Andrew Sullivan, political genius

Don't worry, the link below goes to NRO, not Andi's place:

“Palin is the only endorsement anyone wants. If you ask who the most influential endorsers are, Palin is numbers one, two, and three," - Rick Santorum.

But the entire Beltway assumes she is a non-starter in 2012. What kind of denial are they in?

Where to start?

First of all, we're in an election cycle where "the entire Beltway" is about as popular as Ebola. My Congressman, who happens to be a solid conservative, has been in Washington since 1999, and he won a three-way primary with just 49% of the vote—the lowest percentage of any campaign he's ever had, including city council races. How are Dems in Red States going to fare?

Secondly, which conservative candidate wouldn't want the endorsement of a popular political/opinion figure who has sold zillions of books (how are your various tomes selling, Andi?) and has a prominent platform on Fox News, the ratings leader among cable news networks? Sure, it's not as if liberal-leaning voters are going to vote for a Palin-endorsed candidate—hell, they'll probably run, screaming, in the other direction—but they weren't going to vote for GOP candidates in the first place. Palin's endorsements are meant to shore up conservative support and convince independents who lean right that they should vote against the Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda that some of them voted for in 2008. Mistakes were made, she's saying.

And, then, there's the whole "non-starter in 2012" thing. Sully is assuming that her value is that she's going to be the pull for the politicians she's endorsing because she's going to run in 2012. While that may or may not be true, that isn't the point, is it? Palin's value is in the here and now, where there is a huge electoral surge in 2010 that hates what the Dems and Obama have been doing and want to sweep them out of office.

TIME TO GO UTERUS SPELUNKING AGAIN!!!!!

Posted by: Sean M. at 03:10 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 330 words, total size 2 kb.

Is This Epistemic Closure?

I await the bazillion and one handwringing posts by the MFM about the closed minded left after Keith Olbermann left Kos.

Posted by: eddiebear at 12:24 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.

Why I'm against the BP shakedown

And it's absolutely a shakedown.

As our three readers know, I work in the plaintiff's side personal injury field.  Thus, I have a slightly different take on this.  Bear that bias in mind while reading the below as well. 

I want to know how the hell Obama decided that he knows that $20 billion is enough for the damages.  I haven't read the details of this plan yet, but I am utterly sure that participation in the fund will require the waiver of any rights to sue BP.  I'm also sure there will be enormous pressure brought to bear on those affected to make the claim through this fund, both due to sheer economic necessity and other forms of persuasion. 

So what does that mean?  That means that some bureaucrat is going to get to decide how much your fishing business is worth, not a jury of your peers.  Of course I'm against that.  Yeah, the jury system may suck but does anyone, anyone at all, trust that this fund will be administered fairly and transparently?  Bueller?  Bueller?  What happens when the fund starts to reach the cap?  Will BP be on the hook for more money or will the claimants be told too bad so sad?  What methodology will be used for valuation?  Will there be any type of appeal process if you don't like the number that is placed on your claim?  Will that appeal process be intra-agency only or will there be any type of court oversight of this process? 

The closest analogy I can come up with is the 9/11 Fund.  The Firm did some pro bono work on those claims and I can tell you from personal experience that it was a hugely complicated and not even remotely equitable process.  At least the 9/11 fund had some colorable claim of necessity, since it involved questions of suits against sovereign entities *koff*  Saudi *koff* that made the existence of an alternate method of recovery reasonable.  But this?  There are ample civil and criminal means of recovery in place right now.

For those who take this as a defense of BP, it's not.  My point is that BP is getting off CHEAP.  Not only is this hugely problematic from a separation of powers point of view, it's also hugely problematic from a plaintiff's perspective.  I anticipate that the next move will be some lawyer attempting to certify a class of all potential claimants to the fund, that class being granted and then the creation of an all but impossible opt out procedure.  So BP was presented with a deal it could not turn down.  Why should it?  If I were BP's counsel I would tell BP to jump on this with both feet and then make sure the actual implementation screwed over as many claimants as possible.

From my perspective, Obama just created precedent to eliminate the jury trial in any type of mass disaster.  That's terrifying. 

I also want to know how this interplays with bankruptcy law.  I know jack about the current US bankruptcy system and less than that about foreign bankruptcy.  Are these funds going to be considered exempt from secured creditors if BP goes down?  If so, then, once again, the entire concept of secured creditors goes out the window.  See re:  Chrysler. 

So, yes, I have tremendous problems with this.  So should everyone else.

Posted by: alexthechick at 12:02 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 568 words, total size 3 kb.

The all-seeing eye of Barney Frank

And I'm not referring to his brown-eye.

