Yup. I drew the short straw and I got the ONT tonight. Or is it that you guys get the short end of the stick? Whatever. Drink up. It's time for the ONT!

Now let's get this party started with some music. Here is Luka Sulic and Stjepan Hauser playing their arrangement of Welcome To The Jungle by Guns N' Roses. They got some flair too.

more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 06:00 PM | Comments (537)
Post contains 525 words, total size 5 kb.

Is there anyone who believes in anthropogenic global warming (AGW) at this point who isn't a charlatan or a dumbass? Or both? So which is it, Mitt?

“I don’t speak for the scientific community, of course,’’ Romney said. “But I believe the world’s getting warmer. I can’t prove that, but I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer. And number two, I believe that humans contribute to that . . . so I think it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and the global warming that you’re seeing.’’

Really? Well I guess AGW is possible. But Obamacare could reduce healthcare costs and Anthony Weiner could have been #Hacked!, too. I read both those things somewhere.

Possible is hell of a long way from probable. You're supposed to know this, Mitt.

And now we've come to the point where enough time has elapsed to grade the IPCC on its prior work with real historical data, not some garbage-in, garbage-out computer simulation. Read this, Mitt: people are starting to point out that their predictions, in a word, suck.

The graph is pretty simple, really. Temperatures that the IPCC predicted to continue trending upwards have failed to cooperate with the computer models and are, in fact, below the low-end of even the most conservative of their predictions. So, crisis averted, right? We can just disband the IPCC and go home.

Not on your life! This thing is its own industry now, and something so simple as its fundamental prediction failing to come to pass isn't going to stand in the way of its business model:

1. Blame capitalism
2. ???
3. Profit more...

Posted by: andy at 04:38 PM | Comments (144)
Post contains 410 words, total size 4 kb.

This will probably at least start a conversation.

Posted by: Ace at 02:13 PM | Comments (420)
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.

BAN WARNING. Since people apparently don't read to the end, I'll put it here.

This is in the hands of the police and no further speculations about the private individuals in this matter are warranted. There is no need to race to try to get "in front of the evidence," like it's the Belmont Stakes.

The suspicions are so obvious they don't need to be said.

Official last warning: Get off the girl. Talk about Weiner and his behavior. Further speculation beyond what is known and confirmed, with respect to any party except Weiner, is subject to immediate, no-further-warning ban.

Strict liability. I see anyone hint that the girl is implicated, you're gone, period.

...

Which I take, unless I hear better, for "we have no criminal interest here."

I don't think a live criminal investigation gets "concluded" until the trial. If they say it's "concluded," that means they have no evidence of criminal contact.

Which is why I got so insane about not speculating too much. We had an investigation in place. We had cops involved. We can afford to wait to hear what they have to say.

C.R. McLeod, a spokesman for the New Castle County government, told The Associated Press on Saturday that investigators have concluded their probe and don't plan any further comment "unless something new arises that needs their attention."

People really need to stop confusing what they want to be true for what is likely to be true.

I continue to maintain these contacts were wholly inappropriate, even if non-criminal. I have repeated my reasons for believing this enough.

A guy who sometimes sends dic-pics to admirers should not be cultivating an online relationship with a 17 year old girl. Period.

Ban Warning: At the top of the post. I've banned six people so far and can ban 60 if it's needed.

You will respect my wishes on this.

Posted by: Ace at 12:53 PM | Comments (678)
Post contains 339 words, total size 2 kb.

Sex Rehab? Well, they say "treatment" for "inappropriate behavior." I say "sex rehab."

Link at Hot Air.

He's also taking a leave of absence. Some commenters speculated there was no such thing, and I said, "I'm inclined to agree with them."

But that was based on nothing at all. In fact, there is a Leave of Absence for Congressmen.

Just a reminder, speculation is often wrong. Sometimes being wrong is relatively harmless, as it is here. Sometimes it is more harmful.

...

Well, that's probably not the best sign.

Sources said much of the conversations between Weiner and the high schooler had been deleted from the girl's computer.

