And an Open Thread to discuss the burning issues of the day. Or Giada's tomatoes, which would go rather well on this pizza cake.

Oops. This hat tip goes to Anna Puma

Posted by: Open Blogger at 01:20 PM | Comments (190)
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.

"Can, say, a Republican write a defense of the minimum wage that a reader of the Daily Kos would accept, or will it just come out sounding like a straw man? " more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 09:07 AM | Comments (246)
Post contains 327 words, total size 2 kb.

Welcome to the Saturday car thread.

Buckle up and hide your open containers.

The UAW is still making noise. Despite the NLRB's surprising certification of the vote in Chattanooga and despite the UAW pulling back to rethink their strategy, they just won't go away. If they were looking to set precedent by disallowing for interaction between labor and all other parties, casting them out on to an island by themselves, free from all influence (other than that of the UAW, of course) then they have failed. And, thank God for that. but, But, BUT! It's all for the workers! Isolation is good for them, right?

Now, they aim to rake Governor Haslam over the coals for reneging (suspending) on an offer of $300M in incentives to VW, allegedly due to their cooperation with the UAW vote. This approach means that they can continue with the muckraking but won't be left holding the hot potato should VW decide to build their SUV in Mexico.

You can follow the UAW drama whining on twitter or, alternately, just look below for a snapshot of their current activities.

more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 10:55 AM | Comments (171)
Post contains 553 words, total size 5 kb.

Good morning, gardeners!

This thread brought to you by, Giada's tomatoes:

more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 07:43 AM | Comments (140)
Post contains 1911 words, total size 13 kb.

This goes back to the 1970s. Remember the 70s? Impeccable fashion, timeless music and fantastic American motor cars. OK, fine, none of that is true. Still, at one point in the 70s, highly respected Canadian journalist Gordon Sinclair felt inspired to write about us, his slightly wayward American brothers. We were going through a tough time then. Our tough times now make that look like a walk in the park, but still... We're going to get out of this, LIVs, and the FSA not withstanding. That's what we do, we're Americans. It's hard these days to hold on to that belief, but we absolutely HAVE to do it. Hang tough patriots, our time will come. We just have to hope and pray that it comes from our conviction and fortitude, and not out guns.
more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 05:48 AM | Comments (180)
Post contains 155 words, total size 1 kb.

Now off to see acres and acres of guns in Indy ...

Posted by: andy at 03:58 AM | Comments (122)
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.

"F*** the EU," top State official Victoria Nuland said on a phone call.

This phone call had been covertly recorded by Russia and was then leaked to the press, which should have been a signal that Russia, at least, was taking this more seriously than Obama's team was.

The F-bomb is deployed because NulandÂ’s frustrated that the EU isnÂ’t doing more to pressure Viktor Yanukovych, the Putin-backed Ukrainian president whose recent deal with Moscow instigated the last few months of protests.

Why wasn't the EU doing "more" to pressure Yanukovych, Putin's choice for President?

Here's the thing: Because the EU was thinking hard about the Ukraine and realistically about itself.

The EU didn't want to force Yanukovych out of power, nor encourage the Maidan movement to force him out of power, because they knew that Russia would react as Russia has in fact reacted.

And the EU knew this about themselves: They were not prepared to do a damn thing about a Russian invasion.

So the EU made a cynical, self-serving decision to not encourage or support the Maidan movement, because they knew they would not be doing anything down the road to support the Maidan movement when the movement actually needed support.

This was an unpopular decision, and it makes them seem cowardly and weak... but ti did have the benefit of comporting with reality.

The EU was clear-minded enough and had an honest enough appraisal of its interests and capabilities to make the honest, accurate assessment that they would do nothing in Putin but offer him diplomatic protests were he to invade Ukraine.

And the EU crafted its own policy response based on that accurate, honest appraisal of its own weakness and cowardice.

You can call them cowards, but you cannot call them self-deluded fools.

At least they understood themselves.

And what has the US done, by contrast?

We encouraged the Maidan protestors to hit the gas pedal on their revolution, but as Russia has done all the things that only a child could fail to predict that Russia would do, we have been surprised at every turn by the inevitable.

Now this got Obama some good press in February, back when supporting Maidan seemed like the right move for American Social Media Foreign Policy, and was, at that moment, a cost-free gesture.

But now the check is coming due, and what do we do to support the revolution we encouraged?

We offer Tweets.

Tweets.

The EU knew that they too would only offer Strongly Worded Tweets, should Ukraine depose Yanukuvich and Russia in turn invade Urkaine. Which is why they attempted to discourage Ukraine from doing that.

The American President, on the other hand, urged Ukraine to do just that, without telling them that should Russia begin shooting bullets into Ukrainians, the Ukranians could expect America to respond with Precision-Guided Tweets.

Obama has long had this sense of delusion about himself, that he is so inherently good and pure and charismatic that his simple words will move oceans, like the words of God Himself.

I can only imagine he did this because the thought, in the end, his Precious Red-Letter Words would be enough to fix another disaster he'd caused.

