Just waitin' for hope and change to make the conditions right.

Thanks to PetiteDov.

Posted by: Ace at 01:29 PM | Comments (34)
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.

Um... okay.

I was taken aback by that peculiar stagecraft, the walking from somewhere in the back of this narrow hall, this winding staircase looming there, the odd anti-bellum look of the scene. Was this some mimicking of a president walking along the state floor to the East Room?

Yes, and Obama's stagecraft at the convention -- the Roman columns, the faux White House set -- produced a lot of "Oh, Gods" among conservatives but most conservative commentators were able to keep from saying so at the event.

And if they'd hadn't-- it would have been bias of the highest order.

All of these rebuttals are badly staged -- what was that horrorshow with two Democrats sitting on easy chairs as if having tea a few years' back? -- but it's Chrissy's partisanship that makes him bubble up these expressions of disgust while on-mic.

"Outsourced"?: Allah guesses it's innocent but I think that's bullshit. The joke is obvious and direct.

He's an Indian -- it's outsourced.

Now, whether or not this is racist is up for debate. But it's not innocent. It's intentional and his idea of wit.

Racist? Probably not. But yeah, this joke wouldn't occur to him were this a Democrat, and if it were said by someone else of a Democrat, he'd be screaming about it.

Posted by: Ace at 10:40 AM | Comments (223)
Post contains 235 words, total size 2 kb.

This comes from excessively-partisan Tim Noah who can be reliably counted upon to write such pieces to denigrate George W. Bush's impact in keeping the country safe.

That said, it's interesting, and offers some good insight into terrorists' minds:

It may be that Bin Laden's family wealth and otherworldly dedication far outstrip his native intelligence. (Al-Zawahiri appears to be the brains of the operation.) But the real question isn't whether terrorists are smart per se but whether they are rational. "Acts of terrorism almost never appear to accomplish anything politically significant," prominent game theorist Thomas C. Schelling observed nearly two decades ago. Max Abrahms, a pre-doctoral fellow at Stanford's Center for International Security and Cooperation, reaffirmed that conclusion in a 2006 paper for International Security titled, "Why Terrorism Does Not Work." Abrahms researched 28 groups designated "foreign terrorist organizations" by the U.S. State Department since 2001, identifying among them a total of 42 objectives. The groups achieved those objectives only 7 percent of the time, Abrahms concluded, and the key variable for success was whether they targeted civilians. Groups that attacked civilian targets more often than military ones "systematically failed to achieve their policy objectives."

In a 2008 follow-up essay, "What Terrorists Really Want," Abrahms explained that terrorist groups are typically incapable of maintaining a consistent set of strategic goals, much less achieving them. Then why do they become terrorists? To "develop strong affective ties with fellow terrorists." It's fraternal bonds they want, not territory, nor influence, nor even, in most cases, to affirm religious beliefs. If a terrorist group's demands tend to sound improvised, that's because they are improvised; what really matters to its members—even its leaders—is that they are a band of brothers. Marc Sageman, a forensic psychiatrist and former Central Intelligence Agency case officer in Afghanistan, collected the biographies of 400 terrorists who'd targeted the United States. He found that fully 88 percent became terrorists not because they wanted to change the world but because they had "friendship/family bonds to the jihad."

But most of the piece examines the evidence that 9/11 was inevitably a one-off attack, a mission that relied on dumb luck and bureaucratic incompetence to succeed.

Posted by: Ace at 10:38 AM | Comments (64)
Post contains 372 words, total size 3 kb.

As Indiana Jones said, "I don't know, I'm just making this up as I go along."

The Earth won't have to warm up as much as had been thought to cause serious consequences of global warming, including more extreme weather and increasing threats to plants and animals, says an international team of climate experts.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated that the risk of increased severe weather would rise with a global average temperature increase of between 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit and 3.6 degrees above 1990 levels. The National Climatic Data Center currently reports that global temperatures have risen 0.22 degree since 1990.

Now, researchers report that "increases in drought, heat waves and floods are projected in many regions and would have adverse impacts, including increased water stress, wildfire frequency and flood risks starting at less than (1.8 degrees) of additional warming above 1990 levels."

Indeed, "it is now more likely than not that human activity has contributed to observed increases in heat waves, intense precipitation events, and the intensity of tropical cyclones," concluded the researchers led by Joel B. Smith of Stratus Consulting Inc., in Boulder, Colo.

I do not care for this theory. It insists upon itself.

Isn't it odd that with the panic among alarmists due to the earth not really warming at all over ten years, we now find out, whoops, gee willickers, it hardly has to warm at all to plunge us into disaster and ruin?

Who could have seen that coming. Who indeed.

Thanks to Arthur.

Posted by: Ace at 09:58 AM | Comments (111)
Post contains 298 words, total size 2 kb.

Robert K. Byrd, eminent scholar on the evils of miscegenation, raps Obama for a power-grab.

Snark aside, the old coot does have a point...

Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), the longest serving Democratic senator, is criticizing President Obama’s appointment of White House “czars” to oversee federal policy, saying these executive positions amount to a power grab by the executive branch.

