Lying. As Zombie does, too.

In San Fransisco (where else?), gays held a huge parody of the Easter celebration featuring, of course, lots of male nudity and some raunchy sexual stuff.

And of course the naked buff guys walking around dressed as Jesus. And the fat guys walking around as parody nuns.

Because, like, tolerance. No bullying! No mockery! Those are bad things.

Except... when they're fun. I guess.

Little warning on the link: Some of this isn't as pixelated as I might like.

You know that this is, right?

Integrative Complexity

A pretty good sign of it is giving a hand-jay to a guy dressed as Jesus on a stage in front of thousands, at the same time you're shrieking that you're being persecuted for nothing else except your sexual orientation.

Posted by: Ace at 12:16 PM | Comments (199)
Post contains 150 words, total size 1 kb.

And by "the most racist," he of course means that whites, who support Obama by around 38% in favor to 59% against, are going to be racist, and not blacks, who support Obama 92% to 8% against.

And by "the most racist" he also means he's afraid he's going to lose.

One of the proofs of the racist tone of the campaign is that Trump (sorry, vanderleun) referred to Obama as going down as the "worst president in history." Smiley thinks we've had worse presidents so that's "nonsense."

And that of course makes it racist. Because it's not like the left ever said Bush was "the worst president in history."

Oh that's right, they said it from the week he was inaugurated.

Okay, well that's not racist, that's just truth.

Integrative Complexity

Even with the fudge-factor this startling new idea of "Dumb Asses Are the Smartest of All," I still can't make the case that Tavis Smiley is anything more than a state-certified cretin in a fat hobo's Sunday suit.

Posted by: Ace at 12:07 PM | Comments (87)
Post contains 198 words, total size 1 kb.

With nary a hippie protester or union thug in sight.

The 111-to-42 vote followed tougher measures to broadly eliminate collective bargaining rights for public employees in Ohio, Wisconsin, and other states. But unlike those efforts, the push in Massachusetts was led by Democrats who have traditionally stood with labor to oppose any reduction in workersÂ’ rights.

Unions fought hard to stop the bill, launching a radio ad that assailed the plan and warning legislators that if they voted for the measure, they could lose their union backing in the next election. After the vote, labor leaders accused House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo and other Democrats of turning their backs on public employees.

“It’s pretty stunning,’’ said Robert J. Haynes, president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO. “These are the same Democrats that all these labor unions elected. The same Democrats who we contributed to in their campaigns. The same Democrats who tell us over and over again that they’re with us, that they believe in collective bargaining, that they believe in unions. . . . It’s a done deal for our relationship with the people inside that chamber.’’

It's unclear if the state Senate will pass this plan but apparently Governor Patrick is on board with something similar. It looks like the idea of saving money and not letting public unions rape the public fisc isn't just for crazy wingnuts anymore.

I look forward to hack liberals like Greg Sargent writing shrieking columns like this about Mass Dems.

Posted by: DrewM at 11:43 AM | Comments (60)
Post contains 272 words, total size 2 kb.

Will someone please ask this on television?

I think it's a winner.

Do you feel that Obama is the man that he promised you he'd be? Do you feel like he's the man the media promised you he'd be? Do you think he was sold by himself and the media accurately, or do you think they have greatly exaggerated his capabilities, qualifications, expertise and judgement? Do you think you were sold on Obama honestly, or do you think you've been taken for a little bit of a ride?

Rewritten: I initially had a stupid, stupid post about this question up. I have disappeared it and withdrawn it because it was so stupid.

Sometimes I have stupid ideas and think they're smart, then I realize I'm just a stupid ass. Which means...

Integrative Complexity

You've got to be pretty smart to make as many mistakes as me and Mensa-Carpool-Buddy Obama do.

Posted by: Ace at 11:06 AM | Comments (217)
Post contains 164 words, total size 1 kb.

Not good, not good at all.

A different poll, by USAToday, poses a a key question -- would you consider voting for Trump? -- 63% nationally say they would not even consider it. (Obama's figure is 46% -- bad, but as you can tell, 46% is less than 50% so he could still win with such a high no-consider figure.)

So why the heck is Rush boosting him every day?

Maybe that's not fair; maybe he's boosting him the way I am -- merely knocking away unfair attacks and saying, "Well, I'm glad someone's out there treating Obama like a run of the mill politician instead of an untouchable Emperor of America."

However, Rush seems much more taken with him than just that. His praise is positive, not merely knocking away others' negative statements.

Does Rush not know the man has given mostly to Democrats? That his "pro-life conversion" story sounds as if he made it up on the spot? That on a whole host of issues, Trump has not only taken the liberal position but the fringier outlier of the liberal position -- like pimping for universal health care or enthusiastically endorsing the Kelo decision as the state just making you move so that it can allow developers to create economically-useful properties?

