Merry Christmas, ya'll.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:43 AM | Comments (505)
Post contains 11 words, total size 1 kb.

More Modern Christmas Songs

Shamelessly stolen from previous years here, here, and here. And now including the Dropkick Murphy's ode to Christmas family celebrations.

Ah the old passing out into the Xmas dinner - a classic scene from my childhood that we can mostly all laugh about now. Good times, good times. And just remember that your tatted-up borderline mentally-challenged cousin-in-laws tend to be short-burning candles so enjoy their antics while you can.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 06:08 PM | Comments (595)
Post contains 252 words, total size 11 kb.

Falcons. 49ers. On now.

Heard Tony Romo is out with a back injury, so maybe we have a shot against Philadelphia now. Dammnnn they put a bruisin on the Bears yesterday.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 05:12 PM | Comments (165)
Post contains 35 words, total size 1 kb.

War on women?

No of course not. As with Bob Filner, this is Just One Flawed Man's Failing (TM). It's only Republican misbehavior that speaks to Larger Concerns about the party.

Married-with-children Assemblyman Dennis Gabryszak, 62, tormented three workers with lewd antics such as sending a video of himself supposedly receiving oral sex, suggesting they shack up with him in hotels and talking about a tattoo on his penis, new court documents charge.

“I got a boner when I walked into the office today when I saw you,” the seven-year assemblyman allegedly drooled to his then-director of communications, Anna­lise C. Freling, 28, last year at a governor’s event, according to court papers filed Thursday.

“You’re so hot, you know what I want to do with you,” he allegedly said.

In fairness, the complaining woman's name is Anna­lise Freling.

I'm not sure I'd know what to do with her either.

So many options.

Posted by: Ace at 03:32 PM | Comments (226)
Post contains 188 words, total size 1 kb.

Camille Paglia had earlier raged:

"I speak with authority here because I was openly gay before the 'Stonewall Rebellion,' when it cost you something to be so," she said. "And I personally feel as a libertarian that people have the right to free thought and free speech. In a democratic country, people have the right to be homophobic as they have the right to support homosexuality -- as I 100 percent do. If people are basing their views against gays on the Bible, again they have a right to religious freedom there … to express yourself in a magazine in an interview -– this is the level of punitive PC, utterly fascist, utterly Stalinist, OK, that my liberal colleagues in the Democratic party and on college campuses have supported and promoted over the last several decades. It's the whole legacy of the free speech 1960's that have been lost by my own party."

Althouse notes:

[S]ome liberals are making the predictable narrowly legalistic point that freedom of speech has only to do with rights held against the government. This is a point I've strongly objected to over the years, most obviously, in debating the liberal Bob Wright (see "When did the left turn against freedom of speech?" and "[W]hat free speech means in the context of saying Roger Ailes needs to kick Glenn Beck off Fox News").

1, he's not a liberal, he's a progressive.

2, this argument drives me bananas.

"A company has the right to fire an employee" is a completely disingenuous argument. Let me explain.

When someone doesn't wish to defend an odious point that they nevertheless wish to win the day, they resort to arguing the point collaterally. They will not argue the actual point, as that would be rhetorically challenging.

Instead, they'll attempt to argue for some more abstract principle.

This isn't necessarily dishonest. I actually disagree with Phil Robertson on homosexuality (and the purported contentedness of blacks in the 1950s), and I don't mind saying so. I will argue, however, for his right to speak his mind, even if he is wrong.

The freedom of speech must include the right to be wrong. Without that, what is there? No one ever seeks to squelch speech they believe to be right. People only seek to silence speech which they believe is wrong.

Unless a man agrees that people have the right to speak, even if what they're speaking is false, then that man simply does not believe in the right to free speech at all.

However, this shift from the particular (what is being said or being done) to the abstract (the general right involving the speech or action) can and frequently is a dishonest tactic.

For all of those saying that A&E has the right to suspend Phil Robertson: Let me concede, for the sake of argument that A&E can terminate Phil Robertson at-will for any reason. (Actually, his contract may specify the reasons for which he may be fired or suspended, and we don't know the terms of that contract. It could very well be that A&E is in contractual breach for presuming to "suspend" him for private statements made not in connection with the show. But I will concede, just to simplify things, that A&E can suspend him.)

So, okay, where are we now? A&E has the right to fire or suspend Robertson. So what? The argument is not about what people can do, it's about what they should do.

98% of political (or cultural) arguments are not about what people may legally do, but what they should do.

A person who insists that the question is "Does A&E have the simple legal right to undertake this action?" is either deceptive or stupid. He either deliberately conflates what may be done with what should be done, in order to dishonestly confuse an audience, or he confuses these two things because he is confused himself.

