up.

Posted by: DrewM at 01:58 PM | Comments (244)
Post contains 433 words, total size 3 kb.

more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 01:46 PM | Comments (40)
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

This is always sort of misleading, because we already knew she was "engaged in political activity." She's always been "engaged in political activity." She has PAC and an analyst post on FoxNews and comments on the issues of the day and endorses candidates and headlines rallies.

The question is if she's running.

So what's this?

The former Alaska governorÂ’s political action committee, 2012 CanÂ’t Come Fast Enough, has reportedly sent out a mailing to South Carolina Republicans.

“Taking back control of the House last year was only the first step,” Ms. Palin writes in the mailer first reported by The Fix. “Now you and I must fix our eyes on 2012. Our goal is to take back the White House and the Senate.”

Well, she's not running for the Senate (we assume), so... I don't know. Seems like the sort of thing she does whether running or not.

Since I've been on such a hot streak of predicting who's running and who's not, I won't offer an opinion here, because, when you're batting 1.000, it's okay to take a well-earned walk.

Speaking Of: Advisers say I was right about Trump being determined to run. (And I was also right, of course, in that he would not run, despite such determination.)

But he was apparently ready to think about it -- so much so that Trump had been meeting with political consultants on a weekly basis and talking to them on the phone even more frequently. Last Thursday they handed him a campaign plan complete with suggested names for a campaign manager, a finance director and even a team to run his political website.

“He was more serious than a lot of people realize,” John McLaughlin, one of the consultants working closely with Trump, said in an interview with ABC News. “He definitely had a path to victory -- it would have been a tough path.”

The article doesn't cite the real reason for Trump getting cold feet. We can guess about it. Birth Certificate thing, polls falling, general trouble on the horizon with his Democratic donations and previous positions getting more and more chatter. Maybe even the F-bombs in Vegas.

But we don't really know yet.

I really don't believe (no kidding here) it was all, as some said, just a promotional gimmick. Trump's ratings on that dumb show were very high, as he will be the first to tell you. And the second. And the third. And the fourth fifth and sixth.

I think he was serious, or at least convinced himself he was serious.

I'm glad he's not running. I really did fear him attempting the nomination, failing, and then going third party.

Posted by: Ace at 12:36 PM | Comments (241)
Post contains 461 words, total size 3 kb.

Via Hot Air, where Jon Huntsman says he believes in global warming because 90% of scientists do, a great article. Worth reading in full.

The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic. Watching this issue unfold has been amusing but, lately, worrying. This issue is tearing society apart, making fools out of our politicians.

LetÂ’s set a few things straight.

The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.

The whole "science" of global warming is based on a hunch. Carbon dioxide, itself, is not enough to warm the earth catastrophically. AGW skeptic and noted physicist Freeman Dyson has worked out the math-- even if you replaced every single particle of oxygen with carbon dioxide, the earth would only warm by about eight degrees. And since current CO2 levels are about 400 parts per million, obviously that is an absurd hypothetical.

But AGW posits there is a positive feedback mechanism. Some CO2 comes in, makes some more moist air, which itself is a greenhouse gas, which makes the earth warmer, which makes more CO2, which makes more moist air... And so on.

Almost the entirety of AGW theory is based on this postulated positive feeback mechanism.

There is no evidence for it. It's plausible, but a negative feedback mechanism is also plausible -- moist air makes clouds which reflects more sunlight away, mitigating any heating by adding some cooling shade.

Or maybe there's not really any strong feedback either way, neither positive nor negative.

The scientist points out that all the predictions of a positive feedback have failed. It is predicted that such positive feedback will produce masses of moist air over the tropics; there are none. We've sent lots of weather balloons to check, but no evidence of the key predictive claim of AGW "science."

They don't care. Because it's not science. It's faith.

At this point, official “climate science” stopped being a science. In science, empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory — that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.

Posted by: Ace at 12:22 PM | Comments (191)
Post contains 520 words, total size 3 kb.

"I can't believe this!" I exclaimed about something else entirely.

“After leaving the Governor’s office I told my wife about this event, which occurred over a decade ago,” he said in a statement. “I understand and deserve the feelings of anger and disappointment among my friends and family. There are no excuses and I take full responsibility for the hurt I have caused. I have apologized to Maria, my children and my family. I am truly sorry.”

The child was born before his 2003 run for governor.

The LATimes is vindicated here, a bit. They notoriously ran a slew of sex-problem stories about Schwarzenegger as he was challenging Gray Davis in the recall election. Many of these stories had little strong evidence to prove them, and really read like a liberal political hit, tossing out all sorts of charges against Schwarzenegger to protect their beloved Democrat.

And it was that. Of course it was that.

But it was also something else. I'm sure most people thought "Gee, there really seems to be something to all of this..." as I did.

Well, there was.

Under no circumstances would the LAT run such old gossip and thinly sourced smears against any non-Republican.

I know John Edwards was protected until it became absolutely impossible to do so any further. (Actually, they continued protecting him well after it became absolutely impossible to do so.)

And I know the media was pretty darned sure that Monica Lewinsky was a deranged stalker and there was nothing to that story and it was all just a smear and baseless innuendo and absolutely beneath them to even report. Why, exclusive, career-making scoops were spiked to protect Clinton.

(About which Matt Drudge says: Thanks for the millions of dollars, guys!)