It's possible that still implicates the "manslaughter" scenario I've been favoring. Flirty, familiar, and overly-friendly tweets would look bad even if they didn't look criminal.

Further, the girl could be acting with an overabundance of caution.

Ban Warning: This is in the hands of the police and no further speculations about the private individuals in this matter are warranted. We will quickly know. There is no need to race to try to get "in front of the evidence," like it's the Belmont Stakes.

The suspicions are so obvious they don't need to be said.

Official last warning: Get off the girl. Talk about Weiner and his behavior. Further speculation about what is known and confirmed (like "sources' saying the conversations were deleted) is subject to immediate, no-further-warning ban.

Super Update: Gabe points out something I forgot: If Weiner deleted the Tweets on his side, they would also disappear from the girl's account.

Ergo, she didn't necessarily delete anything. Weiner might have helpfully deleted them on her behalf.

Posted by: Ace at 10:10 AM | Comments (639)
Post contains 297 words, total size 2 kb.

She was previously spotted repeating "personal matter, personal matter, personal matter" like a Cyberdyne Systems Obfuscation Model.

Now she says it's time for him to resign, according to DanaBash of CNN.

The Low-Benefit Reign of High-Functioning Men: Mark Steyn wants to know in exactly what way Weiner is "high-functioning."

Perhaps his embrace of economic polices that have bequeathed to us this spendiferous fully-operational Death Star of growth destruction.

Posted by: Ace at 09:49 AM | Comments (118)
Post contains 84 words, total size 1 kb.

The dirtiest public Tweet wasn't about Weiner, but a boy, either the girl's boyfriend or a male friend she just bantered radily with.

That's actually true. Case closed on that.

And it's even possible -- maybe likely -- she didn't even write that.

However, that Tweet was never really offered as smoking-gun proof Weiner had talked dirty to the girl. It was offered as evidence that she'd be an "interesting" follow for Weiner. Combine that with repeated protestations of her "love" for Rep. Weiner and what you have there is a girl that your reasonably-prudent man doesn't DM.

When Weiner DM'd her, could he be certain she wouldn't say she loved him? Or otherwise express her crush? No. In fact, he could be pretty confident she would say something along those lines.

So why DM her? Why, if not precisely for that?

Patterico find the NYT spinning for Weiner:

BONUS MEDIA ANALYSIS: I love that bit [in the NYT's restatement of the scandal] about how he sent out “a photo . . . of himself in his underwear.”

Yeah. ThatÂ’s one way to put it. There is also the tidbit, which goes unmentioned, that in his underwear was the clearly visible outline of an erect penis. You know, the thing that really makes it a scandal. But why report that part?

While we’re complaining about the New York Times story, please note how it takes the above “Tights and cape shit” quote and cleans it up as follows:

“I came back strong,” he wrote. “Large. Tights and cape. …”

Interesting how the reporter omits any reference to the word “shit,” which infuses the communication with a creepy, seedy familiarity that would make any father’s blood boil. A Congressman talking about “tights and cape” is odd. A 46-year-old Congressman talking to a high school junior about “tights and cape shit” is very different. By using a period followed by an ellipsis — not just omitting the profanity but pretending it was never even there — the reporter twists the facts to make Weiner’s conduct more innocent.

That is a good point. For one thing, it tends to prove my hunch that Weiner's communications with the girl are, as I keep suggesting, flirty, familiar, and friendly.

It's not that I'm saying "Oooh, he said a dirty word!" You do not get kicked out of Congress for saying the word "shit."

No, it's the context here. We have a 46-year-old married Congressman who should not be DMing a 17 year old girl who "loves" him in the first place.

But he goes further than merely DMing her. He can't even keep "The Line" strong here. He can't treat her in an arms-length, somewhat standoffish, "Look, I'm a married adult and you're a cute highschool girl so I have to be a little stiffer than I might like" manner.

No, in his DM, he says to her he's "Large" -- and we have seen what he's usually referring to with this; possibly a little wink-wink-nudge-nudge -- and that he's doing his "tights and cape shit."

