I did not know this was actually a problem for chicks, how to meet guys and get their attention. But I've sorta been out of the dating loop for a while.

Apparently these are the kinds of issues that Cosmo takes on for you ladies.

Dating 101: How to Be a Total Man-Magnet.

Tip #1. Don't got out in packs of more than three.

I suppose the point here is larger groups discourage the time-honored "divide and conquer" approach.

Tip #3. Smile genuinely.

I couldn't help but notice, there was no tip #2. So my tip number two would be accentuate the sweater puppies. When eye contact just isn't all that big a deal, this is a subtle yet powerful weapon in the arsenal, and it will never let you down.

On the "genuine" smiling thing, well hell. A fake smile is just as good as a genuine smile. There, I said it. I don't think I'm giving away the farm here, we honestly can't tell the difference. If you're smilin, we've got a moronic "Andy Kaufman" grin pasted on our faces. Try it and see.

Tip #4. Work the eye contact.

To reel him in from across the room, tilt your chin down a bit and flash him a couple of sultry glances. (Guys love it when you look up at them -- it makes them feel manly.)

Eye contact is always good, I'd substitute the word "squishy" for "manly". Reel him in? Like a mackerel on the deck.

Word of caution, this makes us ejaculate prematurely. Use it with care.

Tip #5. Don't immediately ask him what he does.

Ok, I have to object now. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Ask him what he does, and how good he is at it, does he enjoy being a bastard at work, and not to put too fine a point on it, what he wants in the workplace. To be loved? Or respected. If you're willing to take a shot with this, odds are he will make up some pretty entertaining bullshit at this point. Do the eye contact thingy.

And finally, Tip #6. Make positive small talk.

Yes. Guys are really listening. So be positive.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 08:57 PM | Comments (133)
Post contains 376 words, total size 2 kb.

Word that sounds dirty but it's not: fungible.

Posted by: Ace at 08:20 PM | Comments (55)
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.

Private Joker: How can you shoot Suzukis and Hondas?

Door Gunner: Easy! Ya just don't lead 'em so much! Ain't war hell?

Via Jawa, tipped by Sherlock in the gun thread.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 06:43 PM | Comments (140)
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.

Any other time this would be great news. I was hoping he'd win, get kicked out by the Senate and then replaced by a Republican (hello Senator Palin) but alas it's not to be.

Stevens' ouster on his 85th birthday marks an abrupt realignment in Alaska politics and will alter the power structure in the Senate, where he has served since the days of the Johnson administration while holding seats on some of the most influential committees in Congress.

...Tuesday's tally of just over 24,000 absentee and other ballots gave Begich 146,286, or 47.56 percent, to 143,912, or 46.76 percent, for Stevens.

A recount is possible.

That means that Democrats are just 2 seats short of their filibuster proof majority. With the recount in Minnesota and a run-off Georgia, they could still reach that number. Of course, with squishy Republicans like Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Arlan Specter and maybe even Maverick McCain, we may have already crossed the threshold.

Also [Gabe]: Loved this line from AP:

The crotchety octogenarian built like a birch sapling likes to encourage comparisons with the Incredible Hulk, but he occupies an outsized place in Alaska history.

Don't Let it Happen Again [ace]: Here's an idea: The next time this happens (which it will), the party elders should full-court press the jackoff to resign or, barring that, vigorously support a challenger.

This is six years of a Senate seat that should be ours. Lost. For six years.

Senate collegiality-- we have some more important things to think about than whether our Senators are being properly collegial to their buddies.

Posted by: DrewM at 06:03 PM | Comments (74)
Post contains 291 words, total size 2 kb.

Eric Holder, Obama's pick for Attorney General was a Deputy AG under Clinton. On March 2, 2000, he gave a question and answer on the topic of gun control. It's long, but here's his introduction:

We know that there is not one simple answer, and we know that there is nothing we can do that will prevent every single crime or act of violence. But we also know that there are some common-sense things that we can do and that we must do. And so I want to add my voice to those who are calling on Congress to finally -- to finally -- pass these very common-sense gun measures:

* First, to require child safety locks for all handguns that are sold.

