The current food pyramid is nothing of a sort. It is an unusable, overly complex process called ChooseMyPlate.

I defy anyone to glean any useful (or even correct) information in simple form from this website. Anyone who does will win an AOSHQ Platinum membership (without ampersand capability).

[addendum] The AOSHQ Pyramid is a work in progress, so any advice would be appreciated.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 06:45 AM | Comments (301)
Post contains 69 words, total size 1 kb.

Here. Have some pancakes and bacon.

It's good for you.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 04:44 AM | Comments (252)
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm having tech issues on my end. I apologize.

Here's a piece of pie until I can get it up and running.

[Update - Andy] Merging my content in tbe new non-ONT ONT

Model Sues Playboy After ‘Golf Tee In Butt’ Stunt Goes Terribly Wrong

This is the most AoSHQ ONT-compliant piece ever

A model has filed suit against Playboy Enterprises and the co-host of a Playboy morning show after a 2012 stunt that involved sticking a golf tee in her butt (shockingly) didnÂ’t go according to plan.

Liz Dickson took a golf club to the buttocks when host Kevin Klein stuck a ball on the tee firmly lodged between DicksonÂ’s cheeks and took an errant swing. Now sheÂ’s alleging battery and negligence (and seeking $500,000 and punitive damage).

Hawt!

What's This Pi Day BS?

Pi day? No, no, no.

It's Steak and BJ Day.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 07:29 PM | Comments (133)
Post contains 150 words, total size 1 kb.

There's a record at stake here, so an ONT must go up. Even one as crappy as this. more...

Posted by: andy at 07:25 PM | Comments (96)
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.

Hello my pretties. ItÂ’s a beautiful Winter night in NE Florida. The air has just a slight chill, and IÂ’m lounging about in my pajamas (as all good bloggers are known to do), sipping on a glass of screw top wine. AndÂ… IÂ’m bored and IÂ’m feeling bossy. That means you will suffer through this ONT and like it because IÂ’m behind the wheel of this ship for the moment and the power is surging through my veins. I am invincible! Bwaaahahahahaha!

Anita Hill has reared her head yet again. Last night she appeared on The Daily Show where she essentially claimed to have single-handedly made sexual harassment a bad thing as if, silly as it sounds, we all thought it was a good thing before she showed up on the scene. Anyway, she is now the subject of a documentary, 'Anita'.

ANITA tells the story about a young, brilliant African American Anita Hill who accuses the Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas of unwanted sexual advances during explosive Senate Hearings in 1991 and ignites a political firestorm about sexual harassment, race, power and politics that resonates 20 years later today. ANITA is a dramatic look at the consequences to a private citizen acting out of a civic duty to 'speak truth to power.' For the first time on film Anita Hill speaks about her experience in the Senate Hearings, her impact on issues of sexual harassment, workplace rights for women and men, social justice and equality. The film is about the empowerment of girls and women, and men, through the extraordinary story of Anita Hill.

It will be released March 21.

more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 07:38 PM | Comments (846)
Post contains 1201 words, total size 9 kb.

Best day evah.

Posted by: rdbrewer at 03:49 PM | Comments (665)
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

A combination thread: A blow-off thread for chatter, and an opportunity for lurking readers to delurk as commenters in a thread about nothing much at all.

Jason Sudeikis is being eyed to play one Irwin M. Fletcher (he has a byline called "Jane Doe," you know) in a Fletch reboot to be called Fletch Won.

Okay, Jason Sudeikis as done great work as a supporting actor. Can he lead? I don't know. Apparently We're the Millers made $270 million but I didn't see it. I guess people think he can lead.

As far as Fletch, I could see him in the role.

I'm a big fan of the Fletch film. Have you ever read the books?

Fletch Won is an origin story, described as a gritty action comedy with heart and more tonally in line with McDonald's novels than the Chase movies.

Um... I'm not sure that's a good idea. I have to admit I saw the movie before I read the books (and I only read a few). The first thing you see or read is generally the thing you like more, because that formed your first impressions; the second thing you see or read (even if it was the first thing in actual publication) seems "off," seems to be doing it all wrong.

I understand that bias and it's unfair to judge the Fletch books based on my first impressions of the Fletch character from the movie.* That said: The books seemed "off" and seemed to be doing it all wrong.

They weren't comedies. The book did include the famous "Will you kill me?"/"Sure" exchange (in fact, I think it was printed on the cover of the book), but otherwise, it was a fairly straight detective story.

The Wackiness Quotient was negligible. There was no Underhill Account to charge a steak sandwich to (and also a steak sandwich). Fletch did in fact give hard-to-remember pseudonyms, but I think they were hard-to-remember because they were so bland, rather than so strange (stuff like "John Forrest," not "John Cock-Toast-Uln.")