I've taught high-schoolers. High schoolers really like it when you curse. It's a cheap way to gain a connection. They like it because they like being treated as equals. They get sick of adults behaving, to their minds, oddly and buttoned-up around them. Treating them, basically, as kids.

And when you curse to a class of high-schoolers, even by accident, they dig that.
Not that they're so thrilled to hear a word they've heard 10,000 times before. But because it's not treating them like a kid, like every other adult does.

Well, not every other adult.

Sorry, I always have a suspicion about adults who deliberately cultivate a "friendship among equals" relationship with kids who are kids and therefore not social equals.

So I just have to restate the question I've restated a dozen times: Why is a 46 year old married Congressman treating a 17 year old girl, who is not in fact his equal (she's a kid!), like any of-age woman he might meet for drinks in a DC bar?

It's not appropriate. This girl has a crush on him -- she says she "loves" him again and again in public tweets -- and he's... acting like one of her super-cool popular-clique classmates? Flattering her crush, even as her crush flatters him?

And the New York Times apparently understands this -- because they cut that out of the Tweet. "..." shall stand in for an inappropriately-familiar "shit."

How modest. How very observant of middle-class bourgeois social mores.

Yeah.

Or maybe it's just cleaning up after Weiner.

Weiner knew there was a problem here. Even if it was just a matter of perception. Which I don't think it was, but for one brief moment, let's pretend this was only a problem of perception.

PatriotUSA76 and Co. have been maligned for drawing attention to Weiner's odd habit of becoming frivolous friends with young girls. Should they be maligned? Or should they be praised?

I think the latter. This is and was always inappropriate.

And Weiner knew that.

Because, when the #bornfreecrew made an issue of this odd habit of following young girls with which he had nothing in common -- except, of course, for a passionate love of Representative Anthony Weiner -- he did not simply stop following them.

Nor did he, say, write a DM to a girl explaining that he had to be the grown up and stop following them. Look at this suddenly-unearthed DM Weiner wrote to a girl:

Look, I am beyond flattered by your finding me worthy of affection, but the fact is the fact, I'm a married 46 year old Congressman and you're a young girl. While I will always be flattered that you say such wonderful things about me, I have to stop following you or communicating with you, except maybe for a public tweet. I'm sorry, it's simply too dicey a situation, and I don't think it's fair to communicate with a girl who has a crush on me -- it just feeds the crush and winds up hurting more. But good luck in all your endeavors -- I know you'll be great -- and thank you for supporting me.

Oh wait, that isn't a recently-unearthed DM; that's just something I made up. That's what someone should say when confronted with this situation.

Did Weiner say anything like that? Well, based on the girl's tweets, um, no. Based on the girl's tweets, he just told her to keep it quiet.

We don't have perfect evidence here-- we know that by May 25 Weiner was following her again, but we don't have screenshots of his May 13-15 follow list (that I know of) to demonstrate that he followed her at this time.

It seems likely to me, though, that he did follow her about this time, or inform her he would follow her again, if she could "keep [her] mouth shut."

It's an uncomfortable situation when an older man realizes a much younger girl has a crush on him. It's a tough thing. Embarrassment and crying will probably result, and, even before that, it's just... uncomfortable.

But there are two possible responses to this situation:

1. "You can't have a crush on me! You're a young girl, and you can have anyone. I'm an old man. This isn't appropriate; you need to like boys your own age. And I have to stop following you. I'm terribly flattered, but this just isn't a good situation for either one of us."

Or...

2. "Keep your mouth shut, publicly, about having a crush on me and I'll follow you again."

We know which Weiner chose.

Why did he choose 2?

I think because he just really, really likes having the validation of young girls telling him how awesome he is.

As I previously wrote:

But now she says she "loves" him. And he does enjoy the validation of infatuated women.

Who doesn't?

But she's not a woman. She's a 17 year old girl. She is, for legal purposes, a child.

In the Manslaughter theory, he never says anything legally actionable in his private communications with her -- and yes, he seems to have had them. Rather, he just enjoys the crush-vibes he gets from her, flattered that a pretty young thing could be in "love" with a still-not-confident-and-mature boy-man like him.

