Obviously.

Here's something for Allah, who's always on about Alpha and Beta males.

I think this helps us quantify Alpha malehood a bit.

Let one's "Alpha Number" -- one's degree of Alpha-ness -- be the number of skanks and flat-out whores a wife will forgive -- because you are that freaking awesome -- before she divorces you.

For Tiger Woods, we don't know his precise Alpha Number, but it appears to be somewhere north of 15.

We know, or we think we know, when it was a mere 11 the wife was willing to stick by her Highly Desirable Man.

For most men-- non-alphas -- that number is 0, or maybe 1, or maybe, if your wife really really loves you and children are involved, 2.

"Alpha" perhaps begins then at 3.

For Betas, maybe it's the opposite; maybe it's the number of times you can bear your wife going out and nailing an Alpha.

Mark Sanford is probably an Alpha, despite his deceptively low Alpha Number of 1, because, of course, the guy went on national tv and blubbered that that One was in fact his soulmate and he like totally loved her and he might be willing to entertain the possibility of making a half-hearted attempt at reconciliation with his wife, so long as she didn't mind him continuing his very special friendship with the woman of his dreams.

You have to add in a force-multiplier on that one. x8 or x10, I'd say.

Thanks to sidhe and AHFF Geoff.

Good Personal Ad: Commenters keep adding on bits to craft this:

Anyone in the market for a hot Swedish ex-nanny ex-model with an enormous bag of money and a recently purchased $2 million house in Sweden who also happens to have a twin sister and won't notice if you leave for a while to get some strange?

Posted by: Ace at 08:37 AM | Comments (159)
Post contains 337 words, total size 2 kb.

Something I didn't notice but Allah did.

The entire Republican Party, moreover, continues to maintain a net-negative favorable/unfavorable rating, 28 percent to 43 percent.

But, for the first time in more than two years, the Democratic Party also now holds a net-negative rating, 35 percent to 45 percent.

By comparison, the conservative libertarian-leaning Tea Party movement has a net-positive 41 percent to 23 percent score in the poll.

Checking in with a shocked, stunned, and in all other ways quite chagrined Chris Matthews, who wants to argue endlessly about the poll.

Chuck Todd attempts to defend himself as Chris Matthews basically keeps yapping at him for reporting reality.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: And what about the tea party movement? This is the shock-a-roo. They have a 2 to 1 positive rating but insider information from Chuck Todd explains why, perhaps.

CHUCK TODD: Well look there's a couple of, couple of demographic-ing. You know we, we- among Fox News viewers the tea party movement is enormously popular - 75 percent of a positive feeling toward it. Just five percent among everybody else, non-Fox viewers, as far as how you get your information, the tea party movement actually has a slight net negative. Still overall, it gives you that positive 41 percent.

MATTHEWS: Well that tells you the power of Fox, in a way, doesn't it?

TODD: The power of Fox in branding this tea party movement-

MATTHEWS: Right.

TODD: -as a populist, outside Washington. Because that's the other thing.

MATTHEWS: So it's a horse in rabbit stew. An overwhelming love of these tea parties by one group of people offsets the metza-metza view from other people.

As Rush Limbaugh says, "Stop the tape."

The Tea Party movement had a favorable rating of 41%. This is not a majority, obviously. But it is a plurality (considering that one third or so have no opinion and only 23% have a negative opinion).

And it's a higher favorable rating than the Democratic Party earns-- if the Tea Party is fringy and kookoobananas with 41% favorables, what the hell does that make the Democratic Party with its paltry 35% favorables?

Note the absurd liberal bias. This is what I cannot stand. This is the thing that I hate the most. He dismisses the 41% -- forty-one percent! -- as fringe. And yet his buddies, with their 35%, are deemed, or the 23% of the people with a negative view of the Tea Party, are deemed, by him at least, to constitute... what? A majority?

That seems to be his implication. That the majority still opposes this fringe. But the numbers, obviously, say the exact opposite. So how on earth can he even suggest such a thing?

Easy: Because what is going on in his mind is that he is dismissing the 41% -- forty-one percent! -- as entirely invalid and not worth listening to. Without even pondering it, he effectively disenfranchises 41% of the country and rules them to be without a voice or vote in the country's politics.

