Posted on | December 3, 2013 | 34 Comments
Americans for Prosperity opened the 2014 campaign early, taking aim at vulnerable Democrats for their support of ObamaCare. This ad is aimed at North Carolina Sen. Kay Hagan:
Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu is also targeted by the AFP ads, Politico reported when the ad campaign was announced in October:
Tim Phillips, the president of Americans for Prosperity, unveiled the Hagan ad at a press conference in Raleigh . . .
The organization devoted $1.7 million to North Carolina, and a little more than $500,000 to Louisiana, figures that reflect media market prices, Phillips said. Another $100,000 per state will be devoted to grassroots and social media efforts, he added.
“Both ads are unique, but the goal is the same: we want to make sure to hold both of these senators accountable over the long term for their votes that first passed Obamacare into law and now have upheld that law repeatedly,” he said.
AFP recently announced it was expanding its campaign to target Democrat Sen. Mark Begich as well as three vulnerable House incumbents, Democrat Reps. Patrick Murphy (FL-18), Joe Garcia (FL-26) and Ron Barber (AZ-2).
Posted on | December 3, 2013 | 9 Comments
– compiled by Wombat-socho
Government braces for no-confidence vote
Biden Seeks To Soothe Anxious Japan
Reassuring Japanese leaders the US has their back in spat with PRC over Senkaku islands
Detroit Braces For Bankruptcy Ruling
Judge to rule today on whether Motor City can enter bankruptcy
Administration’s cheerleading causing a backlash
THE ECONOMY, STUPID
Asian Oil Continues Rising On Strong Manufacturing Data: NYMEX $94.15, Brent $111.46
Cyber Monday Sales Soar To Record
Wall Street Ends Lower As Mining Companies Slump
Global Shares Jittery Over US Stimulus
Hilton Could Raise Up To $2.4B In IPO
Mariano’s Owner Roundy’s Buys 11 Dominick’s Stores, Expands Presence In Chicago
Apple Buys Social Media Analysis Firm Topsy
Facebook Tweaks News Feed For More “High Quality” Content
Sony Says PS4 Global Sales Top 2.1 Million
FTC Signs Off On Nokia/Microsoft Deal
HP’s New Android Slate Tablets Sneak Onto Market Just After Curfew
Seattle crushes New Orleans 34-7
FAMOUS FOR BEING FAMOUS
Amy Adams: I’m Not Getting Married Any Time Soon
The December VF covergirl speaks
Nork Leader’s Power Broker Uncle Sacked
OECD Report Finds Australian Children Falling Behind
India #94 On Corruption Index; Afghanistan, Norks, Somalia Most Corrupt
Yanukovich Turns His Back On Kiev Turmoil, Heads For PRC
UN Names Bashar Al-Assad In War Crimes
Bangkok Police Remove Barriers To Reduce Tensions
New Pakistani Taliban Chief Returns Home To Lead Insurgency
Kurdistan PM Says Final Details Of Turkey Energy Deal Agreed
NATO: Karzai Failure To Sign Pact Means End Of Afghan Mission
BLOGS & STUFF
K-Bob’s Labor Of Love: Article Five Process
Proof Positive: Won’t Get Fooled Again and Quiptoon Du Jour
Dead Republican Party: What Obama Thinks Of Your Suffering And Hardship
Doug Powers: Trading Places – Obama Tries To Get Into Online Sales While Amazon Announces Package Delivery By Drone
Twitchy: “House” Actor Hugh Laurie Vividly Describes Obama’s Struggle With Affordable Care
American Thinker: Catholics And Communists
Blackmailers Don’t Shoot: This Wacky Week, Fried Food Edition
The Necropolitan Sentinel: Obamacare Watch – OBAMA DID IT! WOOOOO!
