Greetings, gardening morons and moronettes, and welcome to your Saturday Yard and Garden thread! Today’s thread theme is “weird” and is brought to you by the master of weird, wild stuff:
more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 01:42 PM | Comments (180)
Post contains 1576 words, total size 12 kb.

This is a specialty of Florence, called "Bistecca Ala Fiorentina," and the finest examples of this are considered among the best steaks in the world. They claim that it is because of the breed of cattle, the Chianina, and the size they attain before slaughter. The cut is called the Porterhouse in the United States, but they get up to 3 kilos in Florence, which is huge!

Posted by: Open Blogger at 06:45 AM | Comments (258)
Post contains 75 words, total size 1 kb.

... Busted Bracket Edition.

Posted by: andy at 03:12 AM | Comments (286)
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.

See, it's harder to find the wreckage of the plane, because we done messed up the ocean's currents with our global warmenating behavior.

The claim is that global warming has already disrupted the expected currents, and... whatever. You read it.

Blame this one on @theh2.

Meanwhile, a French satellite has, maybe, found additional possible wreckage floating in the ocean. But as of yet, no human beings have gotten close enough to the various possible debris fields to confirm they're part of Flight 370.

Details on the French data were not immediately released. The statement from Malaysia called the information "new satellite images," while a statement from France's Foreign Ministry said "radar echoes taken by a satellite" had located floating debris but made no mention of imagery.

Posted by: Ace at 09:35 AM | Comments (254)
Post contains 178 words, total size 1 kb.

Good evening, Morons and Moronettes...

I'm tmi3rd, and I'll be filling in tonight as CDR M is off doing his actual, y'know, real job and stuff.

All sorts of goodies under the fold... let's begin!

more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 06:28 PM | Comments (601)
Post contains 614 words, total size 5 kb.

Jake Tapper reporting; the "as soon as this weekend" is reported in the video at the top of the page.

Russia has formally accepted Crimea's request to join the Russian state. (Ahem.) They have troops on the Ukrainian border -- for purposes of "training exercises" -- and are furthermore infiltrating Spetsnaz commandos over the border in order to begin operations.

U.S. officials believe [that] Russia is invading Ukraine with its Spetsnaz—the special operations units and battalions attached to both the military and the country’s intelligence agencies.

An American intelligence report predicted that Russian provocateurs would look to instigate low-level street brawls or “skirmishes” in eastern and southern Ukraine.
U.S. intelligence officials now say Russia’s Spetsnaz are expanding into eastern and southern Ukraine, as well. The intelligence report from February assessed that Russian provocateurs would look to instigate low-level street brawls or “skirmishes” in eastern and southern Ukraine. The report also predicted that Russia’s shadow warriors would seek to pay off Ukrainians to attend pro-Russian rallies and in general fan the flames of separatism. And since then, eyewitnesses say, that’s exactly what’s happened.

...

Schindler said the GRU Spetznas were following a similar playbook of provocations or “active measures” taken in the Republic of Georgia following the country’s 2005 Rose Revolution. “This sort of Spetznas special operations, intel-driven exercise is the continuing Russian refinement of the same model used in Georgia,” he said.

Russia is reported to have troops along the entirety of the Ukrainian frontier, at least double the number they previously said would be taking part in this snap "training exercise."

Pro-Russian "crowds" meanwhile seized two Ukrainian warships in Crimea yesterday.

Posted by: Ace at 03:35 PM | Comments (530)
Post contains 305 words, total size 3 kb.

There is one good thing here: I would hit that. In fact I'd hit 80% of this panel.

Repeatedly the Headline News anchor claims that psychics are sometimes consulted in murder and missing persons investigations. Yes, but: They are consulted when a child has been missing for 50 days, and the parents are distraught and inconsolable, and the community is demanding that no stone, no matter how preposterous, remain unturned.

In other words, it's a PR sop to grieving parents and the Do Something!!!! brigade of any community.

But Headline News indulges in the stunt because a reader suggested it.

Why I always take serious heed of the random suggestions of illogical people!!!

The HLN anchor starts off by asking the psychic why she's saying she "sees" a crash when there's no hard evidence of this. The psychic says that psychics should never have hard evidence, because hard evidence may mislead them.

Yeah it's pretty dumb. Another day in the media.

Oh, and when the psychic says she just started looking at this because she's recently been doing readings for friends and family of the presumed victims, there's an audible gasp from one of the guests, I think. Like "Oh my God, we're enabling a charlatan to bilk the grieving and desperate."