Okay, let's say Rush just wants a winner. I can understand that.

How about these distressing poll numbers?

What is Rush's plan here, exactly?

And I repeat, it is not true that "Trump is the only person taking Obama" on. A lot of people are. Palin. Bachmann. Even Boehner.

Even Romney. Romney in always very, very critical of Obama.

And of course Gingrich, who has never had a kind word for Obama (unlike Trump, who once had plenty of kind words).

It is simply not true that "no one" is taking on Obama. Others are, but the media's not covering them.

That is not their fault.

And the media is not covering Trump because they figure he has the best chance of unseating Obama. Surely Rush understands that.

Now, Trump has an engaging and entertaining way of speaking. I like his persona. I've been watching his stupid, stupid show on and off but largely on for like ten years or whatever it is. Something about the guy, I admit, is appealing.

But we're not picking based on whether something about someone appeals to us.

We are nominating someone with a very specific job to do, and that job is to beat Obama.

And if Trump looks like he is unlikely to beat Obama -- and he does look like one of the least likely to do so, based on these poll numbers -- then why the hell are we talking him up as a contender?

As I said, I like the guy. He's got charisma. There's an attractiveness about his brash swagger, even if it frequently sounds like he doesn't know what he's talking about -- hey, at least the guy is confident on the stuff he's shaky on.

But that doesn't mean he's the best, or even a marginally good, candidate to beat Obama.

You know that that is? That element of genius I've just demonstrated?

Sure you do.

Integrative Complexity

It's the New Hotness neologism for the Old and Busted former neologism "Negative Capability," but the left's been saying that for 40 years and it doesn't sound smart anymore now that everyone knows what it means so on to the next deliberately overcomplicated jumped-up term for a simple idea.

Posted by: Ace at 10:35 AM | Comments (151)
Post contains 600 words, total size 4 kb.

It's racist to find fault with a president you don't like.

Didn't you guys know that?

Criticizing Bush in harsh terms was described by Goldberg as "just getting our dialogue back," in 2003; she was claiming that the left had been "silenced," see, and it's new posture of unremittingly anger and hate and death wishes was just getting the "dialogue" back.

Now, when Obama is finally starting to be treated similarly -- not similarly, really, at all, but when he's getting 10% of what Bush got -- it's a friggin' racist scandal.

You know what Whoopie Goldberg has, don't you?

That's right. You can say it.

Integrative Complexity

Whoopi Goldberg is a genius, but not a genius-genius.

Posted by: Ace at 09:44 AM | Comments (229)
Post contains 133 words, total size 1 kb.

Keep your eye on this guy. Imagine Florida with two strong rooks connected on the back row.

The guy's name is Adam Hasner, and he's got all the conservative opinion leaders excited.

“He and Marco are very close,” said Mel Sembler, a former finance chairman of the Republican National Committee who is now Hasner’s honorary finance chairman. “They’re very similar politicians: both outspoken, very conservative, very direct. There’s an interesting correlation between them.”

Hasner served alongside Rubio for six years in Tallahassee and was ultimately tapped by the then-speaker to serve as majority leader. Much like Rubio did in early 2009, Hasner is traversing the state, focusing on grassroots tea party and 9/12 rallies, and taking the time to press the flesh at the more establishment-friendly Lincoln Day dinners. Some of the same political handlers who were on board with RubioÂ’s run are now signing on with Hasner.

...

Hasner hasn’t reached Rubio-levels of fame yet. But he has earned glowing write-ups from prominent conservative publications like National Review, Human Events and NewsMax. On his radio show, Levin had earlier has called Hasner “very impressive … down-the-line conservative” and told his listeners, “This is someone we are going to like — a lot.”

Erick Erickson, author of the influential RedState blog and a CNN contributor, endorsed him last week, saying Hasner had “the best background and most conservative record to run on in Florida.”

It is said he is running as an "unapologetic conservative."

His major opponent will be George LeMieux.... Charlie Crist's former chief of staff.

Do you smell what the Rock is cookin'?

And yes, I am completely against choosing political candidates based on irrational, tribalistic ethnic appeal, in all circumstances and based upon sacred principle.

Unless it works in our favor. In which case... okay.

Hot Damn! See what I did there -- that's "integrative complexity"!!

I'm a hot-damn genius!

Integrative Complexity

It's what I do thirty times a week when I say I'm going to do something, and I really mean, it, and then I don't.

That doesn't make me unreliable, or feckless, or weak.

It makes me Too Damn Smart To Be President.

