So morons, just how manly are you? Take the manliness test and find out. My results said I was as manly as Brian Blessed, shouting like an avalanche.

h/t more...

Posted by: CDR M at 05:50 PM | Comments (722)
Post contains 423 words, total size 5 kb.

One of our favorite guests, Hot Air's Mary Katharine Ham, returns to the podcast and Ace, Gabe, Drew and John finally let her get a word in edgewise!

Questions & comments here: Ask the Blog

[MP3 Download] | Subscribe: [RSS] | [iTunes]

Follow on Twitter:
AoSHQ Podcast (@AoSHQPodcast)
Ace (@AceofSpadesHQ)
Drew M. (@DrewMTips)
Gabriel Malor (@GabrielMalor)
John E. (@JohnEkdahl)
Andy (@TheH2 and @AndyM1911)

Open thread in the comments.

Posted by: andy at 12:43 PM | Comments (158)
Post contains 75 words, total size 2 kb.

Good morning, morons & moronettes, and welcome to your Saturday Gardening Thread!

This thread brought to you by International Harvester:
more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 05:25 AM | Comments (145)
Post contains 2409 words, total size 16 kb.

Solid piece at the Weekly Standard by a man named James W. Ceasar. (That spelling appears in the byline-- I checked.)

Every student of American religious history has heard of the event known as “the Great Disappointment.” In 1818 William Miller, a former naval captain turned lay Baptist preacher, developed a new method for calculating biblical chronology to arrive at the conclusion that the millennium would take place sometime between 1842 and 1844. Finally published in 1832, Miller’s thesis quickly drew attention. A sect began to form, spreading from Miller’s home region in Eastern New York to New England and beyond. Millerism was born. The time was drawing nigh, Miller preached, when a dreadful cataclysm would occur, to be followed by a wondrous splendor: “The heavens appear, the great white throne is in sight, amazement fills the universe with awe.” Pressed by followers for an exact date—people wished to settle their affairs before going up to heaven—Miller, after some hesitation and a few unmet deadlines, settled on October 22, 1844. The fateful day came and then went without any visible sign of the Advent, leaving the Millerites disheartened and perplexed.

You can probably figure out where he's going with this, huh?

Posted by: Ace at 11:31 AM | Comments (393)
Post contains 223 words, total size 2 kb.

Just a note: I'll be on Huffpost Live again starting at 2pm as part of a panel on Mike Sack's 'Legalese It!' show, which covers legal news of the week.

We'll be talking about the movement to put cameras in the Supreme Court, next week's EPA showdown at the Supreme Court, and the state attorneys general who are refusing to defend state marriage laws.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 09:54 AM | Comments (38)
Post contains 78 words, total size 1 kb.

So here's the algorithm.

1. Identify some problem. In this case, sure, it's true that some parents are genuine dumbasses and are close to legally unfit to raise a child (though not actually legally unfit).

2. Propose state action and state compulsion for all to take care of this problem.

They run this algorithm for each and every "problem" they see in society. And Step 2 is always the same: We need a law; we need compulsion; we need to empower the State over citizens.

As Vonnegut said of each death in Slaughter House Five, so we too can say of each freedom newly dead: And so it goes.

Posted by: Ace at 10:13 AM | Comments (299)
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.

It's a punt on the underlying issue, hoping to resolve it later.

Per Fox News' televised report, the Ukrainian president has agreed to early elections, to install, maybe, a new ruling regime.

Other concessions include an amnesty for protesters -- apparently they could have been charged for the crime of being brutalized and shot by state police -- and an end to the president's "anti-terrorism" campaign, which provided the legal pretext to use deadly force against people gathering in public squares to protest him.

Supposedly the president Yanukovych will include the opposition in the current one-party (Russia-backed) government, for whatever that may count for.

Shots rang out and tension remained high in the streets of Kiev Friday, as Ukrainian protest leaders signed a deal with Ukraine's president to defuse a political crisis that has left scores dead and hundreds injured.

The two sides signed an agreement after hours of European-led negotiations...

The Ukrainian parliament approved amnesty for protesters involved in the recent violence following the agreement Friday.

Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych gave in to pressure from European diplomats, offering concessions-- including elections-- and promising to invite the opposition into the government, in an attempt to end the violence. Yanukovych gave no time frame for new elections.

