Yup!

But it actually suits her, and I don't mean that in a jokey way. The Bond Villain stuff looks okay on her.

"...I have three demands for the Western powers..."

It looks like the special dress uniform a ChiCom factory manager wears when he accepts the Hero of the Exalted Wrench award from Ho Chi Minh. Which was the idea informing Blofeld's outfits. Utilitarian, totalitarian, proletarian.

I can't do another silly post so I'll just link this here: Saudi lawyer calls a genie (jinn or djinn) to the stand.

A judge was accused of corruption. The lawyer defending him says the jinn possessed the judge and made him take bribes.

“The case of the corrupt judge in Madina has taken a new turn and witnessed new developments as the lawyer of an absent defendant has asked court to summon the jinn to testify,” the paper said.

“If what the accused judge said about the jinn, then this jinn could be bad and blasphemous…this jinn could have been sent by a bad sorcerer because witchcraft is bad and non-Islamic.”

Posted by: Ace at 08:52 AM | Comments (224)
Post contains 199 words, total size 2 kb.

Neat, but kind of silly. Just makin' it to make it.

If you watch the video, healthy young men can only shoulder the weapon with difficulty, the kick is just ridonculous. more...

Posted by: Ace at 08:40 AM | Comments (64)
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.

Hot Air highlights Zero Hedge's big find in the new numbers:

A month ago, we joked when we said that for Obama to get the unemployment rate to negative by election time, all he has to do is to crush the labor force participation rate to about 55%. Looks like the good folks at the BLS heard us: it appears that the people not in the labor force exploded by an unprecedented record 1.2 million. No, that's not a typo: 1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in one month!

So, all it took to budge the unemployment rate down to 8.3% is taking 1.2 million people out of the workforce altogether.

Posted by: Ace at 08:14 AM | Comments (96)
Post contains 136 words, total size 1 kb.

Change of heart or wallet. Either or.

We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women's lives.

The events of this week have been deeply unsettling for our supporters, partners and friends and all of us at Susan G. Komen. We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood. They were not.

Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation. We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair.

Our only goal for our granting process is to support women and families in the fight against breast cancer. Amending our criteria will ensure that politics has no place in our grant process. We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities.

It is our hope and we believe it is time for everyone involved to pause, slow down and reflect on how grants can most effectively and directly be administered without controversies that hurt the cause of women. We urge everyone who has participated in this conversation across the country over the last few days to help us move past this issue. We do not want our mission marred or affected by politics - anyone's politics.

Starting this afternoon, we will have calls with our network and key supporters to refocus our attention on our mission and get back to doing our work. We ask for the public's understanding and patience as we gather our Komen affiliates from around the country to determine how to move forward in the best interests of the women and people we serve.

We extend our deepest thanks for the outpouring of support we have received from so many in the past few days and we sincerely hope that these changes will be welcomed by those who have expressed their concern.

It's important to note the Komen Foundation never backed off from Planned Parenthood over abortion, it was simply because of the congressional investigations.

It's hard to imagine that they would have taken their initial decision without considering the blowback it would create. Now, everyone is annoyed at them.

I wonder if the Komen Foundation will be offering refunds to conservatives who rallied to their side or who had never donated to them before because of their support of Planned Parenthood.

Always remember though, on the right is fighting a culture war, never, ever the left. Liberalism is just "normal".

The left has once again shown that abortion is their highest value. It may not be questioned...ever.

UPDATE: If you donated in the wake of the original Planned Parenthood decision, you might be able to get your money back.

@MZHemingway: Just got off phone with @komenforthecure. My donation will be refunded within a week.

Posted by: DrewM at 07:37 AM | Comments (214)
Post contains 573 words, total size 4 kb.

If you haven't read Andy's post on Romney and conservatism, do that now. I'll wait.

Ok, just a follow up to yesterday's Romney-Trump thing or as I like to call it, "The most uncomfortable 3 minutes since I lost my virginity". Did anyone check to see if Romney was blinking "help me" in Morse Code?

Fear not though, as predicted Jen Rubin tells us that the Trump endorsement wasn't a bad thing for Mitt after all. In fact, annoying conservatives actually is part of his master plan.