* Second, to ban violent juveniles from ever having the ability to own guns.

* Third, to pass the president's handgun licensing proposal, which requires safety certification for all handgun purchasers.

* Fourth, to support research in smart gun technology which can limit a gun's use to its authorized owner.

And finally, to close the gun show loophole by requiring a background check for all gun purchases at gun shows.

The briefing was in response to recent shootings involving children, so he explains much of his program as needed "for the children." The whole thing is here.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:40 PM | Comments (88)
Post contains 246 words, total size 1 kb.

Time to make my moves*. Oh yeah.

1 Nodakdrunkhobos 89
2 mesablue 87
2 buzzion 87
2 jimmytheleg3 87
2 Physics Geek 87
6 That pigskin is kosher right? 86
7 Murph 85
8 AliceH 84
8 Bart 84
8 Dave in Texas 84

Is it time for some Superbowl predictions yet?

* Donald O'Connor had the moves too. But he didn't get the girl. And that's all that really counts isn't it?

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 05:25 PM | Comments (15)
Post contains 85 words, total size 1 kb.

Bonus: Check the update to Cuffy's post. (Link Fixed.)

An "expert" (in doodling? Huh?) says that Palin's doodles demonstrate the cluttered, unsophisticated mind of a teenaged girl.

But the man sought for his opinion says Obama's doodles show him to be "highly intelligent."

Problem: It's a man on the street they ask for the opinion on Obama's doodles.

I guess their expert wouldn't say something positive about them. So they went to a random guy on the street. They were determined to get that positive quote for Obama.

Do they think they're so clever, and we're so stupid, we don't notice these things?

Posted by: Ace at 04:13 PM | Comments (77)
Post contains 119 words, total size 1 kb.

That's not the weird part. That part I get.

The weird part is that it's suspected that the frying pan bludgeoning was self-inflicted.

Maybe she was trying to insert bacon grease into her brain more efficiently, without all the hassle of chewing and swallowing.

In related news, her husband has been repeatedly sodomized in prison, and reports "I just couldn't be happier... It's like a brand new day for me. I used to dread even waking up in the morning, but now my life is all sunshine and rainbows. And by 'sunshine,' I mean getting shivved in the gut with a plastic fork melted down into a crude pick, and by 'rainbows,' I mean forcible anal rape. Sure, I'm rapidly running out of functioning intestine from both ends, but other than that, it's like I hit the happy-lottery."

Thanks to SarahW.

Posted by: Ace at 02:36 PM | Comments (57)
Post contains 167 words, total size 1 kb.

My previous tentative faith that he knew what he was doing is badly shaken, but at east he gets this one right:

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson Tuesday defended a massive financial rescue in the face of criticism from lawmakers and a top US official wanting to use it to shore up the battered economy.

The 700 billion dollar Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) "is not a panacea for all our economic difficulties," Paulson told a hearing of the House of Representatives Financial Services Committee.

"The rescue package was not intended to be an economic stimulus or an economic recovery package; it was intended to shore up the foundation of our economy by stabilizing the financial system, and it is unrealistic to expect it to reverse the damage that had already been inflicted by the severity of the crisis," he said.

A blitz of bailout news from Jules Crittendon.

Jeff Sessions, of the Republican wing of the Republican Party, sends a letter to Bush urging restraint, if not reversal, on bailouts:

Less than a week after pushing for authority to purchase distressed securities, Secretary Paulson altered the focus of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to recapitalize banks instead. That move directly contradicted his prior testimony to the Senate: “There are some that said we should just go and stick capital in the banks . . . but we said the right way to do this is not going around and using guarantees or injecting capital.” Since that time, Secretary Paulson has abandoned the stated goal of purchasing distressed assets and is now concentrating on purchasing large equity stakes in banking institutions. The financial sector recovery program operating today is entirely different from the one outlined to, and approved by, Congress in October. I can only conclude that the swift reversal from purchasing toxic assets to stock purchases was part of a plan to mislead the Congress because massive stock purchases would have received a much more hostile reception.

