It's now been taken down, but of course it lives on on the internet. Like here (bottom of the post).

Oh, and Perry turned down Trump's debate.

Posted by: Ace at 03:34 PM | Comments (281)
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.

Two people went out on a single date, and then the woman blew him off. It happens.

He kept trying to reach her via voicemail, and she didn't return his calls. Rude, but it happens. Non-communication is often perfect communication, at least for those willing to hear the message.

Eventually he tracked down her email by googling her, and wrote her this letter.

I'm cutting out the thousand words or so, because, while they are pathetic and tedious, they are not alarming. I'll start just before he gets into the alarming stuff.

Things that happened during our date include, but are not limited to, the following:

-You played with your hair a lot. A woman playing with her hair is a common sign of flirtation. You can even do a google search on it. When a woman plays with her hair, she is preening. I've never had a date where a woman played with her hair as much as you did. In addition, it didn't look like you were playing with your hair out of nervousness.

No, you looked like a hair-playing whore. But I found that charming.

-We had lots of eye contact during our date. On a per-minute basis, I've never had as much eye contact during a date as I did with you.

Generally women recoil from the power of my Intense Drifter Staredown, but you held firm, unafraid.

-You said, "It was nice to meet you." at the end of our date. A woman could say this statement as a way to show that she isn't interested in seeing a man again or she could mean what she said--that it was nice to meet you. The statement, by itself, is inconclusive.

Other statements I find inconclusive, FYI: "Please, no;" "Oh god stop you're hurting me;" and "Where is this? What have you done to my husband?"

-We had a nice conversation over dinner. I don't think I'm being delusional in saying this statement.

But I'll check with my therapist when I see him at the clinic.

In my opinion, leading someone on (i.e., giving mixed signals) is impolite and immature. ItÂ’s bad to do that.

Normally, I would not be asking for information if a woman and I don't go out again after a first date. However, in our case, I'm curious because I think our date went well and that there is a lot of potential for a serious relationship. Of course, it's difficult to predict what would happen...

Is it?

Why am I writing you? Well, hopefully, we will go out again. Even if we don't, I gain utility from expressing my thoughts to you. In addition, even if you don't want to go out again, I would like to get feedback as to why you wouldn't want to go again....

Because, seriously, the hair-touching thing. I just cannot get beyond that. I read it in a book and everything.

If you're not interested in going out again, then I would have preferred if you hadn't given those mixed signals. I feel led on.

Led on. Angry. Desperate. As if I have nothing left to lose.

We have a number of things in common.

Fresh, pulpy organs, for example.

IÂ’ll name a few things: First, weÂ’ve both very intelligent. Second, we both like classical music so much that we go to classical music performances by ourselves. In fact, the number one interest that I would want to have in common with a woman with whom IÂ’m in a relationship is a liking of classical music. I wouldnÂ’t be seriously involved with a woman if she didnÂ’t like classical music. You said that you're planning to go the NY Philharmonic more often in the future. As I said, I go to the NY Philharmonic often. You're very busy. It would be very convenient for you to date me because we have the same interests. We already go to classical music performances by ourselves. If we go to classical music performances together, it wouldn't take any significant additional time on your part.

The guy is putting a lot of relationship eggs in the classical music basket.

And I'll bet one or both of them don't even like classical music, but just thought it would look good on a dating profile.

According to the internet, youÂ’re 33 or 32, so, at least from my point of view, weÂ’re a good match in terms of age. I could name more things that we have in common, but IÂ’ll stop here.

But I could go on and on. For example, you prefer Kotex tampons, and throw them out with the trash, rather than separating them into "cloth recyclables." I also am totally lazy about recycling! What a pair are we, LOL.

I donÂ’t understand why you apparently donÂ’t want to go out with me again. We have numerous things in common. I assume that you find me physically attractive. If you didnÂ’t find me physically attractive, then it would have been irrational for you to go out with me in the first place....

Did I mention the classical music?

Am I sensitive person? Sure, I am.

For example, do I cry when I hear a woman scream in pain?

Well, I used to, anyway.

I think it's better to be sensitive than to be insensitive. There are too many impolite, insensitive people in the world.

There are many people, for example, who do not pick up on standard social signals.

I suggest that we continue to go out and see what happens.

Perhaps you will be chopped into tiny pieces with my Courting Axe. Perhaps you won't. That is the excitement of La romantique. You never know if you will end up on the altar at the church, or the altar in my basement, but since you're being a total mixed-signals coozebitch, I'm thinking Satan Pit.

