He says it's all in a book.

A book I had not heard of until he mentioned it.

I guess I'll have to read it. Although I so hate reading.

Maybe they'll do a graphic novel.

The Tea Party WMD stockpile is currently stored in book form: Reckless Endangerment: How Outsized Ambition, Greed, and Corruption Led to Economic Armageddon.

By Gretchen Morgenson, one of AmericaÂ’s best business journalists who is currently at The New York Times, and noted financial analyst Joshua Rosner, Reckless Endangerment gives the best available account of how the growing chaos in the mortgage and personal finance markets and the rampant bundling of dubious loans into exotically toxic securities plunged the world, and millions of American families, into the gravest financial crisis since World War Two. It is gripping reading as well, and its explanations are clear enough that readers without any background in finance will have no trouble following the plot. The villains? An unholy alliance between Wall Street, the Democratic establishment, community organizing groups like ACORN and La Raza, and politicians like Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi and Henry Cisneros. (Frank got a cushy job for a lover, Pelosi got a job and layoff protection for a son, Cisneros apparently got a license to mint money bilking Mexican-Americans of their life savings in cheesy housing developments.)

If the GOP can make this narrative mainstream, and put this picture into the heads of voters nationwide, the Democrats are toast. The party will have to reinvent itself (or as often happens in American politics, be rescued by equally stupid Republican missteps) before it can flourish.

If Morgenstern and Rosner are to be believed, the American dream didnÂ’t die of old age; it was murdered and most of the fingerprints on the corpse come from Democratic insiders. Democratic power brokers stoked the housing bubble and turned a blind eye to the increasingly rampant corruption and incompetence at Fannie Mae and the associated predatory lenders who sheltered under its umbrella; core Democratic ideas may well be at fault.

This is catnip to Republicans, arsenic to Dems. If Morgenson and Rosner are right, there is someone the American people can blame for our current economic woes and it is exactly the cast of characters that a lot of Americans love to hate. Big government, affirmative action and influence peddling among Democratic insiders came within inches of smashing the US economy.

By the way, I didn't stick that picture of Barney Frank in there myself. That's in the original article.

Is this something? Walter Russell Mead sure thinks it's something.

It's a long, detailed piece, which I haven't yet read; I just read enough to pull a quote.

Maybe he'll do a graphic novel of his post.

Sounds like this is what a lot of us have been talking about, in vaguer terms, since October of 2008.

Thanks to beedubya.

Posted by: Ace at 09:38 AM | Comments (206)
Post contains 504 words, total size 4 kb.

Here's what I heard: the Weiner weiner shot was almost just his penis, with no context outside of that. That is, if you pixelated the Congressional member, there would be nothing left in picture.

Now that's what I heard.

The "penis pic" currently being linked has a lot of context. You could save that picture and run it, by pixelating out The Gentleman Caller in the middle, and still convey what it's all about.

Anyway, this was what I heard through the grapevine.

Am I sure? No I'm not sure. I never saw the legislative staff.

No, I'm not going to link it. This is a respectable site. We only do boobies.

Maybe I Heard Wrong: Dave Wiegel claims the Rising Star of the Democratic Party was photographed by Opie and Anthony off Breitbart's cell phone.

This article itself is SFW, but if you click the actual link marked "NSFW" contained therein, you will get a face-full of congressional franking.

So be warned. One step, safe; two steps, overnight pole.

Posted by: Ace at 09:00 AM | Comments (195)
Post contains 206 words, total size 1 kb.

Look, I know he despises Sarah Palin.

I can guess he hates Herman Cain.

I have no doubts that he is disgusted by Donald Trump.

It is obvious he thinks Mike Huckabee is uncultured and beneath him.

If he's said a kind word about Romney, I don't know about it.*

And of course even the suspected RINO Tim Pawlenty is now the subject of a full-spectrum full-page Two Minute Hate.

So who exactly does David Frum have in mind for the presidency?

The only two answers I can imagine are:

1, Barack Obama

or

2, David Frum

And I hate to be uncouth about this and disappoint him, but David Frum actually has a serious birth certificate issue going on, so honestly, who the hell does this nitwit actually like?

I guess it's option 1 -- For great conservatism.

Some of you are probably asking, "So what? Why should we care? Why do you even bother noting his predictable every-ten-minutes snits?"

