How we all imagine the Biathlon.

more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 04:52 PM | Comments (255)
Post contains 10 words, total size 1 kb.

A Valentine's Day Card For Jimmy Carter^*

*This is not hyperbole. Or, at least, not very much. After all, Jimmy Carter is the guy who was quoted as saying, "When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that's the dictator, because he speaks for all the people" Yes, he actually said this.

Oh, and good morning morons and moronettes and welcome to AoSHQ's prestigious Sunday Morning Book Thread. And since Valentine's Day is coming up fast, it's time for a little romance. But first, the Bard.

Some Words You Probably Didn't Know Were Invented By Shakespeare

I've heard that Shakespeare, in the course of his writing, invented over 1700 new words, never seen before in the English language. He could do this because, well, because Shakespeare. Not only was he a really smart guy, but perhaps just as important, the English language was in a state of flux, and had been for quite some time. So a bunch of limitations and constraints we take for granted simply didn't apply. The 15th century English printer William Caxton, who lived a generation or two before Shakespeare, is said to have remarked late in his life that he was unable to read the books from his youth, that's how much the language had changed in only a few decades. I know that sounds strange to us, but that's because our English has been more or less stable for centuries and changes have come only slowly and gradually. What's the last big change to hit the English language, other than vocabulary? Contractions?

This piece in the Puffington Host lists 13 words that were actually coined by Shakespeare. I found it interesting because they're actually common words we use every day, rather than some arcane turn of phrase. Like 'gloomy'. And 'radiance'. And 'critical'. Also, 'zany'. That one surprised me. I always figured the origin of 'zany' would turn out to have been relatively modern. Nope, Shakespeare.

How Well Read Are You?

Here's a (long) quiz to gauge your proficiency in world literature. I'm not going to tell you how I did. Let's just say I thoroughly embarrassed myself.

And of those few I got right, a bunch of them were absolute, blind guesses.

I'd have done better if they had included moar sci-fi and zombie titles.
more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 06:35 AM | Comments (212)
Post contains 1606 words, total size 11 kb.

OK, so this article here I pulled from the sidebar a few days ago is Margaret Carlson's defense of Wendy Davis' lying lies about the narrative of her life story which is a bunch of lies. As you might imagine, Carlson's piece is a boiled-down, gooey tar pit of concentrated stupid (think of that oil slick that ate Tasha Yar), that'll lower your IQ by several points if you so much as glance at it.

But, buried deep in the dumb, there is something kind of interesting. In the midst of her defense of Wendy Davis' serial lying, she suddenly switches gears and says:

I donÂ’t agree with Davis on the filibuster that made her famous. Abortions should be illegal after viability, which is coming earlier and earlier as neonatal care improves.

Really, Margaret? You really believe there should be actual *limits* on abortion? You're saying that after the pregnancy progresses past a certain point, abortion should be illegal? That women should be *forbidden* from having them? You mean you would deny a woman her constitutionally protected "right to choose"?

Holy crap. How dare she?

So what's viability these days? 22-25 weeks? That's getting down to almost the second trimester, isn't it? That's pretty early.

So how has Margaret Carlson been able to get away with such heresy? Why hasn't she been asked to turn in her Sisterhood card? Where is the Legion of Outrage and why haven't they burned Ms. Carlson in effigy?

She is obviously not of the Body.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 11:01 AM | Comments (131)
Post contains 259 words, total size 2 kb.

Par for the course. Cronies over capability. We are in the very best of hands.

Obama’s appointee to Ambassador of Luxembourg ran that embassy into the ground; the ambassador to the Bahamas took 270 personal days in a year and a half. The ambassador to Belgium was reportedly investigated by your own IG’s office for procuring prostitutes in the park in front of his house. So I’m wondering if you — do you — do you draw a distinction between people like Walter Mondale, who are, like, life-long public servants, and political donors and bundlers who have no professional or international experience whatsoever?

Posted by: CDR M at 06:20 PM | Comments (703)
Post contains 417 words, total size 5 kb.

The word incredible is suitable to describe last night's opening ceremony in Sochi: Incredible special effects that sometimes worked and sometimes didn't. Incredible glossing-over of the facts in the telling of Russia's history. Incredibly bad coverage by NBC wherein they referred to the Soviet Union as , I'm not kidding here, "one of modern historyÂ’s pivotal experiments". Russia's own Garry Kasparov has been on a tear for days.

And Bob Costas....

