This always amuses me.

NBC is always after the "younger, hipper" demographic.

Let me let NBC in on a little secret: The younger, hipper demographic doesn't watch TV.

Even the not-so-young, not-so-hip demographic sort of avoids it.

I've seen bits of Jimmy Fallon here and there and I'll concede: He's an extremely affable guy and can be funny. I don't see any real problem, per se, with NBC thinking he could be their Tonight Show guy.

Except... Jay Leno is very competitive guy, and even though he's richer than Croesus and definitely could retire, and maybe wants to retire, I gotta think right now he is plotting a a move to compete with Fallon, just because NBC is being a dick, as usual.

Posted by: Ace at 02:29 PM | Comments (516)
Post contains 141 words, total size 1 kb.

Crichton's famous essay, "Environmentalism as Religion," noted that structural anthropologists found that, for whatever reason, very similar patterns of human thinking and social organization keep reappearing in different societies and for different purposes.

Although the essay, as the title indicates, discusses the many tropes and structures of religion (from pagan traditions to more modern Christian ones) appear in enviornmentalism, his general point can be broadened. Many see the government as essentially being their Mission (in the religious sense) and seek to perform Good Acts and to Spread the Word through their church.

The two closely-related areas especially amenable to cultification are The Environment (the Cult of Gaia) and Health (the Cult of Bodily Sanctity).

Read the whole thing, if you haven't, but here's an excerpt.

I studied anthropology in college, and one of the things I learned was
that certain human social structures always reappear. They can't be eliminated from society. One of those structures is religion. Today it is said we live in a secular society in which many people---the best people, the most enlightened people---do not believe in any religion.

But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. You can not believe in God, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious.

Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.

There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the
environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.

Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday---these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative beliefs. They may even be hard-wired in the brain*, for all I know. I certainly don't want to talk anybody out of them, as I don't want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ
is the son of God who rose from the dead. But the reason I don't want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can't talk anybody out of them.

These are not facts that can be argued.

These are issues of faith.

And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly it seems facts aren't necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It's about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them.

Am I exaggerating to make a point? I am afraid not.

The asterisk * is there for some backstory on this idea of hard-wiring of a deep and unconscious preference for certain myths and social structures. Structural linguistics postulated that babies are hard-wired with a certain understanding of how grammar should work; there's a theory that babies simply aren't exposed to enough words and sentences to be able to deduce grammar based upon seeing patterns in so many sentences. Since they don't have the raw data necessary to understand grammar and language through pure deduction, it must be the case (this theory goes) that they come pre-loaded, if you will, with the basic Operating System of human speech already in their brains.

Structual anthropology took that idea and applied to, if you will, the "grammar" and "vocabulary" of social structures and myths, that babies might already come pre-loaded with certain tendencies of thought, beliefs rather than just mere words. (Note that religious people can join in this belief, while rejecting the biological reason structural anthropologists offer: They can (and often do) say that a basic belief in God is inherent in most people, due to the Holy Spirit's resonance.)

One more point: Cognitive theorist Jonathan Haidt says that all humans think in terms of six basic moral goods, and that liberals differ from conservatives primarily in how they prioritize those moral goods. For example, he says liberals rate the "sanctity/purity" moral good quite low, as compared to conservatives.

I don't believe that for a red-hot second. I think liberals rate purity/sancticy extremely high, but they counterfeit this belief to themselves, because they've been taught that sanctity/purity is an indulgence of the weak-minded religious types. But while they deny that impulse, they actually act upon it, directing their sanctity/purity impulses not towards sexual restraint (as a religious person might) but towards health of the environment and health of the body.

This is why they are, in strictly anthropological terms, so fucking annoying about everything and always shrieking about this Moral Panic or that.

There's an old put-down when someone's going on about sex negatively (whether on the right or left): That person just needs to get laid so the rest of us can move on with our lives without being bothered by these sorts.

A similar put-down -- which is actually even more true than the "laid" one -- applies here. These people need to get religion, or, more accurately, find something outside of government and politics to give meaning to their empty lives so they can finally spare the rest of us from the folly and malice of their misdirected religious impulses.
more...

