Ehhhh... I guess this is a story.

Viewers will cast their votes with their clickers Tuesday.
If you're a Couric fan who misses those bygone mornings on the Today show, then click to Good Morning America, where Couric, now an ABC star, is subbing all week for co-host Robin Roberts.

But maybe you love the "mama grizzly" panache of Sarah Palin. And maybe you're still miffed by how Couric, then anchoring the CBS Evening News, went to town on Palin during the 2008 presidential race. Then tune into NBC's Today, where, during the 8 a.m. (EDT) hour, Palin will serve as a guest host at Couric's old haunt. (Take that, Katie!)

The politics here are complicated: If Palin "wins" in the ratings, than NBC, the most left-wing of all the networks, wins.

If Palin loses (which I don't think she will, but if she does lose) than NBC could lose the thing that makes Today very profitable, which is being able to brag they haven't lost in the ratings to Good Morning America or any other competitor since 1995.

So... to the extent we care at all, do we want NBC continuing to raking in premium advertising prices for its low-cost, profitable morning show?

Anyway, they'll be on tomorrow.

Posted by: Ace at 01:45 PM | Comments (121)
Post contains 229 words, total size 1 kb.

From a soon-to-be-released... um, ebook.

“It became an open secret that he was using painkillers in sufficient dosages to keep him standing through the two-hour debates,” write the authors of “Inside the Circus.”

Well, it's plausible. Doesn't make it true.

One anecdote is that a couple of campaign managers for rival campaigns heard him belting out "I've Been Working On The Railroad" in the bathroom.

Eh.

One thing I think this illustrates is how subject to chance events are. I hear a lot of suggestions that "The Establishment" kept certain people from running (Palin, of course, and Christie, and Jindal, and Pence, and etc.) and "engineered" Mitt Romney's apparent triumph. A push here, a whispered word there, a finger on the balance over this way, that sort of thing.

This whole tendency to ascribe every series of events to a malignly calculating super-intelligence is as silly as ascribing sickness to spirits. It's an attempt to turn a complicated series of events into a brief, digestible Narrative which is nice and simple (but also wrong).

And it's also an attempt at anthropomorphization of bad luck. You can't be angry at bad fortune, because bad fortune is not a human being with sentience and moral agency. You can hate bad luck, but it's not really like hating a human being. It's a lot more satisfying to postulate that this was not Bad Fortune, but Malevolent Design, and hate the conveniently-human designers behind it all.

This is a lifetime ago, but cast your minds back to August 2011: Perry was not only beating Romney, but curb-stomping him, with virtually every group.

He seemed invincible. All he had to do was show up to a debate and offer a reasonable accounting of himself and appear to have it together and he'd have been the nominee in a walking, wrapping it up by the end of January.

But he didn't. And possibly that was due to his recent back-surgery and the painkillers he needed just to stand for so long.

A late start in thinking about the presidency, a very ill-timed surgery... And history is changed.

And that's how things really work. Not a Conspiracy by an Elite (which, of course, is routinely denigrated as pretty f'n' stupid and incompetent, except when it comes to Conspiracy), but one chance event leading to another, and so on, until unpredictable outcomes occur.

Posted by: Ace at 12:54 PM | Comments (211)
Post contains 409 words, total size 3 kb.

First observations: Well, I'm being inconsistent here, because I'm annoyed that it's just like the first one (so why bother?) and simultaneously annoyed it's not just like the first one (based on what I see here, they do not go to Mars, but jackass around on a Blade-Runner-ish Earth).

Then again, I like future depictions of Earth.
more...

Posted by: Ace at 12:09 PM | Comments (284)
Post contains 65 words, total size 1 kb.

That's what a former FBI counterintelligence officer reveals.

The Independent (UK) highlights the six hundredth revelation that Iraqi informant "Curveball" lied. They bury the actual new news -- that the FBI felt it had to move quickly to arrest and deport Anna Chapman, for fear that someone close to Obama was about to snork her, and get caught in a "honey trap" (sex, followed by extortion for secrets/influence).

That someone "close" to Obama? A "sitting cabinet official," this FBI counterintelligence officer says.

Another revelation in the series is the real reason why the FBI swooped on Russian spy Anna Chapman in 2010. Top officials feared the glamorous Russian agent wanted to seduce one of US President Barack Obama's inner circle. Frank Figliuzzi, the FBI's head of counterintelligence, reveals how she got "closer and closer to higher and higher ranking leadership... she got close enough to disturb us".

The fear that Chapman would compromise a senior US official in a "honey trap" was a key reason for the arrest and deportation of the Russian spy ring of 10 people, of which she was a part, in 2010. "We were becoming very concerned," he says. "They were getting close enough to a sitting US cabinet member that we thought we could no longer allow this to continue." Mr Figliuzzi refuses to name the individual who was being targeted.

Notice that at no point in the paragraph above
the photo is the targeted "individual's" gender implied.

Posted by: Ace at 11:18 AM | Comments (332)
Post contains 279 words, total size 2 kb.

Actually, it's a combination "School of Theology" and "School of Asian Medicine," which, checking the website, seems to mean acupuncture.

