I'm not really a huge fan of these pageanty extravaganzish insaney Olympic things, particularly Winter Games (curling? really?), but if you're interested here's a place to discuss.

Anyway the many silly woes of Sochi are all over the news. By the time the last oligarch skims his piece of the action there's hardly enough money to build a bathroom and a lobby.

There are some things about it that are interesting though.

They are from New Zealand I am told. I want them to win.

Oh, Bob Costas may have ignored the warnings about water and washed his face with this stuff.

He'll be lucky to keep the eye. I feel for you on that one Bob, eye troubles suck.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 05:09 PM | Comments (244)
Post contains 126 words, total size 1 kb.

I responded to 18-1 in the comments, and my response was long enough for a post, so I'm making it a post.

18-1 offered some advice to the GOP, including: "Stake out a position where the public agrees with Republicans. Force the Democrats to deal with it."

People sometimes say I'm anti-Tea Party even though I actually support them in the main.

When I'm critical of the Tea Party, it's because the Tea Party often acts as if the first part of your suggestion -- "Stake out a position where the public agrees with Republicans" -- is not important, and even maybe a little cowardly. That is to say, there is a an idea -- it seems to me, at least, that there is an idea -- that politics is essentially dirty, given that most of the public is not very devoted to important First Principles (and, you know, they're not), and that therefore to craft positions with an eye to pleasing the bulk of the country -- which, again, is not firmly committed to important First Principles -- cannot possibly do anything other than debase and weaken the Tea Party's favored position.

That is pretty much true. I've come to think, recently, the following:

First there is philosophy. It is pure, as it's about only two things: God and Man. Or for a secular materialist such as myself, The Universe and Man (and, in man's limited view of the metaphysical, the concepts of "The Universe" and "God" tend to blur).

Political philosophy is a debased form of philosophy, because now we've dirtied it with political considerations. Philosophy should never care about politics; after all, one man possessed of the truth makes a majority, even should the world deny that truth. But political philosophy attempts to create a framework for how we can best live together, without killing each other too much.

Politics in turn, is a debased form of political philosophy, because now it is heavily influenced not just by the idea of The Good but by what a rough majority of people, or important constituencies, want, whether that represents The Good or not.

And then there is Democratic politics, which is not merely just debased political philosophy but degenerate political philosophy. I say this because of Jay Cost's argument that the Democratic party is now almost entirely an organization of client service. That is to say, there is hardly any "principle" in it anymore, except that one group wants this from the government, and another group wants that.

The Tea Party is currently, I think, a movement not of politics but of political philosophy. And that is both good and bad. It is good because they can afford to be more simon-pure about the precise philosophy they urge. It is, however, bad, if one would hope (as I do) that they can become a large enough political force (not merely a philosophical advocacy force) to either dominate the GOP or displace it entirely.

I do not want to get into my theory of how any lobbying/advocacy group -- any and all groups, all of them -- tend to be dominated by their purest (most "extreme," as far as the Overton Window) voices. But I do think it's true. Of all organizations. Every single one. Think of any advocacy group you can. And now try to think of when they offer up a fairly moderate position on their subject matter/cause. It's rare.

But political parties aren't lobbying/advocacy groups. They cannot permit themselves to fall into this dynamic of advocating the purest possible position.

At any rate, this is along the lines of my advice that the Tea Party must begin to position itself, and think of itself as, a governing political party, rather than lobbying/advocacy organization associated with the GOP.

And that will mean, often, taking a position which the purest-position members are critical of, and even charge as being a sell-out or cowardly.

For example, even though I'm more sympathetic to the Tea Party than the GOP, if I say something critical of the Tea Party, many who consider themselves Tea Partiers accuse me of being against the Tea Party, and hostile to it.

In other words, the membership of the Tea Party is limited to those who agree with the most strident members of the Tea Party. Now, let's face it, I will concede, I am RINOish, and not among the most strident in these matters. Nevertheless, the fact that I wish to be a part of the Tea Party -- but perhaps a member of the moderate wing of the Tea Party -- should permit me membership, if the Tea Party is thinking of itself as a potential governing party that could displace the GOP.