Posted by: Ace at 01:21 PM | Comments (376)
Post contains 1022 words, total size 7 kb.

They told me that if I voted for Romney, we'd have gibbering zealots imposing their strange religious dogmas on us, and they were right!

And they were right.

And they were right.

You know, some of us don't join religions because we actually don't want to have strange devotional rituals and forbiddances imposed on us.

But religion is voluntary. Government law is not. Why are these monsters -- yes, monsters -- encoding their bizarre religious devotions into law?

As I've said: God save us from those with no god but but bursting at the seams with Religion.

I do not want religion in my government. And that means the bizarre Leftist Cult of the State with all its priests and all its mysteries and all its devotions and dogmas and catechisms.

Posted by: Ace at 12:36 PM | Comments (323)
Post contains 145 words, total size 1 kb.

At the Conversation, Lisa DePasqual has noted two articles from liberal/feminist-friendly rags which kinda-sorta undermine central pillars of feminist propaganda, here and here.

I wonder if this is a case of some people feeling the general mission of propaganda is largely accomplished and it's now safe to occasionally begin speaking like honest adults. The left likes to call its lies not lies but "countermyths," myths (which are lies) aimed at displacing the already-existing myths of society. But the only justification for such a lie is to, at some point, begin speaking the truth.

Shouldn't we start doing that at some point?

I Did Not Lie When I Promised You That Certain Things Would Not Happen In Your Mouth

It was a "countermyth."

Posted by: Ace at 12:00 PM | Comments (292)
Post contains 134 words, total size 1 kb.

Read Allah's article on it.

I don't understand myself, but I'll hazard a guess. His bill purports to protect fetuses' due process rights under the 14th Amendment. "Process" is not the same as "outcome." That is, a criminal can have all of his due process rights scrupulously observed and yet still be hanged. (Actually, an innocent man can have his due process rights scrupulously observed and yet still be hanged, too.)

Does his answer seem muddled because he's observing, or trying to observe, a distinction between process (fair hearing before a neutral arbiter) and outcome?

And feels that mandating an outcome (no abortions) would be an unconstitutional distortion of due process rights? (Constitutionalists are generally against so-called "substantive due process," a contradiction in terms, also known as "not due process.")

And so instead is merely offering procedural guarantees to fetuses, that there will be a hearing before a magistrate to determine their rights to life?

And is -- per political prudence and regard for constitutionalism -- specifically not guaranteeing what outcomes will result from such due-process-for-abortions-hearings?

That seems to make sense of this, to me, at least. But I'm a moron.

Due Process, Substance, and "Substantive Due Process:" Section 5 of the 14th Amendment guarantees everyone in the country due process before being deprived of life, liberty, or property. Because this applies to all citizens, it has been used -- and abused -- by those who wish federalize every issue. Under the guise of guaranteeing "due process," judges have permitted a bunch of non-process rights for citizens and non-process forbiddences of government (often police) action.

For example, by its own terms, the Due Process Clause only requires a fair hearing before a neutral tribunal and the guarantee to secure and present evidence in one's favor before, say, a death penalty sentence is imposed. It only guarantees a certain process. It does not, by its own terms, claim that certain outcomes are forbidden. And yet it is frequently grasped at by people wishing to claim the Constitution forbids a certain outcome or guarantees a certain outcome.

Thus was born the oxymoronic term of art, "substantive due process," a hash of a term meaning "substantive rights to have something, or substantive rights to be free of certain burdens or penalties, which are somehow dictated by a clause that by its own terms only guarantees a certain process."

Liberals are very big on substantive due process, though they don't call it that anymore, because substantive due process became a scandalous crime against the Constitution when libertarian-minded judges used it to guarantee such substantive rights as "liberty of contract" in the 20s and 30s. So liberals call it something else now and use it quite a bit. But in fairness, most people who strongly desire a certain outcome will quickly convince themselves of the merits of substantive due process if they see it as a likely pathway to the policy they seek.

Anyway, it's my guess (which really isn't so much a guess as the offering of an idea to be batted about) that Paul is attempting to hew to the more-constitutional notion that "due process" really means due process -- a process, not a guaranteed result -- and not the sudden discovery of a substantive right.

