Family in town = no pictures and minimal snark for you. Legally it still counts as an ONT though.

10 Questions From the U.S. Naturalization Test

Even if you haven't studied civics recently you should still be able to get at least half of these right.

1. How many amendments does the Constitution have?

2. What is the economic system in the United States?

3. Name your U.S. Representative.

4. What are two Cabinet-level positions?

5. Who is the Chief Justice of the United States now?

6. Who lived in America before the Europeans arrived?

7. The Federalist Papers supported the passage of the U.S. Constitution. Name ONE of the writers.

8. What is ONE thing Benjamin Franklin is famous for?

9. Before he was President, Eisenhower was a general. What war was he in?

10. What did Susan B. Anthony do?

Answers here:

1. 27; 2. capitalist economy/market economy; 3. answers will vary; 4. Any two: Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Education, Secretary of Energy, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary of Homeland Security, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of Labor, Secretary of State, Secretary of Transportation, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Attorney General, Vice President; 5. John Roberts; 6. Native Americans/American Indians; 7. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Publius; 8. U.S. diplomat, oldest member of the Constitutional Convention, first Postmaster General of the United States, writer of "Poor Richard's Almanac," started the first free libraries. 9. World War II; 10. fought for women's rights/fought for civil rights.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:03 PM | Comments (981)
Post contains 740 words, total size 7 kb.

What's wrong with bringing in race, bringing in politics? one "analyst" wants to know.

Gee. I wonder if they'd agree with the proposition that the defense should make a racial appeal in Zimmerman's favor.

Then again, there are no "White Hispanics" on the jury. Not many of them in general, actually.

The racial justice movement isn't about racial justice. It's just about race. It is explicitly racist and ought to be called such.
more...

Posted by: Ace at 03:45 PM | Comments (397)
Post contains 105 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, let's just get it on the table.

Points for honesty?

Forcing women to adhere to the anti-choice attitudes of state legislators forces men to do the same, and will have serious consequences both on men's lives and lifestyles.

....

Your sex life is at stake. Can you think of anything that kills the vibe faster than a woman fearing a back-alley abortion? Making abortion essentially inaccessible in Texas will add an anxiety to sex that will drastically undercut its joys. And don't be surprised if casual sex outside of relationships becomes far more difficult to come by.

Let's see if I can follow this logic.

The women in question -- those who'll be closing up the Tookie Shop -- are simultaneously carefree enough to not generally care about the prospect of pregnancy (let alone STDs) but are concerned that if they do get pregnant, they will have only just short of five months to schedule an abortion?

Let's work out the math here. A woman suspects she's pregnant at the first skipped period, which comes within 1-4 weeks after sex, depending on when in her cycle she got pregnant. Even if her first skipped period isn't enough to give her a big alert, her second one must be; that would be 5-8 weeks in.

Let's say she just says "Ah, whatev's, let's take a wait and see attitude." Now the third skipped period comes between 9 and 12 weeks. At this point, she knows she's pregnant (or can ascertain this by buying a off-the-rack pregnancy test at any drug store); she now has a minimum of 8 and maximum of 11 weeks to decide if she should have an abortion.

Mind you, narrow window of two-to-two-and-a-half-months comes after the third missed period.

Now, there are two things I gather from the protest against this bill:

Only giving a woman 2 to 2 1/2 months to decide to terminate after her third missed period is monstrous and is a form of sexual slavery; and,

Dudes won't get sex because if women think "Oh shit I'll only have 60 to 80 days to schedule an abortion after my third skipped period, sex is now so risky I'll just have to join a convent."

Okay whatever I guess.

I haven't heard of such a War on Women since some people said Sandra Fluke could pony up her own $4 per month for birth control pills.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 01:01 PM | Comments (378)
Post contains 463 words, total size 3 kb.

Okay so this is a blow-off change-of-speed post. I guess I can post about Sharknado, The Tornado What's Filled With Sharks.

It's on tomorrow night on SyFy. Tara Reid is doing media.

She released this tidbit. White font SPOILER; highlight to read. I wouldn't want to spoil Sharknado for anyone.

[T]here is apparently a scene in this movie WHERE IAN ZIERING CUTS HIMSELF OUT OF A SHARKÂ’S STOMACH WITH A CHAINSAW. WITH. A. CHAINSAW. THIS MEANS THAT EITHER (A) IAN ZIERING GETS SWALLOWED WHOLE BY A GREAT WHITE SHARK WHILE HOLDING A CHAINSAW, (B) IAN ZIERING GETS SWALLOWED WHOLE BY A GREAT WHITE SHARK AND FINDS A WORKING CHAINSAW IN ITS STOMACH, OR (C) IAN ZIERING GETS SWALLOWED WHOLE BY A GREAT WHITE SHARK AND THEN SOMEONE FEEDS THE SHARK A CHAINSAW SO HE CAN FREE HIMSELF. ANY OF THOSE OPTIONS ARE FINE BY ME.

By the way we're liveblogging it tomorrow night.

Thanks to @RealRosenRosen.

Posted by: Ace at 01:50 PM | Comments (458)
Post contains 192 words, total size 2 kb.

