Boy we sure have Al Queda on the run. Al-Queda controls more territory than ever before. The table is set for Al Queda 3.0 to grow stronger this year. Of course, we have top men in charge right? Oh wait, never mind. 'Kerry is just not in touch with reality.'

Despite all that’s going on in the Middle East — the Iranian nuclear buildup, the violence in Iraq, the shaking of Erdogan’s rule in Turkey, civil war in Syria, Egypt and Yemen in melt-down mode, Libya unraveling, Tunisia in political crisis — U.S. secretary of state John Kerry has one main thing on his mind, and that’s a Palestinian-Israeli accord. Unbelievably, he is paying a twelfth visit to the region on January 13 to pursue this goal.

Posted by: CDR M at 05:48 PM | Comments (798)
Post contains 398 words, total size 6 kb.

No, it's not the start of a joke but rather the start of today's internet OUTRAGE!

Jake Tapper interviewed Marcus Luttrell and Mark Wahlberg about the movie version of Lone Survivor. A few minutes into it things got a little confrontational between Tapper and Lutrell.

TAPPER (voice-over): It's clear for Marcus Luttrell the battle, almost a decade ago, still cuts close to the bone today.

(on camera): One of the emotions I felt while watching the film is, first of all, just the hopelessness of the situation, how horrific it was and also just all that loss of life of these brave American men. And I was torn about the message of the film in the same way that I think I am about the war in Afghanistan itself. I don't want any more senseless American death and at the same time I know that there are dead people there and good people who need help. Was that intentional?

LUTTRELL: Well, I don't know what part of the film you were watching, but hopelessness really ever came into it. Where did you see that? We never felt like we were hopelessly lost or anything like that. We never gave up. We never felt like we were losing unless we were actually dead. That never came across in the battle and while we were fighting on the mountain and it was just us against them.

TAPPER: Hopelessness, just the sense of all these wonderful people who died. It seemed senseless. I don't mean to disrespect in any way but it seemed senseless, all of these wonderful people who were killed for an op that went wrong.

LUTTRELL: We spend our whole lives defending this country so you tell me because we were over there doing what we were told to do was senseless and they died for nothing?

TAPPER: No, I'm not saying that at all.

The full transcript of the exchange is at the link.

The Blaze picked it up and Beck himself got into it on Twitter last night so naturally...we're off and running.

A couple of thoughts...

Beck is either flat out wrong or dishonest when he kicked things off by saying Tapper "went after" Lutrell. Watch the video (the exchange starts around 3 minute mark).

Tapper wrote a book, The Outpost, about the courage and sacrifice of those who serve. I remember seeing notes on Twitter about how when one of the soldiers profiled in the book was awarded the Medal of Honor and a bunch of members of his unit were in DC for the ceremony they got together with Tapper for beer and pizza. Tapper is most certainly not an-anti troop reporter.

What he was expressing is something I think a lot of people agree with, myself included...an ambivalence about the cost of the war in American dead and wounded in exchange for...what? As Tapper acknowledged in his question there were bad guys that needed killing but they were killed at the cost of a lot of good men and women. Has the 12+ year effort to turn Afghanistan into something other than a hell hole been worth the cost? To consider that question is not to devalue the memory of those who died or what they accomplished. It's a necessary thing so that we as a country are better positioned to decide when to send men and women to war again.

Understandably as someone who fought and lost so much, Luttrell does not seem to share that ambivalence (though his certainty isn't universally shared among veterans).

I think this went off the rails in a couple of spots. more...

Posted by: DrewM at 08:42 AM | Comments (285)
Post contains 1065 words, total size 7 kb.

Ben Domenech's "compassionate conservatism" piece at The Federalist is a good read. It begins with a takedown of Michael Gerson and Peter Wehner's renewed call for slightly smaller big government, since we apparently didn't learn the lesson of how poorly this works during the GWB years.

