What a lovely, lovely self-serving anecdote.

I hope this guy can attend my funeral and give a terrific eulogy about what a great guy he is. And then maybe gesture vaguely at my coffin and say, "And then there's this guy in the box, too."

Everyone is the hero of their own life-story, as they say.

President Obama is proud to steal scenes in everyone else's life-movie too.

Yes, those are the words of the president, last night at the Democratic National Committee fundraiser in Washington. After listing his administration's accomplishments and vowing that "our most urgent task is job creation," Obama pledged to keep fighting for a national health care system. "We knew this was hard," Obama said. And then he described a letter he received from a campaign worker who suffered from breast cancer and has since died:

I got a letter -- I got a note today from one of my staff -- they forwarded it to me -- from a woman in St. Louis who had been part of our campaign, very active, who had passed away from breast cancer. She didn't have insurance. She couldn't afford it, so she had put off having the kind of exams that she needed. And she had fought a tough battle for four years. All through the campaign she was fighting it, but finally she succumbed to it. And she insisted she's going to be buried in an Obama t-shirt.

Many observers have noted that the president often seems extraordinarily self-referential. It's all about him, they say. But even those critics might be a little taken aback by the "buried in an Obama t-shirt" remark. Is it really that much about him?

Yup. Well, look: There's obviously a difference between Stars and Extras, dude.

Cop Number 3's death scene in Lethal Weapon 2 isn't about Cop Number 3, of course. It's in the movie to provide emotional heft for the stars.

Memo to Obama: If you're going to traffic in this sort of crap, at least memorize her name, so her existence as a mere prop in your movie isn't quite as obvious.

Thanks to Slublog.

Oh: Is she now a corspe-woman?

Posted by: Ace at 11:16 AM | Comments (405)
Post contains 419 words, total size 3 kb.

I actually got this tip a while back, but I didn't really believe it. Then I checked, and it seemed real enough, but I still didn't really believe it.

The theory? That small-breasted women tend to be used for supposed "underage" porn and so "encourage" pedophilia.

So women with A-cups aren't to appear in porn.

The Board has also started to ban depictions of small-breasted women in adult publications and films. This is in response to a campaign led by Kids Free 2 B Kids and promoted by Barnaby Joyce and Guy Barnett in Senate Estimates late last year. Mainstream companies such as Larry Flint's Hustler produce some of the publications that have been banned. These companies are regulated by the FBI to ensure that only adult performers are featured in their publications. "We are starting to see depictions of women in their late 20s being banned because they have an A cup size", she said. "It may be an unintended consequence of the Senator's actions but they are largely responsible for the sharp increase in breast size in Australian adult magazines of late".

Well, thank goodness that large-breasted women will finally start getting their proper due in pornography.

Notice we get ever further away from the thing that we started out prohibiting. First, obviously, sex with kids was illegal -- no objections on that score.

Then pornography featuring kids was illegal -- still no objections on that score.

Then... Okay, they started banning porn featuring adult-but-youngish women pretending to be underage. Okay... yeah, I kinda see what you're doing there, but you're now making it illegal to do legal things on the ground that it "encourages" something illegal. With this step we've now moved from protecting genuine direct victims to speculative indirect victims. Those victims probably exist, true, but we really don't know how many or how strong the "encouragement" is.

And now... adult women with A-cup breasts just flat-out can't be in porn.

It's not like anyone can really throw a big-ass objection to this, because, like, who cares? It affects like 100-200 women, tops, and it doesn't affect them much; women in specialty fetish type videos don't make a lot of videos and don't get paid much so really the porn is just to supplement their actual bills-paying profession of prostitution. This is not a big enough of sympathetic enough group to get some kind of lobby behind them.

But little by little, just because they know no one's going to object, they continue gnawing at the edges of freedom, or, if that seems too lofty a word for this shabby situation, fine -- they gnaw at the limits of legal human action.

And there's a good reason to limit human action, but then, they always have a good reason to limit human action. They have all the time in the world to think of good reasons to limit human action; that's what they're paid to do, in fact. If they're not in some way restricting someone's freedom, they're not doing their jobs, now are they?