I have the right to use the word "retard" as much as I want on the blog. Some readers have objected, noting that, as parents of mentally-challenged kids, it makes them wince every time they see this mean word in print.

It would be the height of dishonesty and evasiveness for me to reply, "I have the right to use that word." Of course I have the right to use that word. The readers objecting to it never suggested I didn't have the right to use it. That argument was never made in the first place, so it evades the question to answer it that way. It's a non-sequitor.

What they actually said was something like, "It's emotionally tough for a reader to keep seeing that word in print, so I'd appreciate it if, as a matter of decency and respect, you didn't use it any more, or at least used it less." Any response about my "rights" here would deliberately avoid the actual issue -- which is a request that an upsetting word be avoided. (I do try to use it less, but I still do use it. But usually I only say it when I'm not thinking about it. If I think about it, I use a different word.)

The PC Goons who keep braying "A&E has the right to fire Robertson" are deliberately avoiding a difficult question -- "Should media companies, of all people, be in the business of using coercive tactics to compel a particular mode of belief and expression?" -- by instead answering a very simple one.

They hope you don't notice the fact that their answer is a non-sequitor. But you should notice, and you should notice it to their faces.

Similarly, it is beyond doubt that IAC had the right to fire Justine Sacco. But that is not the question. The question is, "Should a company (again-- a media company, of all things!) employ coercive tactics to chill free speech just because a mob of giddy bullies tells them to?"

The people defending this bullshit know it's pretty illiberal -- intolerant and hostile to free speech and thought -- to answer "Yes" to those questions. Which is precisely why they keep answering the question they wish you asked, the easy question, the question about a company having the right to fire an at-will employee.

The real question is this:

As between one of two possible worlds -- one in which freedom of thought and expression is generously and broadly encouraged not only by the state but by other powerful institutions, such as corporate employers, permitting a wide latitude in speech and respecting large zone of personal autonomy, or one in which freedom of thought and expression is sharply curtailed and discouraged by the threat of economic coercion against anyone dissenting against this week's folly -- which world would we prefer to live in?

I would like to hear the New Puritans answer that question, instead of continuing serving the slippery, soupy answer about employers having the right to fire at-will employees.

At the end of her post, Althouse asks:

Why is the left taking the narrow view of the concept of freedom? It's a general principle, not something you save for your friends. Like Paglia, I remember the broad 1960s era commitment to free speech. There was a special zeal to protect those who said outrageous things. Today, we're back to the kind of repression that in the 60s seemed to belong to the 1950s. What the hell happened?

I can answer this: They came into power.

This is a human thing, I'm afraid, and not a failing specifically located on the left.

Those who have less power -- who fear coercion more -- will naturally tend to argue for the widest possible latitude, the largest zone of tolerance, for "weird" beliefs, statements, or practices.

Those with more power -- who fear coercion less, because, end of the day, they'll be the ones doing the coercing -- will naturally become more and more hostile to the idea that people can do whatever they like.

Like Mayor Bloomberg, they will stop fearing coercion and start seeing it as a useful and valuable tool for guiding people into becoming the best people they can possibly be.

Which is to say: People exactly like themselves. Mayor Bloomberg is a big fan of the exercise of coercive power... because he's the one exercising it, and he knows that every edict laid down in NYC will be in furtherance of turing everyday average joes into the ne plus ultra of enlightened humanity -- people who share Mayor Bloomberg's tastes, preferences, and worldview.

The sixties radicals were once culturally disfavored and so championed the maximum possible freedom of thought and expression. But they're not culturally disfavored anymore -- thanks to Gramsci's long march through the institutions, they are the culture.

And so now it doesn't appear quite so important that people be permitted a large zone of free movement in the sphere of thought, belief, and speech.

Now the Cultural Deciders -- like Mayor Bloomberg -- understand that to the extent people will be compelled to speak, think, believe and feel a certain way, they'll be compelled to speak, think, believe and feel the same way as the Cultural Deciders themselves, and what's wrong with that?

They were right when they were younger, and they're wrong now that they're old, rich, fat and comfortable, and have their soft chubby hands on the levers of corporate, academic, and bureaucratic power.

They should have listened to their 1968 selves-- Never trust anybody over thirty. Especially yourself.

Posted by: Ace at 02:16 PM | Comments (326)
Post contains 1609 words, total size 10 kb.

But other than that, the White House is honest and candid as usual.

First: Why would Obama wait until the deadline, if he sought to convince people to sign up months ago, and if there's a good chance that any traffic today will crash the system?

