I wonder what the hell he was talking about that led him to note this tasty historical tidbit.

In fact, he's right, or at least Wikipedia says he's right. Fiji was once called "The Cannibal Isles" and cannibalism was practiced there into the early twentieth century.

The quote comes from a critical, mocking New York Times piece called How John McCain Turned His Clichés Into Meaning. It argues McCain is a walking cliché and also driven by a sense of superiority and outrage. On that particular point, I won't charge the paper with political bias.

This part of the story illustrates some of the phoniness of Washington, DC.

When I walk into John McCain’s office a week before Thanksgiving, he is not at all happy — and seems to be enjoying it quite a bit.

He is sampling none of the usual flavors of upset we tend to associate with the Arizona senator: not the “McCain is bitter” or “get off my yard” varieties, not even the “deeply troubled” umbrage that politicians of all stripes love to assume. Here is a man, instead, who is gleefully seizing an opportunity for outrage.

“I am very angry,” McCain says through a smiling grimace. He hands me a photocopied compilation of old quotes from the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, from back when Democrats were in the minority and Republicans were threatening to enact a rule — the so-called nuclear option — that would require only a 51-vote majority to confirm most presidential and judicial nominations. Turns out Reid believed this was a bad idea when the Republicans were in charge but was a good one now, and McCain is packing bullet points.

“I’m going to go kick the crap out of Harry Reid,” he keeps announcing as we walk from his office to the Capitol. Once on the Senate floor, McCain approaches Reid, puts his hands on the majority leader’s shoulders, smiles and says something I can’t make out from the visitors’ gallery above. Reid smiles back, says a few words in reply and places his hands on McCain’s sides. It looks as if they are dancing.

Minutes later, McCain stands to address the chamber. He is, as advertised, very, very unhappy. Today is a “black chapter in the history of the Senate,” he says, referencing something Reid said back in 2008, as a way of pointing out his hypocrisy. He then goes on to explain that this is as “historic” a vote as he can remember casting and that he feels great “sorrow” for the harm done to the institution on this “sad day.”

After McCain leaves the floor, I ask him what he said to Reid before his speech. “I said, ‘Harry, I’m going to go kick the crap out of you.’ Then he said, ‘John, I would expect nothing less.’ ” McCain grins big to conclude this dark chapter in the history of the United States Senate.

"Kick the crap out of Harry Reid" meant "say some empty words on the Senate floor." But the two seem to be buddies, just trading jibes with one another.

And yet, this is the New York Times, so of course it's steeped in bias. more...

Posted by: Ace at 03:22 PM | Comments (242)
Post contains 1505 words, total size 9 kb.

And Longbow vs. Crossbow more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 12:14 PM | Comments (52)
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

Yeah... so here's what we've learned: When Obama's friends on the left want to advertise to gays, they do not do so with a great deal of subtlety.

They just put it right on out there.

The video is not entirely safe for work -- it's not pornographic, per se. It is, however, Super Gay, and I do mean "super" with a few extra s's.

If you play this at work, you can expect questions. Even if you work in Lady Gaga's publicity office, people are still going to say, "Dude, what I just saw on your computer was ridiculously gay."

The Gay Costume Party in JFK just emailed me to say, "Yeah... that's over the top."

The guy who sang "What, What, In the Butt?" just said, "I'm offended."

If you don't want to watch it, here's the best description I can muster: You know that Kate Upton Easter Bunny Ad? Yeah, it's like that,* except with Christmas, and Dudes. Just imagine that and you're on the right track.

It is hard to take the left seriously when it accuses the right in trafficking in easy, insulting stereotypes when it appears they do little but that themselves.

You can click on the link to go to Reason's article, and then decide once you're there if you want to row your boat into a category 5 Maelstrom of Gay.

Oh: The goofing on Footie Pajama Guy continues. Apparently Footie Pajama Guy first appeared in anti-Japanese WWII Army propaganda posters:

* So why is it that I'm not making fun of the Kate Upton Easter Bunny ad?

Because shut up that's why.

Actually, until this moment, I never even questioned what that ad was actually selling.

