Bumped

Come witness the Master Diplomat use his silvery tongue to insult the very people whose support he's asking for.

In a speech that had been good, for an Obama speech, avoiding his usual gassy nothingness in favor of tangible nouns and clear verbs of the sort he apparently was taught were poor form in college, Obama chose to drop this little insult:

And so to my friends on the right, I ask you to reconcile your commitment to America's military might with a failure to act when a cause is so plainly just.

To my friends on the left, I ask you to reconcile your belief in freedom and dignity for all people with those images of children writhing in pain and going still on a cold hospital floor, for sometimes resolutions and statements of condemnation are simply not enough.

Note that Obama's "friends on the left" believe in freedom and dignity in all people. People on the right don't, apparently.

What do people on the right believe in? "Military might." Pure force. Note that he decouples military might from any moral purpose -- he doesn't say "your commitment to keeping the nation safe" or "your commitment to a patriotic defense of America." No, such moral approval is stripped away so that Obama can speak neutrally of the one thing Obama thinks conservatives care about, naked martial power.

We share this love of naked martial power, shorn of any moral or ethical purpose, with some of his other friends on the right, such as Caesar, Napoleon, and Hitler.

His friends on the left, see, support the values which might be attained by exertion of raw military might, such as "freedom and dignity of all people," but his friends on the right are just about having the biggest bombs and stuff.

Even when he's supposedly "reaching out to us," this Master Diplomat and Coolly Brilliant Poet-Warrior steadfastly refuses to pay the right the slightest degree of respect.

And this man represents us in our dealings with foreign actors. Imagine how his similar haughtiness plays overseas. Imagine how it's already played for five years, and how it will play for another three.

Smart diplomacy, huh?

Hey wingers, get behind this war. It's got the three things you Bitter Clingers can't get enough of-- Guns, Spooky Religious Nonsense, and Killing Foreign People.

Now, Friends on the Left, you can get behind it for the true moral purposes which flow from reason and higher functions of the brain.

But Friends on the Right, we'll appeal to your Lizard Brains and Blow Up Some Shit because you folks seem to like that sort of thing. Why, we'll even give you some of those ribbons and parades that your Simple Ilk seems to crave.

I mean, Friends on the Right, let's face it, you don't believe in Freedom and Dignity for All People. No, that's a higher goal, and higher goals are promulgated by Obama's Friends on the Left.

People on the Right, you will provide the muscle for achieving the goals of Obama's Friends on the Left.

See, we can all work together and achieve big things. Obama's Friends on the Left will provide the thinking and moral reason, and Obama's Friends on the Right will provide the gruntwork, simple mechanical actions, and crude delight in high explosives.

Friends on the Left, Obama calls you to your better angels.

Friends on the Right, Obama promises you some Sweet Fucking War Footage on CNN. Guncamera shit, Hoss. And you know you love that.

Friends on the Left, think of the children that can be saved.

Friends on the Right, keep in mind that a lot of the people we'll be dropping bombs on look reasonably similar to Trayvon Martin. Pretty good, right? Yeah you bet it is!!!

Friends on the Left, Obama wants you to believe what you always believe in: the Greater Good for Mankind.

Friends on the Right, Obama promises you that he will sate your bestial need for violence and simian dominance games.

And they say this man seems somehow "foreign," as if he's "alien" to American culture, and speaks American as a second language. Why, they couldn't be more wrong.

Below, some videos Obama would like his new "Friends" to watch.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 06:32 AM | Comments (464)
Post contains 1012 words, total size 6 kb.

Damn. I can't believe it's been so long. I found myself watching this last night. I do still miss him, by the way. Guh.

Elliott Spitzer and Anthony Weiner lost. Awesome. Honestly, I'd given up hope for that crappy town. Oh, and here's a photo of Weiner going out with a bang (SFW, I swear). Okay, I'm still not holding my breath. Whatever. I don't have to live there. ... I live in D.C. ... Crep.