Posted by: Ace at 10:22 AM | Comments (290)
Post contains 555 words, total size 4 kb.

This is the place Lindsey Graham, John McCain and the rest want us to invade?

No thanks.

The evidence was incontrovertible, captured on video and posted on YouTube for all the world to see. During a demonstration against the Syrian regime, Wael Ibrahim, a veteran activist, had tossed aside a banner inscribed with the Muslim declaration of faith.

And that, decreed the officers of the newly established Sharia Authority set up to administer rebel-held Aleppo, constitutes a crime under Islamic law, punishable in this instance by 10 strokes of a metal pipe.

...

Building on the reputation they have earned in recent months as the rebellionÂ’s most accomplished fighters, Islamist units are seeking to assert their authority over civilian life, imposing Islamic codes and punishments and administering day-to-day matters such as divorce, marriage and vehicle licensing.

Numerous Islamist groups are involved, representing a wide spectrum of views. But, increasingly, the dominant role is falling to Jabhat al-Nusra, also known as the al-Nusra Front. The group has been designated a terrorist organization by the United States for suspected ties to al-Qaeda but is widely respected by many ordinary Syrians for its battlefield prowess and the assistance it has provided to needy civilians.

Not everyone in Syria is happy about this but I'm not sure how much sway they have. The jihadis have the guns and are more than willing to use them on anyone. That's pretty effective, at least in the short run.

Among those who have fallen afoul of the authority is Othman al-Haj Othman, a respected activist and physician renowned for his role in treating those injured in the shelling and airstrikes that persist on a daily basis. He was detained last week by armed men dispatched by the Hayaa after he removed a poster from the wall of his hospital inscribed with the Muslim declaration of faith and was held overnight in a cell at the former Eye Hospital.

...

But Othman didn’t seem mollified. “They think the same way as Bashar. There is no difference,” he said, in reference to the Syrian president, as he stepped out of the hospital gates to be greeted by supporters, who had staged a small demonstration to demand his release.

“Those people don’t represent the revolution. They don’t understand the revolution,” he said. “They have power, they have guns, but they don’t have support. When there are free elections, you will see.

Maybe we will see and maybe we won't. If there are ever going to be free elections (and those don't always go well, see Egypt) it's going to be up to the Syrians to make happen, not us.

Meanwhile, the US Ambassador to Syria says there's no evidence chemical weapons have been used by either side.

And the top NATO commander says that we (the US and NATO) can be effective in helping to remove Assad. That's obvious but it leads to the real question, then what?

Unless we have a desire to get in the middle of another civil war/insurgency in the Mideast or have developed much better stabilization plans, is anyone really interested in signing up for a replay of Iraq?

Personally, I'm happy to let them fight it out amongst themselves for a good long time. Hell, let's arm both sides.

Posted by: DrewM at 11:20 AM | Comments (224)
Post contains 569 words, total size 4 kb.

Truly gruesome stuff.

This story really is hard to read. That may be part of the reason for the very small amount of coverage; but the bigger reason is that this story does illustrate, in ways many would like to not be illustrated, the grim details of abortion.

A jury weighing murder charges against a Philadelphia abortion provider heard grim testimony about unorthodox procedures used on inner-city clinic patients.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 72, faces the death penalty if convicted of killing seven late-term babies after they were born alive. He is also charged with third-degree murder in the overdose death of a 41-year-old refugee who sought an abortion in 2009.

Medical assistant Adrienne Moton admitted Tuesday that she had cut the necks of at least 10 babies after they were delivered, as Gosnell had instructed her. Gosnell and another employee regularly "snipped" the spines "to ensure fetal demise," she said.

Moton sobbed as she recalled taking a cellphone photograph of one baby because he was bigger than any she had seen aborted before. She measured the fetus at nearly 30 weeks, and thought he could have survived, given his size and pinkish color. Gosnell later joked that the baby was so big he could have walked to the bus stop, she said.

He's talking about killing babies the way hunters might talk about their biggest deer.

Another Gruesome Tale: He gave a fifteen year old a forcible abortion against her will.