Of course everyone sees the problem immediately: Tyrants do not give up power, ever. Sure, they can agree to new elections, to solve a short-term headache; but their intent is then to fix the elections in their favor.

I don't know how that will be dealt with. I imagine it won't be. The Russians are pretty good at rigging elections by this point.

Posted by: Ace at 07:11 AM | Comments (190)
Post contains 293 words, total size 2 kb.

He's right, on principle and also on the politics.

Here is the full Nugent quote, most of which is okay in my book, if a little extra-spicy -- until those unfortunate two words:

I have obviously failed to galvanize and prod, if not shame enough
Americans to be ever vigilant not to let a Chicago communist-raised, communist-educated, communist-nurtured subhuman mongrel like the ACORN community organizer gangster Barack Hussein Obama to weasel his way into the top office of authority in the United States of America.

On principle, Nugent was wrong to racialize his insult. You can fairly say any number of things about the President. Many of his supporters will falsely claim a racial component about anything you say about him.

However, Nugent's statement actually contains, clearly, a racial component. You can't claim that Obama and his supporters are "making up a racial component" when it's right there, right in the words.

On politics-- well, Nugent has been an outspoken voice associating himself with the right. In the guilt-by-association climate that prevails in this country (well, it prevails with respect to conservatives only), anyone on the right is answerable for anything anyone else on the right says at any moment.

Rick Perry has already gotten heat for failing, initially, to criticize Nugent's words:

According to the Dallas Morning News, Perry said Thursday morning that, "Anybody that’s offended – sorry, but that’s just Ted." By Thursday afternoon, he told CNN's Wolf Blitzer that he's "got a problem" with the words Nugent used.

And now gubernatorial candidate Greg Abbott has had to "flee" reporters who were asking about it:

Abbott on Thursday reportedly fled reporters who tried to ask him about his decision to campaign with Nugent.

Note there is of course a potent media bias which states that some troublesome associations will be front page news while others will not even be questioned.

Another form of media bias in this is what I'd call Vindictive Absolutism. The Vindictive Absolute standard is routinely applied only to "enemies," while friends get a much more lenient standard. The media was all but determined to cover up for Alec Baldwin, for example, taking the position, I guess, that to insist that Alec Baldwin never call someone a "coon," "queen," or dyke was just too much to expect of any man.

But let's look at Hillary Clinton. One of the most damning revelations in the Hillary Papers was this:

The political left, and the media (but I repeat myself), like to pretend that their standards are Absolute and Inviolable -- at least, when they seek to inflict them on their opponents.

But when it comes to their friends -- members of the political left (such as Hillary) or the media (such as Baldwin) -- we suddenly discover there is a lot more give in these rules, a lot more room for context, a lot more room for human understanding.

Any Republican who made a cold political calculation like Hillary did -- calling women complaining of serious harassment "whiney women" and excusing Packwood's groping because she needed his vote -- would be endlessly badgered by the media for engaging in a War on Women.

But when it comes to Hillary Clinton, suddenly they understand that there will be some politics going on in politics. Of course she said this, they think to themselves. There are more important issues than a few "whiney women."

We mustn't lose sight of the omelet for all the broken eggs.

In fact, the media has not even repeated Hillary's "whiney women" thought. It doesn't even consider it important enough to mention. They haven't even offered a defense that these calculations go on all the time in politics, because they haven't informed their audience of the sentiment in the first place.

All this is true, but this is the environment we find ourselves in.

And I do think one can chew gum and walk at the same time: One can hold the media to account for its egregious bias in story selection and what it chooses to gin up public outrage about, while also faulting Ted Nugent for turning what should have been a fair insult against the President into a broad insult against a huge group of people -- racial "mongrels," for one, and anyone who may have been called "subhuman" due to his race.

One last point: Have you ever been in an argument with someone who keeps claiming, for example, that Obamacare is not a move towards socialism, while you suspect that person would actually be okay with socialism?

It's frustrating, because the argument is sort of dishonest: the person is claiming it's not socialism, as if that matters at all to his argument, when in fact his real argument -- which he won't admit -- is that socialism is good, or at least socialism is nothing to be afraid of.

We engage in that sort of dishonest argumentation at our peril, because the media will certainly not permit us that sleight-of-hand. If our real position is that a bit of racialized commentary is A-OK, then why do we spend so much time arguing that when we knock Obama for being lazy it's not a racial comment?