But this could change, madamoiselle. Let me continue to woo you.

Needless to say, I find you less appealing now (given that you havenÂ’t returned my messages) than I did at our first date.

The Satan Pit doesn't fill itself.

However, I would be willing to go out with you again.

Twist my arm, sure. I'll take you out in my Murder Van.

IÂ’m open minded and flexible and am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Tonight, you live.

As for tomorrow? But who can speak of tomorrow, madamoiselle.

I wish you would give me the benefit of the doubt too. If you don't want to go out again, in my opinion, you would be making a big mistake, perhaps one of the biggest mistakes in your life.

Going out with me, and also refusing to go out with me, would be two of the biggest, and last, mistakes of your life.

Choose wisely.

If you donÂ’t want to go out again, then you should have called to tell me so.

Because in many cultures refusing to answer the phone is considered flirtatious, even lascivious. Like touching one's hair, or drumming one's fingers in anxiety and fear.

Even sending a text message would have been better than nothing.

I will kill you in your sleep.

In my opinion, not responding to my messages is impolite, immature, passive aggressive, and cowardly.

Say, what time do you want to get together for our big date?

I spent time, effort, and money meeting you for dinner.

I also bought a big bottle of ether and top-quality ligatures.

Getting back to me in response to my messages would have been a reasonable thing for you to do. In addition, you arrived about 30 minutes late for our date. IÂ’m sure you wouldnÂ’t like it if a man showed up thirty minutes late for a first date with you.

And you showed up smelling of cheap perfume and shame.

I'm checking the schedule right now for The Muppet Movie. That probably has some classical music in it. Fozzie, what a character. LOL.

If you're concerned that you will hurt my feelings by providing specific information about why you don't want to go with me again, well, my feeling are already hurt.

And if you are concerned I will hurt you physically, well, wheels are in motion there, too.

I'm sad and disappointed about this situation.

My mother used to lock me in the closet for days at a time. I imprinted on an ancient, ragged sweater of hers that nevertheless retained some of her essence in the form of sweat and gin.

I would like to put you in said sweater.

If you give information, at least I can understand the situation better. I might even learn something that is beneficial.

Like, for example, your children's school schedule, and what candy they might be attracted to as bait.

If you don't want to go out again, that I request that you call me and make a sincere apology for leading me on (i.e., giving me mixed signals).

What did it mean when you kept texting your friend "Still alive -- for now"? Was that some kind of code for "he's cute"?

In my opinion, you shouldn't act that way toward a man and then not go out with him again. ItÂ’s bad to play with your hair so much and make so much eye contact if youÂ’re not interested in going out with me again.

You should have been brusque and rude to me at the restaurant itself; I would surely have taken such a direct snubbing in stride.

I have tried to write this email well, but it's not perfect.

"Perfect" would be a letter written on fine stationary, in ink I made from gunpowder and tears.

Again, I'm not trying to be harsh, insulting, patronizing, etc.

But you are passive-aggressive, cowardly, and a food-thieving whore.

I'm disappointed, sad, etc. I would like to talk to you on the phone. I hope you will call me back at xxx-xxx-xxxx> (if itÂ’s inconvenient for you to talk on the phone when you read this email, you can let me know via email that you are willing to talk on the phone and IÂ’ll call you). If you get my voicemail, you can a leave a message and I can call you back.

There are any number of modern conveniences which will permit you to communicate with me. Here, let me explain the operation of each, in great detail.

Even if you don't want to go out again, I would appreciate it if you give me the courtesy of calling me and talking to me. Yes, you might say things that hurt me, but my feelings are already hurt.

I feel the Bloody Blues coming on. (wink)

Sending me an email response (instead of talking on the phone) would better than no response at all, but I think it would be better to talk on the phone.

So the list, from least preferable to most preferable, is email, voice mail via phone, live communication via phone, a nice date out seeing some classical music, and, most preferable of all, bathing in your blood before the Children of Babylon.

Email communication has too much potential for misinterpretation, etc.

But I trust I've made my intentions, and my impulses, perfectly plain.

Best, Mike

PS, the shoes I stole from you smell like a whore's. That's another thing that's wrong with you. So we're agreed then -- Muppets at 7:15?

via @jennyerikson

Posted by: Ace at 02:37 PM | Comments (479)
Post contains 1921 words, total size 12 kb.

Here's the Mitchell/McCarthy exchange.

The background on this is that Holder is taking the position that because he appointed an Inspector General to look into this matter (someone who is alleged to be covering this up, of course), he does not have to produce any documents created since that appointment (which was in February of this year).