But again, you can't really make a big thing of it, because really, who wants to go on record as having a big emotional attachment to kinda-sorta pedophile-ish porn?

But one day, they will come for the Busty Lesbians; and as the old poem goes, when they come for the Busty Lesbians, no one will cry out, because there was no one left.

Thanks to Matt, via The Galley Slaves.

Posted by: Ace at 10:54 AM | Comments (159)
Post contains 601 words, total size 4 kb.

Hey, all churches have tithing, don't they?

state senator from Ohio says his state is spending $1 million on road signs to advertise the use of stimulus money for road projects. In other words, the state is using your money to tell you it's spending your money.

State Sen. Tim Grendell, R-Ohio, calls it a waste of taxpayer dollars. The road signs he's concerned about display words such as "Project Funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act" Some road projects have two signs, and some don't have any at all, but the signs aren't cheap.

The bigger signs can cost as much as $3,000 each, according to Grendell, who says this is just a big "thank you" to the Obama Administration.

He told CNN, "Send a fruit basket if you want to say 'thank you.' Don't waste a million dollars saying 'thank' you to Washington for giving us back our tax money."

Grendell says the message here is that stimulus dollars are "being spent stupidly."

Ohio's Department of Transportation says that criticism misses the point -- that this is all about transparency.

Uh-huh. Transparently obvious politicking for The One on the taxpayer's dime.

Thanks to ArthurK.

Posted by: Ace at 10:37 AM | Comments (61)
Post contains 233 words, total size 1 kb.

O! Sweet nectar of life for the lazy blogger. Cheap polling posts, where would I be without you?

Why, I'd probably still be right here, but posting something else from Feministing right now.

Gallup: 49/50.

Rasmusen, aka R-Square Hitler: 46-53. Strong disapproval over strong approval (the passion index) back down to -12, not quite up to the -19 or so it had climbed up to.

The Economist, AKA The Magazine People Subscribe To and Leave Out on their Coffee Tables But Don't Actually Read: 46-48.

And Obama's highest point recently is a mere 50%, coming from media (suspect) polls like CBS, NBC, and Ipsos/McClactchey.

What do these polls tell us? Well, um... that Obama is just as unpopular as we thought he was.

Honestly, I think I have to revise a prediction I made some time ago. I thought public opinion would start to break against Obama after six to nine months of his term; that part I got right.

But I really thought it would break harder, and more dramatically; the preference cascade effect I keep talking about but am only now relinking.

Instead of the cascade, we're seeing consistent and slow erosion. I don't know anymore if we're going to have a big 6-8 point drop over the course of a couple of weeks like I once thought. Obama's support is firmer than I expected; I thought at least twenty points of it was faddish stupidity, and those twenty points would suddenly disappear as people finally realized the Boy Emperor Has No Clothes. (We saw that happen with Martha/Marcia Coakley.

Or, maybe it's just going to take a bit longer than I thought.

No one wants to admit that they were wrong. People will do almost anything to avoid this. Generally, the template people prefer is that their opinions have changed because of new information or changing conditions; that way, they were right then, but are also right now. (See Sullivan, Andrew, for the most pathetic documented case of this on the internet.)

But no one wants to admit they made a wrong choice based on always-existing information.

I suppose people aren't changing their opinions because of residual goodwill, residual pride they overcame prejudices they didn't have to vote in favor a black guy they never hated, wanting to give the "funny looking kid with the weird" name a chance, and all of that.

And also because there hasn't been one big crystallizing event that forces them to reconsider their views. So far it's been very drip-drip-drip; no one thing has arrested the public's attention, all at once, and prodded them into considering whether they still support this jugeared jackass with the lovely trouser-creases.

The Panty Bomber seems to have been the closest thing we've seen on that score.

Thanks to AHFF Geoff.

Posted by: Ace at 10:02 AM | Comments (67)
Post contains 485 words, total size 3 kb.

Gee, I wonder if he's pro-blowjob, too.

Meet my new boyfriend, Scott Fujita. This week, the New Orleans Saints linebacker was featured in the New York Times talking about why he's pro-choice and pro-LGBT rights. This is not only regarding the anti-choice ad that's scheduled to air during the Superbowl on Sunday, but also the gay dating site ad that was submitted to CBS - and rejected.