I'm so sorry for putting that image into your head.  But I suppose it's only mildly worse than S. Weasel contemplating his lack of teeth.

Posted by: Alice H at 06:04 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 38 words, total size 1 kb.

Oh my

You know things are bad when Michael Barone gets bitchy.

Seriously, I cannot recall any point at which he's really sounded more than mildly peeved.  This reads as if it could have been written by a Moron, lack of profanity notwithstanding.

Someone's a wee bit ticked.

Posted by: alexthechick at 09:27 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.

What part of fuck no did you not understand

Nice executive order there attempting to tell me what the fuck I can do with my body, Obama.

Seriously, this is completely and utterly outrageous.  Freedom means nothing without the freedom to fuck up.  If I want to not exercise and shovel cheese fries down my throat, then it's MY FUCKING LIFE. 

I want some kind, any kind, of intellectually coherent explanation as to how it is not the government's business who I eat but it is the government's business what I eat.  Good luck finding that. 

Posted by: alexthechick at 10:07 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 96 words, total size 1 kb.

Is there some reason Bob Etheridge isn't in jail right now?

Seriously, if any one of normal person had done what he did, had it published, then had it go viral on teh intarwebs, we'd be sitting in jail.  So why isn't he?  I want to know if he actually stole the phone or not, too, because if he did, he should be charged for that too. 

Posted by: doubleplusundead at 10:01 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 85 words, total size 1 kb.

Yet another reason why Bing is better

Once again, Bing is celebrating an American holiday (Flag Day) while Google?  Not a damn thing.  The image up for Bing is actually really really lovely.

(I'd put up screencaps up, you know, Moron)

Posted by: alexthechick at 08:36 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.

Um...

Some people have no class.

Some conservatives suffer from such an acute case of Obama Derangement Syndrome that they can’t even debate the issues of the day with out resorting to childish name-calling.

So says Media Matters hack Eric Boehlert, referring to L.A. Times blogger Andrew Malcolm in a lengthy whine (which I'm not going to bother to link) at lefty blog...The Smirking Chimp.

You can't make this stuff up.

Posted by: Sean M. at 08:02 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 70 words, total size 1 kb.

Investment advice - tar and feathers

Seriously, the Obama Administration is actively trying to get The Masses riled up. Newest way? Eliminiating the mortgage interest deduction!

Let's see, this eliminates a big reason to own instead of rent.  That will press housing prices down more.  It's a win/win!

Look, I'm actually open to the idea of eliminating the deduction but it's considered untouchable for a freaking reason.  Telling homeowners that the mortgage interest deduction is getting eliminated in order to pay for Obamacare?  Good luck with that!

Posted by: alexthechick at 10:02 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 87 words, total size 1 kb.

Boy howdy there are those who really want there to be open revolution aren't there?

The evidence sure points that way.

That crazy paranoid idea that the government is coming after private pensions? Well, it's hard to be paranoid when they're really out to get you.

Seriously, I'm starting to believe those who think that Obama et al are bound and determined for there to be rioting in the streets.  Also?  With my current personal circumstances, I'm finding it incredibly difficult to comprehend why I should bother trying to work and save and be responsible.  It certainly doesn't seem like that's going to be rewarded.

Posted by: alexthechick at 09:27 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 105 words, total size 1 kb.

You Want A Disclaimer? Here's One For You

Apparently, some publishing house felt the need to put a disclaimer on their copies of some of this nation's founding documents.

Wilder Publications warns readers of its reprints of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, Common Sense, the Articles of Confederation, and the Federalist Papers, among others, that “This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today.”

The disclaimer goes on to tell parents that they "might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work."

Obviously, these fools need to be briefed on the Constitution by the greatest scholar ever:


Oh, and I have a disclaimer as well and a message to the publishing house:
more...

Posted by: eddiebear at 12:31 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 739 words, total size 5 kb.

Wednesday night random crap

I really wish Ed Norton wasn't such a libtard, because I really enjoy his acting work.  Who has ruined themselves for you by opening their mouths?

Posted by: Alice H at 10:53 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

"Labor isn't an arm of the Democratic Party," [AFL-CIO spokesman Eddie] Vale said.

I don't know which is funnier...the fact that someone from the White House said that the unions had "flushed $10 million of their members' money down the toilet" in trying to beat Blanche Lincoln, or that Vale could even say that with a straight face.

Posted by: Sean M. at 12:05 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 55 words, total size 1 kb.

Saint George Tiller was a moral center

I get that some people consider access to abortion services necessary, or even A Good Thing when it's just too inconvenient to give up nine months of your life to gestation.  But really?  Abortion as a spiritual experience?  Does the author really think that God is watching and smiling and guiding abortionists' hands as they rip babies out of their mothers' wombs?