Bob, did you drink the yellow water? I can't stand to look at him on a normal day but, for NBC to expect me to look at him with that gross, runny, squinty eye... no thank you.

The games are now underway. The United States hasn't quite started raking in the medals, yet. Congratulations to Sage Kotsenburg and Hannah Kearney of Team USA. Kotsenburg took the gold medal in the Men's Slopestyle competition and Kearney took the bronze in Ladies Freestyle Skiing Moguls. You can keep tabs on the official medal count at the Sochi Olympics site, where you can filter the results in any number of ways.

And, though it seems so long ago, Gabe reminds us, via Twitter, that this never gets old:

Posted by: Open Blogger at 01:00 PM | Comments (588)
Post contains 204 words, total size 2 kb.

Another glorious Saturday, eh? The Winter chill has settled over most of the country and those areas, such as mine, which aren't freezing, are still miserable and rainy.

This week's car thread delivers just what you need to thaw the chill: Some of the most beautiful cars ever produced. Countrysquire has scoured the net seeking out the best of the best and has compiled a list of cars so hot that you will become 10% more cool just by knowing they exist.

Lead the way, Countrysquire...

This should have been easy. The ugly car list was simple - choose a few French cars and you move on. Not so simple when discussing the art of the automotive world. When the list that I generated reached 50 cars, I knew that I had a problem and had to stop adding as different cars popped into my mind. Still, how does one cull cars like the 300SL Gullwing, Â’63 Stingray, or Jaguar XK13? Oh well, here we go:

Ferrari GTO

There are probably a dozen right answers as to whatÂ’s the most beautiful Ferrari ever. The silhouette of the 250 GTO is still being used today by designers of sports cars around the world. Scaglietti got it that right. HereÂ’s Pink Floyd drummer Nick Mason racing his $40,000,000 art specimen.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 09:00 AM | Comments (236)
Post contains 1109 words, total size 9 kb.

This thread brought to you by the Sochi Olympics:

Here's a thread for those of you who don't like hot tomatoes or pointy rosie elbows. You may deposit your man cards in the dumpster at the end of the alley.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 06:10 AM | Comments (192)
Post contains 66 words, total size 1 kb.

In Soviet Russia, the Olympics watch you.

Posted by: andy at 02:56 AM | Comments (308)
Post contains 15 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm not really a huge fan of these pageanty extravaganzish insaney Olympic things, particularly Winter Games (curling? really?), but if you're interested here's a place to discuss.

Anyway the many silly woes of Sochi are all over the news. By the time the last oligarch skims his piece of the action there's hardly enough money to build a bathroom and a lobby.

There are some things about it that are interesting though.

They are from New Zealand I am told. I want them to win.

Oh, Bob Costas may have ignored the warnings about water and washed his face with this stuff.

He'll be lucky to keep the eye. I feel for you on that one Bob, eye troubles suck.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 05:09 PM | Comments (244)
Post contains 126 words, total size 1 kb.

I responded to 18-1 in the comments, and my response was long enough for a post, so I'm making it a post.

18-1 offered some advice to the GOP, including: "Stake out a position where the public agrees with Republicans. Force the Democrats to deal with it."

People sometimes say I'm anti-Tea Party even though I actually support them in the main.

When I'm critical of the Tea Party, it's because the Tea Party often acts as if the first part of your suggestion -- "Stake out a position where the public agrees with Republicans" -- is not important, and even maybe a little cowardly. That is to say, there is a an idea -- it seems to me, at least, that there is an idea -- that politics is essentially dirty, given that most of the public is not very devoted to important First Principles (and, you know, they're not), and that therefore to craft positions with an eye to pleasing the bulk of the country -- which, again, is not firmly committed to important First Principles -- cannot possibly do anything other than debase and weaken the Tea Party's favored position.

That is pretty much true. I've come to think, recently, the following:

First there is philosophy. It is pure, as it's about only two things: God and Man. Or for a secular materialist such as myself, The Universe and Man (and, in man's limited view of the metaphysical, the concepts of "The Universe" and "God" tend to blur).

Political philosophy is a debased form of philosophy, because now we've dirtied it with political considerations. Philosophy should never care about politics; after all, one man possessed of the truth makes a majority, even should the world deny that truth. But political philosophy attempts to create a framework for how we can best live together, without killing each other too much.

Politics in turn, is a debased form of political philosophy, because now it is heavily influenced not just by the idea of The Good but by what a rough majority of people, or important constituencies, want, whether that represents The Good or not.