Well I don't care. But he is very loud. He's a famewhore.

I know "Do not feed the trolls" but he is an especially vigorous and attention-seeking troll.

Thanks to Slublog, who posts on Twitter under the alias "Slublog."

* Ah, I See Now: In the top left corner, he announces the GOP's choice is Romney or Obama.

Well, okay then, at least David Frum has found one single person in the whole conservative movement he doesn't despise with sneering disgust.

Honestly, I am kind of shocked that David Frum has something kind to say about any conservative, besides non-conservatives like Meghan McCain and Kathleen Parker.

So he's on Team Romney. At least that's some progress, for Frum. At least he can actually name a nominee that wouldn't cause him to renounce the American citizenship he actually doesn't have (he remains a proud Canadian Canadian).

But... I have a feeling that Mitt Romney is not exactly psyched to have the uncoveted David Frum endorsement.

Hm. Maybe he's smart. Maybe he's actually on Team Pawlenty, too.

Posted by: Ace at 08:25 AM | Comments (127)
Post contains 360 words, total size 2 kb.

Ambitious.

Mr. Pawlenty would extricate the economy from this government cul de sac by enhancing the incentives to work, invest and create jobs. He sketched out yesterday a Reagan-like tax reform of lower rates for individuals and businesses. The first $50,000 in individual income ($100,000 for couples) would be taxed at 10% and after that a top marginal rate of 25%. This would give a big lift to the small and medium-sized businesses that file under the individual tax code and create most new jobs. HeÂ’d also zero out taxes on capital gains, dividends and estates.

Mr. Pawlenty says that families earning under $50,000 would pay an effective income tax rate of 0%, because he would maintain tax benefits like those for mortgage interest or the child credit that use the tax code as social policy. Mr. Pawlenty is right not to buy into the liberal objection that tax reform must be revenue neutral according to scoring rules that assume no growth dividend, but minimizing tax credit carve-outs would raise revenue by making the tax code more efficient.

The Minnesotan is on firmer ground with his corporate tax overhaul, which would reduce the rate to 15% from the current 35% in return for cleaning out the warren of loopholes and special favors. Businesses will expand, enlarge their payrolls and repatriate overseas earnings. The added benefit is that most corporate welfare is dispensed through the tax code—so a flatter, simpler system will reduce political mediation of the economy and the resulting misallocation of capital. It is both a pro-growth tax policy and government reform.

Hit the link to watch Larry Kudlow calling the plan "blockbuster." T-Paw also seems to be gaining a little swagger.

I'm actually skeptical, because right now I guess I'm in an anti-deficit frame of mind more than a pro-growth one. I realize the objection to that is "pro-growth is anti-deficit," and I buy into that to some extent, but I am worried about the revenue side of things too. I imagine T-Paw's plan is more of a reform than a cut -- by eliminating the various feudal-system-of-special-rewards our legislators are always stuffing into the code, you bring up revenue even while cutting actual rates, as well as making the government less ever-interventionist -- but I do worry that revenues won't be quite neutral.

There's a more skeptical take on this at MarketWatch, also a WSJ organ; but that skeptical take is still... pretty positive.

The four grades assigned for the four major parts of the plan are:

Corporate tax reform: A-

Personal tax reform/reduction: Incomplete, requires more detail

Exempting certain growth-fueling items from taxation, like interest and dividends: B-

Repealing the Death Tax: C, because the writer is against outright repeal, as Pawlenty proposes, and on that score I think I might be on the same page as him

So, there you go. A skeptical look at the plan is still, on average, something like a B- overall (with more information needed on one part of the plan).

Privatize The Post Office and Sell Off Amtrak? Later in the interview. T-Paw's for it.

Kudlow asks how much money that would raise, and T-Paw suggests not much, and he's right, you'd make no money on these things. They're like Newsweek -- how much do you pay for a money-losing headache?

But that's not the point, really, is it?

Posted by: Ace at 07:32 AM | Comments (310)
Post contains 572 words, total size 4 kb.

Thanks to the Moron Nation for the kind words and remembrances of our friend PattyAnn.