As you can see, though, Gerson and Wehner have identified the real cause of our problems:

“One of the main problems with an unremittingly hostile view of government — held by many associated with the tea party, libertarianism and “constitutionalism” — is that it obscures and undermines the social contributions of a truly conservative vision of government. Politics requires a guiding principle of public action.”

“For popular liberalism, it is often the rule of good intentions: If it sounds good, do it. Social problems can be solved by compassionate, efficient regulation and bureaucratic management — which is seldom efficient and invites unintended consequences in complex, unmanageable systems (say, the one-sixth of the U.S. economy devoted to health care). The signal light for government intervention is stuck on green. For libertarians and their ideological relatives, the guiding principle is the maximization of individual liberty. It is a theory of government consisting mainly of limits and boundaries. The light is almost always red.” (emphasis added)

According to these guys, if you're reading this blog, you are the problem.

You want a government of limits and boundaries? Are you nuts?

I really wish Gerson and Wehner would have the courage to admit that this worldview isn't appreciably different than that of the left. Although they mouth the right words against it to frame their argument, deep down they're fine with the basic structure of the left's governing vision (i.e., centralized control over every aspect of your life, for your own good) and their main differentiator appears to be that "conservatives" like them will use this unbounded power benevolently, while the left will go to extremes. Vote for Conservative Brand™ Big Government and all your problems will be solved!

James Madison (old dead white guy, demonstrably constitutionalist, fan of the original tea party) eloquently stated the real issue that eludes big government fanbois like Gerson and Wehner, who threw some quotes from the Federalist Papers into their essay but strangely missed this one.

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

Gerson and Wehner fail to grasp that second part. What they call "compassionate conservatism", I call "laying the groundwork for left's lawless SuperState". Madison was smart enough to know that you can't depend on "angels" like Gerson and Wehner to govern you, so you'd better focus on guarding against the devil ...

... which makes for an awkward segue to Marco Rubio (R-Amnesty), but I'm going to do it anyway.

... Senator Marco RubioÂ’s proposal this week for an anti-poverty reform agenda is a useful example of the problem these compassionate conservative assumptions run into when you attempt to put them into practice. While consolidation and block-granting are all well and good, Rubio doesnÂ’t stop there:

“Mr. Rubio will also propose Wednesday to replace the Earned Income Tax Credit, which was used by 28 million tax payers in 2011, with a new “wage enhancement” system that directs federal money towards supplementing the income of people who work in “qualifying low-income jobs.”

Rubio’s motivations here are noble, and almost certainly pass Gerson’s “public good” test: wage stagnation is indeed a problem, and the EITC is a warped system which has racked up a roughly 25% fraud percentage over the past decade. But think for a moment about what he’s proposing here: a future of long fights over what a “qualifying low-income job” is, a definition ripe for unions to exploit under future Democratic administrations. And let’s not even get started on the audits and oversight. I thought that limited government advocates would want to get government out of businesses, not further integrating them. ...

To the left, ever to the left, never to the right, always to the left ...

This is how the "ratchet" works, and Rubio just lurches from disappointment to disappointment on these issues. And it's not just him ... the GOP as a whole hasn't exactly been a bulwark against the creeping advance of statism.

We'll be hearing a lot about "income inequality" in the runup to the 2014 midterms, since that's apparently what the Democrats want to talk about instead of Obamacare. You can rest assured that "solutions" to this non-problem offered by the GOP will reflexively leap in the direction of "compassion" and not in the direction of STOP!

Come to think of it, I'm really not sure what Gerson and Wehner are complaining about. Their wing of the party has pretty much gotten what it wants at every turn, and look at all we have to show for it.

Related: Compassionate conservatives strike back against Tea Party, Some Problems with Rubio's Poverty Proposals

Posted by: andy at 11:00 AM | Comments (233)
Post contains 882 words, total size 6 kb.

You know what to do.

Posted by: andy at 03:38 AM | Comments (334)
Post contains 13 words, total size 1 kb.