And, those lunatics thus excluded, as they should be (we quarantine the dangerously mentally ill, don't we?), he then looks at the other 59%, and sees that of that fraction of the country actually worth paying heed to, the Democrats have a bare majority.

They do this all the time. And this is, in fact, what he just did. If you could do a sci-fi brain scan transcript of his exact thoughts, what I just wrote would be a pretty close paraphrase.

Liberals are forever touting themselves as holding not just the right view (as they see it) but the overwhelming majoritarian view, and they only can manage that latter delusion by consistently taking the 40% conservative cohort of the country and deeming it fundamentally illegitimate, invalid, insane, and therefore not truly a part of the body politic, the same as a virus or a cancer may inhabit your body but it's obviously not part of your body.

What the hell, man.

Do these people realize what it would sound like to their ears if conservatives routinely said "We constitute an overwhelmingly majority, when you exclude the 20-25% liberal vote, which you should do, as they are an illegitimate and de facto illegal party and so have as little right to weigh in on the issues of the day as convicted felons stripped of the franchise by law."

By the Way: Pistolero tells me "metza-metza" is probably the Italian mezza-mezza, for "so-so" or "meh."

Roll tape. Now Chris Matthews will object to the question about the Tea Party as "misleading," because, apparently, while asking this question on the phone, the pollsters failed to psychically beam in images of "crazy tea partiers shouting:"

TODD: Yes. It's a large group. It's a large group and that's why, for instance you have the Republican Party in Washington trying to figure out how to embrace some of this tea party movement. Michael Steele doing it. John Boehner...

MATTHEWS: Did you read the question though? It basically said, "Here's a group of conservatives who get together who are concerned about high taxes." Well what's wrong with that?

TODD: That's right.

MATTHEWS: It isn't a bunch of screaming, crazy people yelling, like you see at these parties.

TODD: True and the thing is what we, what we need just not...

MATTHEWS: I think the question was a leading-

TODD: But let's not focus on-

MATTHEWS: Yeah?

TODD: The fact is that issue is working. The fact is anti-Washington sentiment is growing. So which party is going to be the party of the populist. Okay?

MATTHEWS OVER VIDEO OF PROTESTORS: Yeah they didn't show these pictures when they asked the question.

No, they didn't show pictures when they were asking a question on the telephone. Hi, Chris Matthews, it's me, George Jetson, calling on my vidphone from the year 2233; just wanted to let you know I won't be able to make our lunch date, because I'm from the fucking future and everything.

In related news, I don't remember the media "showing pictures" of Code Pink and their big stupid Cheney Vampire puppets when asking questions about the war, nor of black-bandanna'd anarchists throwing rocks at police when they asked about the left or globalization.

And, in fact, they don't "show pictures" of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, two of the most despised politicians in America, when they ask about ObamaCare or the Democratic Party generally.

Edit: And oh yeah: They don't show positive images of the Tea Partiers, which overwhelm the negative images -- the negative images existing chiefly in the fevered, frightened imaginations of liberals.

They also don't show SEIU thugs beating up a black guy for the crime of selling silly political doodads at a Tea Party rally.

Basically, they don't show pictures at all, this being on the telephone and all.

End edit, back to original thought.

Frickin' amazing. Frickin' amazing. As the bubble of their artificial reality bursts, all their ugliest impulses are on display as they gnash and slash their way through their cognitive dissonance.

By the way: I left good, good stuff at both links. Allah's got a bit on independents trending more conservative, and the second link (Newsbusters) has Chris Matthews giving his viewers a Parental Advisory before reporting the poll: It may be disturbing to hear this, but..."

Yeah, that's right, he says that. He says a bit more than that, too.

Join The Liberals

We're a clear majority of the people who count.

Oh, and PS, we're not elitists or anything. We're not counting most of you, not out of elitist condescension, but just because we happen to know what's best for you and are better able to do your thinking for you. It's just the way it is -- some people are good at thinking about politics and policy, and other people are good at fixing our cars and cooking for us in restaurants. We all have our strengths. Yours is serving us, and you do really good job. We just want you to know that. We're trying to repay that service by doing a really good job of thinking on your behalf.

You don't have to thank us. You do so much for us, it's the least we can do!

Oh, and PPS, we're also really into "democracy" and "The people." We are like so totally into those things. That's why we're trying to save democracy and preserve The People's right to be heard by denying these things to many of you, the same as you keep fire out of the hands of children, and schizophrenics, and the developmentally disabled. Fire is a wonderful tool, and when you're mature enough -- or mentally well enough -- we will strongly consider allowing you to utilize it.

