So what do you think morons? Do you prefer bottled or canned beer? I've always preferred bottled but two of my favorite beers come in cans (Guiness and Murphy's Irish Stout). This article, why canned beer is way better than bottled beer seems to focus on secondary benefits of canned beer and largely avoids how it tastes which in my view is most important. Of course, we've all had those moments where we don't care if it's in a can, bottle or cup as long as we had a beer, regardless of label.

Image source. more...

Posted by: CDR M at 06:00 PM | Comments (751)
Post contains 792 words, total size 7 kb.

Matthew Continetti has a post up at the Free Beacon entitled Be Afraid: The Democratic plan to take back the House. In it he argues the House GOP majority in danger because the Democrats, led by Obama, are playing for keeps and have already begun their campaig. HeÂ’s also worried that conservatives are being complacent in thinking that the electorate will be like 2010Â’s and not 2008 or 2012Â’s.

We discussed this at some length on the podcast last night. I agree that despite all the advantages the GOP has, safely gerrymandered districts, the historical trend that says in the sixth year of a presidency the opposition party almost always picks up seats, and no Obama on the ticket, they could still lose control of the House.

My theory on how the House could flip to the Democrats hinges on the make up of the electorate, but for a reason different than ContinetiÂ’sÂ….I donÂ’t think ObamaÂ’s voters will show up any more than they usually do but I think the GOPÂ’s may stay home.

Right now thereÂ’s a lot of conservative displeasure with the House and thereÂ’s likely to be more by the end of the year. Imagine this scenario for how the year end battles play outÂ….

After hiding from constituents during the August recess Congress returns in September and House leaders start talking up delay instead of repealing ObamaCare. As part of a “grand bargain” they shut off the sequester (in whole or in part) in exchange for what some will call a massive tax hike, that’s followed with a CR/Debt ceiling hike that has a higher baseline than they had previously been working from because the sequester was modified, so now they can spend more money like they've wanted to all along. There’s a delay in the ObamaCare individual mandate but the subsidies go into effect for states that have working exchanges, the ban on disqualifying people because of pre-existing conditions stays and they “fix” ObamaCare’s high risk pools by funding them again (without any offsetting cuts in the “slush fund”) to top it all off they pass pieces of amnesty, including the DREAM Act which would have the effect blessing Obama’s lawless administrative acts. The Democrats wanting the issue more than the bill won’t move it out of the Senate so Hispanics are mad at the GOP for not going all the way on amnesty and conservatives are mad they tried to sellout.

Under these conditions itÂ’s very easy to see conservatives throwing up their hands and saying, whatÂ’s the point?

Now could this all play out another way? Sure. But is the above scenario science fiction? Not even remotely.

As I said, we discussed this during the podcast last night. I think we did a pretty good job of fleshing out the issues from both sides. Take a listen and decide if you think the House GOP majority is in some real danger next year. I think it is.

Posted by: DrewM at 06:36 AM | Comments (219)
Post contains 512 words, total size 4 kb.

FRIIIDAAAAAAY.

Big news of the day is going to be WaPo's scoop on last year's NSA audit finding thousands of rule violations. I LOLed at this sentence: "Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who did not receive a copy of the 2012 audit until The Post asked her staff about it, said in a statement..." Heh.

The Atlantic has an outstanding long-form piece on drones, entitled "The Killing Machines: How We Should Think About Drones." It's worth a read.

Virginia man told his wife he was a CIA agent to hide his other wife from her.

Roll Call has an interesting piece about the 3 factors each party is relying on to either keep or take a Senate majority. more...

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:46 AM | Comments (561)
Post contains 158 words, total size 2 kb.

See thread below for links. And the middle class.

Nothing to see here - move along please.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 06:26 PM | Comments (567)
Post contains 591 words, total size 9 kb.

Since we're having the Chris Christie/Rand Paul fight, why not let Chris Christie and Rand Paul join in on the Chris Christie/Rand Paul fight?

Interesting, Christie makes an argument similar to the one that Chris just made: Casting his support of Bushian foreign policy as sticking by bedrock conservative principles, casting Rand Paul as the RINO squish.

I don't think the nomination will be won or lost on foreign policy, except if anyone attempts too extreme a position (Ron Paul isolationism or Bomb-Bomb-Iran John McCain Gonzo Interventionism), which almost certainly will not happen. Mostly I think people will just distort what the other guys are saying to make it sound Dumb and Dangerous without clearly articulating their own actual vision of foreign policy in a form specific enough to be critiqued (and lose votes).

So pretty much like they're doing now. The real war will not be over war but over government.

A black female Democrat calls the NAACP's response to the Rodeo Clown (he should be investigated by the Secret Service) "ridiculous," and, I can't believe this, is honest enough to say she (and all other liberals) loved seeing George Bush decapitated on Game of Thrones.