Here's an open thread to get you through until the next serious post pops up. Perhaps it will lighten the mood a little.

Times they are a changin'.

Things aren't as simple as they used to be, not that they were ever simple but, they were never this complicated before.

And the kids, we bemoan how rotten they are but, hell, who raised them? I mean, really?! Not every rotten kid came from rotten parents and not every rotten parent produces bad kids but, more often than not, well... the gravitational force exerted on a Red Delicious results in said Red Delicious lying proximate to Malus Domestica.

And sex... my heavens at the hyper-sexual imagery they are basted in. It's everywhere. And, simultaneous to the increase in their exposure to sex is a loss of the traditional family. Kids are left alone, fending for themselves, with television and video games serving as surrogate parents.

It takes its toll.

CoolCzech really deserves the credit for this post because it was his pictorial of the change in culture between the 80's and the 20teens which made me stop and think about it.

To make it up to you, here's a photo of an 80's-era piglet, complete with legwarmers.

Cute, isn't it? It's as if it has never been exposed to the harsh ways of the world.

Keep your kids safe and teach them well because, when you don't, the consequences can be dire... more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 09:47 AM | Comments (137)
Post contains 289 words, total size 2 kb.

Regarding the earlier post today on the very low labor participation rate: @laurww sends this chart by Geoff exposing the "recovery" as no recovery at all.

Labor participation -- working -- drops precipitously after the housing bubble crisis, and never recovers:

Easy answer to the question, Why doesn't this feel like a recovery? Because it's not.

Regarding yesterday's post on Rachel Maddow's newest false conspiracy, this one claiming the Koch Brothers are behind a law to impose drug-use tests on welfare recipients. Well, they're not. They donate to a group called the State Policy Network, as do many companies, and the SPN worked with a Florida outfit on this law. But then, one of the companies that contributes to the SPN is Comcast, Maddow's ultimate employer. So MSNBC is behind this drug-testing regime to the same extent the Koch Brothers are.

But there's new information there. Maddow wants to say the Koch Brothers are responsible for the law because they gave $40,000 to the SPN over a period of time. But the ACUL challenged that law in court -- and won.

Among the contributors to the ACLU is... the Koch Brothers. And you know how much they contributed to the ACLU, representing the other side in the drug-testing issue?

Via @theh2, try twenty million dollars, jack.

Charles and David Koch have donated some $20 million to the American Civil Liberties Union, which just won a court victory overturning a Florida law requiring the drug testing of welfare recipients.

So Maddow wants to claim the Koch Brothers are responsible for the law, due to donating $40,000 to SPN, but ignores the fact that they're even more responsible for undoing the law, by funding the ACLU to the tune of $20,000,000.

She is a nasty, dishonest Marxist true-believing hyper-ideological conspiracy theorist, and ought to be called such.

Remember the study that claimed dogs align themselves with the earth's magnetic fields when pooping? Further information on canines' sensitivity to magnetic fields -- snow-diving foxes may use them to home in on their prey.

Think about this ... an ordinary fox can stalk a mole, mouse, vole or shrew from a distance of 25 feet, which means its food is making a barely audible rustling sound, hiding almost two car lengths away. And yet our fox hurls itself into the air -- in an arc determined by the fox, the speed and trajectory of the scurrying mouse, any breezes, the thickness of the ground cover, the depth of the snow -- and somehow (how? how?), it can land straight on top of the mouse, pinning it with its forepaws or grabbing the mouse's head with its teeth.

Link and video below from @clayranck.

And, Open Thread.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 02:42 PM | Comments (519)
Post contains 474 words, total size 3 kb.

Better Than You.

Except on one count. We'll get to that.

They compared themselves in one survey to other prisoners (the average prisoner) and in the other survey to the average member of all society.