It turns out -- I think -- that it's not an ad at all. It's a "short film" by "Emily Weiss," whoever that is. Some kind of fashion maven.

I have never, until this moment, wondered what that ad was for, or why it was made. I think I just assumed it was for Carl's Junior (though I never wondered why there was no hamburger ever present).

I just enjoyed it, and accepted it, and knew the world was Good.

So it turns out it's not even an ad. It's Art -- that's what it is.

Posted by: Ace at 02:41 PM | Comments (287)
Post contains 418 words, total size 3 kb.

Wow. What a story. I know the headline doesn't make sense but I'll explain in a second.

So first of all: A blind man fell from the platform on to the subway tracks. His seeing eye dog followed him down, even as a train approached.

A blind Harlem man survived almost certain death after falling on the subway tracks Tuesday morning thanks to his guide dog, Orlando. Pececil Williams, 60, was waiting on the platform at 125th Street station when he got too close to the edge.

Onlooker Ana Quinones told the New York Post that the black lab, Orlando, did everything it could to move the man from the perilous ledge. She said, “The dog was trying to pull him away from the southbound edge of the platform, but his feet were on the edge, he was wobbling, and the dog was barking.”

Williams still ended up falling, leading Orlando to jump down onto the tracks with him. The dog began to lick WilliamsÂ’ face to get him to move, but the train came about 15 seconds after the fall and was unable to stop.

So what did they do?* They both hunkered down, as low as they could get, and the train... passed harmlessly above them.

I thought that only happened in movies. Apparently you can really do that. The blind man got some bumps and bruises from the fall, but he's okay.

Unfortunately, the government says he has to give the dog up. The government pays for the working dog, as the man is on disability. The dog is almost 11, and that's retirement age. The government will pay expenses for a working dog, but not for a pet, which is what Orlando will soon become.

That actually makes sense... but it sure would be nice if the guy got to keep the dog. (Actually, it would be nice if I got to take this dog for my own pet, but no one's offering that.)

Well, the nice thing is that people are donating for the dog's upkeep, so the blind man and his seeing eye dog can stay together. They've raised $30,000. That'll pay for a lot of dog biscuits.

By the way, that lesbian waitress just emailed me: "Oh, I forgot to mention this, but I fell into a subway too and my seeing eye dog saved me. And then someone said 'We don't like your kind here' and I was very hurt by the whole thing."

* Okay, technically, I guess the dog did not "save his life" but only tried to save his life. Then they both saved their own lives by hunkering down. Close enough. Let's just say the dog is awesome and leave it at that.

Posted by: Ace at 02:00 PM | Comments (215)
Post contains 524 words, total size 3 kb.

Wow. That's his real, actual question. That isn't one of my fake "he said something like this" sort of headlines.

I think someone just earned himself a starring role on Media Matters for the next year or eight.

Karl's question isn't out of left field. He's asking whether all these silly advertising/promotion stunts -- Footie Pajama Guy being the most recent -- are really sufficient to encourage young people to pay a lot of money for what they previously did not purchase when it cost much less money.

Q What do you make of some of these efforts by Obamacare supporters to reach out? I mean, some of them — the upside-down keg stands and whatnot. I mean, is anybody going to buy health care because “Barack Obreezy” tells them to buy it because it’s hot?

Jay Carney blathers something or other about reaching consumers.

And speaking of reaching consumers: The left has a theory about why the right is goofing on Footie Pajama Guy. That theory (please seat yourself for this shocker) is that the right hates gays n' stuff. There is a great deal of outrage over this, with the left straining to find people on the right who called the guy gay, and only coming up with Twitter users I never heard of.

But yeah, sure, let's ignore the fact that this is a "curious" choice for an Obamacare pitchman (as acknowledged the Very Outraged lefty linked above). Let's ignore that this picture demonstrates a type of arrested-development man-child, having a Second Childhood immediately after his first one. Let's ignore the fact that the picture is almost proudly embracing the perpetual infantalization of what used to be called "adults."

