Happy Wednesday.

Hey, that was fast. Google employees say the company plans to offer HUD glasses by the end of the year.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear an affirmative action case out of the University of Texas. The last time they considered race-conscious school practices, the only thing that saved affirmative action was Justice O'Connor's decision that it needed to continue for about twenty-five years. Justice O'Connor was replaced by the much more conservative Justice Alito. Oh, and Justice Kagan has recused herself from the case. Depending on whether or not President Obama is reelected, this may be the last chance to kill state-sanctioned racial discrimination, in schools at least, for the next thirty or so years.

Skinny jeans may be giving people nerve compression, digestion issues, back pain, yeast infections. Heh. Is this why hipsters always look so pinched these days?

The legal fees for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac execs have topped $110 million. Taxpayers, you paid $47 million of it.

The AP's and the NYTimes' hysteria over NYPD's intelligence-gathering program directed at finding Muslim extremists continues, with universities joining the hand-wringing. Mayor Bloomberg defends the program: "I don't know why keeping the country safe is antithetical to the values of Yale. . . . Of course we're going to look at anything that's publicly available in the public domain. We have an obligation to do so, and it is to protect the very things that let Yale survive."

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:51 AM | Comments (156)
Post contains 253 words, total size 2 kb.

Drinking: It Really, Really Works

Good news for you: It's not just your drunken imagination, drinking really does make you wittier.

Well, now a new study shows having a drink might not just give you the courage to start a conversation, but might also actually help inspire your wit.

Researchers in the U.S. found men who had taken enough alcohol to get mildly drunk solved more problems demanding verbal resourcefulness than sober men could, and did it more quickly.

Intuitive insights into tricky word association problems came more frequently to men who were intoxicated but not legally drunk, says psychology graduate student Andrew Jarosz.

And buzzed thinking is... better thinking:

Volunteers saw three words - for example, peach, arm and tar - and had to come up with a fourth word that forms a phrase with each of them, like pit.

Sober men solved solved approximately six of the problems correctly, taking about 15.2 seconds to answer each.

But those participants who were at peak intoxication solved about nine problems correctly, taking an average of 11.5 seconds to come up with the solution.

So considering the quality of the comments posted here recently well I think you all can guess where I'm going with this.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:55 PM | Comments (595)
Post contains 1172 words, total size 12 kb.

Keep your Santorums, Romneys, Pauls, Gingrichs, Generic Republicans, SMODs.

I'm aiming for a bacon-induced coma by mid-October.
Open Thread.

(Edited my medical condition for accuracy)

Posted by: CAC at 02:54 PM | Comments (235)
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.

I know, I know, ya'll are tired of the Santorum pile-on and Ace already wrote about the Satan remarks. I'm not so bothered by the idea that Satan works evil in the world or that a GOP candidate for president (or, as Santorum was when he made the remark, merely a failed politician) would say it out loud.

Rather, Santorum's Satan remarks are more disturbing because they reveal his counter-factural, counter-historical, and entirely fictitious belief that America had a great and "pre-eminent" past that has slowly been eroded over the past 200 years. Here's Santorum:

If you were Satan, who would you attack, in this day and age? There is no one else to go after, other than the United States. And that’s been the case for now almost 200 years, once America’s pre-eminence was sown by our great Founding Fathers. He didn’t have much success in the early days—our foundation was very strong, in fact, is very strong. But over time, that great, acidic quality of time corrodes away even the strongest foundations. And Satan has done so, by attacking the great institutions of America, using those great vices of pride, vanity and sensuality…

Forbes' Josh Barro notes the real problem:

LetÂ’s think back to what America was like almost 200 years ago. Slavery was legal, indeed enshrined in our Constitution by our Founding Fathers. The federal government was forcibly removing American Indians from their lands, leading to thousands of deaths. Women couldnÂ’t vote and were limited in their rights to own property. And yet, Santorum sees Satan wielding more influence and having more success in America today than he did then.