The results suggest low self-esteem is not among the prisoners’ problems. Compared to their fellow inmates, “they rated themselves as more moral, kinder to others, more self-controlled, more law-abiding, more compassionate, more generous, more dependable, more trustworthy, and more honest.”

In addition, “Participants rated themselves as better than the average community member on all traits, with the exception of law-abidingness.” On that last point, the researchers report, “they rated themselves as equally law abiding” as the average person, “which may be the most surprising of all, given their incarcerated status.”

This provides evidence of the robust—and groundless—nature of the “better-than-average effect.”

On law-abidingess, inmates in stir are "average." In all other areas -- including kindness! -- they're better than average.

Hilarious.

Thanks to @rdbrewer4.

Posted by: Ace at 02:01 PM | Comments (193)
Post contains 185 words, total size 1 kb.

While the media has wall to wall coverage of 'Bridgegate', here are 24 underreported Democratic scandals. Free press? Never heard of it. more...

Posted by: CDR M at 05:45 PM | Comments (700)
Post contains 289 words, total size 4 kb.

It begins.

[I]n a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Humana disclosed to investors, "as a result of the December 2013 federal and state regulatory changes allowing certain individuals to remain in their previously existing off-exchange health plans, the Company now expects the risk mix of members enrolling through the health insurance exchanges to be more adverse than previously expected."

The regulatory change Humana is referring to is the "administrative fix" announced by the Obama administration aimed at allowing individuals to remain enrolled in their current plans, which had been cancelled as a result of requirements imposed by the law. Obama announced the "fix" after a storm of criticism over his broken promise that anybody who liked their plan could keep it. Insurers had been depending on those with cancelled plans (who tend to be healthier) to end up obtaining insurance through exchanges.

Meanwhile, Blue Cross Blue Shield wrote a talking points lobbying memo warning that if Republicans succeed in ending the "risk corridor" bailouts to the insurance industry (which will be massive, due to the "adverse" mix of health and unhealthy enrollees), the result will be the bankrupting of the system -- and the coming of single-payer.

They're saying this to spook us so that we will agree to pay them off and make them whole over the corrupt, and now unprofitable, bargain they struck with Obama.

I say we roll the dice.

Posted by: Ace at 01:03 PM | Comments (318)
Post contains 283 words, total size 2 kb.

The headline is hers, which is a deceptive-headline joke. She doesn't mean it. Read on.

She's responding to Matthew Yglesias (why bother?!) who claims it's no shocking thing that married people are richer than single people; after all, they can share housing expenses, like unmarried roommates can.

McArdle points out various ways in which marriage results in resource-sharing. One amusing one is in the area of cognitive resources sharing, which is where her idea of "marriage making you blissfully stupid" comes in.

Marriage also enables specialization. Which can be illustrated by a piece of wisdom I have developed in my brief three and a half years of marital bliss and now pass onto my friends who are getting married: “Marriage makes you stupid.”

I mean, I used to know where I kept my batteries and old documents. But when we got married, my husband, who is much tidier than I am, took over organizing the house. Now, unless itÂ’s a piece of my clothing or kitchen equipment, I have no idea where we keep anything. And while IÂ’m pretty sure I used to be able to put up shelves, now all I know how to do is ask my husband to do it.

On the other hand, he has no idea how much money we have, or in what accounts. And he canÂ’t do the grocery shopping, because he doesnÂ’t know what we consume. Individually, we are less competent to survive on our own. But collectively, we eat better, and we have a tidier house and better-managed finances. And our shelves donÂ’t fall down so often.

Obviously, child-rearing is a major area of specialization.

There's not much of a political point to the column, if that's your main interest. In fact, by explaining away the benefits of marriage as being basically on the practical plane, it may subtly undermine arguments about marriage being a powerful force for improving life outcomes. I actually don't know if it does that or not.

But in the whole it's an interesting but light slightly-economic think piece about marriage. I liked it, anyway.

Posted by: Ace at 12:24 PM | Comments (217)
Post contains 366 words, total size 2 kb.