As I read that back to myself, it sounds snarky. It's actually not meant to be. I mention it to note why you probably haven't heard of "Oikos University."

This report says that five people were hurt. One is dead (per FoxNews, broadcast), so I imagine this means that four more are hurt, at last count.

Posted by: Ace at 10:54 AM | Comments (54)
Post contains 98 words, total size 1 kb.

And he claims a "strong" popular majority supported the law. What?

"Ultimately I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary event by overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected congress."

ObamaCare passed by like 10 votes in the House. Furthermore, that was a very temporary minority-- the public did not like ObamaCare, and protested their hearts out to convey that message.

The Democrats defied democratic norms by passing it. They did not uphold such norms.

The public, given its chance to weigh in on ObamaCare through voting, immediately delivered the Democrats an electoral shellacking, kicking over 60 of them out of Congress.

Meanwhile, the 30th consecutive poll shows the public favoring repealing the law over keeping it by double digits.

In what sense is ObamaCare actually the democratically-determined choice of the public?

In no senses at all. The public was against it then and remain against t.

The Democratic Party broke faith with democracy itself, choosing to rule against the wishes of the public, rather than with those wishes, and our Resident Obama gets in front of a podium and claims it would put a dagger into the heart of democracy to overturn this monstrosity?

Posted by: Ace at 10:42 AM | Comments (302)
Post contains 248 words, total size 2 kb.

If you remember, ABCNews ran a police-station surveillance video of the night George Zimmerman was brought in for questioning, right after the shooting. The video, they claimed, did not show injuries.

There were a couple of problems with this assertion. The first was that ABCNews threw a useless chyron over the most important image on the tape -- over George Zimmerman's head -- prompting the question: Why would you obscure what you claim is tell tale evidence?

For another thing, if you look at the tape without that chyron blocking your view, you can see something that looks like a gash on the back of his head.

Well, the Orlando Sentinel says ABCNews showed a new version of the tape and it appears that Zimmerman's head is in fact gashed, just as thought.

Reporter Matt Gutman said the clearer video shows "what appear to be a pair of gashes or welts on George Zimmerman's head."

Neighborhood Watch volunteer Zimmerman has said he shot 17-year-old Trayvon in self-defense. The video shows Zimmerman arriving at the Sanford Police Department within an hour after the shooting.

Gutman said the video had been "clarified" by Forensic Protection Inc. Former FBI Special Agent Brad Garrett told ABC that the clearer video shows "marks on the back of Mr. Zimmerman's head."

By the way, that's the same reporter who claimed there were no signs of injury on Zimmerman -- and aggressively attacked people who said otherwise on Twitter.

(Incidentally, he also Tweeted the headline: Bloggers Cherry-Pick From Social Media to Cast Trayvon Martin as a Menace. In other words, they plucked out the stuff that suggested criminality or bad behavior, and ignored stuff like "thank you for wishing me a happy birthday."

Um, you're saying we should report stuff like "thank you for wishing me a happy birthday"? That's cherry-picking?

Isn't that a very basic type of news judgment? Stuff that everyone says is not newsworthy. Atypical stuff is newsworthy. And in a case where the media has cast Trayvon Martin as a choirboy who, and this is the critical part, would never behave aggressively or start a fight, it is relevant that he seems to enjoyed pot and maybe some burglary too.)

And a neighbor (unnamed) says Zimmerman was bruised and bandaged the next day.

"I saw George. He was banged up. His head had two big bandages, that weren't flat, had a bump on them," the neighbor, who did not want to be identified, said.

He described where the injuries were.

"I seen him have a big bandage on his nose and his nose swollen. On the side, where his eyes were at, it was swollen," he said.

Just One Minute says the walkbacks are becoming a stampede.

The media cooks all these stories, and then acts arrogant and belligerent when we notice they're cooking these stories. That makes them angry.

You're calling me a LIAR?!!?!, screamed the guy who just lied to your face.

Meanwhile, CNN ignores a witness -- "John," a neighbor -- who says that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman, and pushes a witness who says the opposite.

Sort of. Actually, this witness did not even see the scuffle, but only came over to see what was going on after the gunshot. At that point, she saw Zimmerman above Trayvon-- but how could it be otherwise? Trayvon was dead.

CNN claims that John is the "only witness" who supports Zimmerman's account. But this woman, Mary Cutcher, did not see the scuffle by her own testimony. She guesses it was Trayvon crying out, because the crying out ended with the gunshot-- but that's an inference, and it is easily explainable that Zimmerman might have been crying out but stopped when he pulled the trigger. After all, he just plugged a guy in the heart.

Why would he continue crying out? For help in moving the body?

Despite the fact that "John," who witnessed the whole scuffle, says that Trayvon was on top and Zimmerman was crying out for help, CNN has enlisted "experts" to analyze the 911 calls and they have determined conclusively tentatively that they cannot say Zimmerman was crying out.

Tom Maguire notes that voice-analysts own protocols call for them getting the suspected subject to speak the same lines as those on the tape being analyzed, with the same level of excitement. That is, if you're trying to see if a guy is the one who screamed "HELP ME" on tape, you ask him to scream "HELP ME" and then compare those samples.