Right. That's why you shouldn't have psychics on, you know.

And bravo for claiming you "don't know" if psychics are real or not.

Video (autoplay!) here.

And check the link for a funny Onion parody about the media's behavior in all this.

Posted by: Ace at 02:40 PM | Comments (282)
Post contains 298 words, total size 2 kb.

If Malaysian Flight MH370 is actually down in the southern part of the Indian Ocean, the environmentals there will make any detection or recovery difficult. "Roaring Forties" winds, gyrating ocean currents post Malaysian plane search nightmare. more...

Posted by: CDR M at 05:56 PM | Comments (928)
Post contains 323 words, total size 5 kb.

You can read their response here.

Here is what they claim. All emphases in the below quotes are added by me.

First, regarding the political leaning of the group that brought this story to our attention, our article makes clear its left-wing origins, the controversial nature of its earlier claims, and its political agenda.

Oh? They make it clear that the group was left-wing?

Here's what the original article says about the group:

The Koch Industries subsidiary holds leases on 1.1 million acres -- an area nearly the size of Delaware -- in the oil sands region of Alberta, Canada, according to an activist group that studied Alberta provincial records.

An "activist" group -- no political leaning specified. Note, of course, that the media tends to claim leftwing groups are nonpartisan subject-matter-area advocacy groups, with no political leaning, whereas right-leaning groups are always noted as partisan.

Like right here, in the original article:

The biggest lease holder in the northern Alberta oil sands is a subsidiary of Koch Industries, the privately-owned cornerstone of the fortune of conservative Koch brothers Charles and David.

Why weren't they simply called "activist"? Further, why aren't they called "libertarian?" They self-identify as libertarian; in fact, everyone except these writers seems to identify them as libertarian.

But the left-wing group is merely termed "activist" and the Koch Brothers are incorrectly termed "conservative."

And then they claim they made the report's left-wing genesis "clear."

Where? Later on the article says that "environmental groups" and Harry Reid are attacking Keystone, but that's not linked to this "activist" group.

This is what I think the writers are relying on when they say the original article made it "clear" this group had a political agenda:

“IFG’s intention is to demonstrate the Koch-Keystone connection,” says IFG’s Victor Menotti.

That doesn't confess the group's political agenda. If there really is a Koch-Keystone connection, that would not be a matter of politics, but of simple factual reportage. One can come away from reading that thinking "These IFG people are just trying to get at the hidden truth" -- like an unbiased investigative reporter might, or like an apolitical "activist" group might.

This is hardly the writers making IFG's leftwing political agenda "clear" -- especially because these writers, given the chance to specifically note IFG's leftwing politics, instead resorted to the euphemism "activist."

By the way, I see nothing in the original article stating that the "activist" group's report is "controversial" in any way, though the writers now claim the original article made it "clear" that the report was "controversial" (meaning, here, I think: contested).

The Washington Post writers seem to accept almost all of it as non-controversial and non-contested.

They did note one point of contestation:

Second, regarding whether Koch would benefit from the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, we make clear that many of KochÂ’s leases pre-date the pipeline plan, that Koch has not bid for space in the pipeline, and that Koch would not be a customer.

In fact, the original article does say some of this:

The link between Koch and Keystone XL is, however, indirect at best. Koch’s oil production in northern Alberta is “negligible,” according to industry sources and quarterly publications of the provincial government. Moreover, Koch has not reserved any space in the Keystone XL pipeline, a process that usually takes place before a pipeline is built. The pipeline also does not run anywhere near Koch’s refining facilities. And TransCanada, owner of the Keystone routes, says Koch is not expected to be one of the pipeline’s customers.

But then watch how they take that all away to re-assert the "activist" group's claims:

Still, the activist group that is publicizing the figures about Koch holdings in the oil sands – the International Forum on Globalization – is arguing that Koch will benefit indirectly.

Let me note that this same group has estimated a $120 billion loss to the Koch's economic forecasts over the long term (50 years). It takes an awful lot of "indirect benefits" to make up for $120 billion.

But the Washington Post writers suggest that the "activist" group's report still might be true anyway. Maybe those Koch's will reap >$120 billion in "indirect benefits," I guess.

Not to mention the article says this early on, telegraphing its belief in the "Koch-Keystone" connection by hinting at suspect motives and hidden agendas on the part of the Koch brothers:

What is Koch Industries doing there? The company wouldn't comment on its holdings or strategy, but it appears to be a long-term investment that could produce tens of thousands of barrels of the region's thick brand of crude oil in the next three years and perhaps hundreds of thousands of barrels a few years after that.