Jammie Wearing Fools: Bloomberg Remained On Golf Course For Hours After Derailment
Pat Dollard: Glenn Back Destroys Progressive Republicans On Hannity
Protein Wisdom: A Pointed – Almost Rhetorical – Question From The Vilified Senate Conservatives Fund
Shot In The Dark: Can You Keep A Meaty-Smelling Secret?
The Jawa Report: Red On Red In Palestinian “Refugee Camp”
The Lonely Conservative: Justice Department Still Working To Keep Kids In Failing Schools
Megan McArdle: Obamacare’s New Goal – Stay Alive Until 2015
Posted on | December 2, 2013 | 21 Comments
The day before Thanksgiving Day, I asked a simple question:
Why does it seem that the targets of Bill Schmalfeldt’s harassment overlap Brett Kimberlin’s enemies list with such exactitude?
It was Schmalfeldt’s harassment of the person he believes to be “Kimberlin Unmasked” that prompted that question, and “Kimberlin Unmasked” has continued the comic series “Oedipal Bill”:
- Oedipal Bill – Issue 25 – Bullet Head
- Oedipal Bill – Issue 26 – You’re FIRED!
- Oedipal Bill – Issue 27 – A Brett Kimberlin Thanksgiving
- Oedipal Bill – Issue 28 – For Whom The Bell Tolls
- Oedipal Bill – Issue 29 – Christian Love
- Oedipal Bill – Issue 30 – Smashing Heads
Schmalfeldt paid little or no attention to “Kimberlin Unmasked” until Brett Kimberlin filed the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al., lawsuit, and it was amusing to watch Brett Kimberlin in court last week trying to explain his failure respond to an attorney’s motion asserting that Maryland courts have no jurisdiction over “Kimberlin Unmasked.”
Of course, Schmalfeldt has been convinced by his Team Kimberlin colleagues that not only is this Maryland lawsuit a shining example of legal brilliance, but that the federal RICO suit known as Kimberlin v. the Universe, et al., is destined to succeed. Meanwhile . . .
In Carroll County next Monday, Dec. 9, there will be a hearing on John Hoge’s petition for a six-month extension on his peace order against Bill Schmalfeldt. To say that Schmalfeldt has been making an ass of himself is an understatement: He posted a video of himself tearing up a court document in the case, posted pornographic photos onto which he had superimposed Hoge’s face and, as of 7 p.m. today, had sent 468 @ messages to Hoge on Twitter since Oct. 16, in violation of the peace order the judge granted in June.
Despite all facts, law and logic, however, Schmalfeldt continues boasting on Twitter about what dreadful humiliation and punishment he expects to inflict on Hoge in court next Monday, and seems to imagine that our amusement at his antics is un-Christian.
Posted on | December 2, 2013 | 43 Comments
Liberals are stupid. We know this. Samuel Johnson knew this, too:
If you’re smart, you can figure out how to get paid to write. If you’re stupid, you’ll be a liberal journalism intern like Charles Davis:
I was 21 years old when I took out my earring, combed my hair, and tried concealing my distaste for power and Washington, DC, in order to ask questions at press conferences. It was the summer of 2006, and I had just left college to work for a small, do-gooding nonprofit that covered Capitol Hill for public radio. . . .
What I did looked and felt like an entry-level job in the media. And I enjoyed it—I liked going up to any old white guy in a suit and asking him to explain in his own words why he’s destroying the country. I felt as if I had sort of made it, as much as an English major can. I wasn’t living at home, I got to carry a microphone, and my work was broadcast over the radio. To an outsider looking in, I almost looked like a respectable person.
The problem was I wasn’t being compensated for any of that work or my veneer of respectability. What I did every day might have appeared to be a job, but I was labeled an “intern,” meaning I got paid in experience and networking opportunities, not anything tangible. I made rent by taking a part-time job serving mediocre Mexican food across from the National Press Club . . . Periodic calls to Mommy and Daddy also helped. That was what was expected of me — I’m part of a generation conditioned to believe that if you just work for free hard enough and long enough, you can become president some day.
