86 I doubt the Vikings swore off Ireland because of redheaded women. Scandinavia's prolly got more redheads than Ireland ever had.

Posted by: Cowboy at August 18, 2013 10:28 PM (m5TOl)

Sherman, pull up the ginger distribution maps and let's take a gander at this hypothesis. Ah here it is:

Well the Scandis certainly know the heartbreak of Gingerness, but nothing like the Irish or Scots where over 10% of the population are afflicted. And then of course you have the Udmurt peoples of central Russia who seem to be super-Gingers as exemplified by Anastasia Ivanova.

Note that all these populations seem to share the same MC1R mutation and difficulty thriving below the 45th parallel.

So about all we can conclude is that the Viking were never able to close the Ginger gap with the Irish. Whether it was the Irish Gingeresses that drove them out is still an open question.  And actually there is some evidence that the gingerhood in western Norway is actually due to Celtic slaves brought back by Viking raiders. So maybe it was a fifth column Gingeress kind of thing.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:56 PM | Comments (558)
Post contains 965 words, total size 10 kb.

Boy howdy does this look dumb.

Oh, you know when I said "F3" probably stands for "Fox 3," like Fox has now taken over four or five channels? So that they're F1, F2, F3, etc.? Like you can watch whatever you want, so long as it's Fox?

Ehh, I guess that was sort of clever because that's not what F3 is. So I guess the author missed a chance to be clever. I know, don't be shocked.

It's called F3 because...

Fox News merges with the Faith & Freedom Coalition, the political arm of conservative Christians, to form Fox Faith & Freedom News.

So F3 for three F's.

It sort of gets sillier after that:

It opens in 2029, narrated by a survivor of a bloody civil war between "the Holies," the Christian fundamentalists who control the federal government, and the "Secs," the secular opposition centered in Manhattan.

The federal Purity Web – think Big Brother on steroids – has rewritten American history.

The novel's narrator, a young lawyer named Greg, slowly explains how dissent, homosexuality and abortion were outlawed.

....

In New York, the city's openly gay mayor, Christine Quinn, along with her wife, is gunned down at a gay wedding. (In real life, Quinn is a mayoral candidate. I find the fictional assassination of a living politician creepy, at best.) In San Francisco, the Air Force bombs the Castro neighborhood, killing 12,000 people, mostly gay men.

Sure, why not.

So, anyway, I don't know if you can tell this from the structure, but the book seems entirely undramatized. By which I mean: the reader is not present with the action when it is happening. It is told by the three protagonists, whose names are I guess "But Emilie," "And Greg," and "San dear," remembering what happened twenty years older, telling each other things in dialogue (or a dialogue-like substitute) that actually all of them would remember, so why are they narrating to each other the events of 2009-2029?

To the extent there is action, it appears to just be action of people attempting to correct each other as to their memory. So I guess that excerpt we have is representative: The "action" consists of people correcting each other.

zsasz called it "Daily Kos: The Novel." Seems spot-on. If Sartre had had the internet, he would have observed that Hell is other people correcting your minor typos forever.

Given that in 2029, when the book is actually set, there is an actual Civil War going on between the "Holies" and the "Secs" (hey that sounds like Sex! Clever!), it's kind of hard for me to believe they'd be sitting there yapping about Terri Schiavo. Note that Terri Schiavo isn't discussed all that often in 2013. In 2029, during a period of outright civil war, with tens of thousands of Gay Casualties and possibly even some bi- or straight ones, I gotta think it would be less relevant.

Oh, USAToday thought the book was crap. Or, as the Christian Nation page might say, "Required reading."

Thanks to @rdbrewer4.

Oh Dear Lord Thou Hast Provided Us Enough Comedy For The Day, Please Provide No More: Oh, you're going to love this: the Christian Nation study/review guide, from the publisher.

Is this a joke?

Preview: Someone is effing with us.

This cannot be real.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 05:31 PM | Comments (299)
Post contains 597 words, total size 4 kb.

Okay I didn't really take the day off but I'm not putting any links here. I'm calling it quits.

"Emilie," San said, both perturbed and irascible. "Are you not capable with the seeing of the time of ending?"

"And Greg," Emilie said, coquettish and ungulate. "I'm quitsies."

Posted by: Ace at 04:21 PM | Comments (232)
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.

Our Theocracy Nightmare: President Palin's Martial Law, at the failed idiot group blog Salon.