I was going to excerpt this, but go read the whole thing.  I couldn't have written a better exaggeration of delusion if I'd dropped a couple of hits of acid, drank a fifth of Val-U-Rite, and started typing as the stream of consciousness flowed in rainbow waves from my fingertips as my hands became one with the keyboard.

Posted by: Alice H at 11:45 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 127 words, total size 1 kb.

Too bad, so sad

The "progressive community" is apparently "fretting" about the retirement of anti-Semite Helen Thomas, according to the Puffington Host:

Her absence will be felt "significantly," said Ilyse Hogue, Communications Director of Moveon.org. "The burden will fall on the rest of the press corps to make sure the administration feels the need to be transparent about its plans to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan."

Say, I'd like to get us out of those countries, too, but I have a feeling that Ms. Hogue isn't exactly looking for the same kind of conditions that our troops are. I mean victory.

"Even though the anger toward her and her retirement are entirely appropriate, the absence of her raw questions about the war(s) will be felt by the anti-war movement, and everyone else," said Peter Daou, an influential online voice, formerly of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. "The chummy atmosphere between the White House press corps and the past two administrations (a case in point was the giddy response to Gibbs joining Twitter) hasn't been conducive to the kind of blunt questions she was willing to ask."

Um, Pete, how about the question she apparently wasn't willing to ask during all these years?

Namely, "Mr. President, was World War II worth it?"

Posted by: Sean M. at 04:37 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 211 words, total size 1 kb.

Good luck when you get held up at gunpoint someday

I'm sure that whenever that eventually happens, the cops will race to the scene and bust their butts to investigate the crime, never resting until the perp is caught and convicted.

Yeah.

Posted by: Sean M. at 12:21 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 42 words, total size 1 kb.

There's nothing I can say that will be in even horrible taste

The new "aid" ship going to Israel is the MV Rachel Corrie.

Every single thing I can think to say even I find in terrible taste. 

Okay, just one, I didn't know Caterpillar's stuff could work on water. 

Posted by: alexthechick at 11:27 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 50 words, total size 1 kb.

Saved or created

Normally, you'd think that adding 431,000 jobs to our economy in a single month would be reason to jump up and down with joy for the massive upturn in our economy.  It is, after all, about twice the number of jobs that have been added every month since the beginning of the year. 

So what's the FAIL?  Only ten percent of those jobs were private sector jobs.  411,000 temps were hired for the census.  Private sector hiring actually dropped from an average of about 200,000 jobs a month to about twenty percent of that. 

If Chad's experience that most of those workers have already been laid off holds true for most of the census offices (the ones that aren't inflating their timesheets anyway - if I had a guess, there's some of both Chad's and James O'Keefe's experiences going on) then we're in for some very interesting employment numbers next month.  Especially if we have another month of only hiring 41,000 real workers.

At least they hired the most obnoxious people they could find for census workers. (Chad notwithstanding, of course.  Although he may be insulted to not be included in the most obnoxious.)  I'm sitting at my desk in my home office one day, finally getting down to figuring out a pretty complex issue in some documentation, when the doorbell rings.  I ignore it.  It rings again.  I ignore it again.  Pounding starts on my door, I figure someone's house is on fire so I'd better check it out.  The person at the door was a census worker, asking me if I knew who lived across the fucking street.  And then she wouldn't leave when I told her I don't know their names. (I really don't, I know her first name and I know what kind of work her husband does, and I know they have obnoxious dogs.  And they know I have guns.  That's all we need to know about each other.)  I literally had to start yelling at her to get off my property to get her to go away, and this was well after explaining to her that I was trying to work.

Posted by: Alice H at 08:05 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 360 words, total size 2 kb.

Ummm what?

So. Here's this article about high paying low stress jobs.

Let's start with "high paying" meaning apparently $45,000 and up.  If that doesn't say something about the current economic environment, I don't know what does.

Now let's move on to "low stress".  How the hell is being a civil engineer low stress?  If you fuck up, a bridge collapses.  A building falls down.  Things go boom.  Personally, I'd find that a wee bit stressful.

Then there's being a computer engineer.  What the hell universe do the people who wrote the article live in where a computer programmer isn't under high stress?  Hell, some of the big gaming companies got nailed a few years ago about making people work 70+ hours for weeks on end trying to hit deadlines.  Tiny bit stressful.

Sure, neither of those are being cops or soldiers but I wouldn't call either of those low stress.

Posted by: alexthechick at 12:11 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 151 words, total size 1 kb.