Predictably, efforts are now underway to expand the TARP to bail out private companies suffering in a recessionary economic climate, notably the big three auto manufacturers. Allowing this trend to continue sends a clear signal to foreign nations that the United States has turned its back on the free market and is a virtual guarantee that other “vital” industries will request government assistance in the future. As estimates for the Fiscal Year 2009 federal deficit approach the staggering $1 trillion mark, we must ask: where do we draw the line?

With this in mind, I urge you to:

1. Publicly outline a plan for extricating the government from the market as soon as reasonably possible, limiting further interference, and allowing markets to function in the future, as well as emphasizing clearly why this is an important principle.

2. Establish guidelines for making the TARP’s basic earnings and loss data – similar to that found on a corporation’s quarterly statement – available to the public. The Administration has argued that taxpayers may be made whole by the future sale of equities purchased by the TARP. Accordingly, the American people have the right to know the status of their investment.

3. Oppose the economic stimulus package that includes an additional bailout for troubled auto manufacturers. Your administration should not allow a struggling economy to be used as justification for a huge surge in government spending and control.
It seems to me that Secretary Paulson, whom you obviously admire, has assumed an inappropriate role in our governmental system. He is acting as a Wall Street investment banker, allocating hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer money, with no oversight and no stated plan. This undermines our heritage of law and order, and is an affront to the principle of separation of powers. Of course, the Secretary works for you and serves at your pleasure. While you have many challenges in these busy days, I believe you have a clear constitutional duty to personally supervise his actions and to direct this process. I urge you to do so.

In this time of economic turmoil, let your actions clearly reflect a commitment to the sound economic and governmental principles that have made our nation great. It is important that we recognize the magnitude of the precedent these actions have set, and that you intentionally act and speak in ways that limit that precedent for the future.

Malkin, meanwhile, declares vindication.

Paulsen came to the American people and sold some of us on the TARP plan. It is perfectly possible that the situation deteriorated, or at least changed, so much that it was wiser to inject capital directly into banks. However, he never came forward again (at least not in any well-publicized way) to make that case to us, nor did President Bush address the country prominent to explain the change in strategy.

So I, for one, feel like I've been suckered into supporting one plan only to be baited and switched into another plan. Without being notified, and definitely without my consent.

This is profoundly anti-democratic. This is a major policy shift. In fact, the original bailout was itself an enormous policy shift -- direct intervention in US markets -- that the nation only reluctantly agreed to, and only barely so. (Actually, I think the nation is and was still opposed to bailouts; the political class, however, went ahead with it.)

It is unacceptable that such large changes in a policy provisionally agreed to by a bare majority (or plurality, or even minority) of the country be enacted without serious, prominent explanations. Or updates -- is this crap working? Or not? I'd like to see the case made that what has been done thusfar has been helpful. I suspect it has been helpful to some degree (interbank lending rates are down quite a bit) but, having singed off myself on such a huge and unprecedented intervention, can you guys even make a pretense of keeping us in on the loop?

Or do you only plan to extract authority from citizens, claiming looming catastrophe, and then, once that authority is secured, begin making decisions secretly?

Whether the bailout was wise in the first place (and I'm now wavering on that -- not sure if the idea was good to start with, and losing confidence in the execution of the idea besides), I do know for a fact that politically, every damn Republican in the country should run against the bailout, even those who cast votes in its favor.

Let the Democrats own the issue -- they caused the catastrophe. Let them own the solution, for good or for ill.

But no more political cover from Republicans for bailout upon bailout. Trillions of dollars, which exist only in the imagination, are being spent on a dubious scheme overtaken by mission creep, with no exit strategy in place, nor any timetables for withdrawal from the quagmire. (See what I did there?)

Posted by: Ace at 02:29 PM | Comments (60)
Post contains 1171 words, total size 8 kb.

Surely they won't get away with this.

But I'm not as sure of things as I was three weeks ago.

Thanks to Jefferson.

Posted by: Ace at 01:46 PM | Comments (31)
Post contains 65 words, total size 1 kb.