I was fortunate, all things considered. My labor was being exploited by a boss who took in $100,000 a year, but I was privileged enough that I could afford the exploitation for a few months, sort of. I had parents who could kick me some cash every now and then with only moderate-to-severe grief. And it hadn’t yet hit me that I had to pay back all those student loans.
Charles Davis — who now describes himself as “a writer and producer in Los Angeles” — may no longer write for free, but he is still a liberal, which means he is still stupid enough to think that the people who get paid to do what he did for free actually believe in the “idealistic” egalitarian goals that they espouse:
Paying people little to nothing because you can — a practice aided by the awfulness of the job market and the desperation of people trying to make it in “glamour” industries like journalism — is both exploitive and discriminatory, but many good liberals do not appear to recognize it as such, even as they decry that behavior elsewhere. . . .
(Uh, journalism is a “glamour” industry? Says who?)
Robert Reich served as labor secretary under Bill Clinton and is outspoken in his support for a living wage. . . .
His political advocacy group, Common Cause, is only one of the organizations he has a hand in that relies on free or near-free labor. In a recent listing, The American Prospect, a magazine founded by Reich and other veterans of the Clinton administration, announced it was looking for editorial interns to assist “with fact-checking and research.” The interns will be “encouraged to contribute editorially and participate in meetings in addition to pursuing their own projects.”
Sounds good, but, “This is a full-time internship and comes with a $100 weekly stipend,” according to the listing. That comes to about $2.50 an hour, or “not nothing” if you are a glass-half-full type. . . .
(Show of hands: Who would want to work for an organization founded by Robert Reich “and other veterans of the Clinton administration” at any price? Oh, look — nobody with a lick of sense raised their hand. Guess that’s why morons do it for free.)
The fellowship offered by Mother Jones is neither an internship nor an entry-level job . . . but the compensation could fool you: “Fellows receive a $1,000 monthly stipend.” Assuming a 40-hour workweek (many journalists work much longer hours than that), that means a fellow at Mother Jones earns less than $6 an hour in a state, California, that just decided to raise the minimum wage to $10. In San Francisco, where the magazine is based, $1,000 a month isn’t enough to pay for both food and shelter. . . .
After six months . . . a fellowship at Mother Jones can be extended the rest of the year at a rate of $1,400 a month. . . .
[T]he names at the top of the masthead are very comfortable. Editors Monika Bauerlein and Clara Jeffery each make more than $167,000 a year, while chief operating officer Madeleine Buckingham makes $159,000.
(So the top three names on the masthead divvy up $493,000 between them. Multiply $1,400 a month times 12 and the annual salary of a Mother Jones “fellow” is $16,800, so that the combined salary of the top three Mother Jones honchos is equivalent to the annual salaries of 29.3 “fellows.” Nice work, if you can get it.)
But at the liberal online news magazine Salon, internships are not for those just starting out.
“Some professional experience is required,” says a listing for an editorial internship at Salon. If you get that job, you’ll be helping “research, report, write and produce our news and culture coverage,” which sounds a lot like a job. The position, based in New York City, is unpaid.
Though it does not pay its professionally experienced interns a dime, Salon (which has published my work in the past) has had the chutzpah to run a number of stories on the plight of unpaid workers, such as, “‘Intern Nation': Are We Exploiting a Generation of Workers?” and “Unpaid and Sexually Harassed: The Latest Intern Injustice.” The company did not respond to a request for comment.
(The saddest part about this? Although it doesn’t pay its interns a red cent, Salon has still managed to lose millions of dollars a year, every year, since the days of 56K-baud dial-up modems. But, hey, stupid liberals get the “glamour” of working for nothing at a money-losing lefty blog whose star writer is Joan Walsh, so there’s that.)
The New Republic is another liberal outlet with a problematic labor record. Owned by a co-founder of Facebook worth more than $600 million, the magazine is currently hiring interns . . . Previous experience in journalism is “preferred, but not imperative.”