They didn't have that hear at all -- the "experts" say "Sure, we'd like to have that, but in a pinch, we can just guestimate."

Rocket Science

Contrary to popular belief, even rocket science is not rocket science.

Posted by: Ace at 09:31 AM | Comments (300)
Post contains 808 words, total size 6 kb.

Via Hot Air, a reminder that there's no point buying a ticket possibly worth $500 million unless you keep that ticket in your sole and exclusive physical possession.

Workers at the fast-food joint who pooled their cash for tickets are furious at a colleague who claims she won with a ticket she bought for herself and has no intention of sharing.

“We had a group plan, but I went and played by myself. [The ‘winning’ ticket] wasn’t on the group plan,” McDonald’s “winner’’ Mirlande Wilson 37, told The Post yesterday, insisting she alone bought one of the three tickets nationwide that will split a record $656 million payout.

“I was in the group, but this was separate. The winning ticket was a separate ticket,” the single mother of seven said as she and her fiancé left her home in the squalid Westport neighborhood to attend church.

The Haitian immigrant refused to show what she said was the winning ticket, claiming she had it hidden in another location and would present it to lottery officials today.

Pressed as the day went on, she became more cagey.

“I don’t know if I won. Some of the numbers were familiar. I recognized some of [them],’’ she said. “I don’t know why’’ people are saying differently. “I’m going to go to the lottery office [today]. I bought some tickets separately.”

Given that she's conceded she did in fact buy pool tickets, I don't think her claim that the winning ticket just happened to be one of the few tickets she bought on her own private account.

Your Mouth

I leased it for my own private account.

Posted by: Ace at 08:46 AM | Comments (195)
Post contains 327 words, total size 2 kb.

They interview Robert Lustig, the doctor who's on an anti-sugar jihad.

The 60 Minutes piece is here.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: Did it surprise you when you first got these results back?

Kimber Stanhope: I would have to say I was surprised because when I saw our data, I started drinking and eating a whole lot less sugar. I would say our data surprised me.

So imagine, for these healthy young people, drinking a sweetened drink might be just as bad for their hearts as the fatty cheeseburgers we've all been warned about since the 1970s. That's when a government commission mandated that we lower fat consumption to try and reduce heart disease.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: So with the best of intentions, they say, "Time to reduce fat in the American diet?"

Dr. Robert Lustig: Exactly. And we did. And guess what? Heart disease, metabolic syndrome, diabetes and death are skyrocketing.

Dr. Lustig believes that's primarily because we replaced a lot of that fat with added sugars.

Dr. Robert Lustig: Take the fat out of food, it tastes like cardboard. And the food industry knew that. So they replaced it with sugar.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: This idea that sugar increases this particularly bad LDL, the small dense particles that are associated with heart disease. Do most doctors-- do they know this?

Dr. Robert Lustig: No, they do not know this. This is new.

And it turns out, sugar has become a major focus in cancer research too. Lewis Cantley, is looking at the connection.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: If you limit your sugar you decrease your chances of developing cancer?

Lewis Cantley: Absolutely.

Cantley, a Harvard professor and the head of the Beth Israel Deaconess Cancer Center, says when we eat or drink sugar, it causes a sudden spike in the hormone insulin, which can serve as a catalyst to fuel certain types of cancers.

Lewis Cantley: What we're beginning to learn is that insulin can cause adverse effects in the various tissues. And of particular concern is cancer.

Why? Nearly a third of some common cancers -- including breast and colon cancers -- have something called insulin receptors on their surface. Insulin binds to these receptors and signals the tumor to start consuming glucose.

Lewis Cantley: This is your body...

Every cell in our body needs glucose to survive. But the trouble is, these cancer cells also use it to grow.

Lewis Cantley: So if you happen to have the tumor that has insulin receptors on it then it will get stimulated to take up the glucose that's in the bloodstream rather than go into fat or muscle, the glucose goes into the tumor. And the tumor uses it to grow.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: So you've just seen that tumor turn blue which is essentially reflective of glucose going into it.

Lewis Cantley: That's right.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: So these cancers, much in the same way that muscle will say, "Hey, I'd like some of that glucose, the fat says, "I would like some of that glucose," the cancers have learned how to do this themselves as well?

Lewis Cantley: Yes. So they have evolved the ability to hijack that flow of glucose that's going by in the bloodstream into the tumor itself.

The YouTube video which sparked the story, 2+ million hits and counting, is here.

Posted by: Ace at 08:26 AM | Comments (224)
Post contains 566 words, total size 3 kb.

Showtime is supposedly in talks to hire Keith Olbermann, to do a Bill Maher type show (meaning "not funny").

Is not a single media company willing to debase itself in such a way as to make me neutral on the question of patronizing them?

So, HBO, already drenched in its own liberal sanctimony, is starting yet another series. This one by noted TV failure Aaron Sorkin.

It's about a network anchor who loses his audience for telling the truth. more...

Posted by: Ace at 08:01 AM | Comments (142)
Post contains 99 words, total size 1 kb.