Posted by: Ace at 09:36 AM | Comments (40)
Post contains 382 words, total size 3 kb.

This is not new. This is the media's go-to explanation for Democrats who fail. They're always too elevated, too noble, too high-minded, and too smart to compete effectively with the crude but effective single-minded stupid evil of the Republicans (or of the voters).

The fault, dear Brutus, lies not with us, but with the stars. (Corrected -- I wrote "Horatio." Thanks to Dave in Garfield Ridge.)

Jennifer Rubin questions this pleasing fantasy liberals just can't let go of.

[Quoting Milbank:] Seeking a template to understand the enigmatic president, I consulted three leading academics in the fields of psychology and behavior. With their help, I put Obama on the couch and came away with a reasonably coherent diagnosis: ThereÂ’s too much going on in the poor guyÂ’s head.

Gee, would these "leading academics" be among the 90% of academics who enthusiastically supported Obama for president-slash-godhead?

[Quoting Milbank:]Obama’s strengths and weaknesses come from his high degree of “integrative complexity” — his ability to keep multiple variables and trade-offs in mind simultaneously. The integratively simple thinker — say, George W. Bush — has one universal organizing principle that dominates all others, while the integratively complex thinker — Obama — balances many competing goals.

Oh, God. Didn't David Brooks just propose this "Obama's just too complex a man with multiple identities, each true and real" idea? Yeah, he did.

Does Milbank credit this stupid idea he pitched to his buddies aka "leading academics" to have originated with David Brooks? No.

Milbank says the same crap Brooks did but passes it off as his original thought.

Anyway, Rubin responds:

hate to be prosaic about this, but what is the evidence that Obama is a complex guy? ( None of the three gurus have met or actually diagnosed him, of course, and IÂ’d bet, just a wild guess here, that they are liberal Democrats who just think he is swell.)

After all, Obama has not blazed new political or policy trails as Bill Clinton did. HeÂ’s written no scholarly books (sorry, memoirs donÂ’t count). His understanding of the Middle East has been so slight and his strategy so misguided that there are no Israeli -Palestinian peace talks, and we have been spectacularly unsuccessful in stopping the hegemonic aspirations of Iran. I mean, isnÂ’t it just as likely that ObamaÂ’s a garden-variety liberal with poor decision-making skills?

She notes that Obama shares another connection to Jimmy Carter -- liberals attempted to explain his many failures in this way as well.

I never said Bill Clinton wasn't quite intelligent. In both glib cleverness (what most media types understand as "intelligent," as that's the type of intelligence they have too, to the extent they have any) and a piling heap of animal cunning. Not much actual deep intellect, but few politicians have that.

We knew Clinton was smart because he was a Rhodes Scholar, among many other examples. Sure, he got a political recommendation on that from a Senator, but there can be little doubt that of all the boys in Arkansas, Clinton was among the dozen or twenty smartest.

That's smart. Arkansas isn't a huge state but whenever you're among the tops in any geographical location, you're smart.

Now, what about Obama? There is no strong record of academic achievement. He was known as lightweight when he got his political berth as a guest lecturer at the U of C. He has never said anything profound or intellectual.

Rubin's right. Obama is not complex. He's simple. He's a lefty. Clinton was too (though not as much) but Clinton had "negative capability," which is what liberals always claim that makes someone brilliant (because they also claim that conservatives are too hidebound and numb-skulled to have).

Obama, on the other hand, is a true believer, and is dedicated only to two principles:

1, his own awesomeness,

and

2, "New Left" style neosocialism.

Complex? If "complexity" is defined by frequent betrayals of a mainstream politics, wasn't Busch "complex"?

He pushed for amnesty and the prescription drug benefit. He greatly increased government spending.

Isn't he complex?

Nope, only Obama. Obama fucks the country up left and right and rather than concede he's a simple fuck-up, we get this jazz about his genius and "integrative complexity."

Release the Transcripts

We are ready -- nay, eager -- to be impressed.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 09:18 AM | Comments (126)
Post contains 747 words, total size 5 kb.

There is some truth to that -- the media is as obsessed with the Birth Certificate Conspiracy Theory as the Birth Certificate Conspiracy Theorists are, but for different reasons, of course -- but it's not as if the media made Trump push this in the first place.

He's claiming credit... for "getting rid of this issue."

"I am really honored, frankly, to have played such a big role in hopefully, hopefully, getting rid of this issue," Trump told reporters, his helicopter sitting behind him.

Is that dumb? No, it's a smart way to address it, but it's not like it's going to work.

Let's talk about where Trump is definitely right: He said it was easy for Obama to release this, and it turns out, it was easy to release it. Therefore, Obama's refusal to do so was simply churlish or games-playing.