First they came for the MILFs.

Posted by: Ace at 12:09 PM | Comments (348)
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.

Not a great deal of money, but what the hell is the government doing organizing a political campaign against the interests of individual citizens?

I suppose the Koch Brothers, the Tea Party 501(c)3 filers, and Romney donors are all well accustomed to this aspect of the Obama Gangster Government.

Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the DOJ on April 24, 2012. According to the documents JW received, a little-known DOJ unit called the Community Relations Service deployed to Sanford, FL, to organize and manage rallies against Zimmerman.

Among JWÂ’s findings:

March 25 – 27, 2012, CRS spent $674.14 upon being “deployed to Sanford, FL to work marches, demonstrations, and rallies related to the shooting and death of an African-American teen by a neighborhood watch captain.”

March 25 – 28, 2012, CRS spent $1,142.84 “in Sanford, FL to work marches, demonstrations, and rallies related to the shooting and death of an African-American teen by a neighborhood watch captain.”

March 30 – April 1, 2012, CRS spent $892.55 in Sanford, FL “to provide support for protest deployment in Florida.”

March 30 – April 1, 2012, CRS spent an additional $751.60 in Sanford, FL “to provide technical assistance to the City of Sanford, event organizers, and law enforcement agencies for the march and rally on March 31.”

April 3 – 12, 2012, CRS spent $1,307.40 in Sanford, FL “to provide technical assistance, conciliation, and onsite mediation during demonstrations planned in Sanford.”

April 11-12, 2012, CRS spent $552.35 in Sanford, FL “to provide technical assistance for the preparation of possible marches and rallies related to the fatal shooting of a 17 year old African American male.” – expenses for employees to travel, eat, sleep?

And there's more at the link.

Question: How much will they spend if there are riots following acquittal (due to this case being a racial-politics witch hunt from the start)?

Posted by: Ace at 11:06 AM | Comments (497)
Post contains 338 words, total size 2 kb.

This is why I think the left is actually insane.

It's not that the left broadly supports Jahar or anything. They don't.

But the left, broadly, does have a pathological urge towards evil, or what they'd call Enlightened Contrarianism, or a thoughtful repudiation of conventional morality.

The trouble with such kneejerk contrarianism is that when the dominant position is also right and moral (which it tends to be in most cases, but not all), those who have a psychological need to oppose, oppose the masses, oppose whatever, oppose simply to cry out I exist, are forced into reflexively taking the position opposite of right and good, which is, of course, wrong and evil.

Marxism is premised upon this. Marx declared the only correct response to the dominant culture was spiteful contempt, indignant anger, and constant subversion.

Were the dominant culture mostly evil that might be a decent response. But as it's not mostly evil, Marx's prescription is itself an urging towards evil.

And so here is Jahar Tsarnaev. He coldly butchered and maimed a hundred people with a bomb, for no other reason than the psychological desire to assert his own identity and culture through murder. (Marxist in temperament, if not in ideology.)

And so he will of course have his bevy of psychopathic bent supporters, who, as usual, compelled by their neuroses and psychoses to always take a position opposite the masses, are driven to praise evil, chaos, and murder.

A group of about a dozen supporters cheered as the motorcade carrying Tsarnaev arrived at the courthouse. The demonstrators yelled “Justice for Jahar,” as Tsarnaev is known. One woman held a sign that said, “Free Jahar.”

...

“I’m here to show Dzhokhar support, to let him know there are thousands of people worldwide that do believe his innocence,” Mary Churback of Freetown told WBZ-TV news.

Lacey Buckley, 23, said she traveled from her home in Wenatchee, Wash., to attend the arraignment. Buckley said she has never met Tsarnaev but came because she believes he’s innocent. “I just think so many of his rights were violated. They almost murdered an unarmed kid in a boat,” she said.
said.

I used to be shocked by this, post-9/11, when the typical crew of bent psychotics would justify terrorism, and even wax philosophical about the creative and liberating power of murder.

I'm not shocked anymore. Every age has its Alistair Crowleys, and every age has sad, bent, pathetic followers of Crowley-types. They're not really discussing politics or ethics or morality; they're simply acting out compulsions and psychological dramas they suffered when they resisted potty-training or felt ashamed about bed-wetting. They are simply evil toddlers perpetually acting up in order to get attention from Mom and Dad or to tweak Brother or Sister.

I'm an Adult Now, Dad!

And I have Ideas too! Really good ideas!

Posted by: Ace at 10:04 AM | Comments (445)
Post contains 496 words, total size 3 kb.

No not really. That's just bein' silly. Here's the real headline:

Elliot Spitzer's Not Sorry and As Much As Says So

It's one thing for someone to confess fault and acknowledge others have the right to render a moral judgment on him. The contrite man may offer reasons why they should be merciful in their judgments, but he'll acknowledge that others do have the right to judge him by his actions.

Elliot Spitzer doesn't concede you have the right to judge him for breaking the law while the chief law enforcement officer of a state, or of going after some mob-connected prostitution rings and yet not others.

He insists is none yo' bizness.