Why? I suppose his claim is that it might interfere with the investigation. But so what? As a commenter said earlier, "Co-equal, motherf***er, do you speak it?"

The fact that the Executive is performing its own investigation (supposedly) does not disburden Holder from his duty to respond to legitimate Congressional inquiries.

And, FYI, this is all a nonsense cover-up; this "independent investigation" was started just so they could start saying "We can't comment on that until our investigation reports back to us on January 25th, 2012."

And while Issa threatened Holder with contempt, there, earlier Sensenbrenner brought up the possibility of a full impeachment hearing-- if that's what it takes to compel documents out of the DoJ.

Eric Holder's Expertise: Clinton defender and Marc Rich pardon-procurer Holder explains that you can speak falsehoods like crazy as long as no one can prove you have the required mental state of intent to lie.

Posted by: Ace at 01:29 PM | Comments (143)
Post contains 225 words, total size 2 kb.

That was the raucous final exchange, as Holder continues telling Congressmen that he will not disclose requested documents to them, while refusing to give anything like a legal reason justifying his refusal.

I suppose that is dramatic enough to compel the media to cover the story. However, they will of course cover it in the manner Obama/Holder wish them to -- "Ah, look, silly partisan games here, that's all. Doesn't matter. Go back to sleep."

I don't imagine anyone will put money up to bet against me on that, but if anyone's so unwise, keep it for the next bad bet.

This is standard media practice. If there's a Republican who's obviously lying, evading, and refusing to share information -- withholding information not just from Congress, but from the public too, and worse yet, withholding it from the Holy Media -- then the media gives this the Hero and Villain Narrative. It's tense, dramatic stuff, and there's little doubt who the good guy is, and little doubt that it's important that the hero wins.

When a story threatens a Democratic Administration, it's the Silly Partisan Games Which Only Matter To Beltway Insiders Narrative.

Earlier: There's a lot of video to watch. Here's one good questioner, Jason Chaffetz.

Thanks to @williamamos for that.

Posted by: Ace at 12:07 PM | Comments (277)
Post contains 282 words, total size 2 kb.

The boss was a Democratic Congressman.

Staffers of Rep. Rick Larsen boasted over Twitter that they were drinking and otherwise goofing off on the job, according to a story in the NW Daily Marker.

The website said the tweets gave off the impression of "a staffers-gone-wild bash" in the Washington Democrat's office, including insults lobbed at the congressman himself.

...

In other messages, staffers called the congressman everything from "my idiot boss" to unprintable derogatory terms such as the one George W. Bush used to refer to a New York Times reporter in 2000.

And... they're fired.

The Twitter accounts, which the site says belong to legislative assistants Seth Burroughs (@therocketship1) and Elizabeth Robbee (@betsybites), and legislative correspondent Ben Byers (@byers_remorse), sent messages in disparaging Larsen and their work for him over a period of at least four months both during and after work hours, according to the report. In one tweet Larsen is referred to as a “p—sy.” In another, Burroughs appears to brag that he destroyed his official work Blackberry in the December to Remember debauchery, according to screen grabs posted on the Daily Marker Website. The accounts have since been deleted.

Most people cannot mix alcohol and the internet successfully. That isn't snark. Seriously, people should not be online when drunk, if they have any kind of reputation or job to protect. Or, um, family.

Drinking should only be done in social situations or when watching Julie Strain movies on Cinemax.

This is actually a big pet peeve of mine. When the hell did it become so g-damn necessary to be online and "connected" like 24 hours per day?

At BlogCon, there was a bar night, and someone complained of not being able to get a signal, and then said, "But all the cool people have a signal, I'm sure."

Gabe and I both said at the same time: "All the cool people aren't checking to see if they have a signal at all."

It was at this point I suggested we attempt something I call "Mouth-Tweeting," or communicating without the aid of a wired device.

I hate to be a grouch here but people have to put their damn phones down.

Posted by: Ace at 11:42 AM | Comments (170)
Post contains 403 words, total size 3 kb.

Geraghty wonders about this.

Say you buy a riding lawn mower. You did some research; you thought you were getting a good one. You paid -- I don't know, what's it cost? -- like $900 for it.

Now it turns out to be kind of crappy, and you keep seeing great reviews for the $850 model you passed over.

It's probably going to take you some time to come around to the idea you bought the wrong mower. It was a significant cost, you used your judgment and brainpower to make the right pick... and you failed at it. Your ego will attempt to mislead you into thinking you bought the right mower for as long a period of time as that remains a semi-plausible position to hold.