These were and---to the extent similar race- and gender-based ills continue trouble us today in subtler forms---are great evils. Santorum's rosy view of the past is, quite simply, insupportable, even on the terms he proposes: that Satan's influence is greater today, having "corroded" the "strong foundation" of the early United States.

However much he dislikes Roe v. Wade, Santorum can't possibly believe that disfranchisement of women and the prohibition on female property ownership were a vastly lesser evil. But that doesn't stop this ahistorical claim, quite popular among the usual suspects, that the country is going to hell in a handbasket and it would all be better if only we could return to the "good old days."

As Barro notes, the good old days weren't all that good unless you were white, male, and a property-owner:

By contending that America has fallen from grace relative to 200 years ago, Santorum shows major blind spot for injustices committed against out-groups.

The exit polls for Santorum's 2000 victory over Democratic challenger Ron Klink are instructive. Santorum got 57 percent of men. He got only 48 percent of women. That's a helluva gender gap.

h/t to @guypbenson

Alright, alright: Maybe Roe isn't the best comparison, since abortion is murder. Can you imagine those debate questions, though? "Mr. Santorum, do you believe that America was better with slavery than with abortion?" It'll be a slaughter.

Worse, put the question to pro-life women voters: "Would you give up the right to own property and the right to vote, if in exchange abortion were unlawful?" Anybody want to guess how that'd shake out?

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:16 PM | Comments (625)
Post contains 552 words, total size 4 kb.

Yeah, I'm tired of Rush Limbaugh's schtick. He doesn't avoid endorsements in a primary for any high-fallutin' reason; he avoids it because it's controversial and causes a great deal of discord, and generates anger at the host.

That's prudent. That's good business sense. But it's not gutsy or whatever else he wants to call himself for it.

Meanwhile, his other schtick is insisting that no matter how out-of-sync with political reality a candidate may be, that's just awesome, because that's how we beat the left or something.

Conservatism -- works every time it's tried! He used to mean this as policy, but lately the concept has morphed into campaigning.

So it works, every time, except in the cases it doesn't (Sharron Angle, Christine O'Donnell). He offers no caveats to his absolute rule on this point to include these exceptional cases.

This just happens to be exactly what his audience wants to hear. Because if I, a doctor, come in to tell you you're either going to have to lose your leg or lose your life, you of course do not want to hear that, and will immediately ask "Is there a way I can both keep my leg and my life?"

Which is a perfectly human response, of course.

But if the doctor knew of a way to get that outcome, he'd be telling you about that, not about deciding between your leg and your life.

So most conservatives do not want to concede that the only good option they have for beating Obama is to vote for a guy they don't like very much, Mitt Romney. It's the "life or leg" quandry. And it's unattractive, but it is what it is.

It's reality. Reality is often unpleasant.

But Limbaugh's audience doesn't want to hear that, and Limbaugh is too cowardly to confess that maybe, sometimes, realistic choices are kind of awful.

So he continues "bravely" telling his patients they can have it all.

And anyone who disagrees with this prognosis -- and thinks that maybe the life is in danger if we continue on this particular course of treatment -- is in "CYA" mode, because, see, we're the cowards for taking a minority position, the Conservatively Incorrect position, whereas Limbaugh is the Brave Warrior for taking the popular side of the issue. As usual.

See? I catch hell every day for not cocooning my readership, and disagreeing with them -- often sharply -- but I'm the coward, and Doctor Let Me Tell You Exactly Want You Want To Hear is the courageous one.

Oh, right, I know how he squares this circle: See, I'm pandering too, but chiefly to people who don't even constitute my readership. I'm pandering to the Beltway Cocktail Circuit or something, currying favor with liberals who hate my guts and would never, in a thousand years, offer me some kind of paying gig.

But I'm pandering to them because I'm weak and cowardly, even though it would make far more sense to pander to the majority of my actual readership.

Like Limbaugh does.