Asked by Mika Brzezinski about the various tabloid headlines bashing his past indiscretions, Spitzer replied: “I am mystified by the attention and the focus on that.”

Spitzer really revealed his thinking, however, in a back and forth with TimeÂ’s Mark Halperin.

“There is a difference between public and private lives,” Spitzer said in response to a question about whether lying to the public was disqualifying for a public official. “There is a divide there that is something we do want to think about at a certain point and time.” We all know politicians dissemble all the time about negotiations on substantive issues and probably on personal issues as well.” [Funky logic-breaking quotation marks in original.]

Later, Spitzer added: “I lied about personal sexual activity.”

Chris Cilliza concludes Spitzer is merely sorry he got caught, which is entirely different from being contrite. A contrite man doesn't constantly argue that what he did wasn't all that bad and Everyone Does It and Why Don't You Just Mind Your Own.

Posted by: Ace at 08:56 AM | Comments (358)
Post contains 296 words, total size 2 kb.

Here's the background on the federal case against Apple -- Apple conspired with the Big 5 publishing houses to change the pricing model of ebooks to inflate the prices from an average of about $9 per book to something they liked better, from $12 to $14.

The matter was decided by a judge (I assume Apple chose to be judged by a judge rather than a jury, thinking the law would be on their side but the populist temperament of common citizens might not be).

“The plaintiffs have shown that the publisher defendants conspired with each other to eliminate retail price competition in order to raise e-book prices, and that Apple played a central role in facilitating and executing that conspiracy,” Cote said.

“Without Apple’s orchestration of this conspiracy, it would not have succeeded as it did in the spring of 2010,” she added

Apple's strategy was to say "Amazon price-fixed before us and we were only price-fixing in order to overcome their original price-fixing" or, alternately, "Amazon proposed a similar price-fixing scheme."* But it's never really been a defense to say "These other guys did it too."

* Just speculating here, as I didn't watch the trial closely, but I think Amazon's "price-fixing" was different in two ways. First, Amazon used market leverage to push the price down; generally, the government doesn't go after people for offering the public lower prices (unless this is part of some sort of dumping scheme).

To the extent Amazon doesn't lower prices as aggressively on newer titles and thus may have "agreed to fix those prices higher:" I get the sense they did that to mollify publishers, who are reserved about/afraid of the digital model of book distribution. Agreeing to not cut the prices of new books too much might have been some kind of sop to wary publishers to keep the right to sell digital books in the first place. Publishers don't want digital prices to go down so much that their first business, selling physical copies of books, is damaged or destroyed entirely.

Posted by: Ace at 08:10 AM | Comments (189)
Post contains 364 words, total size 2 kb.

D.C. is really a tale of two cities in one. There are the touristy/wealthy neighborhoods and then there are, for want of a better term, slums.

Wal-Mart has proposed to build three stores, one in the city's 5th Ward and two in the 7th Ward. These are two of the poorest areas in the city (pdf).

The highest poverty rates in DC are found in an area largely made up of Wards 7 and 8. Nearly one in three residents in this area living below poverty in 2010, an increase of one-sixth since 2007.

...

The largest jumps in poverty rates were found largely in Wards 4, 5 and 6.

So naturally D.C. is welcoming this type of corporate commitment to lousy areas desperately in need of jobs, right? Er, no.

The D.C. Council bill would require retailers with corporate sales of $1 billion or more and operating in spaces 75,000 square feet or larger to pay their employees no less than $12.50 an hour. The cityÂ’s minimum wage is $8.25.

While the bill would apply to some other retailers — such as Home Depot, Costco and Macy’s — a grandfather period and an exception for those with unionized workforces made it clear that the bill targets Wal-Mart, which has said it would open six stores, employing up to 1,800 people.

...

But [Ken Jacobs, chairman of the University of California at Berkeley’s Center for Labor Research and Education] said that has long been Wal-Mart’s way in taking on these types of proposals: “There’s good reason to believe they could actually compete quite well under these rules, but it is not a proposition they have wanted to test.”

I love that last quote. I mean I'm shocked that one of the most successful companies in the world isn't interested in the economic theories of some left wing professor at Cal Berkeley.

At some point you'd think liberals would learn a basic fact: wages are a reflection of how much an employer has to pay to get workers of a certain level of quality. Wages are not charity handed out to enable workers to live at a certain level. You want to make more money? Great, make yourself more valuable to an employer. But that's too hard for too many hardcore Democratic voters so they want the state to impose an acceptable wage level on employers unrelated to their actual worth.

Wal-Mart has said f the bill passes they will reconsider building the stores (hint: reconsider means "will not").

It's absolutely outrageous that a government would single out a company for punishment simply to make some sort of political point. That they would do so to a company willing to bring investment, jobs and services to areas most other people are unwilling to touch is beyond stupid.

These idiot liberals would really rather just make a point (what it is I haven't a clue) than to see "their people" have a chance to get ahead a bit.

Remind me again why people think Democrats care about the poor.

It's disgusting.

Posted by: DrewM at 06:22 AM | Comments (423)
Post contains 515 words, total size 3 kb.