Below, please enjoy, to the extent it is possible, an example of the writer's gift for human dialogue. The dialogue, or, rather, the alternating monologues, occurs after Muslims attack seven different cities and kill seven thousand people on the same day, 7/22. Two days later, President Palin suspends habaeus corpus and declares martial law. A television station called "F3" -- which I assume is "Fox 3," the suggestion being that many channels on the dial are now Fox stations (how clever!) -- is rootin'-tootin' in favor of President Palin's call for complete expurgation of the Muslim threat.

Oh by the way: I have not read the book. I will bet any amount of money that it does not turn out that Muslim terrorists were really responsible for 7/22, but rather that it was all the work of Christian militiamen pretending to be Muslim terrorists in order to pull a Reichstag Fire in order to gift Sarah Palin with plenary executive power. (Of the sort Barack Obama now claims, but who's counting?)

I know I will not have any takers for this bet because it's always the same damn thing with these guys. Serious You Guys False Flag Christian Militia.

When Alex Jones prattles on about this, the right goofs on him; when "Frederic Rich," leftist fantasist extraordinaire does, W.W. Norton books says "Let's publish that."

Anyway, as you read the following Compelling and Realistic Simulacrum of Human Speech, be sure to get yourself some milk, orange juice, and toast, because this dialogue has so much Snap! Crackle! Pop! it makes part of a well-balanced breakfast.
more...

Posted by: Ace at 02:48 PM | Comments (500)
Post contains 2200 words, total size 14 kb.

As Allah says, he won't be winning Iowa.

I have mixed feelings here. I'm pretty sure that such "conversions" are just malarkey and probably do some harm on the net.

And yet, People Have the Right to Be Wrong, don't they? Yes they do. As many have observed, free expression is not your right to be right -- if everyone agrees you're right, you hardly need the protection of a Constitution to express yourself.

Free expression is, in final analysis, about the right to be wrong, and about a government which is restrained from compelling people to Think The Right Way.

This combines with a parent's general right to care for his child and instruct him as he sees fit... and not how the State sees fit.

I happen to agree with the underlying sentiment here -- sexuality is too rooted and complex a thing to be changed by psychological therapy. I doubt very much that straights could be made gay by such therapy.

But neither do I like the State taking decisions out of the hands of parents. Technically the law forbids mental health practitioners from providing such services, but this scotches the left's long-held claim that the bond between a patient and a caregiver (as in the case of abortive services) is sacred and must not be put asunder by the petty laws of mankind.

And who knows, perhaps such laws will be found unconstitutional.

Here's my basic drop-dead takeaway: People are going to do all sorts of things that are mistaken, wrong, harmful, and dangerous.

But there is no real freedom if the state is constantly step in to restrain us from being mistaken, wrong, harmful to ourselves, or even dangerous.

Yes, there is a list of things we all know must be made illegal for civilization to exist at all.

We go looking to add to this list at our peril. And we've been doing very little but adding to this list for the past fifty years.

Guns, Big Gulps, salt, racism (real and imagined), homophobia... apparently we're going to have to destroy the village of Liberty in order to save it.

One day everything bad will be illegal and everything good will be mandatory.

And won't that be a pretty utopia then?

Let's be grown up about this: Freedom does have its downside. And that downside is mistakes and even deaths.

But here's the upside: An unfree life is not worth living. A dog on a chain may be well cared for, but it is just a pet.

Two Good Questions: dicenta asks about the case of a kid who was sexually molested by a same-sex perpetrator and is now sort of "wired" to be gay simply because that was his first sexual experience (and early sexual experiences are potent, of course, particularly for young children).

Any exception there, or does the law now just say "Ah, he's gay now, suck it up"?

That would feel a little like the ban on abortions in the case of rape-- the state's now going to step in to make sure the victimization fully takes and goes all the way to term.

Y-Not also asks if this will apply to priests, say, if parents bring their kids to a priest for counseling. The surface answer seems "no" -- I think the law applies to "mental health professionals" -- but courts may construe this provision, ahem, liberally, and say that anyone providing such services becomes a mental health professional under the terms of the law.

But I don't know. The law might specifically exclude the clergy.

Including, But Not Limited to: CharlieBrownsDildo links the relevant definition of mental health professional:

"A person who is licensed to provide professional counseling under Title 45 of the Revised Statutes, including, but not limited to, a psychiatrist, licensed practicing psychologist, certified social worker, licensed clinical social worker, licensed social worker, licensed marriage and family therapist, certified psychoanalyst, or a person who performs counseling as part of the person's professional training for any of these professions, shall not engage in sexual orientation change efforts with a person under 18 years of age."

But that list is inclusive not exclusive. It does not include the clergy, but neither does it exclude them.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 01:04 PM | Comments (462)
Post contains 746 words, total size 5 kb.