Obama was a big purchase, wasn't he?

I wondered about this long ago. My belief was that this natural inclination towards self-defense of the ego would spare Obama for a period.

And then, I thought, the turn would come, and Obama would be hated by many of the people currently still holding out hope.

Because my theory is that the ego will again intervene in a self-preserving manner. First the ego fights off the belief that this was a poor decision. It doesn't want to admit the brain got something so wrong.

But when that position can no longer be maintained, a new self-preserving theory is favored: "Based on the information available to me, I made the right decision. But significant information was concealed from me; ergo, I could not make the correct call based on the information as known. Obama lied to me about his intentions and his qualifications."

This new narrative has the great advantage of confessing an incorrect decision while not confessing any fault in arriving at that incorrect decision.

It also has the virtue of being pretty much true, eh? Add in the media into the pile of scapegoats-who-actually-deserve-blame.

Of course I expected that to happen a while ago.

It's possible that actually is happening, but because most of us sense the national opinion via the media, and the media of course has its own egotistical (and politically-biased) motivation to spin a narrative, we're not aware that a great majority of people actually do kind of hate Obama. (Or, actually kind of hate him, but counterfeit their beliefs when asked by pollsters, because they wrongly believe their position is minority and disfavored.)

Anecdotally, what's your sense? Among people you rate as apolitical and nonpartisan -- the sort of fence-sitters and bandwagon-jumpers you could expect to vote for Obama when that seems to be the "right thing to do," and who would be uncomfortable expressing their dissatisfaction with him unless they began to believe such a statement was socially permissible -- are you detecting any shifts here?

Posted by: Ace at 10:58 AM | Comments (278)
Post contains 482 words, total size 3 kb.

Which to watch?

Right now Corzine seems to be reading his prepared statement.

Thanks to JohnE.

Posted by: Ace at 09:18 AM | Comments (182)
Post contains 32 words, total size 1 kb.

White man in gray sweatpants and maroon hoodie.

A spree-killer killed 32 on the campus in 2007.

Students have been advised to get in their rooms and stay there.

Posted by: Ace at 09:13 AM | Comments (87)
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.

Apparently she doesn't believe Obama when he claims that is also his official stance.

Sir Elton John

Funny thing about liberals and the media. They all behave as if Obama is actually pro-gay-marriage, and yet when the issue comes up, and the rubes are listening, they all say "But Obama's against gay marriage too!"

And, having so informed the rubes of this, they go back to acting as if Obama is pro-gay-marriage. Almost as if they know he's really not, but like to lie about it to others.

Posted by: Ace at 08:59 AM | Comments (126)
Post contains 122 words, total size 1 kb.

I thought they said 1:15. But they started up again a while ago. Good stuff going on now.

Dan Lundgren asked about the use of Fast and Furious to extend gun control laws, but he expressly disclaimed a belief in a from-the-start conspiracy, instead casting it as a matter of an agency making a murderous error, then using its very incompetence as a pretext to cede it further authority.

I don't know what Holder said. It was blah blah, white noise. He did start to answer about the conspiracy he thought he was being asked about, and answered, "Think about the implications of what you're saying, that a department would plan a flawed program to..."

That's the part I can't buy. According to the conspiracy theory, the department set out to get lots of people killed, and apparently thought no one would ever notice.

People just offer up the answer "They're arrogant, and they have the media to cover for them," and further offer the difficult-to-rebut point "...as the media is covering for them right now," and yet I have trouble comprehending someone setting out to commit impeachable and prosecutable (and in fact: executable) crimes in order to advance some political issue at the margins.

People commit murder over matters of intense personal interest to them. Rarely do you see someone committing a murder over something which is abstract to them. There are few "public interest murders." Murders are committed over money, and sex/infidelity/sexual obsession/sexual abandonment, and... well 90% those two things.

Of course, if evidence does arise to suggest that's what's happened... that would be among the most serious crime an officer of the US has ever perpetrated.

Anyway, Sheila Jackson Lee is currently attempting to stop Issa's questions by talking over him like the obese bull rhinocerous she is.

Hostile Witness: Issa says the AG is a hostile witness, and is treating him as such, given his lack of candor. Also says the current Inspector General whom Holder has appointed to "investigate" (i.e., whitewash) this matter is not capable of doing so.

Posted by: Ace at 08:34 AM | Comments (346)
Post contains 354 words, total size 2 kb.