In a letter to Obama on Wednesday, Byrd complained about Obama’s decision to create White House offices on health reform, urban affairs policy, and energy and climate change. Byrd said such positions “can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials.”

...but not much of one. The real sin is that huge parts of our country's economy are being nationalized; Byrd is merely quibbling about which part of the federal government gets to control historically private activity.

Posted by: Ace at 02:15 PM | Comments (117)
Post contains 168 words, total size 1 kb.

"Slumdog Millionaire" is part of he crack, but the tweet doesn't say how the joke goes.

Then again, it's Helen Thomas. I don't think it really matters. It's not like the specific telling of the joke is likely to rescue it.

So, Jindal is a Slumdog Millionaire. Meaning what? He was never a slumdog and is, if at all, only barely a millionaire (the kind that we don't even count as millionaires anymore), so her "joke" had nothing to do with anything except the fact he's Indian.

Anyone expecting a massive protest against this nasty mothball-sack?

Posted by: Ace at 09:06 AM | Comments (90)
Post contains 120 words, total size 1 kb.

Give the man his props. Much better today.

As I remarked in the comments, his problem was that he had been poorly coached. "Be upbeat," they told him. "Be Reagan-like. Be warm, and folksy, and really connect with the common man."

Some people have a gift with this; others don't. Jindal is an uncommon man. He is uncommonly intelligent, educated, and accomplished. While others may easily pull off the common touch -- as Reagan did -- others seem fake and condescending when attempting to channel their inner Bubba.

Mitt Romney, I think, has this problem as well.

The solution is simply to give up on it, by and large. People may react well to the warm, folksy, neighborly thing, but they react very poorly to inauthenticity, and an authentic egghead beats an fake Bubba any day of the weak.

Besides, these are serious times. The public wouldn't mind so much -- particularly now -- if a candidate reveals himself to be quite uncommon.

Palin is a natural at this. Romney and Jindal, not so much. Both men should play to their strengths and stop putting on an act that's fooling no one and reducing their respective appeals.

And, besides, George W. Bush had this schtick down cold. Because he departed an unpopular president, that style of politicking has lost a lot of its cache.

Let Bruce Campbell explain:

Republicans, meanwhile, have come up with an innovative new approach to politics -- trying to win on issues.

Well. Gee. It's sort of counterintuitive, and sounds kinda crazy, but I'm in the mood for crazy.

"You're seeing a major doctrinal shift in how Republicans are going to focus all these debates," the strategist told me. "The key is to focus on winning the issue as opposed to winning the political moment. If you win the issue, people will think you are ready to govern."

I can't believe they're just striking on this now.

Jindal's address wasn't an attempt at this, at least stylistically, but more of an attempt at the Warm, Likable school of winning on personality. Personality's important, but let's focus on the issues and let the natural charmers do their thin without bending over backwards to do poor imitations of them.

Posted by: Ace at 08:44 AM | Comments (85)
Post contains 379 words, total size 3 kb.

Last night Joe Biden was named the enforcer of the stimulus plan because according to Obama, 'nobody messes with Joe'. Today Biden was asked what the address is for the site where people can follow the 'stimulus' spending and hilarity ensued.

Thank God we dodged that idiot Palin as VP, huh?

more...

Posted by: DrewM at 07:16 AM | Comments (141)
Post contains 87 words, total size 1 kb.

Rewarding the reckless:

President Barack Obama knows Americans are unhappy that their taxes will be used to rescue people who bought mansions beyond their means.

But his assurance Tuesday night that only the deserving will get help rang hollow.

Even officials in his administration, many supporters of the plan in Congress and the Federal Reserve chairman expect some of that money will go to people who used lousy judgment.

...

OBAMA: "We have launched a housing plan that will help responsible families facing the threat of foreclosure lower their monthly payments and refinance their mortgages. It's a plan that won't help speculators or that neighbor down the street who bought a house he could never hope to afford, but it will help millions of Americans who are struggling with declining home values."

THE FACTS: If the administration has come up with a way to ensure money only goes to those who got in honest trouble, it hasn't said so.

...

Similarly, the head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. suggested this month it's not likely aid will be denied to all homeowners who overstated their income or assets to get a mortgage they couldn't afford.

"I think it's just simply impractical to try to do a forensic analysis of each and every one of these delinquent loans," Sheila Bair told National Public Radio.

In fact, Bernacke specifically advocates bailing out the boneheaded in a bit I deleted from the piece.

Thanks to CJ.

Posted by: Ace at 07:01 AM | Comments (65)
Post contains 285 words, total size 2 kb.

What a guy. You know all those blue chips you were afraid to buy because they were so expensive? Sale!

This isn't merely snark. The market prices in a lot of information. Much of the information is already baked in the cake -- the markets know, for example, we're in a financial crisis (or just edging out of one) and that economic activity has fallen off dramatically.

So price moves are based largely on new information. Especially if it's big new information. And they don't seem to appreciate the big new information Obama shared with them.

Eh. It's probably Bush's fault. Or Sarah Palin's. Somehow.

Thanks to CJ.

Posted by: Ace at 06:50 AM | Comments (25)
Post contains 128 words, total size 1 kb.