Voters are getting their information so far from debates, paid media and earned media when the primary race comes to their state. So whether you think this was a good or foolish move, the Trump endorsement will be about the 100th item on the “most decisive things in the 2012 presidential race.”

Second, unless there is a total Romney meltdown or Rick Santorum catches a wave, Romney will be the GOP nominee. He increasingly will focus, if he is smart, on explaining his policy agenda and engaging the White House. That means he likely will view policy proposals, endorsements, speeches and debates through a general-election lens. In that vein, having the right wing bent out of shape on a few issues wonÂ’t be seen as the worst thing in the world. He isnÂ’t running as keeper of the conservative crown jewels; HeÂ’s trying to win the presidency.

Yeah.

Every candidate, liberal and conservative, has to move to the center a bit after winning the primary. That's why where they start is very important. If Mitt moves much further left, Obama's going to say, "Um, hi Mitt. What are you doing over here?"

Thankfully, there is a candidate who will make this all go away. SMOD has his first introductory ad out. more...

Posted by: DrewM at 06:33 AM | Comments (326)
Post contains 310 words, total size 2 kb.

When Romney made his "poor" comments, the blowback from conservatives was immediate and severe. For some it may have been a "you can't say that" reaction to the politics of it, but for others it was much deeper.

Ace's first post downplayed it, but he mentioned that Slublog, Drew and I had a different view. Later on, the WSJ (may be paywalled), Krauthammer, Erick Erickson and, hell, even James Carville identified the real problem with the comment, and all of these were along the lines of the points we were making.

But the best distillation I've seen of the depth of Romney's gaffe comes from Jim Pethokoukis this morning in a blog post entitled Mitt Romney, Meet Jack Kemp.

Jack Kemp believed in the wonder-working power of entrepreneurial capitalism to make all Americans more prosperous and more capable of achieving their dreams. I cannot imagine Kemp talking about “the poor” the way Mitt Romney did the other day.

Jimmy P. goes on to quote Kemp at length, but here's an excerpt:

In my opinion, people of all colors and income levels donÂ’t hate the rich. They want to get rich. TheyÂ’re more interested in generating wealth than they are in redistributing wealth. They want to own property, educate their children and build a nest egg that can be passed on to their heirs. Unfortunately, some arenÂ’t able to access the same ladder of opportunity that is so readily available to the majority. . . .

Kemp's view can be expressed shorthand as "the American Dream."

Romney's comment went to the core of the difference between what I believe as a conservative and what the class warrior in chief in the White House believes, and Romney wound up in the wrong camp.

Conservatives don't oppose the panoply of government welfare programs (euphemistically called a "safety net"), teachers' unions and big government in isolation or just because, hey, the Democrats are for all this stuff so we must be against it.

We believe that dependency on government programs robs free people of their human dignity. We believe that teachers unions work in opposition to quality education (see Waiting for "Superman"), and we believe that big government, in addition to being unmoored from the Constitution, saps the economic engine that benefits all Americans, rich and poor alike.

We also believe that a rising tide lifts all boats.

Ben Domenech (accurately IMO) theorizes that the instant gaffe was Romney's clumsy attempt to stay "on message", but for whatever reason, Mitt Romney simply cannot articulate the core philosophical differences between our side and the left holistically or well.

Electable? Don't bet on it.

Posted by: andy at 04:33 AM | Comments (317)
Post contains 448 words, total size 4 kb.

Happy Friday! Yeah! Woooooo!

The only thing I've got for you this morning is this fantastic article about why SOPA failed culturally. It's really worth a read.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:56 AM | Comments (157)
Post contains 35 words, total size 1 kb.

Paul Ekman and Human Emotions

For much of the 20th century among anthropologists it was an article of faith that nearly all human behavior is culturally based and not innate. We are all blank slates at birth until molded by our cultures.

But a young psychologist, Paul Ekman, suspected that this wasn't quite true. And in 1957 he was able to show that there are 7 facial expressions - anger, disgust, fear, shame, joy, sadness, and surprise - that are understood and used by all known human populations - even among tribes that had had no exposure to outside contacts and people blind from birth.

Since these were universal, they must be biological in origin and so part of all of our inherited neural firmware.