But when the reaction is "Well then you're not Tea Party," then the Tea Party is not acting as general governing political party (which should want to attract as many members as possible, because elections turn on numbers), but as a lobbying/advocacy organization which can (and should) be highly selective about whom it permits into its membership lists.

In short, I think the Tea Party becomes a more serious political force, rather than a philosophical advocacy force, when it begins entertaining the possibility that it will have pure, middle, and moderate wings.

Now some people don't agree that that's what the Tea Party can be or should be. That is, they'd say the whole point of the Tea Party is to the pull the party in a single way, and how can it achieve that goal if it has its own wings flapping in opposites directions?

But the Tea Party isn't just about pulling the GOP to a more rightward position on issues such as the debt and the size of government. It is those things, to be sure, but it is about more than that.

For example: What every Tea Partier agrees with, even a TPINO like myself, is that government has become too cozy with corporate and other interests. It has become too insular. It has formed too close a relationship, personally, with the corporate media. It is too reliant on a professional political class and the permanent government of the DC bureaucracy.

It is, in short, far too removed from the people.

Furthermore, the government class' cozy familiarity with the DC players (and every industry or constituency in the country has a well-funded lobbying group in DC) results in secret and dirty arrangements which are revolting to a truer form democratic republicanism.

In short, the town stinks of self-interest and self-dealing, all at the expense of the country outside of DC. As many have observed, I'm sure, there is of course the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, but there is also -- perhaps more importantly -- the Party of the Capital (everyone in DC and politics and the media) and the Party of the Hinterlands.

And the Party of the Capital wins every election, by a landslide, and dominates all the positions of government and media power. They Party of the Capital has its hands on, say, 99.9% of all levers of governmental, media, and cultural power.

So while it is a very important mission of the Tea Party to pull the country rightward on questions such as the size of government and our level of spending and debt, there are two other very important missions impelling it as well:

First, to bring more democracy to democracy,

and Second, as a party of general reform.

So I don't agree, wholly, that the Tea Party, like any other advocacy group, should have a closed membership list so that it can keep itself pure on its main issue of advocacy. I see two other very important considerations in the Tea Party's mix of concerns that really aren't a matter of just pulling the public to the right on an issue.

They're matters of general political concern, and possibly serve as the basis for the makings of a general governing party.

Updated: Some reader comments, and my replies, below.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 02:11 PM | Comments (746)
Post contains 2440 words, total size 14 kb.

Posted by: CDR M at 06:00 PM | Comments (827)
Post contains 499 words, total size 5 kb.

This thread brought to you by H.L. Mencken and the cabbage rose:

“An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it makes a better soup.”
― H.L. Mencken, A Book of Burlesques

Take it away, WeirdDave:
more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 06:15 AM | Comments (225)
Post contains 2251 words, total size 14 kb.

We had CAC lined up to guest with us this week and talk about early polling and election prognostications, then everyone got too busy to actually record the thing. So, in true AoSHQ fashion, we put it off until next week.

In the meantime, feel free to listen to an a episode from the archives, and I'll answer a few Moron Mailbag questions.

James writes: "Thanks very much for the podcasts, they're great fun. When you post the file, would you also please post it in pieces, maybe 30-40 minutes each? My connection is spotty enough that the longer files invariably error out at some point during the download."

A: Have you tried streaming it with Stitcher? Also, let me know in the comments how common this issue is. It's easy enough to split the file, but that's one more thing to have to do.

Buzzsaw90 asks: Doesn't the CBO report prove that Obama is another (better) Lincoln? Which president has emancipated more slaves from the chains of work they did not wish to do?

A: Lincoln is clearly a mere speck of the greatness that is Barack Hussein Obama, 44th President of the United States. Also, asking this question is racist.

Emile says: I've noticed Gabe acting as the official timekeeper.What, if anything, is standing in the way of more or longer podcasts? I know you guys are busy but if it's a matter of hitting the tipjar it would be worth it for me.

A: See the lead above. I'd love to post podcast every day, but keeping it topical means recording one every day too (as opposed to pre-recording a bunch of audio and dribbling it out, I mean) and that's not happening. We can barely get together to record one a week as it is. That said, hitting the tipjar for the Head Ewok is never a bad idea.