Is Birtherism suddenly respectable in the media's eyes?

Well you know what else is? Hatred and hysteria directed at one of the world's actual religions of peace.

So here now comes Christian Nation, an alt-history thriller about McCain/Palin's 2008 victory, and how President Palin then turned the country into a Christian theocracy because Mama Grizzly.

Published by apparently a real publisher and stuff, W.W. Norton.

Isn't it odd how the left can freely indulge its stupidest paranoias and hysterias and count themselves clever for doing so but if a single old woman on the right says "He's a Muslim" about Barack Obama it tars the entire movement?

Note, by the way, that old woman was just an old woman who showed up at a rally. This is a book that a real company decided was darned good and worth investing a fair amount of money in to publish.

So, this is the description of this, um, work:

Christian Nation is a work of speculative political fiction, arising from the counterfactual of a McCain/Palin victory in 2008 followed soon after by McCainÂ’s sudden death and Sarah PalinÂ’s ascension to the presidency.

When the book opens, eight years have passed since the Holy War ended in victory for the fundamentalist Christian forces. Americans live in bondage to a comprehensive authoritarian law called The Blessing, enforced by a totally integrated digital world known as the Purity Web. The Narrator, Greg, whose best friend led the opposition to the theocratic movement, is brought to a secret abandoned cabin in upstate New York and told to remember and write.

The Christian right made no secret of its decades-long quest for political power, and did not hide what they would do if they got that power. Greg writes: “They said what they would do, and we did not listen. Then they did what they said they would do.” Struggling with perspective and memory, the memoirist recounts the country’s long slow descent to religious authoritarianism, propelled by economic distress, a second major terrorist attack, and the fanatical ambitions of an extremist evangelical minority.

Living out their 20Â’s and 30Â’s against the backdrop of dramatic political change, Greg recounts how he (a Wall Street lawyer), his girlfriend Emilie (a New York investment banker) and his best friend Sanjay (a gay Indian-American internet entrepreneur) react and interact as the country slowly slips toward theocracy. The three struggle with the tension between personal ambition and moral responsibility, and the memoirist ultimately finds that he must make a choice.

Readers will find themselves haunted by the question his shadowy hosts demand that Greg answer in the book, echoing Hannah Arendt’s struggle to explain the origins of totalitarianism in the 20th century: “What happened, why did it happen, how could it have happened?”

If you scan down the site, you'll see that the New York Post is quoted as calling the book "Required Reading..."

They did say that. Sort of. The New York Post's book column on books is itself called Required Reading, and they mentioned the book briefly (and neutrally, it's not even a review, just a "this happened" mention) so, technically I guess, any book mentioned there is ergo "Required Reading."

After all, it was mentioned in Required Reading. Count it.

This is like Goodreads just mentioning that your book exists and then slapping this on the cover:

"Goodread..."

-- Goodreads

But there are a lot of people who love, love love this book. The idiot from the American Federation of Atheists or whatever --you the guy, the guy in glasses, has only one thing to ever say. Someone from the ACLU, someone from the FEC.

What the media crucifies random idiots for saying on the right, the left's actual paid leadership can say without any rebuke.

So, what do you guys think? I suppose I could review it.

I don't know though. Someone said the book "actually gave [her] nightmares." I don't want nightmares. This sounds like very scary stuff.

Although maybe the book was just mentioned on the "It Actually Gave Me Nightmares" book-blog.

Incidentally, as Instapundit might say: They told me that if I voted for McCain the United States would become a creepy security state, balanced precariously between paranoia and incompetence, and they were right!

Posted by: Ace at 11:53 AM | Comments (447)
Post contains 724 words, total size 5 kb.

The MSM has embraced it's inner kook and decided that birtherism is actually kind of cool after all. Amazingly, all it took was for a Republican to emerge who they could pin it on and then suddenly...serious questions need to be asked!

Of course I'm sure it's all a big coincidence that so many MSM outlets are suddenly interested in the question of eligibility to be President. A Washington Post writer went so far as to say Cruz is a Canadian but we shouldn't hold that against him.

Funny how all these outlets just started asking these same questions around the same time, huh? I mean, of all the things going on in politics these days...ObamaCare collapsing, Egypt on fire, and of course amnesty in the offing, why the most important question on no one's mind, other than hyper-partisan reporter's, is, "Hey, is Ted Cruz eligible to be President?"

Now because like me you're a wingnut you're thinking, "This seems like a pretty clear case of the media going after a conservative in a way they never would Barack Obama". Silly wingnut! You only think that because you're an idiot.