It's not a racial comment, by the way, but if our real back-up argument is racial commentary is okay, then we're being like that guy who argues Obamacare isn't socialist, but really means to argue that socialism is okay.

I think we need to be pretty precise about what we are and are not defending as fair and civil.

And if we resort to the fall-back position that calling someone a "mongrel" is also okay, we can't really blame anyone for concluding "They're okay with some racial remarks, and it really doesn't matter if this or that particular remark is racial or not, because at the end of the day, they're willing to defend the clearly racial ones, too."

Making that argument loses us the other one, which is far, far more important.

And as a general policy, I don't want to stand for the proposition that there's nothing wrong -- nothing, not even enough to warrant a social scolding -- with racialized insults.

For Anyone Currently Pretending To Not Understand Why "Mongrel" Is a Racial Remark... Try googling "racial mongrelization."

You'll see the term has a long, and wretched, history.

You might also want to google the historical pedigree of "subhuman," and who it is, chiefly, who has used this term.

For the Legions of People Claiming to Not Know What Mongrel Means... WordReference defines it for you:

mongrel /ˈmʌŋɡrəl/
n
1 a plant or animal, esp a dog, of mixed or unknown breeding; a crossbreed or hybrid

2 [TABOO] a person of mixed race

Nugent Apologizes, But Not to Obama:

Robert Byrd, Democrat, Senator, Kleagle: Robert Byrd notoriously wrote the following in 1946:

"I shall never fight in the armed forces with a negro by my side ... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

—Robert C. Byrd, in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1946

This has been endlessly quoted on rightwing blogs (on leftwing blogs-- not so much).

This establishes, yes, that the left isn't quite as against racism as they pretend to be.

But it also establishes why some of us are having a hard time believing these claims that "I didn't know mongrel could have a racial connotation."

It's right there in that Byrd quote, something I've cited here dozens of times.

How could you not know?

And, okay, maybe you didn't know. But now that you do know, does it change your opinion, or do you remain steadfast in defending Ted Nugent, on the claim that he probably meant a "mutt dog"?

Or let me ask it this way: How does the argument work, exactly, that Robert Byrd's statement was racist, but Ted Nugent's was, somehow, not?

Posted by: Ace at 09:04 AM | Comments (1345)
Post contains 1437 words, total size 10 kb.

Walt Ehlers received the Medal of Honor for his brave actions in France, shortly after the D-Day invasion. He was the last surviving medal of honor recipient to be part of the invasion and he passed yesterday at age 92. Longtime moron Jeffrey Carter knew Ehlers and wrote a stirring remembrance.

I'll just steal a little bit and then you should click over and read the whole thing.

I learned a lot about the Medal from Walt. It truly isnÂ’t about the people living with those blue ribbons around their necks. It is about their friends that arenÂ’t with us. It extends to all the soldiers in all the wars our country ever fought for freedom that are no longer. There are only 75 living left in the US. We need to cherish them, learn from them, and try to live up to the standards that they set for us.

Ironically, youÂ’d think wearing a medal like that with so much responsibility would be an albatross. It isnÂ’t. They are some of the freest people I have ever met. They have seen the worst humanity has to offer, survived, and more importantly helped others survive it. Somehow, going through what they went through and confronting your deepest fears changes you in ways that we wouldnÂ’t have imagined.

May he rest in peace.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 06:23 AM | Comments (82)
Post contains 228 words, total size 2 kb.

FRIDAY!

A U.S. District Court dismissed the lawsuit against the NYPD for alleged surveillance of Muslims as part of its anti-terrorism activities. The judge found that the plaintiffs lacked standing, since their claimed injuries appears traceable to the AP's decision to disclose the secret program rather than the program itself. The judge also found that even if the plaintiffs had standing, they could not prevail since it appeared that the NYPD targeted individuals on account of terrorism prevention, not on account of their religion. Lawgeeks, the short decision is here (PDF).

Even the New York Times is reporting that Obamacare is causing employers to cut part-time jobs, something the Obama administration insists is merely anecdotal. Of course, it took job cuts among the public sector to get the Times to pay attention to the issue, but at least the paper is covering it.

Ya'll have a good weekend.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:47 AM | Comments (348)
Post contains 156 words, total size 1 kb.