We also got lots and lots of election-related questions, which we'll queue up for CAC next week. Thanks for listening and for sending all the questions, comments and even occasional compliments.

Questions & comments here: Ask the Blog

[MP3 Download (1/31 Episode)] | 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 10:46 AM | Comments (269)
Post contains 392 words, total size 3 kb.

That's from the morning dump thread, and the headline is all BenK84. I tried to think of a better one, but that one's pretty spiffy.

Obama is thinking about decreeing that the law he claims is inviolable -- you know, the law he says Congress must not repeal because the Supreme Court has ruled and "It's. The. Law." -- shall be further altered by his personal decree. He is considering permitting already-illegally grandfathered policies to remain in force for another three years... which, just coincidentally, would take them beyond the 2016 elections.

Originally, I think, from the Blaze.

In other news you probably already know (I'm a bad blogger): The GOP is not going to fight hard on the debt ceiling.

One Democratic Representative says he sees no fight in the GOP: “This is the dying gasp of a dead-end strategy. I think this fight is over.”

At the link (to Hot Air), you'll read that there are in fact reasons to believe that perceptions about the US' credit-worthiness have been affected.

The trouble with fights on the debt limit is both sides are threatening each other with a very bad outcome (default). It's brinksmanship about a default. Were the media in this country other than they are, we would be freer to have this fight.

But the media always reports that it's only the Republicans who are engaging in brinksmasnship. When Republicans say, "We'll give you your debt ceiling increase, but we want Obamacare delayed" (something, by the way, Obama has largely done, illegally, by his own decree) they say no, thus themselves putting default in play.

But the media never reports it that way. To the media, it's always, and only, the Republicans putting this possibility in play, and therefore, to the country, it's only the GOP.

I would like to get angry and huffy about this, and angry at the GOP, but it's really more the situation I'm angry about. The GOP lives in this situation the same as all of us do. It's the facts on the ground. It's the environment we all live in.

I know that some will say "Let it Burn" but for 80% of the country (or more) that is not an option they'd be willing to even consider. Indeed, even among the people saying "Let it Burn," only half really mean it. The other half intend it as a bargaining position, a show of force at the negotiating table to back the other side down. But the Democrats know this, and thus the position does not actually move anything at the table.

Posted by: Ace at 12:58 PM | Comments (297)
Post contains 451 words, total size 3 kb.

And now, delivering a response to the PresidentÂ’s State of the Union, the director of the Gotham Revolutionary Party, Bane.

Greetings, Puny Americans. I am told you have just completed one of your saddest and most pathetic of rituals – gathering around your idiot boxes, getting your dose of electric soma, to watch your president, your ridiculous God of Government, instruct you as to what you should think, and what you should be talking about. As the leader of the Gotham Revolutionary Party, I approve of your weak craving for an authority to rule over you.

But before I address your Mister Obama’s words, perhaps I should introduce myself. My name is Bane. I come from a small nation called Santa Prisca with a rich, colorful culture of riot and slaughter. I am the son of a brutal and cruel revolutionary fighter, what you might call a terrorist. As a small child, I was imprisoned, for my father’s crimes in a savage penal colony with no guards and no rules. My childhood was one of constant fear and violence as I was forced to defend myself daily against the unsavory predations of evil men. As we had no food in the prison, we turned to the most primitive and basic form of agriculture known to mankind – eating our dead. And sometimes, our not-quite-dead.

As NBCÂ’s Political Director Mark Murray might say, my story is really ObamaÂ’s story. Nothing ever came easy for either of us, you know. The rhyming clown Jay-Z once forgot to call Obama on his birthday; I once had my face nailed to a wall. TheyÂ’re really quite the same, arenÂ’t they?

This was humor of course. I was told I should begin with a humorous anecdote. I thought I should also explain this, this black thing on my face.

But now let me turn to the state of the union. I do not come to mock Barack Obama, I come to praise him.

Your Mister Obama presumes that the only guiding force in the world is pure naked power. I approve! Your American democracy is a ridiculous conceit. As George Orwell noted, the true nature of political power is a boot stamping in your face, forever. And forever. And forever more. Your Mister Obama is a weak man, but I admire his brutish instincts as to the true nature of political force.