TNR used to advertise that its internships “are full-time, unpaid, and based in the DC office,” but that language was removed soon after the magazine became aware of this story. . . .
(Dishonest liberals trying to hide the truth? I’m shocked!)
TNR has the money to pay interns but doesn’t, likely because there is an established culture in the media world that treats working for free as the cost of admission. And when everyone else is doing it, why not? And so Harper’s is looking for interns to “work on a full-time, unpaid basis for three to five months” . . . and the Washington Monthly, which claims to be “thriving” thanks to “generous long-term support from foundations and donors,” is offering internships that are “unpaid and can be either part-time or full-time.” . . .
(And now, ladies and gentlemen, the call to action.)
So here’s a challenge to the liberal media: If you are in favor of a living wage and oppose discrimination against the poor, let’s see that reflected in your newsrooms, not just on your blogs. . . .It also just sets a bad example. If the bleeding hearts aren’t ashamed enough to pay their workers, why should anyone?
Charles, I’d like to give you some advice on how to stop being a complete chump, but the “About” page on your blog doesn’t list an e-mail address or a Twitter account. And so if somebody actually wanted to hire you, how would they get in touch with you? (Don’t worry, I just looked you up on Twitter.)
Also, there is no commercial nexus on your blog — no ads, no PayPal, no Amazon — and thus no way for you to make money from what you publish yourself, so that you are in effect paying yourself nothing for your own work, as if it were entirely worthless.
By contrast, as a shameless capitalist blogger, I’m going to suggest readers shop for fabulous savings at Amazon (from which I receive a small commission) and also include a PayPal “donate” button, so readers can pay me for the pleasure of mocking your stupidity.
This lesson will perhaps be more valuable to you, Charles Davis, than anything you learned via your internships. You’re welcome.
Posted on | December 2, 2013 | 63 Comments
Was Paul Walker's deadly crash caused by drag racing? Mechanical failure? Theories piling up http://t.co/mHErtJBPmg
— Jalopnik (@Jalopnik) December 2, 2013
Basically, all celebrity news is on hold until further notice, because the actor famous for starring in movies about high-speed street racing got killed while — wait for it — high-speed street racing.
I know, right?
Anyway, if you’re paranoid, this might seem suspicious:
Paul Walker may not have ever gotten into the car that took him to his death if it hadn’t been acting up moments before the crash … TMZ has learned.
Paul showed up Saturday for a fundraiser at Always Evolving — Roger Rodas’ high end auto shop that specializes in exotic cars. Paul had a stake in the shop.
Sources connected to Roger tell TMZ when Paul arrived … Roger was watching one of his employees try in vain to back the Carrera GT into the shop, but it kept stalling. Roger decided to take matters into his own hands … told the worker to get out and took the wheel himself.
As Roger began to back into the garage … Paul came up and said he hadn’t driven in the Porsche yet — so he jumped in the passenger seat and they took a 20 minute drive.
Did somebody say “suspicious“?
The exotic sports car in which Paul Walker violently died, crashed as a result of mechanical failure — very possibly a steering fluid leak … this according to sources closely tied to the auto shop where the vehicle was stored and maintained.
Sources connected to Always Evolving — the shop co-owned by Walker and the Porsche driver Roger Rodas — tell TMZ they saw evidence of a fluid burst and subsequent fluid trail before the skid marks at the accident scene.
The AE sources point to the fact there is a noticeable absence of skid marks until just before the point of impact. They say if Roger had lost control the skid marks would show swerving, but instead the marks were in a straight line. They feel this cements the theory the driver didn’t have steering control.
Probably the CIA or the Mossad or maybe . . . right-wing nutjobs outraged to learn that Paul Walker was a cradle-robbing creepazoid:
Paul Walker’s girlfriend is ‘broken up’ over his death as the couple were hoping for a ‘bright future’ together, MailOnline can reveal.