But at no point has it ever occurred to me that Gee, I'm really pissing people off here and it's never crossed my mind that Say, maybe I should do what Limbaugh does and just tell the audience it's right.

I really want Obama out of office. Unlike some who merely mouth the words -- I honestly do not know if America will survive a second term.

If that notion-- We absolutely cannot afford to lose this one and reassure ourselves that "At least we stood for Principle" -- puts me at odds with others, so be it.

They say Obama's good for conservative media.

I don't know if that's true or not. It's not really reflected in my own statistics. So perhaps I don't face the conflict others do.

All I know is that Obama's re-election will be the god-damned death knell for America, so excuse the hell out of me if I am not in the frame of mind to fuck about.

By the Way, Rush: You've learned well from the Left. If you disagree with someone, make sure you assign bad motives or bad character to that person. Don't just take his stated objections as his actual motives; assign to him the worst motives you can conceive of, like cowardice and CYA stuff.

But if that's the game, so be it.

How are your ratings, Rush?

Are they up?

Good for you. Good for fuckin' you.

Posted by: Ace at 01:46 PM | Comments (625)
Post contains 787 words, total size 5 kb.

Vowing a coup.

A mostly peaceful coup, as JWF might say.

Quote:

"USA TODAYÂ’s editorial is right to say that Occupy might lack clear goals on how to move forward, but the movement has accomplished its main original goal: to protest these injustices, not by simply holding a rally and going home, but by keeping the rally going to underscore the seriousness of this problem. Your piece accuses the protesters of sitting around and doing nothing. So maybe they should take up their Second Amendment-sanctioned guns and storm Wall Street and our nationÂ’s capitals. If our country doesnÂ’t change, it could very well come to that one day."

Ben Shapiro notes that this threatening letter is welcomed by USAToday without a single tut (nevermind the more popular tandem variety). He invites you to imagine if the author had not been a member of Occupy, but rather a member of the Tea Party.

Posted by: Ace at 01:14 PM | Comments (181)
Post contains 204 words, total size 1 kb.

I don't even know what that means.

But the actual news is that Hugo Chevez has another tumor.

Hugo Chávez confirmed Tuesday that he traveled to Cuba for medical tests, where doctors found a new lesion that will require surgery to remove.

"The test in Havana found a lesion in the same spot where the other tumor was removed one year ago," Chávez said on state television.

We can root for cancer to beat this tyrant or that one, but the sad fact is that tyranny is a stable form of government, in the sense that it's stable precisely because it's already as low as it can fall.

When you've fallen from the street, into the gutter, and then into the cesspit, you're "stable." Absent some vigorous effort, you'll remain in the cesspit, and die there.

It's liberal democracy which is unstable -- and must be protected, lest it take the natural course of a tall, graceful structure and crash to earth due to erosion and gravity.

But one tyrant's death will more than likely beget another tyrant. The tyrant is dead; long live the tyrant.

If Obama had a lick of brains or reverence for America, he'd bear this in mind as he increasingly relies upon claims that the President's political needs trump the Constitution.

Posted by: Ace at 12:45 PM | Comments (127)
Post contains 246 words, total size 2 kb.

Orwell wept.

But today's media cheers.

It's "tough" and manly to lie like a little child.

"In terms of Keystone, as you all know, the history here is pretty clear. And the fact is because Republicans decided to play political with Keystone, their action essentially forced the administration to deny the permit process because they insisted on a time frame in which it was impossible to completely approve the pipeline," Carney said when asked about the pipeline by ABC News' Jake Tapper.

Later in the briefing, Carney says it is the Republicans' fault.

Jake Tapper: "How can you say that you have an all the above on approach if the President turned down the Keystone pipeline? And you blame the Republicans for making it political."