Here's a possibility: He was actually trying to sign up earlier but only now succeeded.

Second: Just like ordinary citizens, Obama took advantage of Healthcare.gov's fast and intuitive interface to sign himself up.

Except... he had staffers do it.

You're not supposed to "get it," Gabe. The sentence is gibberish, and deliberately so. It's designed to mislead people, but is written in such a nonsensical manner that you can't quite pin down the intended meaning, and thus cannot accuse them of lying.

Which brings us to Third:

What they mean is that Obama didn't sign himself up; he had workers grinding their way through the process on his behalf. By "involved in the process," they mean they asked him which policy he wanted and he said "the cheapest," because his coverage is provided by the US Military.

And they mean that he didn't use the website, though that's supposedly "fixed" and he's telling everyone else to use it. "Signed up in person" means he utilized top HHS IT officials, entering data directly into the system, to execute this symbolic gesture.

I'm certain that his information isn't available on the black-hole-of-security-failures system. It was probably hand-deleted a moment after being entered.

So, Obama led by example by waiting until the last possible minute and then making other people clean up his mess and used special privileges to avoid the hardships he's imposing on others.

Posted by: Ace at 11:55 AM | Comments (189)
Post contains 437 words, total size 4 kb.

Posted by: Ace at 12:43 PM | Comments (209)
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.

He Hearts Secret Laws.

At midnight Monday, the official deadline arrives for Americans to sign up through the new federal health insurance exchange for health plans that begin Jan. 1. But, without any public announcement, Obama administration officials have changed the rules so that people will have an extra day to enroll, according to two individuals with knowledge of the switch.

Over the weekend, government officials and outside IT contractors working on the online marketplaceÂ’s computer system made a software change that automatically gives people a Jan. 1 start date for their coverage as long as they enroll by 11:59 p.m. Christmas Eve.

A source says the Secret Extension was mandated by Obama's Princely Right in order to offer a back-stop should the system go down on December 23 due to a rush of sign-ups.

According to the two individuals, both of whom spoke on condition of anonymity about a matter that is not public, the one-day extension is automatic, built into the software, and cannot be overridden by individual insurers if they object.

...

In recent days, insurance industry leaders have protested other 11th-hour rule changes by the administration....

On Monday morning, one insurance industry official, informed by The Washington Post about the quiet deadline extension, criticized the move. “Making yet another last-minute change to the rules by shortening an already-tight time period in which to process enrollments makes it even harder to ensure people who have selected a plan are able to have their coverage begin in January,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the change has not been made public.

Below, a picture of the White House Ready Room as they debated this newest Presidential Secret Law. more...

Posted by: Ace at 09:58 AM | Comments (244)
Post contains 307 words, total size 2 kb.

Not sure what to make of this.

Erica Campbell, a singer with a group called Mary Mary, posted a picture of herself in a sexy dress and posted it on Instagram.

When Mary Mary's Erica Campbell posted a new photo of herself on her Instagram page to announce her recent Grammy nomination for "A Little More Jesus," few could have predicted the firestorm it would spark in the Christian community...

A week later, the photo is still a hot topic. "I'm taking it in stride and I'm keeping it moving," Campbell tells ESSENCE.com. "When we took the picture I felt beautiful, I felt confident, I felt sexy and I felt strong."

"I thought I looked cute," she says jokingly, "but it obviously offended some people, which was never my intention."

...

The criticism has Campbell thinking there needs to be a bigger conversation about Christianity and sexuality. "This is about confidence and realizing that God made you and that you are beautiful just the way you are," she says. "I think that young girls shouldn't only get sexy images from people who are not proclaiming Jesus. But I am. And I'm cute too."

Okay that dress is kind of tight. And she doesn't just have the badankadonk, she's got the badonkadonkadonk. Adonk.

To motorboat her would require an actual motorboat.

But, you know: Busty women are allowed to be pretty too. That's my America, Pal.

Female beauty is sometimes controversial because there is an appreciation for what the culture deems to be a sort of beauty of high and refined aesthetic, but a wide cultural disapproval for beauty of what is deemed a low and base aesthetic.

Women with prominent, um, secondary sexual features get thrown into the latter category. They can dress exactly the same as the lithe girls, but while the lithe girls will be called beautiful, they'll be called trashy.

There seems to be a preference, on aesthetic grounds, for female beauty like Audrey Hepburn's. She was beautiful, obviously. But only her particular kind of beauty is deemed classy. Audrey Hepburn wore plenty of body-hugging dresses too, and no one thought she was doing anything rude, pandering to male sexual desire.