How quickly people can arrive at the truth when they're actually speaking the truth. Extraordinary.

Bono, who used to be a rock star until he began a new career of showing up at random places and giving speeches about grain yields, and the Economist, a magazine dedicated to the proposition that boringness is next to godliness, both acknowledge capitalism's potent power to raise people up from want and need to some kind of material satisfaction. I think, given the Economist's rather leftish bent, I'm more surprised they've come to this conclusion than I am that Bono has.

Dana Loesch recounts her home state of Missouri's troubling history of "Getting in the Faces" of Obama's critics.

And, from @rdbrewer4, Baby Polar Bear:

Update: FAKE! It's just a toy you can make with a pattern from Etsy.

And, lastly: A guy named Glenn Martin is not building flying cars, which makes him kind of a dick, but he is trying to make the next best thing: personal jetpacks.

Although he'd hoped for a civilian commercial model soon, they've decided to do a rescue/firefighter model, and then later try the commercial market.

It will set you back $100,000, probably, if it comes out at all.

But it will be worth it. Now look, you Morons, you have to imagine a person in the jetpack to get the full effect:

more...

Posted by: Ace at 04:34 PM | Comments (290)
Post contains 428 words, total size 3 kb.

The only "conservative" writer at the paper. Get rid of her.

Jennifer Rubin is ruining everything. Everything.

This is laughable. I have my problems with Rubin,* and while I don't think she should be fired, I think she should be moved to a different beat. Jennifer Rubin is not conservative. She is a liberals' idea of a Polite Company Conservative, culturally liberal and reflexively establishment in most ways but firm as regards the defense of Israel. And liberals can excuse her for that, because, being Jewish, she has a level of emotional attachment to the state of Israel.

But she's not conservative. Most conservatives are no longer Super-Hawks. They were, but aren't now. (I don't know how people like Chris Christie are so insulated from public opinion to not yet realize this.)

She is a Republican, true enough, in the same basic sort of way that Bob Woodward was (and perhaps still is). A culturally liberal, establishment-defending, New Class warrior.

So pointing to her foreign policy leanings does not make the case for her conservatism; in fact, it rather shows she is further out of sync from the conservative movement than she was during the period from 2004-2009.

That does not mean Jennifer Rubin should have no place at the post. She's one of the few writers there who is actually right of left-of-center. But once again a liberal institution chooses to appoint someone who is more or less liberal themselves as its reporter (or blogger, anyway) on those Exotic Conservatives and Their Strange and Violent Folk Customs.

Now, what's funny here is that one would imagine that an ombudsman should be a fair, objective critic of the paper. If he is not, there is no point to him. Even the New York Times has picked ombudsmen (or as they call it, Public Editors) who were willing to call the Times on its liberal biases.

For example, the previous Ombudsman critiqued the Times thus:

Across the paper’s many departments... so many share a kind of political and cultural progressivism — for lack of a better term — that this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of The Times.

As a result, developments like the Occupy movement and gay marriage seem almost to erupt in The Times, overloved and undermanaged, more like causes than news subjects.

I got that from a Washington Post blogger, by the way. A blogger who, yes, defends the Times from this scurrilous, outrageous charge.

It is ridiculous that the Washington Post cannot even attempt the minor effort at the hygiene of self-reflection and self-criticism that the archliberal New York Times does.

If you read the letter of this guy, it's pretty much nothing but pablum ("Get to know your audience" -- gee wilikers that's a swell idea!) and no specifics. But apparently he thinks the Post should put more money into the Style section, and put someone in charge to give the department "vision."

So those are his two specific suggestions: Fire Jennifer Rubin, Who Is Ruining Just Everything, Everything!, and get some "Vision" in the Style section.

Does he have any problem with laughable hack Greg Sargent? Of course not; Greg Sargent is a liberal, and therefore Possessed of The Truth.

J. Christian Adams mocks this guy's analysis.

Pexton also complains that Rubin is “the No. 1 source of complaint mail,” which is no surprise given the leftist readers of the WP, which in essence acts as the Obama administration’s company newsletter. Apparently, getting criticized by the rabid intolerant Left is grounds for termination at the WP.

But if you take the text of his complaint letter and simply substitute the Washington Post and all of its liberal columnists and reporters for Rubin, and “left” for “right,” it sounds like a perfect description of the newspaper and its biased coverage and editorial page:

“ [The WP] parrots and peddles every silly [left]-wing theory to come down the pike…. [The WP’s] analysis of the conservative movement, which is a worthwhile and important beat that the Post should treat more seriously on its national pages, is shallow and predictable. [The editorial page’s] columns, at best, are political pornography; they get a quick but sure rise out of the [left], but you feel bad afterward.