Sure, he deflects away her serious protestations of love, but he doesn't say anything legally actionable. He just... enjoys the flattery of a pretty 17 year old who's in love with him.

Perfectly innocent.

Except it's not innocent. It's not innocent.

Because there is no one reading this right now who, if I were to suggest a similar scenario with an adult just seeking out their daughter's private attention, doing nothing actually illegal but just enjoying the fact the girl had a major league crush on him... well, there would be problems. Real problems.

You don't have to prove someone's a criminal to know he's a creep.

Why is Anthony Weiner having private communications with underage girls clearly infatuated with him at all?

Let's assume it's not Murder. Let's assume he deflected any of these lovesick girl's stronger declarations of affections.

Why was he contacting them?

To talk politics? To talk shop? To ask a 17 year old girl, "What do you think we should do to back the Republicans off their debt-limit no-negotiation stance"?

Or to engage in some creepy, weird indulgence in the crush-vibes of that girl?

There's no crime in the Manslaughter theory, but there is serious offense.

...

You don't have to think something criminal happened here to say that a 46 year old man should not be seeking this type of "frivolity" and romantic validation from a starstruck 17 year old girl.

Just perfectly innocent. A married 46 year old Congressman private messaging a smitten, hero-worshipping, bad-girl-talking 17 year old girl who "loved" him.

What could be more innocent than that?

BTW: Quick story. I was tutoring a 16 year old girl once for the SAT's. I don't know how old I was. Maybe 21? Round that age?

I'd walked to her house to tutor because she was a neighbor. Like four blocks away.

One day she insisted on giving me a ride home. Not necessary, but the client is always right.

Anyway, in what should have been a three minute car ride that she took the scenic route to make it ten, she told me I had to meet some of her friends, and there was a party coming up this weekend where her friends would be; would I like to come with her?

So... okay, seems like a Don't Stand So Close To Me Crush.

Very flattering.

Point is, she offered to give me a ride home multiple times after that, and I deflected by saying "No, it's a nice night, I need the exercise." Also cut short any and all attempts to derail the tutoring session into familiar conversations.

I got standoffish, and probably, to her mind, rude, but what are you going to do? If something is inappropriate, you can either do the full-on uncomfortable "Please don't have a crush on me," or you can at least assume the standoffish, borderline rude Let's Keep This Professional posture.

Or, you can do what Weiner seems to have done: Encourage the crush by acting like the girl's super-cool popular-clique classmate, and then just tell her "Keep this quiet."

Posted by: Ace at 08:19 AM | Comments (173)
Post contains 1919 words, total size 12 kb.

Talking during horse-head bookends is never acceptable.

If you are going to build your house over a graveyard, for God's sakes, move the bodies too, not just the headstones. Or at least smash all the TV's in your house.

Clanking empty bottles together out of an old beater while calling out your rival gang's name is a great form of intimidation.

Swedish bookshops have dogs that walk backwards.

Every time you drive a car off a cliff, it will explode.

You can outrun a massive bomb despite incredibly dense foliage.

If you can't outrun it, find a fridge.

If someone asks if you are a god, you say yes.

Lisa apparently enjoys tearing bad actors (and directors, writers, editors, advertisers and producers) apart. Or should I say, apaahht.

The most important thing I learned?

When interviewing someone about a crime, look at the bottom of your damn coffee mug first.

So, what valuable life lessons have you gathered from cinema?

Posted by: CAC at 07:51 AM | Comments (517)
Post contains 172 words, total size 1 kb.

Pixy's been notified and is hopefully rounding up a fresh 5.25" floppy disk for the Commodore 64 as you read this.

And ... fixed.

Might as well make this the Saturday a.m. open thread. more...

Posted by: andy at 04:47 AM | Comments (287)
Post contains 55 words, total size 1 kb.

As a preface, there are three types of possibilities: Those you can prove, those you suspect might (or might not) have happened, and those you just want to be the case.

Bear that last one in mind. I know a lot of people want Weiner led away in irons, and sure, I don't think I'd mind that myself, but the fact that kind of validation might be nice doesn't make it actually true.