As covered by Jos yesterday, Sean James and Al Joyner were featured in a new Planned Parenthood ad talking about the decisions they want the women in their lives to have.

No shit really? Guys who've seen more sex than Boy George's Dungeon Wall are in favor of women having easy access to abortions?

Ah, well, that's not quite fair with regard to these two; Planned Parenthood wisely solicited older guys for the ad, and at least one of them has a daughter, and he frames it as being a choice he'd like his daughter to have.

Which takes them a bit out of the Well-Of-Course-You'd-Say-That-Ladykiller category.

On the other hand, there's super-stupd Fujita. Guy's so good-looking even I might let him buy me a drink and a diaphragm.

...

"It's just me standing up for equal rights. It's not that courageous to have an opinion if you think it's the right thing and you believe it wholeheartedly."

Oh, I know you believe it wholeheartedly, Vaiszh Hunter. Anyone with a dick like the booster stage of a Saturn V rocket, a million dollars in the bank, and an NFL-issued gen-u-ine Panty Inspector #69 laminate would believe that wholeheartedly.

Fujita "respects" Tim Tebow for voicing his opinion, incidentally. So did the other two guys; that seems to be message here.

To be honest, I am Fujita's side here (as most of you know), and I can't really kick up too much of a fuss about this, really. Mercenary, tangible self-interest decides most questions for most people, doesn't it? There is little question that there is a substantial split on this issue between the younger, unattached, and less sexually monogamous and the older, married, and monogamously stable.

Still, I do find it a little goofy that Feminsting is so surprised to find pro-choice sentiments in a guy who likely scatters more DNA around than OJ Simpson caught in a bad case of full moon fever.

Next scoop from Feministing: Eighth grade boys believe that age restrictions on alcohol, cigarette, and fireworks purchases are unfair and anti-freedom.

(I told you was desperate, didn't I?)

Posted by: Ace at 09:44 AM | Comments (148)
Post contains 474 words, total size 3 kb.

I'm really not taking the day off. I woke up late, yeah, but I've been reading for the last three hours and I'm finding bubkis.

Ugghhh... Okay, time to do some kind of post about sex/the differences between men and women/naughty parts.

It's a slow news day when I resort to reading the feminist blogs and doing Google news searches for Penis, Vagina, and Breasts. I haven't had do that in while, thankfully.

Okay, time to manufacture a post.

Oh: Please consider this me pushing the panic button and asking for anything you have, tip-wise.

Posted by: Ace at 09:08 AM | Comments (406)
Post contains 109 words, total size 1 kb.

ManBearPig hit hardest.

The Indian government has established its own body to monitor the effects of global warming because it “cannot rely” on the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the group headed by its own leading scientist Dr R.K Pachauri.

The move is a significant snub to both the IPCC and Dr Pachauri as he battles to defend his reputation following the revelation that his most recent climate change report included false claims that most of the Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035. Scientists believe it could take more than 300 years for the glaciers to disappear.

... (India's Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh) announced the Indian government will established a separate National Institute of Himalayan Glaciology to monitor the effects of climate change on the world’s ‘third ice cap’, and an ‘Indian IPCC’ to use ‘climate science’ to assess the impact of global warming throughout the country.

“There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism. I am for climate science. I think people misused [the] IPCC report, [the] IPCC doesn’t do the original research which is one of the weaknesses… they just take published literature and then they derive assessments, so we had goof-ups on Amazon forest, glaciers, snow peaks.

The new group is going to do it's own study and who knows, it may come back with findings that support the claims of global warming supporters. My guess is they will be a lot more open with their data than previous studies have been and then the debate can be had. You know, like science is supposed to work.

Either way, the fact that a country as important as India has bailed on the IPCC makes it a lot harder for the Gaia worshipers to paint anyone who dares question the group as nuts. No doubt they will continue to but they'll sound even more defensive and out of touch in the process.

The crazy cult of Global Warming wasn't built overnight and it will take a while to get back to real science but the speed at which the taboos have been broken following ClimateGate is impressive.

Posted by: DrewM at 08:53 AM | Comments (96)
Post contains 373 words, total size 2 kb.