For Colorado recall developments, see our own poll guy.

I've really got nothing else today. Just. Watch the replays. I don't know if they're gonna switch to it this morning, but for the past 11 years, MSNBC (I know, right?) ran their exact fed from that morning. Fox and CNN have moved on to other things. But I've watched MSNBC's 9/11/01 feed for most of these years and you should really switch over and see it if you can. It's unbelievable. Just unbelievable.

If they don't show it this year, watch the first 10 minutes of this video. We didn't know anything when it happened. Nothing. It's actually really hard to watch because they didn't know anything of what was coming when it started. And, of course, we do. I just think people forget. Watch the first 10 minutes. Don't skip, don't move to the parts you know. Just watch 10 minutes. Guh. They knew nothing.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 03:20 AM | Comments (229)
Post contains 240 words, total size 2 kb.

#AOSHQDD #SD11 #COrecall MORSE IS GONE

— CAC (@ConArtCritic) September 11, 2013

BOOM.

Statistically impossible for him to climb back, down 800 votes with only about 2400-2500 still left to be counted. Race called about 10 minutes ago.
One down, hopefully one more to go.

UPDATE: CALLING IT: GIRON HAS BEEN RECALLED AS WELL

Added [rdbrewer]: A little celebration music? more...

Posted by: CAC at 07:16 PM | Comments (420)
Post contains 92 words, total size 2 kb.

Always Expect the Gorilla

First watch this video. Those of you who've seen it before shut the hell up while everyone else watches.

There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know.
There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know.
But there are also unknown unknowns - there are things we do not know we don't know.

  -- Donald Rumsfeld

The thing is that, while Unknown Unknowns are obviously unknowable in detail, what Rumsfeld's point was, was this: they can be anticipated as a group or as a concept. You need to know that they're out there, even when you can't tell what they are. Insurance companies are good at this. They have learned from long experience to include on their balance sheets, not only reserves for known claims, even when the amounts of the claims are unknowable; classic known unknowns. But they also include a reserve, the setting of which is more actuarial art than actuarial science, for claims that are "incurred but not reported" - classic unknown unknowns.

As good as the insurers, with in some cases centuries of experiential records, are at this, Beltway public policy intellectuals, particularly the young wunderkind sort of baby duck for whom every event is an unprecedented novelty, are hopelessly bad at it. Hence the excoriation of Rumsfeld. They didn't see any gorilla, so there is no gorilla.

...Don't make that mistake. Broaden your palette of information sources. Question your own assumptions. Expect the gorilla.

He's really there.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 06:38 PM | Comments (300)
Post contains 1354 words, total size 14 kb.

Maybe Putin could propose a hypothetical plan for achieving this.

House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) on Monday sent Kerry a formal letter demanding access to the survivors of the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

“I must receive confirmation that the [State] Department will makes these witnesses available to Committee investigators by September 24, 2013,” the letter reads.

“Otherwise, I will have no alternative but to consider the use of compulsory process,” the letter adds.

Serious You Guys this is my real skin...
Why don't you believe me?

Pic via @rdbrewer4.

By the way, Obama's speech tonight will be "unbelievably small," just 15 minutes long.

In other words, his speech will be just muscular enough to screw up all of your DVR recordings, but you'll still catch some of the opening credits.

Obama has decided on a "limited, targeted" speech which will be like his planned war, brief, pointless, and slightly less consequential than America's Got Talent.

Posted by: Ace at 03:25 PM | Comments (208)
Post contains 193 words, total size 2 kb.

@slate continues its proud tradition of writing very stupid things to get people to say "OMG, So Stupid You Guys, I have to link this."

Well, no link. But a Slate writer is upset over Jimmy Kimmel's Twerk-FAIL prank.