The teen's grandmother had brought her to the clinic. But she didn't want the abortion herself. That didn't faze Gosnell, who strapped her to the operating table. She resisted for 30 minutes. But then he drugged her with a pre-set amount of knock-out juice, not bothering to lower the dosage for this 87-pound girl. He put her out for 12 hours-- which sounds to me a like just a couple of hours short of a lethal OD.

Posted by: Ace at 09:50 AM | Comments (284)
Post contains 346 words, total size 2 kb.

10 years ago the US and its allies began Operation Iraqi Freedom. Whatever else one thinks of the war, the cost or it's still yet to be fully determined effects, one can not do anything by stand in awe of a generation of American men and women who answered the call to serve their country.

Katherine Miller of the Washington Free Beacon has put together a list of 8 stories of honor, devotion and service you might not have heard or have forgotten. They stand simply as examples for the tens of thousands of acts that will only be known to those who committed, witnessed and were changed by them.

Here's one, please take some time to read the rest.

Navy Hospital Corpsman Chris Walsh and the three Marines he was with in June 2006 were not looking for a baby. After a roadside bomb disrupted their routine patrol in Fallujah, an Iraqi woman flagged the group, repeating over and over, “Baby. Baby sick.” The girl, Mariam, was born with her bladder outside her body.

Determined to help her, Walsh took photos to show to a doctor back at camp. Mariam would need surgery in the United States, the doctor said. At night, Walsh and the group of Marines returned to the home each week to administer some kind of aid to the girl in hopes of staving off infections while Walsh and others searched for a solution to send her stateside.

When Walsh and two of three Marines were killed by a roadside bomb in September 2006, the other Marines in their battalion undertook WalshÂ’s efforts, ultimately finding a way to send Mariam to Boston in October 2006 for a successful surgery.

Some will try to make Abu Gharib the legacy of the War in Iraq and portray the veterans as dangerous victims to be pitied and feared. We must remember that the men and women who fought in Iraq are heroes who are worth inheritors of a line that dates back through Vietnam, two world wars and many other fights all the way to George Washington and the American Revolution.

Posted by: DrewM at 09:11 AM | Comments (81)
Post contains 362 words, total size 2 kb.

It's that time of year again.

Normally I don't care about Obama's brackets or anyone's really but...before we mock this again (and it's mock worthy), remember this is the world we live in. You know those low information voters we've been bitching about and saying we need to reach? This is how you get to them.

It's hard now for the GOP do this kind of thing without a President or even being close to a nominee but changing the GOP brand is going to be a bottom up thing. Republicans at the local, congressional district and state levels are going to need to embrace these opportunities and find new ones.

Complain about it all you want but it's the reality of modern politics.

At Evolving Strategies, we tested the impact of four Romney and three Obama ads on vote preferences and voter enthusiasm just before the first primary debate. One of these was a widely-aired ad produced by Americans For Prosperity, in which Obama voters express their disappointment with the president. The “Disappointed” ad consistently won favor in the traditional focus-group setting as a message that would shift swing voters and appeal to women.

Our randomized, controlled experiment, however, found the “Disappointed” ad didn’t move voters toward Romney. But it did increase enthusiasm among men who voted for McCain in 2008 and sapped the enthusiasm of male Obama ’08 voters.

Surprisingly, the “Disappointed” ad failed as the soft-edged appeal to swing voters for which it was intended, but seemed very effective as red meat for male voters in Romney’s base and for demobilizing Democratic men. Instead of airing the ad on networks that would reach a broad audience in the middle, they should have run it around the clock on ESPN.

I'd recommend that whole article for a look at what the GOP data revolution might look like.

On the other hand, I'd caution against falling to in love with data collection and exploitation as a cure all or even a deciding factor. All that data can help you find voters who maybe sympathetic to you that you haven't been able to reach but ultimately that sort of stuff only gets you a look. The message and underlying worldview are still going to be important.

Posted by: DrewM at 08:42 AM | Comments (215)
Post contains 382 words, total size 3 kb.

What would a Calvin and Hobbes TV cartoon look like?

Video below the fold. more...

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 07:36 AM | Comments (241)
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.