Immediately, parallels were drawn to President ObamaÂ’s 2011 release of his own birth certificate, which also was meant to end lingering questions about his eligibility to be president.

And for the few in the birther community, they see hypocrisy. Why are the media not denouncing those who question Cruz’s eligibility in the same way they have denounced the so-called “birthers” who continue to question Obama’s?

The reason? Because about the only thing these two situations have in common is that they involve a birth certificate and a presidential candidate.

[Lots of liberal nonsense cutout to save time and space]

ItÂ’s just not an apples-to-apples comparison.

Except it is and apples-to-apples comparison. There were plenty of people (some of whom will no doubt show up in the comments) who insisted that Obama was not a "natural born citizen" because only one of his parents was an American citizen, which is the case being made against Cruz.

After spending years trying to tar the whole GOP with this birther nonsense, the MSM is now going to use it to attack Cruz and not so subtlety imply to voters that while the media is only asking questions, those conservatives are kind of crazy, right?

What's next media? A series of stories explaining how inappropriate and wrong it would be for someone with no executive experience and only part way through their first Senate term to run for President?

Oh btw, Ted Cruz is absolutely eligible to be President.

Posted by: DrewM at 10:55 AM | Comments (280)
Post contains 431 words, total size 3 kb.

I'm playing hooky today because I'm drag-butt tired. The cobs may have some stuff for you. Otherwise I'll mostly just post some open blogs.

Eighty-one percent of San Diegans want Bob Filner to resign. There's chatter -- rumor only; maybe just speculation --that he's bargaining with Democrats to either stay on or negotiate some kind of graceful exit. I can't imagine what he'd think he'd get in return -- does he think some liberal think tank is going to hire him?

It's important for Democrats to get him out of office because at that point, the all-but-nonexistence media interest in the story goes away completely. Note that Mark Foley's resignation did not stop the media from continuing to question who might have aided and abetted him over the years -- but we'll see no such questions from the partisan Democratic newsletter we call the media. We haven't seen them as pressure builds on Filner, and we certainly won't see them after the pressure has been released.

Yup: I've been hearing this for a week but now it's being reported-- Filner is in mediation that may include his resignation.

As Rufus T. Firefly quipped, maybe he's bargaining for a Happy Ending.

Posted by: Ace at 10:11 AM | Comments (206)
Post contains 233 words, total size 2 kb.

Stuxnet was the cyber-warfare equivalent of the atomic bomb.

So why did the Administration promiscuously put it out all over town?

Internal State Department emails reportedly show the White House cooperated with a journalist whose revelations about an anti-Iran cyberattack are now the subject of a high-profile leak probe.

The Washington Times reported Monday on emails, from late 2011 to early 2012, obtained by the nonprofit Freedom Watch after the group filed suit in federal court. They detail discussions New York Times reporter David Sanger had with the State Department before the publication of a book that revealed classified information about the so-called Stuxnet computer worm, which targeted IranÂ’s nuclear facilities.

In one email, Sanger reportedly pressed the State Department to cooperate by noting the help heÂ’d gotten from other wings of the Obama administration.

“I’m getting a bit concerned about the pace of our interviews — or lack of pace, to be more precise — for the book,” Sanger reportedly said in the October 2011 message to a State Department press officer. “The White House is steaming away; I’ve seen [National Security Adviser Thomas E.] Donilon many times and a raft of people below. Doing well at the Pentagon. But on the list I sent you starting on Sept. 12 we’ve scheduled nothing, and chapters are getting into final form.”

Sounds like Donilon was largely responsible for early leaks and then Sanger leveraged those leaks into additional ones from State.

I'm sure Holder will be getting right to the bottom of this, just as he's getting to the bottom of James Clapper's congressional perjury.

Posted by: Ace at 09:12 AM | Comments (156)
Post contains 272 words, total size 2 kb.

Health food freaks hardest hit

...The double cheeseburger provides 390 calories, 23 grams of protein – half a daily serving – seven per cent of daily fibre, 19 grams of fat and 20 per cent of daily calcium, all for between $1 and $2, or 65p and £1.30, The Times reported.

Kyle Smith, a New York Post columnist, threw his support behind the McDoubleÂ’s nutritional value for money.

“For the average poor person, it isn’t a great option to take a trip to the farmers market to puzzle over esoteric lefty-foodie codes”, Mr Smith wrote.

“Facts are facts – where else but McDonald’s can poor people obtain so many calories per dollar?”...

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 08:22 AM | Comments (367)
Post contains 148 words, total size 1 kb.