At Vulture, Josh Wolk suggested that the made-up video illustrates everything that’s wrong with television news. I think it illustrates everything that’s wrong with viral marketing. Kimmel’s prank is not a biting satire, nor is it a mirror to our stupid culture. It’s a hostile, self-promoting act—a covert ad for Jimmy Kimmel Live—rendered as ironic acid that corrodes our sense of wonder. If the Web provides a cabinet of curiosities, full of freakish baubles of humanity, the hoaxer smashes it to bits, then counts his money while he preens atop the rubble.

I know it sounds like butthurt to complain about the fraud, but seriously, what’s the point of Kimmel’s joke? If he really wants to “put an end to twerking,” then we can agree he’s just a jerk. (Who wants to squash a trend of people dancing in their bedrooms?) If he’s teaching us to be wary of what we find online, then his lesson comes 20 years too late, and it’s also self-defeating: A hoax like this doesn’t point to lapses in transparency, it clouds our view of everything. YouTube shows the world in all its weirdness, and gives a window on the geek sublime.

I know you were proud when you thought of that -- "geek sublime" -- but you shouldn't have been.

When liars spread their hoggish propaganda, they mist the landscape with distrust.

I'm sorry, was this some kind of near-English language like Esperanto?

Sounds like this kid raided his 8th grade notebooks for his first efforts at Pink Floyd/J.R.R. Tolkein Fusion Poetry.

The Geek Sublime indeed.

...

A friend who loves the hoax told me that I’m playing the part of a “fuming, veiny-templed square,” and that I don’t get the joke. It’s true; I don’t. How is Kimmel’s stunt substantively different from those of other lying members of the media we now deplore, like James Frey and Stephen Glass and the father of the Balloon Boy, Richard Heene?

He then answers his own question, noting that "technically" those were actual attempts at fraud and not pranks always intended to be revealed at some point, but still, he's very wounded over this, this ironic acid that corrodes his sense of wonder.

Thanks to @mkhammer and @freddoso.

Via @rumfshaker, this pig must be a Moron.

It appears that Eric Cantor is not taking the sage advice I offered in the post below.

Get close to a comfy chair or a yoga mat: Obama took time out from blowing up US foreign policy to compliment himself.

Attempting to prove my "Rule 34 of Cute" postulate, I googled "Cat Balloon" to see if there were any cute videos involving the themes of cats and/or balloons. My research is below the fold.

Before getting to that, look at Richard Branson bragging on himself.

This is a giant step. Our spaceship is now the highest commercial winged vehicle in history! We also successfully tested its feather system for carefree re-entry too - the first time thatÂ’s happened on a rocket powered flight.

Virgin Galactic Chief Pilot Dave Mackay was at the controls of WhiteKnightTwo, which carried SS2 to an altitude of 46,000 feet. Then SS2 pilots Mark Stucky and Clint Nichols, of Scaled, ignited the rocket motor for a 20-second burn propelling the spaceship to 69,000 feet. During this time, SS2 achieved a speed of Mach 1.43.

The main progress with this test is that we deployed the full expansion (up and down) of the feather mechanism at a high altitude, alongside testing the rocket motor performance. This feather mechanism was the key innovation that enabled us to get into the space program in the first place. It acts like a giant shuttlecock and slows the spaceship up as it comes back into the earthÂ’s atmosphere.

Very cool beans. Video below.
more...

Posted by: Ace at 04:00 PM | Comments (808)
Post contains 821 words, total size 6 kb.

Why am I picking on him?

It's not that what he's doing is so exceptional here. There will be 70 other Republicans making the same basic case: The reason I'm against this war is that I'm so pro-war and Obama's being all weak about war and stuff.

There is a silly tradition of claiming both sides of a debate in America. Why be the anti-war candidate when, like Barack Obama, you can be both the anti-war candidate (brb not negotiatin' an SOF with Iraq) and also the super pro-war candidate (brb gonna really take it to Al Qaeda in Afghanistan).