And [the WP] is often wrong, and rarely acknowledges it. [The WP] was oh-so-wrong about [Barack Obama], week after week writing embarrassing flattery about his 2012 campaign, calling almost every move he made brilliantÂ…[The WP] was wrong about [add your own list of the many times the WP has been wrong]Â…. And does [the WP] apologize? Nope.

Pexton must have been looking in the mirror when he wrote his letter.

One point: When this guy says the right is deserving of serious coverage, I take this to mean he wants an impartial outsider -- by which we mean a Liberal -- to document the Troubling Social Phenomenon we call "the right." That is, he wants it treated like a dangerous movement to be studied and perhaps, one day, cured.

Why do I think that? For this simple reason. Jennifer Rubin does indeed pop off with some partisan-pleasing stuff. (She also angers people on the right by hewing to her culturally-liberal, reflexively establishment politics.)

And yet Greg Sargent, Rubin's analogue, in as much as he does the "liberal" blogging (as opposed to every other person at the Post), does the same thing. He does cheerleader stuff for the Left. He tells you what a Great Big Dummy Mitt Romney is, and what a Terrible Liar Mitch McConnell is.

In other words, Greg Sargent "covers" the liberal caucus the same way Rubin covers the conservative side -- by indulging her own political vanities and pushing her own line. Sargent does not "cover" the liberal caucus like an outsider, like Richard Attenborough among the lemurs; what he really does is cover the right, but from a liberal partisan attack vector.

So why should Rubin not be permitted to do the same? Why does she have to actually "cover the right" as if she were a naturalist documenting strange fauna, when the liberal blogger is free to do what liberal bloggers do, to wit, promote liberal agitprop they got from liberal blogs and liberal politicians?

The answer is obvious. The answer is so obvious that it should have occurred to this idiot, but of course it didn't, because someone this deeply dyed in the pink of leftism doesn't even notice the color any longer.

thanks to @rdbrewer4

* I don't have as many problems with her as other people do. @drewmtips, I'm pretty sure, kinda hates her. I don't quite hate her for the same reason that Drew does hate her: she supported Mitt Romney, who, while not my own first choice, and not my idea of a great candidate, at least came to the interview with his pants on.

I have no problem with this moderate brand of conservatism, actually. A bird needs two wings to fly and all that.

And yet, I don't buy her as a "conservative" writer. Few do. I don't mind moderates at all-- but why does the liberal caucus get "covered" by the true-believing liberal crusader Greg Sargent, whereas the conservative side of things is covered by a culturally-liberal, reflexively-establishment moderate who, like many culturally-liberal, reflexively-establishment moderates, can barely disguise her disgust at the uncouth horde that makes up the conservative movement?

Alternately... Keep Rubin as a "conservative" blogger but add another one who is, you know, actually conservative.

The Washington Post has a cavalcade of bloggers ranging from liberal to archliberal to neoliberal but apparently they just have this one little slot for Jennifer Rubin's Krazy Konservative Kommentary.

And you know, Jennifer Rubin is ruining everything. Everything!11!!

Posted by: Ace at 02:59 PM | Comments (288)
Post contains 1284 words, total size 9 kb.

Bloodbath.

Egypt's military-backed government also pledged Thursday to confront "terrorist actions and sabotage" allegedly carried out by members of former President Mohammed Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood group since he was ousted in a military coup July 3.

The government buildings burned in Giza were a two-storey colonial-style villa and a four-storey administrative building. The offices are on Pyramids Road on the west bank of the River Nile.

State TV blamed Morsi supporters for the fire and broadcast footage showing both structures burning as fire men evacuated employees from the larger building.

Tamarod, the youth movement that had organized mass rallies calling Morsi's ouster, said citizens should set up neighbourhood watch groups to protect government and private property. Meanwhile, successive attacks on Coptic Christian churches continued for a second day, according to Egypt's official news agency and human rights advocates.

Obama is... writing a strongly-worded letter.

Less than two hours before the police force measures were announced, Obama put Egypt on notice in cancelling the Bright Star military exercises that have been a centrepiece of the countries' military relations for decades. He also warned Egypt to lift its state of emergency and work towards peace or further action could be taken. Later Thursday, Canada urged Egyptians to show "restraint" and urged "all parties to engage in a productive dialogue to ease tensions."

"The U.S. strongly condemns the steps taken by EgyptÂ’s military," said Obama, who interrupted his week-long vacation on Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts. "We oppose pursuit of martial law, which denies those rights to citizens.

We will, however, continue sending the Egyptian military their $1.5 billion per year, even though Obama can't do that because the law forbids aid to countries whose leadership has been changed by coup.

I'm sure they're busted up about the cancellation of joint exercises.