Cathy at Innocent Bystanders is the point person for information and provided the following details about the services:

For anyone who wishes to send flowers… Visitation is the evening of Wednesday June 8th. The family will have a private time and then visitation will be open from 6:30 – 8:00 p.m. (Texas time) at Mulkey-Mason Funeral Home, 740 South Edmonds Lane, Lewisville, TX (phone: 972-436-4581) Any flowers delivered there will then be transported by the funeral home to the graveside for the funeral on Thursday morning, June 9th, at Swisher Cemetery, Lake Dallas, TX.

Wiserbud has also set up an email address for PayPal payments for those who wish to contribute to a gift from the moronosphere: intruder601 at cox dot net

Donations will go towards a floral arrangement with the remainder to be contributed to a charity of the family's choice.

Posted by: andy at 03:45 AM | Comments (20)
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.

The greater idiot ever scolds the lesser.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:51 AM | Comments (321)
Post contains 15 words, total size 1 kb.

Dear Sixteen-Year-Old Me

If you could write a letter to your 16-year-old self, what would you write?

Without veering into platitudes - "Be happy" - or the overly specific - "for Gods sake stay home the night of Oct. 14th, 1984".

Well that's what a group of celebrities did back in 2009 for a charity book.

Below is a small selection of the many letters featured in Dear Me, these six written by Jonathan Ross; Debbie Harry; Emma Thompson; Danny Wallace; Alan Carr; and Patsy Kensit.

Emma Thompson's letter is pretty good but I also like this cartoon letter by Jonathon Ross.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:42 PM | Comments (788)
Post contains 1037 words, total size 8 kb.

...Since We've Had Goofy Shit On The Front Page

TEENAGE MUTHAH!

The narrator's voice kills me. What accent is that? Do you know?

You can't keep your hands off flubbery, lumpy-ass Arlene Sue. At fifteen she knew everything.

...except the normal reaction to finding out you're pregnant after being gang-raped.

Hint: It's not a girlish pout of slight consternation.

More proof that the 60's happened in an alternate dimension.

Posted by: LauraW at 03:43 PM | Comments (406)
Post contains 77 words, total size 1 kb.

No concerns about a double dip recession.

He doesn't share my values.

I sort of understand this, a little. Yes, he's supposed to "project confidence."

But you know, Presidenting is more than posturing. Sure would have been nice had he not delegated a trillion dollar Democratic Creativity Box to assembly by noted economists Harry Reid, Ph.D., and Doctor Nancy Pelosi.

And the White House announced a new official designation for D-Day: "Monday."

(Old Norm MacDonald joke.)

Posted by: Ace at 03:20 PM | Comments (105)
Post contains 102 words, total size 1 kb.

I've noted this before; other people have too. But Zombie puts it clearly for those who still don't get it.

The media and the left (but I repeat myself) always, always claim that the reason they cover conservative sex scandals like gangbusters -- and additionally write stories connecting the Shamed One to the party generally, something they never do with liberals', where each man's sins are his and his alone -- is that conservatives run on something called "Family Values" or "Morality."

For one thing, look, idiots: Every politician in this country, including your precious Democrats, runs on a platform of helping families. Show me the politician who doesn't. Since something like 65% of the country is part of a current family (I just made that up, shut up) it would be insane not to make promises to such a huge swathe of voters.

And if you claim otherwise, show me the Democratic politicians running expressly on an anti-family platform. Okay, that's too much; how about show me one who's running on a family-neutral platform?

This whole thing about "families" is a despicable lie. The media says "family values" to euphemize what they're really talking about: The Republican Party is, as a party, resistant to gay marriage.

Fucking period.

That's all we're talking about here. That's all that matters. The GOP is against gay marriage, in the main, and the Democratic Party is for gay marriage, in the main.

That is the only distinction. Whoops: And abortion. Forgot that one.

So tell me how any straight politician's chasing heterosexual ass is implicated by his stance on gay marriage?

And tell me-- how is Anthony Weiner, who, as far as I know, did not insist on some kind of special exemption to the usual litany of promises made in a marriage ceremony, not a hypocrite?

Did Anthony Weiner ever announce, publicly, "I believe marriage is primarily a tax-minimization arrangement, and the other elements of it are generally optional"?

No, he didn't.

The liberal media's go-to excuse for partisanship-driven sex-scandalmongering is that, apparently, liberal politicians typically sell themselves to voters as sexual libertines.