Strongly.

Again: No thanks needed. We're just that swell. If you really want to thank us -- hey! Don't lose our ties the next time we drop off our dry cleaning with you.

No, just kidding. (g) We understand. These things happen.

You do such a good job considering your handicap. We're amazed by your progress on an almost daily basis.

Posted by: Ace at 07:45 AM | Comments (150)
Post contains 1555 words, total size 10 kb.

It's scary because it's true.

My 25 years as a practicing physician have shown me what happens when government attempts to practice medicine: Doctors respond to government coercion instead of patient cues, and patients die prematurely. Even if the public option is eliminated from the bill, these onerous rationing provisions will remain intact.

For instance, the Reid bill (in sections 3403 and 2021) explicitly empowers Medicare to deny treatment based on cost. An Independent Medicare Advisory Board created by the bill—composed of permanent, unelected and, therefore, unaccountable members—will greatly expand the rationing practices that already occur in the program. Medicare, for example, has limited cancer patients' access to Epogen, a costly but vital drug that stimulates red blood cell production. It has limited the use of virtual, and safer, colonoscopies due to cost concerns. And Medicare refuses medical claims at twice the rate of the largest private insurers.

...Additionally, the Reid bill depends on the recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force in no fewer than 14 places. This task force was responsible for advising women under 50 to not undergo annual mammograms. The administration claims the task force recommendations do not carry the force of law, but the Reid bill itself contradicts them in section 2713. The bill explicitly states, on page 17, that health insurance plans "shall provide coverage for" services approved by the task force. This chilling provision represents the government stepping between doctors and patients. When the government asserts the power to provide care, it also asserts the power to deny care.

Lots more in this piece, read it all if you have the courage.

Yes, critics will claim this is nothing but scare tactics. Well, if simply quoting from a bill scares people, maybe passing it isn't such a good plan. Crazy talk I know but there it is.

Meanwhile, liberal groups are pushing back against a bill they say doesn't go far enough but the reality is their bark is worse than their nonexistent bite. They are simply making noise for their supporters and raising a few bucks before falling in line. They know passage of this monstrosity is the first step, not the last.

Posted by: DrewM at 07:08 AM | Comments (58)
Post contains 392 words, total size 3 kb.

A few weeks ago the new gay conservative organization GOProud announced that it was added to the list of co-sponsors at the annual gathering of conservative activists. Honestly, I didn't think it would be an issue, but it bounced around the blogosphere yesterday.

It seems that a small group of social conservatives led by anti-gay Matt Barber and Liberty Counsel is threatening to boycott CPAC if GOProud isn't kicked off the co-sponsors list. I say let them boycott if they're so worried about being in the same room as teh gays. CPAC said the same thing:

CPAC is a coalition of nearly 100 conservative groups, some of which may disagree with one another on a handful of issues. But, at the end of the day, we all agree on core conservative principles. As you may know, GOProud was founded by a former member of the Log Cabin Republicans who left the group because he thought they were doing a disservice to their constituency by not adhering to conservative and Republican principles. GOProud’s website states “GOProud is committed to a traditional conservative agenda that emphasizes limited government, individual liberty, free markets and a confident foreign policy. GOProud promotes our traditional conservative agenda by influencing politics and policy at the federal level.”

After talking with their leadership and reviewing their website, I am satisfied that they do not represent a “radical leftist agenda,” as some have stated, and should not be rejected as a CPAC cosponsor.

With two exceptions for gay social issues, GOProud's legislative priorities look more conservative than that list that was passed around at the RNC last month. So it boils down to how much of a coalition of conservative political activists the Matt Barber-type social cons want. Obviously, the coalition doesn't extend to gays, but I suspect that for these folks that has nothing to do with legislative priorities and everything to do with the gay thing.

Actually, I don't suspect that. I know it. Covering this story for anti-gay "Americans for Truth About Homosexuality", Peter LaBarbera writes: "there is nothing 'conservative' about — as Barber inimitably puts it — 'one man violently cramming his penis into another man’s lower intestine and calling it ‘love.’'"