And then there is Democratic politics, which is not merely just debased political philosophy but degenerate political philosophy. I say this because of Jay Cost's argument that the Democratic party is now almost entirely an organization of client service. That is to say, there is hardly any "principle" in it anymore, except that one group wants this from the government, and another group wants that.

The Tea Party is currently, I think, a movement not of politics but of political philosophy. And that is both good and bad. It is good because they can afford to be more simon-pure about the precise philosophy they urge. It is, however, bad, if one would hope (as I do) that they can become a large enough political force (not merely a philosophical advocacy force) to either dominate the GOP or displace it entirely.

I do not want to get into my theory of how any lobbying/advocacy group -- any and all groups, all of them -- tend to be dominated by their purest (most "extreme," as far as the Overton Window) voices. But I do think it's true. Of all organizations. Every single one. Think of any advocacy group you can. And now try to think of when they offer up a fairly moderate position on their subject matter/cause. It's rare.

But political parties aren't lobbying/advocacy groups. They cannot permit themselves to fall into this dynamic of advocating the purest possible position.

At any rate, this is along the lines of my advice that the Tea Party must begin to position itself, and think of itself as, a governing political party, rather than lobbying/advocacy organization associated with the GOP.

And that will mean, often, taking a position which the purest-position members are critical of, and even charge as being a sell-out or cowardly.

For example, even though I'm more sympathetic to the Tea Party than the GOP, if I say something critical of the Tea Party, many who consider themselves Tea Partiers accuse me of being against the Tea Party, and hostile to it.

In other words, the membership of the Tea Party is limited to those who agree with the most strident members of the Tea Party. Now, let's face it, I will concede, I am RINOish, and not among the most strident in these matters. Nevertheless, the fact that I wish to be a part of the Tea Party -- but perhaps a member of the moderate wing of the Tea Party -- should permit me membership, if the Tea Party is thinking of itself as a potential governing party that could displace the GOP.

But when the reaction is "Well then you're not Tea Party," then the Tea Party is not acting as general governing political party (which should want to attract as many members as possible, because elections turn on numbers), but as a lobbying/advocacy organization which can (and should) be highly selective about whom it permits into its membership lists.

In short, I think the Tea Party becomes a more serious political force, rather than a philosophical advocacy force, when it begins entertaining the possibility that it will have pure, middle, and moderate wings.

Now some people don't agree that that's what the Tea Party can be or should be. That is, they'd say the whole point of the Tea Party is to the pull the party in a single way, and how can it achieve that goal if it has its own wings flapping in opposites directions?

But the Tea Party isn't just about pulling the GOP to a more rightward position on issues such as the debt and the size of government. It is those things, to be sure, but it is about more than that.

For example: What every Tea Partier agrees with, even a TPINO like myself, is that government has become too cozy with corporate and other interests. It has become too insular. It has formed too close a relationship, personally, with the corporate media. It is too reliant on a professional political class and the permanent government of the DC bureaucracy.

It is, in short, far too removed from the people.

Furthermore, the government class' cozy familiarity with the DC players (and every industry or constituency in the country has a well-funded lobbying group in DC) results in secret and dirty arrangements which are revolting to a truer form democratic republicanism.

In short, the town stinks of self-interest and self-dealing, all at the expense of the country outside of DC. As many have observed, I'm sure, there is of course the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, but there is also -- perhaps more importantly -- the Party of the Capital (everyone in DC and politics and the media) and the Party of the Hinterlands.

And the Party of the Capital wins every election, by a landslide, and dominates all the positions of government and media power. They Party of the Capital has its hands on, say, 99.9% of all levers of governmental, media, and cultural power.

So while it is a very important mission of the Tea Party to pull the country rightward on questions such as the size of government and our level of spending and debt, there are two other very important missions impelling it as well:

First, to bring more democracy to democracy,

and Second, as a party of general reform.

So I don't agree, wholly, that the Tea Party, like any other advocacy group, should have a closed membership list so that it can keep itself pure on its main issue of advocacy. I see two other very important considerations in the Tea Party's mix of concerns that really aren't a matter of just pulling the public to the right on an issue.

They're matters of general political concern, and possibly serve as the basis for the makings of a general governing party.

Updated: Some reader comments, and my replies, below.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 02:11 PM | Comments (746)
Post contains 2440 words, total size 14 kb.