Fletch was not a double-talking hustler of the Rogue Slacker Who Skates By On Moxie and Charm sort, but instead a fairly standard ex-military tough-guy detective type. He served in Vietnam, actually.

It's hard to imagine the Fletch we know from the movies serving in Vietnam.

I've got nothing against the ex-military tough-guy detective type. I like that type a lot. I like Jack Reacher. I love Phillip Marlowe (not ex-military, but certainly tough).

But most of what made Fletch different from the regular shamus really comes from the movie (and Chase's rewrites/suggestions, probably), not from the novel itself. (Note: I think it's possible, or even likely, that after the Fletch film came out, the later Fletch novels emphasized the comedic side of the character, just like the comics' version of Tony Stark became a lot more like RDJr.'s film portrayal. But the first book, Fletch, wasn't a comedy.)

So, I assume when they claim that the movies will be more in the spirit of the books, they are doing what they do an awful lot in Hollywood, which is Lying About Everything for No Reason. And being Hollywood, they have that eternal chip on their shoulders that they're working in a second-rate medium, so whenever they want to claim they're doing serious, important work, they claim they're going back to the books for inspiration, because, you know, paperback detective novels are so elevated a form.

If they were doing the movie like the books, they wouldn't hire Jason Sudeikis.

They'd hire Jason Statham.

Seriously: Fletch is going to be gritty? How do you do a gritty urban crime drama in a world in which "Doctor Rosenpenis" is accepted as a plausible name?

Get out of town.

* Oh, and this is a silly thing, but the Fletch of the novels is blond.

See? It's completely unfair to the books for me to judge them by such absurd criteria -- Fletch is NOT blond!!!! -- but I did and I do.

Posted by: Ace at 01:49 PM | Comments (535)
Post contains 691 words, total size 4 kb.

I have little use for Ezra Klein but I applaud him here for two things:

1. Hiring a guy who he knew would write things that his intended audience would react intolerantly towards.

2. Then defending his hiring of the guy, and imploring "liberals" to practice what they preach as regards tolerance for dissent.

The writer, Brandon Ambrosino, angered many on the intolerant left for writing that despite expecting to be shunned at his alma mater, Liberty University (a Christian institution founded by Jerry Falwell), his preconceptions were in fact wrong, and most at Liberty University didn't seem to care all that much that he was gay.

But then he truly crossed the line when he dared to venture the idea that not all on the left are perfect moral paragons with impeccable levels of psychological and emotional centeredness, but sometimes -- get this -- demonstrate their own form of ugly hostility to those perceived as The Other:

The world and the people in it are really wonderful with just a smidge of ugliness about them. I think the really vocal anti-gay Christians display this smidge, but I also think the really vocal anti-Christian gays display it as well.

He's annoyed the gay left in other ways, such as asserting that sexuality is not immutable. In one post he apparently noted his own previous persuasions of seemingly straight men to "try his sexuality," and wonders, then, if it can be true that sexuality is entirely inborn.

It's a fair point. I personally think sexuality is pretty much inborn myself, and I'd personally characterize those straight men enticed to "try his sexuality" as "probably already kinda secretly gay."

But would his critics on the gay left agree with that proposition? Or would they call that somehow hateful, and seriously contend that whereas homosexuality is inborn and immutable, heterosexuality is a social construct that is mainly "chosen"?

Would they claim that while straight people can (and perhaps should) be persuaded to try gay sex, it is monstrous to suggest the reverse?

Of course this is all a silly proxy fight over sideshow issues which really do not bear on the actual issue in contention (whether it is right, or even acceptable, to fault gays for engaging in gay sex).

The whole "Born this way"/"People choose their sexuality" argument is a bit silly, given that I think 95% of people would agree on the basics underlying sexual preference (sexuality is chiefly determined by inborn desires but can be modified in reaction to circumstance) and actually only disagree on what implications to draw from this predicate.

That is to say, people will chose to emphasize the "chiefly determined by inborn desires" or "can be modified" according to Arguing Preferences, but I have to imagine that 95% of the public (and 95% of gay activists, too) imagines both things are simultaneously true.

The arguments aren't really about the underlying facts; the underlying facts are just yelled a lot in service of whatever political position one wishes to take.

Noah Rothman has a couple of thoughts-- optimistic ones.

The lesson is becoming clear: the perpetually aggrieved can be, and often are, safely ignored. A once powerful movement, which apparently sees its relevance sustained only by the number of careers it is able to end, has been almost entirely marginalized, even if they do not recognize that fact yet. They have become as effective as those foolish cultural conservatives who were moved to boycott Coca-Cola over a harmless, multi-cultural Super Bowl ad –- which is to say, not at all.

Rothman has more on this (I didn't steal the whole thing, you know).