Every once in a while there's an issue where you really can take both sides of it, or attack your opponent from both sides on it, but as a general rule, this whole "I'm voting for Peace because I'm such a Super Hawk" (or, I suppose, I'm voting for War because I'm so pro-Peace) is just a bit of stupid nonsense for LIVs.

So here's McConnell's too-cute-by-half-stupid formulation that annoys me. He objects to the limitation on the duration of force specified in the now-shelved AUMF:

“There is absolutely no reason, no reason to signal to the enemy when and how and for how long you plan to strike them. None. As I’ve said before, you don’t send out a ‘save the date’ card to the enemy.”

Really? Did you want an unconditional AUMF for a war none of us particularly wish to be involved in the first place? (Caveat: Some people say he meant that we shouldn't telegraph our punches. I answer that in a comment.)

I don't believe he believes that. I believe the only circumstances he'd entertain approving an AUMF in this particular case -- a minor war of choice in which the goal is, apparently, to "send a message" and "preserve credibility" -- if there were in fact some limitation on presidential authority to call up the reserves and mount a full invasion.

At least I hope that's what he thinks.

Here's an idea:

Why don't politicians just try telling the truth ? Why get cute about it? I'm sure Mitch McConnell has some genuine and defensible reasons for opposing this war.

Such as: The Free Syrian Army is increasing dominated by Al Qaeda.

Such as: Obama hasn't specified exactly what is plan is. Like, does he plan to take out Syria's airplanes, airports, and artillery brigades? If so he should say so, so we could make an... what's that old term that no one uses anymore? Oh, right... an Informed Decision upon an important matter in a democratic system of government.

There is no particular problem with an end-date for an AUMF. Here's the thing: If there's a good reason to continue the war, the President could always come back to Congress to get a fresh authorization, and, assuming there's a good reason for such an extension, then Congress would presumably grant it.

Why does everything have to be cute?

You know what's a really cute and powerful method of persuasion? The Truth. The truth, and talking to American citizens as if they're adults.

Just telling them what you actually think. Just leveling with them like adults level with each other, once in a while, when there aren't cameras on them.

Again, this isn't McConnell's sin per se. This infects every aspect of public communication. Everything is cutesy messaging and stagey posturing.

Not only is it false, but worse yet, people know it's false. We see through it. It's silly.

So who is the show for, exactly?

How about we start doing what Americans used to do when we were so thrilled to have a free democratic republic two hundred years ago? Where we just explain our Actual Positions and Genuine Beliefs and trust that the truth will win the day 7 or 8 times out of Ten?

Actually, Like Most Things, This is Probably John McCain's Fault. McCain's idea of war is that you never fight a war halfway.

I guess he gets this from Vietnam. I understand that.

But he's always the guy pushing the idea that we must have Boots on the Ground if we're going to take any military action at all.

That is, that military action is a binary thing: We either have None of it, or All of it.

Can this possibly stand up to scrutiny? It's a fun thing to shout and you feel self-righteous yelling it, but is there really no place in American War-Planning for a few cruise missiles and B-2 bombings as an attack which is neither "Nothing" nor "Everything"?

Isn't it more reasonable to say that there will be some threats or harrassments that demand a deterring, punishing strike, and yet are not quite so severe as to require the Full Faith and Credit of the entire American Armed Forces?

Was Reagan a girly-girl for just bombing Tripoli a little and letting Qaddafi understand he could, and would, attempt to kill him if he didn't learn to mind his manners?

I was always baffled by McCain's insistence that we must be willing to put Boots on the Ground in Kosovo, a war I barely even supported. (Or, actually, didn't support, but so long as it was a nearly cost-free air campaign I didn't get loud in my opposition.)

Why would I wish to compound the error by doubling down on it?

Worse yet, I picked up the hue and cry for Boots on the Ground from McCain, myself. I wanted a way to oppose the war, and McCain's SuperHawk "Let's commit 100%!" mantra sounded good.