One last point:

If Obama were serious about any of this, he'd at least offer a Presidential Address to the Nation warning Russia away.

Why? Aren't those "just words" as well?

Yes, but the trick of the Presidential address is that it's an escalation. When a President speaks to the nation, he puts his own credibility and his own political fortunes on the line.

If he fails to act in the face of aggression after that, he suffers politically.

Thus, the point of the exercise is to put one's counter-party on notice that one has invested a policy with his own personal limited cache of authority, and hence will be much more likely to back that policy up with something more than well-crafted #hashtags.

But of course Obama isn't doing that. Instead, he has a relatively low-level bureaucrat out there #TweetingForFreedom.

And I'm not sure I blame him for that.

I don't want to go to war with Russia, either.

But I do wish that perhaps Obama could have managed the reasonable, realistic assessment of his actual level of capability and willingness to employ force that the EU managed.

And unfortunately, I think the Ukrainians will soon be wishing that as well.

I Just Got an Email from Winston Churchill... who, surprisingly, approves of Obama's foreign policy.

Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of rising Russia and all the odious apparatus of the KGB state, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight on FaceBook, we shall fight on Instagram and Pinterest, we shall fight and, with growing follower lists and growing Likes, we shall defend our #hashtag, whatever the cost may be.

We shall fight on Twitter, we shall fight on Vine, we shall fight on the Washington Post's op-ed pages and in the New York Times' comment areas, we shall fight in Buzzfeed's gifs; we shall never surrender.

And if, which I do not for a moment believe, this #hashtag or a large part of it were hijacked by trolls, then our social media reach, armed and guarded by the writers at Media Matters and the Daily Beast, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, some miracle should descend upon us in rescue us so we can return, as we much desire, to the #WarOnWomen.

Romney wants to #BanTampons, please retweet.

Posted by: Ace at 03:13 PM | Comments (416)
Post contains 949 words, total size 6 kb.

Before getting to the "Promise of Hashtag," let's be clear about the seriousness of this moment:

Ukraine's deputy foreign minister said Friday he fears an imminent Russian invasion.

"We have the information we are in danger," Danylo Lubkivsky told reporters at the United Nations.

He spoke as an official in Ukraine confirmed that pro-Russian forces had detained a team of military observers with the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. The official said the team would be released after further investigation.

The stakes are high.

How does Obama's Smart Power team meet this moment, as Russia threatens a military campaign to crush the Ukraine?

By waging a Social Media Campaign.

Let us posit that if Putin wishes a military campaign against Ukraine, and Obama plans in response a Twitter campaign, Putin will gladly let Obama have his Fake Social Media "Victory" in exchange for a real world victory.

What signals does such a message send?

First, that Obama is not actually concerned with deterring Russia from invading Ukraine, but rather that he is only interested in being seen as being concerned about it.

If Putin didn't already know before (and frankly I doubt he didn't), this "response" by the U.S. State Department tells him that Obama has no permanent alliances, only permanent interests, and that permanent interest is pretending at strength for domestic political purposes.

He doesn't care what it means for the future or the world if Russia takes Ukraine. He only cares about what it might mean for the morale of his disciples and the November elections.

Obama is practically begging Putin to give him some sort of face-saving political cover to benefit Obama and Obama alone -- in exchange for which he'll let Putin have the Ukraine.

Actually, he'll let Putin have the Ukraine even if Putin doesn't offer him that. That's the "begging" part of it.

Second, it tells Putin that this Progressive Spirit Squad has only one skill, and that skill is "winning" on FaceBook one Like at a time.

When all you have is the hammer of retweets, all the world's troubles look like a hashtag nail.

Putin thus looks at the Obama Administration and sees it for what it is -- juvenile (if not puerile), only concerned about the next poll and the next #HashtagEvent.

Weak. Decadent. Insipid. Small.

Can you imagine what a hard-headed, black-hearted old KGB spy thinks when he looks out at America and sees it conducting foreign policy via a time-wasting medium primarily popular with 12 year old schoolgirls?

This is exactly the sort of feeble (and feeble-minded) response that Reagan termed "provocative weakness."

It is better to be a weakling and say nothing at all than to open one's Twitter account and remove all doubt.

Update (AP): Actual quote from the State Department’s actual spokesman: “They have not been following their hashtag with actions.”

Oh.

My.

God.
more...

Posted by: Ace at 02:30 PM | Comments (360)
Post contains 594 words, total size 5 kb.

Via Instapundit, Byron York urges the Non-Native-American Elizabeth Warren to run because "life is unpredictable."

Clinton will be 69 years old on inauguration day 2017, nearly the oldest president ever. She has had a few health scares. By all accounts, she left her previous four-year stint in government service exhausted. She might not run, and the Democrat in second place in the polls, Vice President Joe Biden — 74 on inauguration day — is too old to be president. Beyond them, Democrats have nobody — except Elizabeth Warren. . . . She will be 67 on Inauguration Day 2017. (Has any party ever fielded a group as old as Clinton, Biden and Warren?)

