The White House Correspondents' Dinner last night was apparently hilarious:

President Barack Obama poked fun Saturday at everything, from the Secret Service scandal to the lavish spending by the Government Services Administration, to the upcoming general election.

Oh yeah, that stuff's a laugh riot. Especially the one about those GSA clowns pissing away all that money as a reminder of where the huge check I wrote a couple of weeks ago is headed. Gold, Barack. Comedy gold!

I haven't watched the whole thing yet, but I'm anxious to see how he blames it on Bush.

Also, there were dog jokes but not the ones he wanted to deliver just a few weeks ago thanks to Treacher.

More presidential humor:

"Jimmy [Kimmel] got his start on the 'Man Show.' In Washington, that is what we call a congressional hearing on contraception."

Kimmel, who took the stage following the president's monologue, hit back.

"Remember when the country rallied around you in the hopes of a better tomorrow?" Kimmel asked. "That was hilarious."

Kimmel said there was a term for "guys like the president," and it wasn't two terms.

So, soooo easy. He's a sitting duck.

Posted by: andy at 03:15 AM | Comments (216)
Post contains 200 words, total size 1 kb.

Now I've had a few things fall of my aircraft before but nothing like this. The Day A Nuclear Bomb Fell On South Carolina. Lucky, lucky family.

That afternoon sisters Helen and Frances Gregg, aged six and nine, and their nine-year-old cousin Ella Davies were in the playhouse their father had built for them in the woods behind their house in Mars Bluff, South Carolina.

At around four oÂ’clock they decided to move from the playhouse to the side yard 200 yards away. It was a decision that kept them from becoming the first Americans killed by a nuclear weapon released on U.S. territory.

Minutes later the woods behind the playhouse were destroyed by a nuclear bomb.

The high-explosive trigger in the bomb blew up on contact with the ground, leaving a crater 50 feet across and 35 feet deep.

Posted by: CDR M at 06:00 PM | Comments (723)
Post contains 396 words, total size 4 kb.

Welcome back once again to the legendary Saturday Nite
AoSHQ Chess Thread

From last week's thread:

OMG.

You guys were serious.

There really is going to be a weekly chess thread.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at April 21, 2012 08:23 PM (piMMO)

Heh. I'm thinking of making this the new motto of the Sat. Nite Chess Thread.

Also from last week's thread, a suggestion:

How about appending the weekly thread with some elementary chess stuff for the uninitiated? Knight forks and der like.

Or explain what you're supposed to be doing in the first few moves. I've never understood what one should be doing tactically. Most people like me just stagger the pawns but we're not sure what to do after that.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at April 21, 2012 08:32 PM (ebPtk)

A couple of things: I doubt that I'll be getting very much into instruction on specific aspects of playing chess, i.e knight forks and such. My pitiful little chess thread simply does not compare to the wealth of material on these subjects that can be found on many actual chess sites.

But, I do have some advice on the second question, regarding what you should be doing in the first few moves. "OK, what do I do now?" can be a vexing question. And actually, I think this is one of the hardest things to teach a beginner, and I'm not sure how to do it in a procedural, step-by-step fashion.

So I will answer by analogy: If you go to an art museum, particularly one where there are famous paintings, you will often see people with sketchbooks or maybe even small paint sets copying one of the works on display. These are art students and they're trying to learn about their craft by copying the masters. I'm not an artist myself, but I'd guess they're learning about things such as color, light, texture, brush stroke technique, and other aspects of painting by doing this, and then that they can use what they've learned in their own painting efforts.

I think little kids learn how to speak in the same way. There's no systematic instruction for toddlers, they just hang out with older people, listen, and pick up what they can. It's not always right, and sometimes hilariously wrong, but they eventually get the hang of it, just by soaking it all in.

This can be a slow process.

So in chess, I recommend a similar approach, that is, study and play through the master games. And I don't mean one or two or 10, but many, many, many. Play through them over and over again. Watch what they do, and then do what they do in your own games. Try to understand the annotations, but don't feel discouraged if you don't. If it's not clear, then just move on. At this beginning stage, a lot of chess can be soaked up by osmosis and you want to provide every opportunity for this to happen

So find a collection of master games, old, new, whatever, it doesn't matter. I myself would recommend the older games, because I subscribe to former world champion Max Euwe's theory that one's personal development of chess understanding recapitulates in miniature how chess developed and progressed historically. So I think you'd be better off looking at the older games first.

And for this purpose, I don't think there's any better book than this one. It's one of the classic books, thankfully updated to algebraic notation. Again, don't worry if you don't understand the explanations of why this or that move is good. Quantity is more important than quality. This won't always be true, but for now it is.

Here's another fine old book of master games. There's enough to keep you busy here for a long time. I was surprised how expensive this one is, in fact I would say it is way overpriced, so if you want something cheaper, I would recommend this one.