The Muslim Brotherhood isn't backing down, either:

When asked how far the Muslim Brotherhood is willing to let the situation in Egypt escalate, El-Hadad responded:

"My generation has lived under military rule for most of our lives.... If it means that we continue fighting until we reverse this military coup and restore our democracy, as inexperienced as it was, I will continue doing so, even if we have to face the live bullets of the army once again."

Which the army seems pretty determined that they will. The further use of deadly force against protesters has been authorized.

EgyptÂ’s military-backed government authorized the security forces to fire live ammunition against opponents Thursday, underlining its determination to crush with force any lingering challenge posed by supporters of the countryÂ’s ousted elected president in the wake of a bloody crackdown on their camps.

One big benefit of the tendency towards a more isolationist, or at least more modest, foreign policy is that there is no need to feel ownership over any of this. We don't make their troubles. They make their own, and in great quantity.

Let them figure it out.

Posted by: Ace at 02:00 PM | Comments (238)
Post contains 529 words, total size 4 kb.

I'm late to this.

Just revealed: he asked his employee if she believed that he could "go" for "eight hours in one night."

He grabbed her, kissed her.

She went to work every day with "butterflies in her stomach," she says.

She was working at the Senior Citizens' Help Desk. She herself is a senior. But he was just remorseless and undauntable. Like a Terminator of harassment.

Important Update: Peggy Shannon says that Filner's inappropriate behavior continued against her, even after he offered a coerced semi-admission "apology," which I think was back in June, when the disclosures were just getting started.

Posted by: Ace at 12:21 PM | Comments (193)
Post contains 115 words, total size 1 kb.

The palace always appreciates an interesting new courtier. The old ones get so boring; once one has exhausted all the possibilities of intrigue, affair, and revenge with the current courtiers, one needs fresh toys.

Texas state Sen. Wendy Davis (D), who gained national attention after filibustering an anti-abortion-rights bill in Austin, will be appearing in VogueÂ’s September issue.

In addition to detailing her impressive wardrobe and the pink sneakers she wore during her 13-hour filibuster, the fashion magazine article details her rise from being a 19-year-old single mother to Harvard Law school and a potential Texas gubernatorial bid.

There's always been a Court and there's always been a Court Party. It's just obnoxious, though, that all the instruments of the media are now celebrating the Court Party, and that the rest of us -- hitherto unbothered by the self-fawning spectacle -- now have to watch it.

I guess it's better this way, as awful as it is-- better to see what's going on, no matter how distasteful, than to not see it and be oblivious to it.

Via Doc Zero, who says that the media is primarily in the business of stamping out new Idols of the Left on its always-buzzing production lines.

Posted by: Ace at 12:54 PM | Comments (350)
Post contains 231 words, total size 2 kb.

I like that Allah quashed the "GGILF" giggling here; that's not the point, as he writes.

This news comes packaged with an extra frisson of shamefulness because of her age, but it really shouldn’t. The implication is that it’s kinda sorta understandable that he was coming on to younger women whereas coming on to a great-granny is capital-w Weird. I think that misses the point of what this guy is, allegedly, guilty of. He wasn’t “coming on” to people, like a random person at a bar might do; he was using his status as mayor to pressure women, supposedly in great volume and sometimes with unwanted physical contact, who worked for him and with him into socializing with him. Given the freakish tenacity which he’s clung to his office, it seems like the power stroke he got from all of this was at least as exciting as the prospect of sex.

You know, and I'm not trying to be funny here, there is that old saying that if you just constantly ask women for sex, ten times a day, one or more will say yes. He appears to be employing that strategy, which presents a major problem: He is not propositioning equals as he might find at a purely social event. He is specifically targeting women with business before the Congress or now the city of San Diego. They are free to say no... but not quite as free as we might like.

Certainly they're not free to complain -- not if they value their jobs in the corrupt Democratic bureaucratic-political matrix.

I'm wondering if this guy found this these sorts of come ons worked for him as a younger man, with hippie chicks -- "Hey baby, I was a Freedom Rider, wanna do it?" -- and is now trying to reassure himself he's still got "It." (Which he never did but whatever.)

It seems very strange to me that this guy doesn't even seek to establish a basic rapport with a woman before bothering her.

Also at Allah's post, the city is looking into the possibility he used a city credit card for illicit purposes. If so, they can impeach him -- well, it's not called impeachment, but the city council may remove him.

According to the memo, the city council asked the city attorney to look at the charter and determine if there is a process on how to impeach elected officers. While there is no such provision, the City Council can still remove someone from office under Section 108 of the charter, the memo stated.

Charter Section 108 says that “every City officer who willfully approves or allows unauthorized payments from City treasury is subject to removal from office,” according to the memo.

Corrected: Great-grandmother, not just grandmother.

I suppose one could easily be a grandmother at age 40, or younger.

Posted by: Ace at 10:54 AM | Comments (340)
Post contains 507 words, total size 3 kb.