Well, sure. There's also nothing conservative about a man violently cramming his dick into a woman's coochie and calling it love. In fact, we often call that "rape." Way to miss the point, bigots. (Yes, I called the Barber-types "bigots." No, I didn't say anything about all social cons, the vast majority of whom disagree with Barber.)

Anyway, towards the end of the day yesterday the John Birch Society announced that it too would be co-sponsoring CPAC. A chorus of groans went around the twittersphere before the CPAC folks chimed in with a short announcement: see our prior statement on inclusion of GOProud. Heh.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:40 AM | Comments (713)
Post contains 485 words, total size 3 kb.

Scroll on down; lotsa stuff last night.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:07 AM | Comments (67)
Post contains 15 words, total size 1 kb.

Yes, I am currently praising Russians for hacking and leaking files that prove Anglo-American lies, and China for refusing to sign agreements with us.

Oh, and also France, for defending capitalism against socialist assault.

China has told participants in the UN climate change talks that it sees no possibility of achieving an operational accord this week, an official involved in the Copenhagen talks says.

...

The official, who asked not to be identified, says China is instead suggesting issuing "a short political declaration of some sort", but it is not clear what that will say.

My suggestion: "Global warming is so bad bad bad bad we really have to sit down and think about how bad bad bad bad bad it is, at least for a good five or six years."

...

Earlier Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said it was possible that there would be progress on other issues such as emission cuts during the next day or so.

"I have a sense that as more heads of government arrive here in Copenhagen, that we will make some more progress. But can I just say, as I said yesterday, success at this Copenhagen conference is by no means guaranteed," he said.

That's what I've generally found in my short career in politics -- the more parties you have at the table, the easier it is to reach fundamental agreement on important issues. (The politics of website management I mean -- no, I'm sure not runnin' for nothin'.)

Yup, that is what I've found.

Meanwhile US President Barack Obama has called for an "operational accord" - essentially a political agreement with teeth that can get countries working to cut or curb their greenhouse gas emissions while a more formal and binding treaty is hammered out in 2010.

"Agreement with teeth." But not an actual "formal and binding treaty."

I have usually thought a treaty or contract was, in fact, an "agreement with teeth," and anything short of that was "just horeshittin' around," but I see now Captain Wonderful has discovered a non-binding binding non-treaty treaty.

It Is With Minimum Regret... that I recommend this piece by Rand Simberg on risk vs. uncertainty and cost vs. regret.

Posted by: Ace at 11:35 PM | Comments (104)
Post contains 379 words, total size 2 kb.

He's said this before, but I suppose it's a particularly inconvenient moment now for him to be saying it again.

He attacks the bill, as before, from the left, claiming it's a right-wing gift to the insurance companies.

"You will be forced to buy insurance. If you don't, you'll pay a fine," said Dean, a physician. "It's an insurance company bailout." Interviewed on ABC's "Good Morning America," he said the bill has some good provisions, "but there has to be a line beyond which you think the bill is bad for the country."

"This is an insurance company's dream," the former Democratic presidential candidate said. "This is the Washington scramble, and it's a shame."
Dean argued that the Senate's health care bill would not prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage for preexisting conditions and he also said it would allow the industry to charge older people far more than others for premiums.

Now for the spin. As Ann Coulter noted with ample delight, last campaign season Hillary Clinton (and all of her supporters) got to finally understand what it was like to be a Republican, or at least an Enemy of the Liberal Hive-Mind.

And so Dean becomes left-wing Republican for a Day now.

Robert Gibbs thinks Dean is insane:

"I don't think any rational person would say killing a bill makes any sense at this point,” Gibbs said today.

Asked why he thought Dean was making the arguments he’s making, Gibbs said, “I can’t tell what his motives are.” He said the Senate legislation was essentially what Dean “campaigned for in 2004” but better.

Before the media swooned for Obama, they swooned for Dean in 2004 as the Liberal One True Hope. Do they have any remaining loyalty for him?

Nah. You see, he's just opposing this because he's a bitter, angry man upset about a trivial slight:

Recall that Dean was not invited to the handover of power to new chairman Tim Kaine, and DeanÂ’s friends felt it was mean-spirited.

At the time, one of them noted it might have been smarter to keep Dean in the fold, considering DeanÂ’s ability to generate headlines and controversy. From our Jan. 9 post:

“What is this guy gonna do in six months?” asked a Dean supporter, guessing that the departing Dem chairman might find irresistible any real opportunities to criticize Team Obama. “He could be like a heat seeking missile out there.”