What was proven, and is now confirmed by media which bothered to ask the question (finally), is whether Weiner privately contacted a 17 year old girl. He did. He says he did. He says he contacted her privately "at least five times."

For what? Currently he refuses to divulge the contents of these messages, but he wants us to know they're innocent.

Are they? Well, I'll believe it when I see it. I think they'll turn out to be flirty and familiar.

But that's just what I suspect. Given that he could clear this up immediately by releasing them, I'd say there's a pretty good chance that he doesn't want people seeing the familiar, inappropriate tone with which he bantered with other people's children.

The possibility that he had actually taken the reckless, begging-for-jail step of writing something lewd to her was always a lower-possibility thing.

First of all, it's insane, but yes, I know, it happens anyway. But Weiner had several birds on a wire here, and could afford to keep it relatively clean with one member of the cyber-harem he was building.

As I said in the last post, based on the New York Times' reporting here, I find the whole tone the report suggestive of a precautionary police action, not of them having some strong evidence and just needing that one last bit of data to lock Weiner up.

For one thing, if the cops had found anything, I think we'd get some hint of that. Sure, maybe it's coming late, but we're talking about probability here.

When I wrote about Patterico's evidence, while I was pretty sure it proved 1, private DMs, which are already inappropriate, and 2, further inappropriateness by chatting with girl who says she "loved" him and whose other tweets showed a propensity for dirty-talk.

But I also noted that of the two possibilities, "murder" -- or actual lewd communications with a minor, was less likely, and "manslaughter" -- breathtaking inappropriateness -- was more likely.

Sure, I thought, as I still believe, an investigation needs to be had -- if this guy, with a history of cybersex and shock photos, is talking privately to a 17 year old girl who "loves" him, yeah, I think we need an investigation.

I trust him about as far as I can spit a truck.

But some investigations come up dry. Sure, I would have been happy -- in a "aren't I so smart?" way -- if the evidence did demonstrate the maximum offense conceivable.

But it was always the case that the "manslaughter" charge was more likely. And I think by focusing on the unlikely charge, and wishing it to be true, that tends to diminish the other one.

Like, right now, Weiner's sort of in a relatively good position if he can say "Well at least I didn't sext a minor."

Then that makes what he did do -- which is incredibly, expulsion-level inappropriate -- seem like it's no big deal.

But it is. I spent a lot of words trying to make this case: That even if he restrained himself enough to cross no criminal lines, the question must still be asked, "Then why is he bantering with children who have a romantic or even sexual interest in him in private, parents-don't-know DMs?"

And did the parents know? No, the parents did not know. I guess he forgot to get the parental permission slip.

A member of the girl’s family who spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect her identity characterized the messages as “harmless” but expressed concern that Mr. Weiner had communicated privately with the teenager, a high school junior.

The family was aware that there had been exchanges between Mr. Weiner and the girl but assumed that all of their conversations had taken place on a public Twitter feed.

This girl's parents assumed that all of her communications with Weiner were occurring publicly.

Why did they assume that?

Because it is the natural assumption of almost everyone that to contact a smitten, lovesick 17 year old via private, I-think-we're-alone-now DM is blazingly, incandescently inappropriate.

What's his defense here? "I was just getting off on the idea this 17 year old girl loved me so much, but I never actually suggested anything sexual"?

Now, obviously, if this were a movie, and you wanted the dramatic ending, you'd write the ending where he does do something criminal.

But getting fixated on that Hollywood ending -- which was always fairly low probability, and seems even less likely now -- distracts from just how inappropriate this is.

Okay, he didn't sext her. So he did nothing wrong?

I don't think so. Like most other men in the world, I keep a decent distance from underage girls. Even your parents' old rule -- the door must be cracked open at least six inches -- isn't nearly enough.

Why doesn't Weiner? What does he find so compelling about these young, attractive, starstruck, lovestruck girls that he has to communicate with them privately?

As I suggested before, I think because he's getting off on it. He doesn't have to actually do the deed to enjoy the thrill. Just knowing he's got a cute girl here who's in love with him... well, that's pretty thrilling.