The media also got this wrong. Let me explain: For the past two months, the media has been increasingly pushing the meme that Obama can't release the birth certificate.

Their claim was that the birth certificate, by law, can only be released to someone with a "tangible" interest in it, and then they claimed -- astute legal observers they -- that Obama himself had no "tangible" interest in it, and so could not ask for a copy. All he could do, they averred, was inspect it at the Honolulu hall of records.

Bullshit. Always was bullshit. Today's release proves this to be the case (but don't expect the media types pushing this goofy claim to apologize or confess error).

"Tangible" does not have some arcane, term-of-art meaning in law. It means here what it does in real life. A real interest, a legally-recognizable interest, not some goofball on a fishing expedition in other people's paperwork. It's a vague word, and intended to be, that is, intentionally vague so that people can use common sense in defining it. It has no strict, black-letter-law definition. Facts and circumstances dictate a "tangible" interest; there is no long, complex caselaw on what a common English word means.

Obama always could request the certificate and release it himself. The media was wrong.

This is why people are skeptical of the media -- for every three things they get right they simply make up and swear to a fourth thing that is flat-out wrong. And people know they do this to make life easier on themselves and, more importantly, the political party they favor.

Of course Obama had a tangible interest in his own birth certificate, given a swirling conspiracy theory that he literally was not eligible to serve in the office he'd been elected to (and would seek to be re-elected to in 18 months). That's not a tangible interest?

Further, the media put on its Stupid Caps and pretended further that Obama, President of the United States, and Neil Abercrombie, Governor of Hawaii and friend to and champion of Obama, could not change the law, or at least its operative effect, with a mere signature.

Who would question if Obama formally requested the document, and the Governor said, "Under these circumstances, I find the President does have a tangible interest, as the law requires, and so I direct the Secretary of State (or whoever) to release the document per his wishes"?

No one would question that.

And yet the media insisted again and again that this was a legal impossibility.

And yet: We have the birth certificate now, which the media swore to us was an impossibility.

Any correction coming from the media on that point?

No, of course not.

Trump (and many Birthers) were suspicious precisely because it was so easy to disprove and yet he refused to do so.

There's an idea in law -- as in life, generally; it's common sense -- that if a fact is in dispute but under one party's exclusive power to prove one way or the other, and yet he refuses to do so, the fact-finder may make an adverse inference against him on that fact.

Now, I understand why people therefore felt comfortable making that inference -- it was fair to do so. It just was still wrong, despite being fair.

But the fact that Obama refused to take this simple action for two years -- when it was always easy for him to do so -- means that his reasons for withholding it were not, as the media swore (incorrectly) that he was bound by law, but rather simply he didn't want to.

And he didn't want to either because he's thin-skinned and thought this an affront or because he cynically calculated that driving some people batty would be good for his election chances.

Those are the only two possible reasons. The media's made-up, go-to "reason," that it's against the law for the President to seek his own birth certificate from his close friend and ally, the Governor of Hawaii -- is and always was false.

As Trump, ahem, is proud to have proven today.

Whose Distraction Is It Anyway? While Obama huffs and puffs, peevishly, about this "distraction"...

"We do not have time for this kind of silliness," Obama said. "We've got better stuff to do. I've got better stuff to do. We've got big problems to solve."

...I can't help but notice that the distraction existed precisely because Obama refused to place a two minute phone call to former Governor Lingle, and then, later, refused to place a one minute phone call to one of his oldest friends, Governor Abercrombie, and when I say "oldest" friends, I mean it -- Abercrombie saw baby Barack shortly after he was born, and they've been friends since Obama was a conscious, self-aware individual.

So, let's not get all huffy about "distractions," champ. You were willing -- nay, eager -- to let this "distraction" fester so long as you believed it was in your political advantage to do so.

The situation changed, and it became no longer clearly in your political advantage, so you finally did what had been long requested and even recommended by no less than Chris Matthews.

Let's not turn a long-delayed one-minute phone call into a Profile in Courage.

You Know... If we're going with a reality-tv star, can I just suggest Boston Rob?

Guy's cunning. Makes me laugh. Married a knockout.

Just saying.

Posted by: Ace at 07:57 AM | Comments (291)
Post contains 1094 words, total size 7 kb.

[Oops! Didn't mean to step on Ace's post on the same subject -- open up to see my take on the matter.]

Obama has just handed the Republican Party an enormous gift in releasing his long-form birth certificate (or, as Obama curiously put it, "additional information"). Why does this help the GOP? Three reasons, at least:

more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 06:55 AM | Comments (127)
Post contains 465 words, total size 3 kb.