Jasmine Pilchard-Gosnell, 23, is being comforted by her mother Julie as she struggles to cope with the ‘horrible’ news, relatives said.
She has reportedly been dating Walker since 2006 when she was just 16 and he was 33 — but the 17-year age gap has been no barrier to them both finding love. . . .
Jasmine, a college student who lives in Santa Barbara, California, was supposedly beginning to become the step-mother to Walker’s daughter Meadow, 15, even though she is only eight years older than her.
Kaitlyn Hunt could not be reached for comment.
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) December 2, 2013
Posted on | December 2, 2013 | 20 Comments
Apparently, if you’re an official NIH-funded scientist, you can get paid to do things that sadistic serial killers do in their spare time:
1. Mice and rats electrically stimulated after penises mutilated and injected with chemicals
Location: Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
Experiments: Experimenters cut all the skin off the penises of live mice and rats, electrically stimulated their penises with electrodes for up to five minutes, and injected their penises with various chemicals to see if they’d sustain an erection. The animals were then killed, and their penises were cut apart.
Cost to taxpayers: $2,792,144
2. Mice’s sex drive tested after brains burned
Location: Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts
Experiments: Experimenters locked female mice into restraint devices, drilled holes into their skulls, and burned lesions into their brains. The females were then presented with urine samples from castrated and intact males, and the amount of time they spent sniffing each urine sample was recorded. In a subsequent experiment, the females were placed with males and the females’ sexual receptivity as indicated by their back-arching behavior was observed and rated. All of the mice were killed and dissected.
Cost to taxpayers: $1,505,173
3. Rats’ sex drive tested following Prozac injections and removal of ovaries
Location: Texas Woman’s University, Denton, Texas
Experiments: Experimenters injected female rats with antidepressant drugs and placed them with male hamsters. The females’ sexual receptivity, as indicated by the downward arching of their backs, was observed and measured. The experimenters then manipulated the female rats, surgically removing their ovaries and injecting sex hormones, and again observed the rats’ sexual behavior.
Cost to taxpayers: $2,024,949
4. Hamsters’ sex drive tested following brain damage
Location: University of California–Berkeley, Berkeley, California
Experiments: Experimenters cut into the skulls of female hamsters and implanted tubes into their brains and pumps into their scalps. Saline or hormones related to sexual behavior were pumped into the females’ brains, and the animals were videotaped as they were able to see, smell, and hear—but not touch—a male hamster. The sexual receptivity of the females to male hamsters was measured through their vaginal scent markings. Experimenters used brushes to stimulate the female hamsters, and the extent of sexual receptivity as indicated by their back-arching behavior was observed and rated. The animals were then killed, and their brains were dissected.
Cost to taxpayers: $1,817,502
While I’m not a supporter of the animal-rights movement, I’d probably be opposed to taxpayer funding for these evil experiments even if they were performed using Amanda Marcotte as a research subject.
Posted on | December 2, 2013 | 88 Comments
More women than ever are having same-sex experiences — or at least more women than ever are reporting it.
This week, a long-term British survey found a fourfold increase over the past two decades in women reporting at least one sapphic fling. Self-reported same-sex behavior among men, however, has remained somewhat constant. Now “the proportion of women reporting sexual experience with same-sex partners . . . exceeds that of men, at least at younger ages,” says the survey. Neither this increase nor the gender difference can be explained by a change in sexual self-identity, according to the study.
This isn’t just a British thing, either. Indiana University sex researcher Debby Herbenick tells me that her U.S. research has yielded similar results: 8 percent of men and 15 percent of women report same-sex sexual behavior in their lifetime. . . .
Why the gender difference, and why the increase?
Meredith Chivers, a sex researcher at Queen’s University, says, “Women have a greater capacity for gender-fluid sexual expression than men do. This might relate to women’s capacity to become sexually aroused by a broader range of sexual stimuli, including images of women.”