I don't even want to put a question mark on it because a) you are all smart enough to ask the questions that we'll ask and b) I ain't gonna be a hacky cheerleader for more job pain.

We are in a brutal unemployment cycle. Predictions of a "decade-long jobs recovery" used to sound like hyperbole, not so much when you're sitting in the bottom of the well.

Geoff over at IB is crunching some numbers. He even noted an uptick in the numbers of jobs. He's asking some pertinent questions about increases in both farm and non-farm jobs.

I don't think this story is complete, I don't think there's anything this administration is doing that's positive (hell they only started talking about job recovery a couple of weeks ago), if this is just some indication that the problem is bottoming I'll be happy that's the case.

UPDATE: This post saved or created thirty seven jobs. Thanks KeithA for the reminder!

UPDATE2: 136 MM jobs available down to 129 MM? Let's see the revisions.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 07:18 AM | Comments (221)
Post contains 186 words, total size 1 kb.

Rahm Emanuel reportedly opposed sending KSM and the rest of the gang to civilian trials in NY but Attorney General Eric "Nation Of Cowards" Holder won out? Seems Rahm isn't a complete, dare I say, fucking retard.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel vehemently opposed Attorney General Eric HolderÂ’s decision to put alleged September 11 plotters on trial in a civilian court, according to a new account from the New YorkerÂ’s Jane Mayer.

“Rahm felt very, very strongly that it was a mistake to prosecute the 9/11 people in the federal courts, and that it was picking an unnecessary fight with the military-commission people,” Mayer quoted an “informed source” as saying.

The New Yorker story says EmanuelÂ’s opposition was driven in part by concerns that the decision would alienate Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). Graham wants the 9/11 suspects tried by military commissions, but he favors the closure of Guantanamo and has indicated he is willing to break with many in his party to work with the administration on plans to move Guantanamo prisoners to the U.S.

“There was a lot of drama,” the source said, according to the article. “Rahm had a good relationship with Graham, and believed Graham when he said that if you don’t prosecute these people in military commissions I won’t support the closing of Guantánamo. . . . Rahm said, ‘If we don’t have Graham, we can’t close Guantánamo, and it’s on Eric!’ ”

The particulars of the story don't interest me that much. The bottom line is Emanuel is a better political strategist than either Obama or Holder and Lindsay Graham is still annoying. None of this is actually news.

The interesting part to me is this seems to be the first hint of a crack in the veneer of Team No Drama Obama. There are always tensions within a campaign or an administrations but when things are going well the public doesn't see or hear about them. When they aren't, we'll you all remember the McCain campaign, right?

The public and members of Congress on both sides of the aisle are increasingly uncomfortable and angry about the administration's plans to deal with terrorists like KSM and the handling of the Christmas Bomber. Now someone leaks the Chief of Staff is feuding with the AG, who has been on point on those issues?

You start to get the sense the wheels are coming off here, but not before someone gets run over by the bus.

And then there's unemployment, the deficit and a whole host of other issues these guys are behind the curve on. I bet the Illinois Senate and the option to vote "Present" is looking pretty good about now.

Posted by: DrewM at 06:29 AM | Comments (92)
Post contains 470 words, total size 3 kb.

Occasionally, a story comes along that has everything a blogger could want. Take, for example, this profile of the Tea Party movement that appeared on Yahoo News yesterday afternoon.

I mean, just look at it: it was written by a man named "Patrik Jonsson", so you know that the Dirty Scandis are involved; it has a hilariously deragatory take on the Tea Party Movement that has to be read to be believed; and it features a quote from the Mary Tyler Moore of the Blogosphere, Mary Katharine Ham. (EDIT: That's not a shot at MKH! That was meant to be a compliment! Who doesn't love Mary Richards? Lou Grant or Ted Baxter...now that would have been a shot.)

Again I ask, what more could a blogger want? It's a veritable cornucopia of bloggy goodness. And what do we do with cornucopias of bloggy goodness? We Fisk them. Deeply and repeatedly. Which I do, after the jump. more...

Posted by: Jack M. at 05:55 AM | Comments (115)
Post contains 1829 words, total size 11 kb.