MSNBC loves them some "snubbing" narrative too:

Here's something else to think about: In retrospect, was Barack Obama's conspicuous snub of Howard Dean a big mistake, given the former DNC chairman's opposition to the Senate health-care bill moving through Congress?

Remember that when Tim Kaine was tapped to be the new DNC chairman, Dean wasn't at the Obama-Kaine press conference announcing the move. Instead, he was in American Samoa, but his allies maintained he would have canceled that trip had he been given a heads up about the press conference.

What's more, Dean never got a plum position in the Obama administration. Possibly adding insult to injury, few DNC aides who worked for Dean initially got top jobs in the Obama administration.

It all raised this question in Washington: Why did Obama opponents like Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and Joe Lieberman receive better treatment from Team Obama than Dean received?

And it now raises this question: Had Dean been treated better would he -- like other Senate progressives right now -- be urging liberals to accept the half a loaf on health care.

So, then, either mental, or extremely petty and spiteful and putting his anger over a penny-ante snubbing over the wellness of the citizens he once sought to lead.

I don't see much appetite among the liberal press corps for entertaining the possibility that Dean is right. The only two possibilities seem 1, lunatic, 2, bitch. Same options offered to Hillary, pretty much, except she didn't get offered the lunatic option.

(Not to bring up a sore spot with PUMAs or anything...)

More: "Ticking time bomb:"

The new version of the Senate health care bill is “a political disaster for Democrats — a ticking time-bomb for years to come.”

So warns Democracy for America, the organization founded by Howard Dean, former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, and headed by his brother, Jim.

...

Democracy for America... says that without a public option, mandating that people buy private insurance amounts to “almost a trillion-dollar taxpayer giveaway to insurance companies.”

“The mandate is toxic,” the organization warns, “and Democrats will own it.”

Posted by: Ace at 09:35 PM | Comments (146)
Post contains 807 words, total size 6 kb.

Good stuff.

Yes, that's Mickey Rourke as "Whiplash" (never heard of him, but I never read Iron Man) and Scarlett Johanson (!!!) as, uh, Black Widow? Black Something Or Other. She's a hot Russian gunslinger known primarily as being a second-stringer in The Avengers. (As you might know, the plan is roll out Captain America and Thor movies, and then put Iron Man/Hulk/Captain America/Thor (and second-stringers like Black Widow) into a full-on Avengers movie.)

War Machine's in it too.

And... Second Clash of the Titans trailer.

Release the Kraken, dude. Don't bogart the Kraken.

I forget who said it, but some wit on the internet once said of a similar movie: "It's like all my Heavy Metal album covers just declared war on each other!"

Thanks to CDR M.

Posted by: Ace at 07:44 PM | Comments (182)
Post contains 137 words, total size 1 kb.

Paging Rosemary Woods. Paging Rosemary Woods. We seem to have some gaps in this record.

...On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.

Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.

Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.

On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations...

Russia is a kinda large place. Excluding 40% of the territory might leave some ummm...I'll be charitable here..."gaps in understanding". Excluding data that doesn't fit the narrative, widens such gaps into gaping chasms.

Here's what I propose as a "value added" statistical compensation for this "minor error". Lets just exclude 40% temp readings from around the equator and re-average the whole lot. Pretty simple, eh? OK, I admit that scheme is completely ridiculous, but its a solid B+ effort, right?

Edit [ace]: I was just putting this up and saw PA did it. I added the skull and also the subhed, because I thought it was important to put the Russians' claims right up in the headline.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 07:20 PM | Comments (87)
Post contains 387 words, total size 3 kb.

How out of touch is the Far Left? A "progressive" advocacy group has selected a winner in its contest to find the best pro-government option art:

I started writing about the sloppy thinking that would lead them to choose this particular quote (reading comprehension, much?), their evident ignorance that it is misattributed to Thomas Jefferson (musta been in his Stuff Jefferson Said After Henry St John, 1st Viscount Bolingbroke Said It First, 3rd Leatherbound Edition), and the horrifying image of Washington persistently redistributing the vitality of the United States.

But you know what? The thing speaks for itself.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 06:14 PM | Comments (180)
Post contains 106 words, total size 1 kb.