I think the aged Elizabeth Warren is probably running in a Plan B sort of way -- as an insurance policy, in case the elderly Hillary Clinton and ancient Joe Biden turns out to be too frail for a White House run.

I had a good chuckle over this National Journal piece attempting to defuse the Age Problem for the Progressive Cause.

The piece attempted to suggest Hillary Clinton's age upon her hypothetical inauguration -- 69, same as Reagan's at his inauguration -- was different than Reagan's age, because, Actuarial Life-Expectancy Tables.

As a general matter, when you're trying to argue someone isn't old, and your best argument consists of busting out the actuarial tables for the life expectancy of elderly people, you're probably doing more harm than good.

But here's the claim:

The age comparisons between Hillary Clinton and Ronald Reagan seem as natural as they are nonsensical.

Nonsensical? How is one 69 year old so different from another that it becomes "nonsensical" to compare them?

Yes, Hillary is a woman, and they have somewhat longer life expectancies than men-- a point this piece is going to rely on to the exclusion of all else.

But "nonsensical"?

Yes, were Clinton to win in 2016, she would take office at age 69—just as Reagan did in 1981. And yes, the comparison is often made when Clinton's critics and allies debate whether she has the health to serve out two presidential terms.

But it's a wildly misleading comparison, as the number that matters when assessing Clinton's health is not her age, but her life expectancy. And there is where the Clinton-Reagan comparison is revealed as a stretch.

A combination of federal data and a more nuanced approach to calculating Clinton's life expectancy—one that includes her gender, era, and other factors—projects the would-be president living to age 86. That means Clinton would live a full 17 years after taking office, more than enough time to serve out two terms.

Under the same criteria used to calculate Clinton's life expectancy, Reagan upon inauguration was projected to live to 81—12 projected years after taking the oath to Clinton's 17.

So a five year difference in life expectancy?

And based upon that, it was perfectly sensible for the Left to constantly invoke Reagan's age as a reason to not vote for him, but it's nonsensical to suggest the same with the venerable Clinton?

Incidentally, Hillary had a health scare a couple of years ago we continue to know very little about. Obviously, this hasn't been factored into this (and I use this term advisedly) analysis.

Moving past the Reagan comparison reveals a complicated picture for Clinton. In terms of total life expectancy, were she to win in 2016, Clinton would take office with the longest projected total life expectancy of any president in the modern area.

This is such an irrelevant, nonsensical sentence that I don't know what it's doing here. They're saying Hillary will have the longest life expectancy of any president before her... but not post-inauguration life expectancy, as this nonsensical bit of data doesn't consider when in her life she would become president.

So, yeah, she'll have a longer life expectancy than her husband... but her husband became president at 43, whereas the Methusala-esque HRC would become president at 69.

Big difference.

But in terms of life expectancy after inauguration, Clinton's projected remaining years after taking office are dwarfed by total projected years forecast for our most recent presidents on their opening inauguration days: Barack Obama (32 projected years), George W. Bush (24.5 projected years), and Bill Clinton (30 projected years).

The best Hillary Clinton comparisons of life expectancy are to Richard Nixon (19 projected years after taking office), Gerald Ford (16 projected years), and George H.W. Bush (16 projected years)—all three of whom managed to take office without having to contend with concerns about their age.

Before Clinton's name entered the conversation, the most recent candidate to face age questions was 2008's unsuccessful Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain. Had he won, McCain would have taken office at 72 and was projected to live another 13 years—four fewer than Clinton.

And there was a great deal of Progressive Chatter about the possibility he would die in office or become too senile to carry out his duties -- these claims made in order to highlight the alleged hypothetical nightmare of President Sarah Palin.

Were those fears also "nonsensical"? These authors seem to be placing an awful lot of distinction in a basket that only holds four years' worth of difference between Hillary's and McCain's post-inaugural life expectancy.

Why, it's almost nonsensical -- almost as the writers were just Good Progressives using any claim at hand to knock down a troublesome meme that could threaten their preferred progressive candidate.

At the end of the article they admit that crucial information is missing from their analysis -- Hillary Clinton's actual health records.

And I'm sure we'll be receiving those.

She's so open about every other aspect of her life.

Elizabeth Warren (67) for President

Because it's time to give Youth a chance.

Posted by: Ace at 01:06 PM | Comments (326)
Post contains 992 words, total size 7 kb.

The deadly war on e-cigarettes. Can't have people actually quitting a bad habit with something that isn't supported by big pharma (makers of nicotine patches and gum) or taxed like tobacco. Because they keep jackin' up the taxes on analog cigarettes they're losing tax revenue to bootleggers. Throw in the declining number of smokers (either out right quitting or transitioning to vaping), it is little wonder the politicos are lashing out.

Many of the same people that use incorrect information about e-cigs (read the comment section in the above article) are probably the same types that see nothing wrong with this anti-gun ad.

And many more of the same group believe that the North Pole is melting away and will be ice free in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015.

A bunch of know nothings trying to drive policy. more...

Posted by: CDR M at 05:46 PM | Comments (677)
Post contains 452 words, total size 5 kb.