And let's pretend the right didn't goof on these insulting, camp advertisements even when the subjects were engaging in stereotypical heterosexual male behavior:

For the love of Pete, they're a few pixels away from an ad featuring a guy asking his friend, "Smell my finger. Does she smell insured?"

Let's pretend that this is just about the fact that the guy might be gay so we can be all outraged about it.

And by the way: What makes the left so sure this guy is gay, rather than just another childlike hipster?

You can always count on the left to play a vigorous game of Find the Homo and then accuse others of having started it.

Allah has a lot more thoughts on this "curious" choice of model (as an Outraged Lefty in Good Standing freely admits).

David Freddoso notes what I keep noting: Isn't the left's depiction of young people in the service of attracting young people rather, well, completely insulting to young people?

I didn’t score well on that Millennial quiz that someone posted recently, but I suspect young people don’t typically prefer to think of themselves as grown children, nor as keg-standing beer-swillers, nor as promiscuous tarts ready to jump into bed with whatever sketchy guy shows them some attention (“Oh, look! I have my free birth control!”) — yet this is precisely how health insurance (of all things) is now being marketed to them.

People like to think of themselves as cool, which often means "fun-loving" and a little bit "offbeat."

But no man wants to think of himself as either a shouty, drunken meathead or, alternatively, as a twee goof in footie pajamas. And I don't think women want to think of themselves as so terribly shallow as to, quite literally, only care about a major health care law to the extent it buys them birth control pills so they can fornicate with "hot guys."

Feminist leftists spend half of their time insisting that women are more than their reproductive functions and, it seems, the other half insisting they are only that.

It's very strange seeing the imagery and messages that the mutants of the political left think that young people will respond to. Because when someone guesses "This will appeal to other people," their first guide is what will appeal to they themselves.

So this, then, is how Obama's minions think about themselves, first of all.

How pathetic. more...

Posted by: Ace at 12:00 PM | Comments (391)
Post contains 738 words, total size 5 kb.

Wait, what? We're the Cult?

The White House's new chief of staff announced in an earlier interview his opinion that the House Republicans constitute a "cult worthy of Jonestown."

Politico reported that Podesta justified relentless (illegal) executive action by noting he was fighting a cult. And apparently there's a clause in the Constitution that gives the executive plenary power to fight cults.

In effect, I was told, it represents the clearest sign to date of the administration’s interest in shifting the paradigm of Obama’s presidency through the forceful, unapologetic and occasionally provocative application of White House power. Podesta, whose official mandate includes enforcement of numerous executive orders on emissions and the environment, suggested as much when he spoke with me earlier this fall about Obama’s team. “They need to focus on executive action given that they are facing a second term against a cult worthy of Jonestown in charge of one of the houses of Congress,” he told me.

Podesta has now apologized for the quote. Sort of. He apologized to John Boehner, and no one else.

"In an old interview, my snark got in front of my judgment. I apologize to Speaker Boehner, whom I have always respected," Podesta posted on his Twitter account.

Of course you do darling. The writer of the piece, Glenn Thrush, seemed to have Podesta's back when he clarified the statement was made before Podesta became chief of staff, earlier, a way way way long time ago, in the Fall. (PS, it's still fall.)

It's funny the left should mention cults. Because they seem to have created a large and powerful one.

PIERS MORGAN, HOST: You have interviewed every president of my lifetime. Why is Obama facing so much opposition now? Why is he struggling so much to really fulfill the great flame of ambition and excitement that he was elected on originally in 2009?

BARBARA WALTERS: Well, you’ve touched on it to a degree. He made so many promises. We thought that he was going to be – I shouldn’t say this at Christmastime, but – the next messiah.

Note that Barbara Walters prefaces this remark by saying she shouldn't say this at Christmastime-- she's quite aware of what she's saying, and the implications, and she's... comfortable with them.

It's not a throwaway line -- she realizes that saying she expected Obama to be the "next Messiah" suggests a divine nature, which is blasphemous, especially around Christmas.
more...

Posted by: Ace at 09:36 AM | Comments (415)
Post contains 460 words, total size 4 kb.