What we’re seeing here is the opportunistic quality of radical arguments. Never mind the contradictions. As long as the conclusion serves to encourage immoral perversion, logical consistency is optional.
Feminist writer Tracy Clark Flory of Salon happily discards the genetic-destiny “gay DNA” argument that was essential to the egalitarian “civil rights” claims of gay-rights activists in the 1990s. At the same time, however, she also abandons the androgyny-as-equality arguments of feminists, who insist that there are no meaningful differences between men and women. Now we must believe:
- Sexuality is culturally influenced, so that decades of social change can produce an increase in the incidence of lesbianism;
- Women are so different from men that their “gender-fluid sexual expression” makes them more susceptible to social influence.
Of course, most of the “women reporting at least one sapphic fling” are not exclusively lesbian, but would properly be classified as bisexual (at least, on a temporary or experimental basis) and, if you think about it, promoting this kind of opportunistic bisexuality is entirely acceptable to the gay community if their interest is primarily in obtaining a greater number of more attractive sex partners.
WHAT? Did I just suggest that some people may be less interested in “gay rights” as an abstract political concept than they are in increasing their chances of getting it on with a hottie? Holy cynicism, Batman!
Consider the implications: If homosexuality is so widely accepted that it is considered hateful to disapprove of it, then no one would dare take offense at being propositioned for gay sex, lest they be accused of homophobia and discrimination. Thus the childish peer-pressure claim that “Everybody’s doing it” (or at least, everyone is open to doing it, except haters) cloaks itself in “civil rights” rhetoric, and anyone who would refuse the offer of gay sex is a bigot.
Stigmatizing heterosexuality as a sort of prejudice is thus exposed as the next stage in the progress of radicalism, and if the arguments made tomorrow are inconsistent with the arguments made 10 or 15 years ago — when the claim of sexual identity as hard-wired from birth was crucial to the radical movement’s immediate goals — the only people who would call attention to this inconsistency are haters.
The gay-rights “argument” is therefore ultimately a coin-flip: Heads, they win; tails, SHUT UP, YOU THEOCRATIC HOMOPHOBES!
Posted on | December 2, 2013 | 31 Comments
Today is “Cyber Monday,” the biggest online shopping day of the year, when people who didn’t find what they wanted on Black Friday go on the Internet and order from my Amazon Associates links. This has become such a phenomenon, “60 Minutes” reported about it:
If you have ever wondered what happens after you’ve clicked and placed an order on Amazon, take a look. If there is such a thing as Santa’s workshop, this would be it.
A 1.2 million square foot distribution center, the size of more than 20 football fields, gearing up for the holiday shopping season.
There are 96 of these warehouses worldwide, what Amazon calls fulfillment centers. Tomorrow, on what is known as Cyber Monday, it’s expected that more than 300 items a second will be ordered on Amazon.
Of course, not everyone who shops at Amazon does so through the links on this blog, but lots of readers do, and one of those readers bought the “LEGO Creator Town Hall,” which has 2,766 pieces and costs $199.95. This is yet another example of those “Things You Can Buy at Amazon That I Didn’t Even Know Existed.”
Lego Creator series includes other projects like the Palace Cinema (2,196 pieces) and the Grand Emporium (2,182 pieces), so that you could build an entire Lego village. And here are a few other examples of items recently purchased via our Amazon links:
- Keurig K-Cup Home Brewer — This is the single-cup brewing system where each cup is always fresh and there’s never a mess, because the coffee comes in pre-packaged K-cups. If you order this for someone special, you may also want to order the K-Cup Carousel and a 35-cup variety sampler of coffees and teas.
- The Day The Universe Changed — A five-disk nine-hour documentary series in which BBC historian James Burke “looks at times when new knowledge or discoveries has altered that thinking and explores the cultural changes those discoveries effected.”
The vast selection at Amazon offers endless gift opportunities. Just click a link and shop around. You get free shipping on most orders over $35, and we get a small commission at no cost to you.
« go back — keep looking »