I hope he's right that the worm has turned and that ridiculous people are now being ignored for being so ridiculous.

You should listen to Powers Booth. He's a smart man.

Posted by: Ace at 12:57 PM | Comments (257)
Post contains 689 words, total size 4 kb.

At the world's most famous Anti-Hillary-Clinton website:

Here is the opening graf of an AP report on “anti-abortion voters” published Wednesday:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Calling their opponents Satan worshippers and savages, anti-abortion lawmakers on Wednesday insisted that Republican contenders keep an intense focus on social issues in the upcoming midterm elections and the 2016 presidential race.

“Calling their opponents Satan worshippers.” That sounds pretty serious. Tell us more, AP:

Sen. Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican who is a favorite of the tea party, said supporters of abortion rights chant “Hail, Satan” to silence their enemies. …

“Arm-in-arm, chanting ‘Hail, Satan,’ embracing the right to take the life of a late-term child,” Cruz said of supporters of abortion rights.

Sounds pretty crazy, huh?! Why, these pro-life loonies are so looney they're accusing abortion advocates of chanting looney things like "Hail, Satan!"

Which is the exact takeaway that AP intends.

One problem with this takeaway: Pro-abortion advocates actually did chant "Hail, Satan" as a taunt against pro-choice advocates, who were singing "Amazing Grace."

Which completely undermines AP's intended spin -- you can't suggest someone is crazy for saying something that is demonstrably true.

The World's Most Notorious Hillary Clinton Hate Site goes on to note that a moment of Googling by the AP reporter would have disclosed this fact.

Either the reporter didn't bother -- either he assumed, without bother to check at all, that Ted Cruz was a Crazy Liar -- or else he did check, and chose not to report it.

Which is worse?

Mollie Hemingway has a much longer piece asking if the AP can be trusted on any abortion story at all. (Spoiler alert: Nah, bro.)

Hemingway notes the importance of leftwing bloggers in shielding leftwing reporters from the facts (so that they can then report falsehoods in stories). She notes some heroic efforts to debunk the undebunkably true story of pro-choice agitators chanting "Hail, Satan!"

Now, if an AP reporter is Googling to determine the accuracy of this claim, and he sees a bunch of leftwing bloggers claiming it's all fake, that might give a partisan reporter all the cover he needs to pretend it's not true.

By the way, here is AP's rewrite. Note that now that the "Hail, Satan" chant is known to be something that pro-choice agitators actually chanted, it's no longer newsworthy.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Invoking fiery references to Satan, “savagery” and a “culture of death” to criticize their opponents, anti-abortion lawmakers on Wednesday insisted that Republican contenders keep an intense focus on social issues in the upcoming midterm elections and the 2016 presidential race.

See, it was newsworthy when it seemed like a crazy allegation from Ted Cruz -- when it seemed like the information would tend to turn readers against the pro-life position.

But now that it is confessed (impliedly) that pro-choice agitators actually did chant "Hail, Satan" -- it's omitted from the story altogether. Now that it seems like information that would turn people away from the pro-choice position, it's embargoed. (As it was previously embargoed, back when it actually first happened.)

If the claim hurts conservatives by making them seem, to the reader or viewer, "Not Like You," then it leads a story.

But if the claim hurts progressives by making them seem, to the reader or viewer, "Not Like You," then it is disappeared from the story completely.

Hemingway goes on to analyze AP's and the media's behavior in the Gosnell case and in cases of abortion laws generally.

Anyone interested in the subject should also read an older piece by Carl M. Cannon, a former mainstream media reporter, called "Abortion: Journalism's Most Sacred Cow."

Posted by: Ace at 11:11 AM | Comments (270)
Post contains 625 words, total size 5 kb.

Inadvertent omission. If you ask someone enough questions, eventually they slip up and say something close to the truth.

Asked if the White House had any ideas to fix the law, Sebelius answered:

“We have implemented a number of changes in the way the law was written to ease the transition into the marketplace for consumers, insurers and employers.”

The White House is usually vague about its authority to make changes, usually claiming some kind of ambiguity in the law that can only be resolved by executive rule-making. (For example, when the law says that the Individual Mandate must take effect by January 1st, 2014, this is "ambiguous," and permits Obama to interpret it as "sometime after the 2016 presidential elections.")

But here Sebelius they've actually changed the way the law is "written."

Thanks to @comradearthur.

Meanwhile... The New Yorker puts on its Political Thinking Cap and decides that the Democrat Party's "pussyfoot[ing]" around on Obamacare didn't work in the case of Alex Sink.

So they now urge the Democrat Party to wrap its arms around Obamacare and give it a big loving bearhug, endorsing it completely and in all details.

I endorse this position. I would like them to do this.

Posted by: Ace at 10:04 AM | Comments (441)
Post contains 234 words, total size 2 kb.