Bill Maher is a contemptible, talentless midget jackass, but he does have a quote that I like: "All rumors are true." That's wildly overstated, of course, but it is something I think is mostly true.

Posted by: Ace at 09:46 AM | Comments (443)
Post contains 348 words, total size 2 kb.

Eurotrash, pure and simple. Nothing but fads and poses. And stupid. And also evil, as stupid frequently is.

An "extrajudicial execution," that's what many in the international community are now calling the killing of Osama bin Laden. The U.N.'s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has called for an investigation. According to a U.N. special rapporteur, if the U.S. commandos were under shoot-to-kill orders and did so without offering Bin Laden a "meaningful prospect of surrender," his killing could have been a "cold-blooded execution." In that case, the soldiers who shot him, together with President Obama and any other U.S. commanders who issued the kill orders, would in principle be guilty of murder and should be prosecuted as war criminals.

These claims are absurd.

They're only absurd if you assume the claims are offered for their surface content. They're not. They're offered to signal high-minded and superiority.

People who wear monocles as fashion statements don't wear them because they believe they need a monocle. They wear them to signal they're the sort of person who would wear a monocle without needing a monocle.

They fail at this, except among those stupid enough to want to signal this as well, but they're the only ones who count.

The article is by a Yale Law Professor, who I do suspect would not have mounted so fulsome a defense for President Bush. However, his case is strong. After discussing the inherent risk of accepting a "surrender" from a man who flouts every law and every decency, and uses trickery to murder civilians with hidden bombs, he sums up:

International lawyers today see the law of war as "humanitarian law." That's what they call it. They see the waving of a white flag as the exercise of a human right. This is moral and legal confusion. Surrender isn't a human right. It's a privilege of lawful combat. Terrorists don't lose all legal protections — for example, they can't be sadistically tortured, even if they torture their prisoners — but they forfeit the special rights earned by lawful combatants, including the right to stop the shooting by raising one's hands in purported surrender.

Most of the laws of war depend on a modicum of reciprocity: We give our enemy's soldiers certain rights in the hope that they will do the same for ours. Men who make war on innocent civilians and behead their prisoners live by a different law. They should expect to die by it as well.

Posted by: Ace at 09:29 AM | Comments (102)
Post contains 437 words, total size 3 kb.

The Daily Caller has a post saying more GOP candidates are likely to come out against the Ryan plan. They donÂ’t really make the case beyond talking to a couple of "analysts" but it got me thinking about how a candidate can and should handle what is likely to be a hot topic.

As Newt Gingrich demonstrated nicely over the weekend, the Ryan plan is something of a landmine for those running for the GOP nomination. I think itÂ’s safe to say Ryan and his plan are popular with the base (at least as it exists in the blogosphere and commentary class). The FY12 Budget Resolution passed by the House was RyanÂ’s work and included the outline of his reform plan making it the official position of the House GOP.

While not everyone will be on board with every aspect of his work, Ryan has certainly gained respect and credibility for putting forward a plan. This is opposed to Newt who has called for a “national conversation” on Medicare and the President who has given a speech or two and demagogued Ryan but mostly demagogued Ryan.

Proposing to reform Medicare is as politically dangerous as it is fiscally necessary. ItÂ’s unlikely that any reform proposal is going to be popular. The Weekly Standard tries to put a good light on some of the recent bad poll numbers on support for reform but if you are relying on properly worded poll questions, an informed electorate and balanced reporting, you are really just hoping for unicorns and rainbows. And thatÂ’s before the Democrats, unions and AARP to turn the scare and lie machine up to ELEVENTY!!!11!1. The fact that the political and media environment will be stacked against reform simply has to be taken as a given and baked into the cake.

Yes, there will be a core group of support that includes many conservatives, people who can do math and most of the tea party activists. Though a good bit of tea party support comes from seniors and those closing in on retirement, don’t be surprised if a significant percentage of that group turns out to be in a “me first” mood at the cost of some core principles (though at this point the Ryan plan does well with this group).

So knowing this and the fact that Medicare scare tactics (“They are going to cut 75 year old grandmothers who have played by the rules all their lives from Medicare) are going to be focused on swing states like Ohio and Florida (especially Florida), what is a GOP primary hopeful and eventually a nominee to do?

Embrace the plan? Punt? Attack it?

The answer will obviously depend on the candidate and their overall needs but my advice would beÂ…punt with a twist.

more...

Posted by: DrewM at 09:01 AM | Comments (130)
Post contains 1516 words, total size 10 kb.

Raising 10 million in 8 hours.

And Cindy Crawford making calls for him?

On Monday, Mitt Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom tweeted: “Cindy Crawford appears in a demonstration video at Romney call day to show people how to use ComMitt fundraising software.”

10 million dollars? Check.

Supermodel? Check?

"ComMitt" pun? Checkedy-check-check-check.

In related news: At Hot Air, Krauthammer and especially Brit Hume rip Gingrich on his mandate/right-wing social engineering comments.

Hume calls it "vintage Gingrich," and sums up: "He's a provocative thinker and a promiscuous talker."

Krauthammer notes that every Democrat will run an ad against his opponent running Gingrich's "right wing social engineering" and "radical" quotes, a deadly charge, and one that might just end any support for the Ryan plan. He sums it up as a "capital offense."

Posted by: Ace at 08:21 AM | Comments (241)
Post contains 147 words, total size 1 kb.