Gabe earlier recommended the read-the-whole-thing treatment for this article. Andy did, and pulled this quote:

"It's still unclear how much cooperation HHS will get from insurers, who have been asked to extend payment deadlines into January, cover people's drugs and medical treatment if they are between plans and allow people to sign up later than Dec. 23 to get insurance Jan. 1. Health industry consultant Kip Piper said HHS doesn't have the authority to enforce what he calls these "political requests." But HHS said it will consider insurers' cooperation now when it decides which ones can participate on the insurance exchanges next year.

"They are simultaneously asking insurers to assume the cost and risk of non-payment, taking public credit for it, and threatening insurers with loss of business if they don't comply," said Piper, a former government and insurance industry official."

So, either insure people who aren't really insured (as they haven't paid yet) or be excluded from selling insurance entirely.

Obama made them an offer they couldn't refuse. So they didn't.

Insurers have agreed to extend the deadline for individuals to pay for insurance policies they choose through President Obama's health care program, industry group America's Health Insurance Plans announced Wednesday, about a week after the Department of Health and Human Services "strongly encouraged" it to do so.

As a result of the change, individuals who pick plans by Dec. 23 will be considered covered as of Jan. 1 as long as they pay their first month's premiums by Jan. 10. Previously, payment had been required by Dec. 31.

"The short time period in which to complete these steps, particularly around the holidays, combined with the ongoing technical issues with healthcare.gov have raised concerns that some consumersÂ’ coverage may not be able to begin on January 1," AHIP wrote in a statement.

AHIP has not yet said if they'll undertake the other money-losing actions they were "strongly encouraged" to take, such as treating doctors not in the health care network as being in the network. That is, paying certain doctors for health care despite having no actual contract with them.

Obama ordered this -- I mean, strongly encouraged this -- so that people wouldn't realize, at least for a few months, that they were now unable to "keep [their] doctor," as repeatedly promised.

Posted by: Ace at 01:08 PM | Comments (204)
Post contains 392 words, total size 3 kb.

Mark Krikorian says she hereby pronounces the end of immigration law altogether.

Her statement means that she -- and the Democrats, as she is their ranking House member -- believes that no one should be deported "just" for breaking immigration laws. Deportation can only happen, in Pelosi's view, in cases of violating immigration laws plus breaking what she might term a "real" law.

Nancy Pelosi recently told Telemundo (Spanish broadcast here) that violations of immigration law should no longer have any consequences:

“Our view of the law is that it — if somebody is here without sufficient documentation, that is not reason for deportation.”

This wasn’t just a verbal flub; her spokesman reiterated the point, saying her comment was merely “a restatement of her long-held belief that being an undocumented immigrant is not a basis for deportation.”

Nor can you write this off as just another moronic comment from the lightweight House minority leader. Rather, it’s simply an explicit articulation of the policy the Obama administration has been pursuing for five years, namely of making immigration violation a “secondary offense.” As an example of the concept, failing to wear a seatbelt is a secondary offense in many states, meaning that you can’t be pulled over by a state trooper for not wearing a seatbelt, but you can receive an additional fine if you’ve already been pulled over for a primary offense (speeding, for instance).

...

The implications are huge, and not limited to the tenure of this administration, since this is now the consensus Democratic party position. It means the substance of immigration legislation is irrelevant; John Boehner and Paul Ryan can stuff a million enforcement provisions into an amnesty bill and itÂ’s all just for show if being an illegal alien is no longer a reason to be removed from the country.

Indeed. So long as you get here, and do not commit a crime the Democrats consider deportation-worthy, you can stay.

Posted by: Ace at 11:05 AM | Comments (291)
Post contains 351 words, total size 2 kb.

Brit Hume's reaction speaks for us all:

It's not everyday the unflappable Hume offers up an OMG.

The Federalist has collected some of the funniest spoofs of Footie Pajama Guy.

Posted by: Ace at 08:30 AM | Comments (484)
Post contains 60 words, total size 1 kb.

Is this thing on?

Posted by: andy at 07:49 AM | Comments (236)
Post contains 10 words, total size 1 kb.