Same sort of dress on this Erica Campbell woman and it cannot be but that she is attempting to appeal to the prurient aspects of male attention.

I can't help but think that to this woman, her body is No Big Deal. She's lived with them her whole life. To her, they're as normal as her thumbs.

But I don't know. She's right that she looks "cute," but... it's kind of a dirty-cute. But is that her problem, or mine?

Do women with prominent curves have a special responsibility to cover up?

Posted by: Ace at 10:45 AM | Comments (446)
Post contains 474 words, total size 3 kb.

Now, I don't think anyone should be fired. I think that there should be some level of free space in free speech. I think low-level transgressions should not be punished, except with criticism and argument.

Nevertheless, given the contretemps about Phil Robertson, and the firing of Justice Sacco for a misinterpreted joke, it's instructive to note what you're permitted to do if the Enforcers of Political Correctness decided you have the status of being permitted free speech, because you're On Their Team.

And this is what you can get away with if you are deemed to have that status.

The entire sketch is bad. Let me repeat: I do not think anyone should be fired for not being funny. A failed joke is not a crime.

But the sketch is unfunny, like so much of Saturday Night Live for the past three or four years. It is desperate. It resorts to the hoariest, easiest, cheapest sort of stereotypes of gays to gin up some scattered laughs.

And do note the New York City crowd -- quite a Tolerant and Enlightened group, if they do say so themselves -- is willing to laugh along with 1950s-era gay slurs so long as People They Like are doing them.

The sketch ends with a "message" -- Ebenezeer Scrooge became a cranky old bastard because he denied his sexual identity all his life -- but no one could possibly be fooled by this. Porn-ish magazines of the 50s -- the ones with titles like "Confessions of a Bad Girl" or "Back Seat Tease" -- typically featured eight pages of Girls Doing Naughty things but then attempted to avoid condemnation by the censors by including a couple of paragraphs at the end in which the Bad Girl learned the errors of her ways and started going to church and got married and otherwise repudiated her former Bad Girl-edness.

Russ Meyer's Beyond the Valley of the Dolls features an absurdist spoof of these "Lessons The Transgressors Have Learned" wrap-up, for example. I guess the idea that a few minutes of bombastic moralizing makes up for 90 previous minutes of sex, enormous naked breasts, drug use, and decapitations.

See, it's not porny-- it's really a Morality Tale (TM)!!!

This tactic -- indulge the thing you're forbidden to do for a long time and then quickly say "but that's how I learned my lesson" -- fooled no one, including in the 50s, and still fools no one.

I think it's pretty clear from the Saturday Night Live sketch that society is still groping its ways to find the "rules" about speaking about homosexuality. I'm certain that just about every writer and performer on the show is left-liberal, and just as pro-gay as GLAAD, and probably celebrated the suspension of Phil Robertson.

And yet, when they have four minutes of a show to fill, and don't have any better ideas, this is how they fill the time: Four minutes of a stereotypical hyper-exaggerated queen, who finds "love" at the end of the episode by hooking up with a hot young hustler who will ignore his advanced age in exchange for upkeep and money.

Saturday Night Live isn't funny, but it is fairly savvy about what it can and can't get away with. It has almost never been what anyone would call a politically incorrect show -- in fact, it's usually been pretty politically correct in how it handles controversial issues.

And here is Lorne Michaels, and the cast and writers of the show, and NBC's standards & practices censors, and incoming Tonight Show host (and general Good Guy) Jimmy Fallon, deciding that some truly retrograde gay humor can still fly with even a left-skewing audience.

And yet we're also told that Phil Robertson should have known how horribly offensive his actual beliefs were (and how horribly offensive that whole Bible is), and should suffer actual economic consequences for expressing them.

I support the free space -- the license -- given to Saturday Night Live. I endorse the left's decision to not boycott SNL, and I second GLAAD's decision to not demand that Jimmy Fallon be fired as host of the Tonight Show.

But I also demand that that free space be granted to other people, not just those the media has decided are permitted a wide berth as regards to anti-gay speech.

Such as Alec Baldwin, who, as far as I know, is still a Capital One pitchman.

By the way, Saturday Night Live continues to be amateurishly awful. I watched a few minutes of it, and it was so dispiriting and upsetting that I mistakenly thought I was watching a colorized version of Schindler's List.

I checked the TV Guide listing: It's no longer labeled "Comedy." They now call it "Variety/Grim Spectacle."

That said, even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while. And the last sketch of the show -- a cute and funny parody of "Baby It's Cold Outside" -- is a gem.

Posted by: Ace at 08:13 AM | Comments (416)
Post contains 884 words, total size 5 kb.