They do? Who? I can only think of one guy who did something remotely similar to that, and he was Republican -- Schwarzenegger.

Who else? Show me which married Democrats do not feature their wives and children prominently in campaign commercials and campaign literature.

You think that's just... an accident? That they're broadcasting their normalness and wholesomeness to a public that responds favorably to such things?

But whenever Republicans do it, it is, as the left has it, "using children as a prop" and of course inviting scrutiny on the marital-fidelity front.

Where are, exactly, these Democrats who don't hold up a stable family headed by loving, faithful parents as the ideal? Where are these Democrats who publicly announce "I don't think marital fidelity is a particularly important value"?

Show them to me. Show me where they've signed a petition making such a statement.

No, this is simply about naked partisanship -- get those conservatives! protect those liberals -- with a meagerest fig-leaf of distinction made to justify their partisan agenda.

And as has been pointed out before -- Mary Katharine Ham just name-checked the idea on Bill O'Reilly last night -- if you're going to use "hypocrisy" as a justification for Full Spectrum coverage of conservative sex problems, then do note the major, major hypocrisy of a dirty son-of-a-bitch like Charles Rangel who runs on a platform of Big Government and the Sanctity of High Taxation Rates who then turns around and "forgets" to report big ticket items in his income.

Or a son-of-a-bitch like Charles Schumer, Hero of the Common Working Man, taking in more money from Big Banking than almost anyone in history.

Hypocrisy there?

Or how about Obama, running on a platform of "people-powered politics," fired up, ready to go on the grassroots, anti-corporation level, who decides he needs to do curry favor with his well-heeled corporate donor buddies a little more and Bejazzles his administration with corporate bigs from key cash-money-donation industries?

Hypocrisy?

No, you know which party gets the most media coverage on this kind of scandal? Also Republicans.

I'd be completely willing to stipulate, for the record, that conservatives say they love families and morality, and therefore should get especially harsh treatment when they err in such matters.

If I secured a reciprocal agreement that Democrats love the government and "the people" more and therefore should get especially harsh treatment when they steal from their beloved government by not paying taxes or sell out their beloved "people" by sucking up to corporate interests.

But of course I won't get that.

The media will just keep insisting, at the time of scandal, that Democrats are sexually libertine and therefore are not hypocrites on these issues.

But at voting time? In campaign season? On election day?

Oddly enough, I never hear the media announce "And also running is Anthony Weiner, who, as you might know, does not particularly support families and also doesn't subscribe to conventional moral beliefs."

Funny, the media never tells me that when I'm getting ready to vote, but all of a sudden when a Democrat gets his prank caught in someone else's in-box, then I'm told "Well of course he was never a big believer in your Victorian bourgeois sexual rigidity, you know."

No, I didn't know. No one ever mentioned that. Funny, I think some voters might have been interested to hear that before the actual day of the election.

You Know... This is entirely in the media's power to prove or disprove.

They could just ask their beloved Democrats, on the record, if they consider themselves to be uninterested in conventional sexual morality.

And then, if a candidate says "Yeah, I'm sort of a sexual libertine, I don't truck much with these artificial constraints on our expressions of ourselves as sexual beings," I'd say, "Okay, well, that guy right there? He can't really be a hypocrite on these issues."

But, of course, they don't ask this. Because they just want the public to assume that the Democrat in question "shares their values" -- including on notions about sexuality -- at election time.

The "he never represented himself as anything except a pooter-hound" defense only gets trotted out when necessary.

If you want the benefits of electing yourself to a special category, you must do so in advance. You must declare yourself as being beyond such bourgeois thinking.

You cannot play-act as someone who "shares the values" of normal family-oriented Americans and then one day say you take it back.

And the media can't do this on behalf of Democrats.

Speaking of the Hypocrisy Defense: A comedian, who I never thought was funny, "joked" that he would kill Palin, should she be elected president.

The media will not cover this outrageous statement, of course.

I can only assume that's because of some other weird claim make up to justify disparate treatment, like "Oh, Sarah Palin? Yeah, she never really said she was interested in living so we don't bother covering her announced would-be assassins."

Posted by: Ace at 02:01 PM | Comments (285)
Post contains 1207 words, total size 8 kb.