Let us now turn to your Mister ObamaÂ’s economic theory, similarly untainted by sentiment. Mister Obama believes that the natural state of man is not to create, or to strive, or to build, or to make, but instead to loot wealth from those who are so absurd as to create and strive, and build and make. The natural state of man is not that of a shopkeeper, but as a brigand, as a hijacker, as a thief. Once again, I approve!

Your Mister Obama understands what I learned as a mere lad of seven years, defending myself against cannibalism and rape. Prosperity is an illusion, and an illusion that itself enables other illusions. The illusion of decency . The illusion of self-worth and self-respect. The illusion of progress. The illusion that man is more than animal, that he stands above the beasts and vermin of the fields.

Your Mister Obama is wise to teach Americans that they are not more than animals; that they are in fact, rather less. When you have been sufficiently stripped of your illusions and vanities, you will return to your natural, feral state, violent, unthinking, unreasoning, and easily controlled by stronger animals.

Once again, I approve!

Your Mister Obama also mentioned some kind of new investment bond for the poor. Something his speechwriters have told him to call “MyRA.” Here are my thoughts on this: I could give a shit less. I mean, come on. This is fodder for dummies.

In conclusion, puny Americans, the state of your unionÂ… is decadent! Your pathetic civilization shall not endure. No civilization ever does. For within each civilization are agents of chaos, and fear, and misery, and stupidity, and base instinct, who always seek to drag it down to their brutish level.

And, Puny Americans: You have elected such men to lead you! To lead you down into the pit. Whence I arose, so shall you sink.

Thank you for your time, and please watch Justified on FX. ItÂ’s got guns, hillbillies, and heroin. ItÂ’s like Duck Dynasty except they shoot people. I just enjoy it, you know.

Posted by: Ace at 11:54 AM | Comments (269)
Post contains 765 words, total size 5 kb.

Everything you think you know about the Democratic Party is wrong! Not only isn't it very liberal, there are hardly any liberals in it!

Just a bunch of gosh darn, honest to goodness mainstream Americans.

In a classroom in Harlem, the liberal new mayor of New York, Bill de Blasio, appeared with union leaders in support of his plan to raise taxes on incomes higher than $500,000 to fund public pre-kindergarten. "We're asking this of the wealthy," de Blasio said, "because there are too many working parents in this city today" who need help.

At the same time, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo was presenting his budget in Albany under a sign that trumpeted: "CUTTING TAXES."

You could hardly get a better illustration of the current tribal divide in the Democratic Party. Call it what you want—liberals versus centrists, populists versus the corporate wing—but these days, there's no doubt there are two different breeds of Democrats, both in elected office and in the activist grassroots. Along with Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, de Blasio has been hyped as the avatar of a new, more boldly progressive Democratic Party that discards the timid moderation advocated by the party's old guard in favor of a frank, take-no-prisoners crusade for higher taxes and bigger government.

Andrew Cuomo...poster boy for the centrist wing of the Democratic party. Well, so long as you consider gun grabbing and unfettered access to abortion "centrist".

And that's exactly what MSM reporters like Molly Ball think.

Want more proof of the disconnect?

This dynamic means that compared to Republicans, Democrats are relatively free to antagonize their ideological core supporters.

Huh?

As someone who writes almost everyday on how the GOP antagonizes conservatives this strikes me as, what's the term? Nuts. Yes, that's the term.

The Democrats occasionally fail to deliver everything their base wants but they are pretty much on the same page. It's not like the Democratic party establishment is telling the base, "we have to cut spending and we're going to push for an enforcement only immigration bill". Yes, there are times when Obama and Reid don't move the ball as far left as liberals want but unlike their GOP counterparts, they aren't actually moving the ball in the opposite direction from the base. That's an important difference.

Just how deep is Ball's disconnect from reality on this key distinction? Really deep.