But it was opportunistic and I never believed it. It let me pose as a Kosovo Super-Hawk, which, I guess, felt "good" or something, while actually opposing the operation as Not My Concern.

I guess we all have our vanities. John McCain more than most. But we shouldn't let our vanities and our cheap political slogans be confused with our Real Beliefs and Actual Opinions and Real Thoughts.

I don't want to go through this process again where I pick up on some convenient political sloganeering again -- like Bush's Idealistic talk of bringing democracy to foreign shores -- and, by dint of sheer repetition, begin thinking it's Real.

It's not. It's a slogan. And slogans are for bumpers, not for brains.

Posted by: Ace at 02:21 PM | Comments (235)
Post contains 1075 words, total size 6 kb.

Richard Dawkins may never prove that there's no God, but he has proven that there exists a strong impulse in the minds of Leftists to destroy anything wholesome.

And by connecting his own psychological baggage with his politics, he's demonstrating my strong belief that much of "politics," especially for the florid, isn't politics at all. It's just a socially acceptable way to exhibit your Kinks and Damage in public.

Slut-Walks, anyone?

I was going to attack Salon for this, but then I read the piece: Salon is merely excerpting an interview Dawkins gave to the Times. I assume that's the New York Times, though they don't say. So they're only doing what I'm now doing. This isn't a case, a la the Washington Post, of commissioning a pro-pedo piece in order to drive Troll Traffic.

But then we'll have to see if Salon follows it up in the next couple of days with their own "Is a smidgen of rape really such a bad thing?" article.

So this is the next hill the left will be trying to take in the Culture War.

So is this now the Left's post-gay-marriage Social Policy Initiative, then? Mainstreaming pedophilia?

Do You Hear Me Now, Dad?

How Do You Like Your Blue-Eyed Boy Now, Dad?

I Have Ideas Too, Dad! Good Ideas!

Your Lap Isn't The Only Thing That Can Scare Children!!!

I Can Scare Children Too, Dad!

Dad?

Dad?

Can You Hear Me Dad?

Daddy?

Daddy?

DADDY!!!?

Daddy Where Are You? I'm Worried. Comfort Me With Your Thighs.

This just in: Man who has spent entire adult public life attempting a Freudian vengeance against God-As-Father-Figure-Betrayer announces that a bit of "mild pedophilia" did "no lasting harm" to his psychology.

This Particular Action Item Has a Pedigree: Via @gogman, this old, and worrisome, article from Der Spiegel, about the Left taking the 60s Revolution too far... right into children, actually.

The Left doesn't want to discuss this much.

Posted by: Ace at 01:00 PM | Comments (329)
Post contains 364 words, total size 3 kb.

Um. I'd say I predicted it, which I did, but then, so did you, so did your dog, so did your car, so did your shoes.

It isn't difficult to predict this Maladministration's moves. Just think of a statement which purports to cast Obama in a heroic blaze, and which is also completely untrue.

And that's the Cult Harmony Message for the next day.

And also the Cult Mental Readiness Message.

I can't take it.

I just can't.

Suggested by a commenter: more...

Posted by: Ace at 12:09 PM | Comments (336)
Post contains 148 words, total size 1 kb.

Is there a Nobel Prize for bathos?

Russia withdraws request for UN Security Council meeting which would have debated Russia's own plan.

And Putin, testing the mettle of this Young President (?) just like Joe Biden drooled, now decides that First, You Will Blow Me.

But the actual statement was that first the US must renounce all future intention of using force against Syria, and then we will have a debate on Syria turning its weapons over to international monitoring.

BREAKING

In lieu of speech, Obama will just replay the Seinfeld episode "This was supposed to be the Summer of George" and weep softly.

BREAKING

Obama has already secured the agreement of all American media figures to call the airing of the episode "bold" and "visionary."

From our own Morning Dump BenK (@benk84),

It's funny because it's poo.

Posted by: Ace at 11:32 AM | Comments (421)
Post contains 191 words, total size 2 kb.