Afterwards he went on to create FACS, a complete catalog of all known human facial expressions. With 43 facial muscles a human face could possibly make over 8 billion unique expressions - but it turns out that in practice we only use a very small subset of at most 10,000.

Later he began investigating microexpressions - fleeting facial expressions that last less than 1/10 of a second. Because they're so fast we generally don't consciously see them but they do color our sub-conscious perceptions.

And because microexpressions are involuntary, they're also very hard to fake or avoid. Since it turns out that people tend to use specific microexpressions when they're lying, the police, FBI, Secret Service, and the CIA have become very interested in Ekman's findings:

Most people do not seem to perceive microexpressions in themselves or others. In the Wizards Project, previously called the "Diogenes Project", Drs. Paul Ekman and Maureen O'Sullivan studied the ability of people to detect deception. Of the thousands of people tested, only a select few were able to accurately detect when someone was lying. The Wizards Project researchers named these people "Truth Wizards". To date, the Wizards Project has identified just over 50 people with this ability after testing nearly 20,000 people. Truth Wizards use microexpressions, among many other cues, to determine if someone is being truthful.

Below the fold is a video showing Paul Ekman in action. more...

Posted by: Maetenloch at 06:11 PM | Comments (921)
Post contains 1192 words, total size 10 kb.

Good news, if it goes past the notional stage into reality.

Roseanne Barr would not get many votes but, owing to her prominence (by which I mean, weight) she would get some.

It should also be noted she is authentically, in-the-gut (which is ginormous) a blue-collar socialist. At least as theory goes. Pretty sure she minimizes her tax burden, of course (and speaking of burden -- did you know burden is a synonym for weight?).

"The Democrats and Republicans have proven that they are servants -- bought and paid for by the 1% -- who are not doing what's in the best interest of the American people," Barr said.

...

"I will barnstorm American living rooms," she said in a candidate questionnaire submitted to the Green Party. "Mainstream media will be unable to ignore me, but more importantly they will be unable to overlook the needs of average Americans in the run-up to the 2012 election."

She has filed her paperwork, she says.

Via @danriehl

Posted by: Ace at 04:13 PM | Comments (274)
Post contains 181 words, total size 1 kb.

You know who's not a fan?

Anyway. Here is Allah's excerpt from a Washington Post story.

Panetta believes there is strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June — before Iran enters what Israelis described as a “zone of immunity” to commence building a nuclear bomb. Very soon, the Israelis fear, the Iranians will have enough enriched uranium in deep underground facilities to make a weapon — and only the U.S. could then stop them militarily…

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak may have signaled the prospect of an Israeli attack soon when he asked last month to postpone a planned U.S.-Israel military exercise that would culminate in a live-fire phase in May. Barak apologized that Israel couldnÂ’t devote the resources to the annual exercise this springÂ…

Israelis are said to believe that a military strike could be limited and contained. They would bomb the uranium-enrichment facility at Natanz and other targets; an attack on the buried enrichment facility at Qom would be harder from the air. Iranians would retaliate, but Israelis doubt the action would be an overwhelming barrage, with rockets from Hezbollah forces in Lebanon. One Israeli estimate is that the Jewish state might have to absorb 500 casualtiesÂ…

“You stay to the side, and let us do it,” one Israel official is said to have advised the United States. A “short-war” scenario assumes five days or so of limited Israeli strikes, followed by a U.N.-brokered cease-fire. Israelis are said to recognize that damage to the nuclear program might be modest, requiring another strike in a few years.

But read Allah for other background. Stuff like:

IÂ’m skeptical, but the degree of saber-rattling at the Herzliya Conference today was off the charts. First the IDFÂ’s intel chief estimated that Iran has enough uranium to make four bombs, the first of which could be ready in a year.

A government controls the clock in these matters. Obama pretends there is no clock on Iran because he does not wish to do anything-- thus, he does not wish to raise the understanding of the public about the issue, which would tend to demand action.

So if Israel is telling the people about The Clock -- putting it in their mind that something must be done, and soon -- then it stands to reason that the most obvious reason for this is that they are preparing their public for such action.

Exit Question: What kind of a game is Panetta playing to announce the three month window in which an ostensible ally will be making a lifesaving attack?

Posted by: Ace at 02:42 PM | Comments (310)
Post contains 458 words, total size 3 kb.