I was able to go on Amazon today and purchase a used (but supposedly in very good condition) copy of the overpriced $30 book for around $2.50, so this may be a good alternative if you're a cheap bastard like I am.

This week's famous chess game, sent in by a moron (thanks!) is Ivanchuk v Yusupov from their 1991 Candidates QF match. It's another crazy-ass slugfest

You can play through it yourself here

Thanks to those of you who have sent me tips for this thread. They may be sent to me at

OregonMuse
and then the at sign
followed by yahoo
and then dot
com

Posted by: Open Blogger at 03:07 PM | Comments (186)
Post contains 780 words, total size 5 kb.

Open thread. more...

Posted by: rdbrewer at 02:25 PM | Comments (190)
Post contains 13 words, total size 1 kb.

Boy, you know Obama would love to throw this one back. Recall, this is the president who made the Dalai Lama use the White House back door. The one by the trash bins.

Chen Guangcheng's is a self-taught lawyer and has been an advocate for the handicapped and families faced with forced abortion. The State Department and the White House are not commenting. But a former State Department official had something to say:

“Chen Guangcheng is a very strong candidate for asylum,” said Susan L. Shirk, a former State Department official who is now a professor at the University of California, San Diego. “A blind lawyer who is being persecuted for exposing forced abortions? I don’t think there’s any question about it.”

But look at how the White House handled the Wang Lijun case last February. From the Times:

In February, the Obama administration was thrust into an internal Chinese political dispute when Wang Lijun, the former top police official from the region of Chongqing, sought refuge in the American Consulate in Chengdu. Mr. Wang revealed details about the killing of a British businessman, setting off a cascade of events that led to the downfall of Bo Xilai, who was the party chief in Chongqing and a member of ChinaÂ’s Politburo. American diplomats said they had determined that Mr. WangÂ’s case did not involve national security, and he was turned over to Chinese officials, prompting criticism from some in Washington about their handling of the case. Both sides insist Mr. Wang left of his own accord.

(Emphasis added.) Sure, he wanted to go back to the Chinese. That's just the way dissidents roll, isn't it? After all, both sides agreed. But wasn't there a third side to this? I wonder what Wang might have said in an interview.

We'll never know, will we?

According to the Wikipedia entry linked above, the consulate building was encircled by police while Wang was there. "The Department of State refused to comment on speculations Wang sought to defect to the United States." After his departure, "Wang was immediately seized by security agents." He was flown to Beijing, "possibly in the company of Qiu Jin, vice minister of the Ministry of State Security."

In the extant case, according to the Times, rights advocates are saying Chen is not seeking to leave China:

But, as in the exploding scandal surrounding Bo Xilai, the Obama administration has sought to keep itself out of ChinaÂ’s internal politics.

Rights advocates said Mr. Chen was not seeking to leave China, but would try to negotiate his freedom with the Chinese authorities.

“He is reluctant to go overseas and wants only to live like a normal Chinese citizen,” said Mr. Fu.

(Emphasis added.) But if he does seek to go overseas, I'm sure President Gutsy Call will be right there to help.

Follow me on Twitter.

Posted by: rdbrewer at 10:56 AM | Comments (175)
Post contains 495 words, total size 4 kb.

So it turns out the socialist bint vying to become my next U.S. senator is a Native American™. Well that certainly changes my vote.

Elizabeth Warren’s avowed Native American heritage — which the candidate rarely if ever discusses on the campaign trail — was once touted by embattled Harvard Law School officials who cited her claim as proof of their faculty’s diversity.

WarrenÂ’s claim, which surfaced yesterday after a Herald inquiry, put the candidate in an awkward position as campaign aides last night scrambled but failed to produce documents proving her family lineage. Aides said the tales of WarrenÂ’s Cherokee and Delaware tribe ancestors have been passed down through family lore.

She lives on a reservation in Cambridge, Massachusetts referred to as Harvard University. The living conditions there are terrible, or so I hear, with an exorbitant cost of living and high rates of cultural, economic and historical illiteracy.

I, for one, thank Elizabeth "Pocamarxus" Warren for highlighting these issues and wish her well in her future endeavors as a member of the tribal council ... err, faculty. more...

Posted by: andy at 10:24 AM | Comments (178)
Post contains 211 words, total size 2 kb.

An early thread for you this morning, 'rons and 'ronettes. The boy and I are headed to the Big Apple today, and we're getting a little earlier start than I'd hoped for.

Nothing a cup or twelve of coffee won't cure.

For today's must-read, I'm just going to tip you to the title of Steyn's column at NRO: Cuisines from My Stepfather

Posted by: andy at 02:03 AM | Comments (501)
Post contains 70 words, total size 1 kb.

Evenin' morons. Apologies up front if this edition of the ONT is a bit light on material as I just started a month long exercise and the internet connectivity sucks on watch but I will do my best. If you liked the above picture, there are more at the Best Of The Baffled Boxer Meme over at Pleated Jeans.