Particularly if you're an insecure narcissist like Weiner, needing constant affirmation and validation.

So, you betcha, I think he did something wrong. I think he was grooming his little cybernetic love-harem. Some of the girls were for sex, some of them may have just been for... toying.

But this is why I don't think he actually crossed the line, and why I think that insisting that he did cross the line will wind up in disappointment and "win" for Weiner:

The family member said: “I am angry. This is surreal and unbelievable. It is absolutely crazy. We are just regular people who go to baseball games and basketball games, as ordinary and plain as can be.”

In the past few days, the girl and her family have become subjects of intense interest in the news media. On Friday, the local police arrived at their home and asked the girl and her mother to bring the girlÂ’s phone and computer to the police station so they could be checked to make sure no crime had occurred.

The family member said the family complied, and did not expect any further action to be taken.

Maybe that's wishful thinking on the part of a parent who wants it to go away; but my idea is that if the cops were dire and fearful, the parents would have picked up on that, and would not now expect the investigation to conclude.

People are smart about stuff like this. People know when they're in trouble, and when they're in the clear. People have a built-in danger radar. The sense I get is that the parents honestly think they're not expecting any bad news, and if they think that, I have to wonder why.

If they think there's no problems ahead, then I think they have a good reason for that. Not every detail has to be spelled out in a report; you can read a lot from tone and subject reaction.

These parents are mad at the intrusion, not at Weiner, and not thinking there's any further police in their future.

I don't think we can blow that fact off. You can argue around it or say "Well they could just be brave-facing it or denying reality," sure, but I think any bit of evidence you have must be assigned some value.

Sure, I can argue away any evidence if I wanted. But this is evidence, and I don't see why I should discount it, except for the possibility that I have a secret, ugly desire that the evidence were otherwise. But that's not logic. That's just wishcasting.

So to me, as it stands, I have to think the parents are straight when they call these messages non-explicit.

I don't take their word for it that they're "harmless," because I actually do suspect Weiner of speaking in a manner I would consider a violation -- too flirty, too familiar, too friendly, as if he's just a friend of hers in high school. Adults are not supposed to confuse the situation by acting like other kids. Tends to cause.... misunderstandings.

That's what I suspect, at least.

But right now, I don't suspect the worst possible scenario. And I think to insist on that scenario, as if only that scenario demonstrates Weiner's misbehavior, basically lets him off the hook.

The Obligatory Addition: One thing that didn't occur to me initially when I saw police had contacted the girl -- I was out, and saw it on my phone, and really wasn't engaged -- was why did the police come out there?

Allah asked that, I saw later.

See, the cops' interest I initially took as confirmatory. An additional independent investigation which had come to the same conclusions.

But was it? Was it independent?

Or was it based on the same evidence we already knew of, that is, the tweets presented at Patterico's?

If it's the latter, then it's not confirmatory, as we can no longer imagine the cops had other evidence, independently discovered, pointing to the same (tentative) conclusion.

Further, based on what now looks to me like a cautionary, routine check by the cops, it's pretty possible that a blog-reader alerted the police to the possibility. Or a cop himself was a blog-reader. Hey, I've met them. They exist.

There's nothing wrong with that -- if you think there's a crime, especially one involving minors, you call the cops.

But if that's what happened, then it's not true the cops had an independent evidence-evaluating process which resulted in a visit to the house. In that case, it would still be the same evidence we already knew of. Alarming and suggestive evidence, true, but still the same evidence we knew of, with no hypothetical pile of additional evidence we don't know of.

So the entire visit to the house would not, then, be considered a confirmation. It would just be a consequence of persuasive, alarming evidence initially presented.

So at 6pm I thought "Holy Mackerel, even the cops think he's dirty!"

But now, eight hours later, I just think "Oh, well, given some very alarming evidence, they had to check into it."

Doesn't mean Weiner's innocent, but it also adds nothing to the pile of data suggesting he's guilty.

Posted by: Ace at 09:27 PM | Comments (146)
Post contains 1833 words, total size 11 kb.