The real answer to the question of who is in charge of the Democratic Party, Moulitsas said, is "the president of the United States." The question of where to put Obama on the liberal-to-centrist scale haunts any debate about the modern Democratic Party. Even as his opponents brand him a socialist, Obama's administration has disdained what former Press Secretary Robert Gibbs termed the "professional left." One attempt to evaluate the question empirically found him to be more liberal than Senate Democrats, but less liberal than Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, or John F. Kennedy. Obama has often seemed torn between a liberal philosophy and a desire to split differences. He approved healthcare reform with no public option, a Wall Street-reform bill the left saw as inadequate, and a succession of budget deals progressives have decried.

So much nonsense.

First of all, Obama was the liberal alternative to Hillary Clinton back in 2008. Remember he was the pure anti-war candidate who deep down favored single payer (video) health reform as opposed to the triangulating half-measures of the Clintons. That he's been unable to do all the things he really wants to do doesn't mean he's not a hard left liberal, it means he simply hasn't been very effective in getting his way.

Keep in mind Obama didn't object to a public option, he objected to killing a massive liberal government power grab. Had the Democrats gone whole hog for a public option, they would have lost Joe Liberman (I-Hartford, the insurance capital of the world). Obama's objections to forcing a public option in the bill was purely practical, not ideological.

Liberals run this line a lot...Obama isn't a liberal, look how corporate ObamaCare is. Just because he couldn't get all liberals wanted doesn't mean what he did get wasn't a large leap to the left.

Obviously we could go on all day about how liberal Obama is but that's not really the issue. The issue is how so many in the media are simply blinded to how ideological they are.

I once had a Twitter exchange with a reporter who called some GOP Senator "Rightwing". I asked the reporter when was the last time he identified a Democrat as "leftwing". He couldn't think of a time but when pressed couldn't think of a Senator he'd call "leftwing". I suggested starting with self-identified socialist Bernie Sanders. The reporters response was he wouldn't call Sanders leftwing because Sanders wasn't that far out of the mainstream of the Democratic party. That was exactly the point I was trying to make, the Democrats are all leftwing. It never occurred to him that if a socialist was in the broader main of a political party that entire party was pretty far left. He just took it as normal.

No wonder people who think Andrew Cuomo is a centrist think John Boehner is a raving rightwing lunatic.

Posted by: DrewM at 09:11 AM | Comments (452)
Post contains 889 words, total size 6 kb.

Done. You Can Stop Chasing It Now

Darlings, with a heavy heart, we must admit defeat to the Left about an important issue.

Up until recently, most of us here understood that happiness is something the government cannot give you. It is something we must furnish for ourselves, and the government's job is to refrain as much as possible from impeding our progress to this highly individual and subjective goal.

But we were wrong. The government can deliver on happiness.

Specifically, the government can create conditions where people may no longer be painfully chained to a job they don't like, just because the place offers great health benefits. Certainly this new definition of freedom will lead inexorably to enduring bliss.

The individual bliss of its citizens, after all, being the entire purpose and endgame of all government action.

I hope you will join me in encouraging people of the leftish persuasion to throw off their chains, and walk off these (well-compensated but personally unsatisfying) jobs immediately.

Truly, economic wisdom has been turned on its head. At no other point in history has this concept of freedom from (stressful, but well-paid) employment ever been advanced by public policy makers and pols.

The reason, of course, was because it never seemed like a good idea up until people had to brainstorm up bullsh*t excuses for Obamacare's failures. You may even say this is 'unprecedented.' And you would be correct.

You're probably worried about the costs to the economy if suddenly millions of positions went unmanned tomorrow, but don't fret: they won't go unfilled for long.

There are millions of people out there already looking for these jobs, who will actually be made happy by having them! So you see, where the Obama economy creates a want, it also creates a solution for that want, and now twice the people are made happy by the same action. This is the Obamaconomic Happiness Multiplier Effect, I just invented it, and you must credit the blog for all references.

Happy Friday, Sugarbritches.

Posted by: LauraW at 08:23 AM | Comments (338)
Post contains 345 words, total size 2 kb.

... and it was all downhill from there.

Today marks the 40th anniversary of a film that's not only a favorite here at the HQ but pulls up a chair at a comfortable #6 on the AFI 100 Years, 100 Laughs list.

It has a little something for everyone, be they rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shit-kickers or Methodists. more...

Posted by: andy at 01:45 PM | Comments (208)
Post contains 208 words, total size 2 kb.