Sort of conspiratorial, isn't it? What is Koch Industries doing there?

Um, gee, what is an energy company doing leasing property in energy-extraction areas?

Next, they claim their original statement that the Koch's are the largest leaseholder in the province is close enough:

Third, if Koch’s lease holdings are 1.1 million acres, that would make it one of the region’s largest, rivaled only by Shell (1 million net acres through an Athabasca joint venture and perhaps 1.3 million net acres altogether), Cenovus Energy (1.5 million net acres), and perhaps Canadian Natural Resources (717,000 net undeveloped acres plus an undetermined number of developed acres). Shell declined to release its total acreage figures. If Koch's lease holdings are “closer to two million,” as has been said by industry sources we consider highly authoritative, then Koch is indeed the largest lease holder in the province.

Now Koch's holdings of 1.1 million acres are "one of the region's largest," not the largest, as previously claimed, and furthermore, the article resorts to claiming that who knows, maybe they've got 2 million acres.

So now the Post is going back to the earlier claim?

Note what the original article claimed:

The Post confirmed the groupÂ’s findings with Alberta Energy, the provincial governmentÂ’s ministry of energy. Separately, industry sources familiar with oil sands leases said KochÂ’s lease holdings could be closer to two million acres. The companies with the next biggest net acreage positions in oil sands leases are Conoco Phillips and Shell, both close behind.

The original article notes that even the "activist" group has retreated from the 2 million figure, but now the 2 million is conveniently back in play when these writers need it to be?

Last October, IFG said that Koch owned two million acres in the oil sands; now it says the true figure – based on the Alberta provincial government’s mineral lease records that it links to -- is smaller but still an impressive, industry-leading 1.1 million acres.

What exactly are they now claiming is "confirmed"? They claimed to have confirmed this earlier; they are implicitly retreating from that. They first stated that, as a confirmed factual matter, the Koch brothers were the largest leaseholders in the province; now they say they could be the largest leaseholders, if unconfirmed but claimed estimates (by outside parties) are true.

Here's how the defense ends:

The Powerline article itself, and its tone, is strong evidence that issues surrounding the Koch brothersÂ’ political and business interests will stir and inflame public debate in this election year. ThatÂ’s why we wrote the piece.

Oh, I see. You just meant to explore "the issues" surrounding "the Koch brothers' political and business interests."

Which is a recitation of the "activist" group's central thesis: That the Koch brothers' political interests are deeply intertwined with their business interests.

The claim that they were writing merely to illustrate that the leftwing gets all spazzy when you bring up the Koch brothers is risible.

You didn't already see "strong evidence' of this in the left-wing -- I mean, "activist" -- group's report, or in Harry Reid's daily Two Minute Hates against the Koch Brothers?

You didn't attempt to claim any of these facts to be independently true, but only that the Koch Brothers would continue to be controversial on the left?

If so, why didn't you call this "activist" group by its accurate descriptor, "leftwing?"

And why is it that only Powerline's tone and attitude suggests political agenda here, rather than the "activist" group's?

Or, frankly, your own tone and attitude?

Posted by: Ace at 01:14 PM | Comments (268)
Post contains 1392 words, total size 9 kb.

David Harsanyi, Senior Editor at The Federalist and author of The People Have Spoken (and They Are Wrong): The Case Against Democracy joins Ace, Gabe and John to thoroughly depress you about the future of the country, but in a fun way.

Presented, of course, in Chill Groove^® Infotainment Format.

Intro/Outro: Justin Timberlake - Mirrors / Notorious B.I.G. - Hypnotize (NSFW)

Chill Groove: Notorious B.I.G. - Hypnotize (Instrumental)

Questions & comments here: Ask the Blog

Listen: [Stitcher] | [MP3 Download] | Subscribe: [RSS] | [iTunes]

Follow on Twitter:
AoSHQ Podcast (@AoSHQPodcast)
Ace (@AceofSpadesHQ)
Drew M. (@DrewMTips)
Gabriel Malor (@GabrielMalor)
John E. (@JohnEkdahl)
Andy (@TheH2 and @AndyM1911)

Open thread in the comments.

BTW (ace): We got the time under control this episode. We're going to be better about sticking to a 1:15/1:20 running length.

Posted by: andy at 12:16 PM | Comments (197)
Post contains 135 words, total size 2 kb.