Carney: "But the President didn't turn down the Keystone pipeline. There was a process in place, with long precedent, run out of the State Department because of the issue of the pipeline crossing an international boundary, that required an amount of time for proper for review after an alternate route was deemed necessary through Nebraska at the request of the Republican Governor of Nebraska and other stakeholders in Nebraska and the region that needed to play out, to be done appropriately. You can't review and approve a pipeline, the route for which doesn't even exist.

"The Republicans were the ones who unfortunately decided because they were looking for scalps, I guess, or wins in a situation where they somehow found themselves on the wrong side of cutting taxes for 160 million Americans last December."

By the way, the "process" Carney speaks of just happened to delay the pipeline until after the 2012 elections.

Coincidentally enough.

Via Star Khan @ReincePriebus

Posted by: Ace at 12:15 PM | Comments (163)
Post contains 314 words, total size 2 kb.

Are you kidding me?

This morning's newspapers report an ominous development in the ObamaCare litigation, now pending in the U.S. Supreme Court:

The Court posted a seemingly minor but potentially portentous administrative change, which suggests it might postpone delivering a final ruling on the constitutionality of ObamaCare until the middle of 2016!

Specifically, the high Court increased the time it will devote to hearing oral arguments on whether the health care mandate is a tax for purposes of something called the Tax Anti-Injunction Act.

...

The Tax Anti-Injunction Act forbids the Supreme Court to hear a case on the constitutionality of a tax until the tax has actually been levied on a citizen.

The Court can't do this -- to decide they can't rule on ObamaCare until the "tax" is levied decides the issue in order to postpone the issue.

Obama is contending, now, that the penalty is effectively a "tax." If he prevails on that, he most likely prevails on the case. If the penalty is a tax, then most likely the Court would find it constitutional.

If the Court decides they can't rule until the "tax" is levied, citing the Anti-Injunction Act for taxes, then they've already decided it's a tax. They will have decided it's a tax, in order to defer a further examination of whether or not it's a tax.

This is bootstrapping or reductio ad absurdum -- assuming the answer to the question in order to decide the question.

Thanks to @drewmtips

Posted by: Ace at 11:45 AM | Comments (164)
Post contains 273 words, total size 2 kb.

Background.

Houston radio host Michael Berry spoke out against allegations that he was involved in a hit-and-run accident outside of a gay night club, slamming the media and saying he has been treated like “a member of Al Qaeda.”

Berry opened his KTRH radio show about the topic this morning and said the allegations against him were overblown and inaccurate. He said KPRC Local 2 reported the story last Wednesday to help boost its ratings during sweeps week.

...

Berry, who served as a city council member in Houston, was accused last week of allegedly being involved in a hit-and-run outside of a gay night club on Jan. 31. Berry has not been charged in the incident.

...

Berry said police felt pressure to probe the case further because of the media reports, and there was a “determination to send him to jail.” Several media outlets reported on a video that showed Berry in the gay bar the night of the incident, but Berry said the video only proves he drank a beer and used the restroom.

It didnÂ’t prove that he committed a crime, he said.

Here's the audio of his response.

The bar in question, where Berry says "some" people "might" have been gay, is T.C.'s Show Bar. Content warning on the ad (for two shirtless dudes embracing) which promises some karaoke and "Drag Races."

The guy's got a point about media bias. Obviously, the media is pushing this because they love saying "gay bar" and "conservative talk show host."

On the other hand... he is married. To a woman. Presumably she wasn't at TC's Show Bar with him, or else he probably would have said so.

Listening to his response, he's mostly rebutting claims made that he himself is a gay-basher (I don't hear anyone quoted actually saying this, but I assume, the left being the left, someone did claim that). So he's arguing he's friendly to gays and in fact bashes the gay-bashers.

So... an argument that he's not hypocritical?

He's in a tough spot, obviously.

I don't know what to say. I can only think of Howard Stern's observation that if gays are told to stay in the closet, they will, and they'll grow up to marry your daughters.

Which isn't an ideal situation for either party.

Posted by: Ace at 11:03 AM | Comments (283)
Post contains 424 words, total size 3 kb.