Well, the Olympics are coming up and it would seem that the US Navy SEALs are providing some "training" to our folks. Navy SEALs Push U.S. Olympians To The Limit In Their Training. Heh, they're struggling with 4 hours of SEAL physical endurance training. That's just a taste.

The session starts genially enough, with a video presentation, some talk about becoming a Navy SEAL and a quick overview of the separating-men-from-boys "Hell Week" part of SEALs training.

Then the SEALs warn their audience, comprised mostly of U.S. sailing team members: "We're going to re-set your baseline today."

Within hours, some athletes are on the edge of hypothermia, some are crying, others are cursing like, well, sailors, and all are fully immersed in misery.

Posted by: CDR M at 06:55 PM | Comments (351)
Post contains 729 words, total size 6 kb.

A nail-biter, but not as bad as Prosser Vs Klopp:

Tom Barrett will win the Democratic nomination, beating Falk in the primary two Tuesdays from now. He will enjoy a boost in support from Democrats bent on revenge, but will be facing strong Republican turnout as well. Over 2.5 million votes will be cast. Walker wins, narrowly, as Milwaukee turnout fails to reach 2010 levels (but stronger than in the 2011 supreme court race). Several counties lost by Prosser flip back, narrowly.

Republicans hold 3 state senate seats out of 4 also up for grabs. The fourth is too close to call, potentially putting the Senate in the hands of the Democrats despite Walker's survival.

Marquette University will be releasing a new poll regarding the election next Wednesday. Data gathered will effect the official forecast, which has seen a slight dip in Walker's overall share of the vote (updated daily on the sidebar). So far the only likely voter poll was commissioned by Daily Kos and found Walker with a larger win of 50-45. I do believe there will be a unification "bounce" for the Democrat post-primary but not enough (at this time) to defeat the incumbent governor.

For the latest projections and polls (including some hours before their official release), follow me on twitter.

Posted by: CAC at 05:42 PM | Comments (191)
Post contains 225 words, total size 2 kb.

Uh, yeah-uh!

Worth reading in full. An optimistic take.

Republicans feel an understandable anxiety about Mr. Obama's coming campaign: It will be all slice and dice, divide and conquer, break the country into little pieces and pick up as many as you can. He'll try to pick up college students one day and solidify environmentalist support the next, he'll valorize this group and demonize the other. He means to gather in and hold onto all the pieces he needs, and turn them into a jagged, jangly coalition that will win it for him in November and not begin making individual demands until December.

But it still matters that the president doesn't have a coherent agenda, or a political philosophy that is really clear to people. To the extent he has a philosophy, it tends to pop up furtively in stray...

But—and forgive me, because what I'm about to say is rude—has anyone noticed how boring he is? Plonking platitude after plonking platitude. To see Mr. Obama on the stump is to see a man at the podium who's constantly dribbling away the punch line. He looks pleasant but lacks joy; he's cool but lacks vigor. A lot of what he says could have been said by a president 12 or 20 years ago, little is anchored to the moment. As he makes his points he often seems distracted, as if he's holding a private conversation in his head, noticing crowd size, for instance, and wishing the front row would start fainting again, like they used to.

...

He's raised a lot of money, or so we keep reading. He has a sophisticated, wired, brilliant computer operation—they know how to mine Internet data and get the addresses of people who've never been reached by a campaign before, and how to approach them in a friendly and personal way. This is thought to be a secret weapon. I'm not so sure. All they can approach their new friends with is arguments that have already been made, the same attacks and assertions. If you have fabulous new ways to reach everyone in the world but you have little to say, does that really help you?

...

This is the problem of the world now: Big mic, no message. If you have nothing to say, does it matter that you have endless venues in which to say it?

...

There is a growing air of incompetence around Mr. Obama's White House. It was seen again this week in Supreme Court arguments over the administration's challenge to Arizona's attempted crackdown on illegal immigration. As Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News wrote, the court seemed to be disagreeing with the administration's understanding of federal power: "Solicitor General Donald Verrilli . . . met resistance across ideological lines. . . . Even Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court's only Hispanic and an Obama appointee, told Verrilli his argument is 'not selling very well.'" This follows last month's embarrassing showing over the constitutionality of parts of ObamaCare.

All of this looks so bush league, so scattered. Add it to the General Services Administration, to Solyndra, to the other scandals, and you get a growing sense that no one's in charge, that the administration is paying attention to politics but not day-to-day governance.

She ends by asking a series of "Are you better off"" type questions.

I really think it's as simple as she says. Ultimately this election is about the question: "Do you want to try something else, or do you think the last four years are the very best we can do?"

If you've Defined Expectations so low as to give Obama high marks, well, I guess you're unteachable.

But I don't think most people have decided Obama is the Very Best We Can Do.

I think they've decided the last four years are the best Obama can do, but not the best America can do.

Posted by: Ace at 03:00 PM | Comments (416)
Post contains 669 words, total size 4 kb.