The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Is ‘Vocal Fry’ Stupider Than AutoTune?

Posted on | December 10, 2011 | 10 Comments

by Smitty

Via Slashdot, there is some nonsense social research into ‘vocal fry’:

Vocal fry, or glottalization, is a low, staccato vibration during speech, produced by a slow fluttering of the vocal chords (listen here). Since the 1960s, vocal fry has been recognized as the lowest of the three vocal registers, which also include falsetto and modal—the usual speaking register. Speakers creak differently according to their gender, although whether it is more common in males or females varies among languages. In American English, anecdotal reports suggest that the behavior is much more common in women. (In British English, the pattern is the opposite.) Historically, continual use of vocal fry was classified as part of a voice disorder that was believed to lead to vocal chord damage. However, in recent years, researchers have noted occasional use of the creak in speakers with normal voice quality.

In the new study, scientists at Long Island University (LIU) in Brookville, New York, investigated the prevalence of vocal fry in college-age women. The team recorded sentences read by 34 female speakers. Two speech-language pathologists trained to identify voice disorders evaluated the speech samples. They marked the presence or absence of vocal fry by listening to each speaker’s pitch and two qualities called jitter and shimmer—variation in pitch and volume, respectively.

You know who’s doing a lot of vocal fry these days? The Worlds Youngest Blogger. Because he’s 4.5 months old, and has not figured out how to operate his vocal chords. Also, he hasn’t learned English.

I, for one, fear that vocal fry contributes to anthopogenic global warming, and should therefore be made a federal crime, along with everything else.

Category: Culture

They Told You If You Voted for John McCain, Right-Wingers Would Threaten to Lynch Black Men …

Posted on | December 10, 2011 | 21 Comments

. . . and they were right!

OK, that’s not likely to get me a “Heh.” Professor Reynolds was featuring a Matt Welch Reason TV video about President Obama’s 2008 campaign promise of a “net spending cut,” and made a dry jest:

By the end, we may see profligate politicians hanging from lampposts.  But there’ll be a lot of bad stuff, too. . . .

This caused some sensitive soul to object that such a remark was “a little over the line,” which illustrates the intrinsic peril of edgy humor: You never know where the line is until you’ve crossed it. And political correctness has a built-in double-standard that permits the Left to get away with stuff the Right doesn’t usually even dare to try.

Speaking of standards: Since the Cain Train ran off the rails and I switched to the Santorum Express — the last train to Vanuatu, as it were — I’ve gotten another complaint about the BlogAds for “Mutually Beneficial Arrangements” and “3 Foods Never to Eat,” both of which feature bikini-babe photos.

While the BlogAds system notifies by e-mail me when we get new advertisers, I usually ignore the notifications and so never actually “approve” the ads. They just start running, and I don’t believe I’ve ever “disapproved” an ad.

Hint: They pay me money.

Back in November, I wrote about the “Arrangements” ad:

Perhaps some readers will be offended by this ad. Certainly I would not wish to be accused of endorsing such activities. On the other hand, my Bible-based belief system about such matters do not include much leeway in terms of moral relativity. There are not many shades of gray in the dark stains of human depravity.

While I sincerely wish there were such an overwhelming demand for ads here that I could be nitpicky about it — or that I could afford to hire someone and assign them to monitor ad content — that’s just not the way the cookie crumbles. We live in a fallen world, and the bikini-babe ads are a reminder of that, as are the weird occasions when Alan Grayson’s ads show up in the sidebar.

Hate me: I’m a capitalist. And here’s the video of Obama promising to cut spending:

Category: Blogging, Instapundit

VIDEO: Santorum on Hannity

Posted on | December 10, 2011 | 19 Comments

Who’s fired up? Rick Santorum’s fired up!

Some headlines from Friday. ABC News:

Rick Santorum Nabs Big Iowa Endorsement
JOHNSTON, Iowa – Rick Santorum got his biggest endorsement yet at a small hotel here: Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz.
Calling it the “best day of the campaign,” he said he is “committed to Iowa” and the campaign is beginning to “pick up that critical momentum,” despite his low poll numbers. “People have asked me, ‘Why haven’t you started to catch on?’ And I say, ‘Well you haven’t been in Iowa for the last week or so because we are definitely picking up momentum in the state of Iowa and across this country.’ We feel it coming,” Santorum told a crowd of more than 50 people at the Stoney Creek Inn here. . . .

CNN:

Santorum predicts last-minute surge
. . . During his introduction of Schultz, Santorum lamented that Iowans “take their time to make these decisions,” but he was optimistic in his predictions for the coming weeks.
“We think the timing is going to be just perfect for us to be able to catch that wave at the right time as people start to make their decisions,” Santorum said. . . .

Politico:

Rick Santorum’s Iowa endorser:
‘I tend to like the underdog’
Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz became the first Republican statewide officeholder here to endorse a candidate in the presidential primary.
“I tend to like the underdog,” said Shultz, who won his own come-from-behind campaign in 2010, on Friday. “And slow and steady wins the race.”

Des Moines Register:

Iowa Secretary of State endorses
Santorum in GOP presidential race
. . . Schultz said he is asking Iowa GOP members to give Santorum a second look in the Jan. 3 Iowa Caucuses. He said he had been wooed by other Republican candidates, but felt the Pennsylvanian was the best person to put in the White House. He described Santorum as a strong voice for the pro-life movement who had fought for welfare reform and other conservative causes.

More at Memeorandum.

RECENTLY:

 

Category: Election 2012, Fox News, Iowa, Rick Santorum, Video

Santorum ‘Planning to Win’ in Iowa

Posted on | December 9, 2011 | 10 Comments

OK, that partial quote from Friday’s blogger conference call with Rick Santorum may sound like he’s ridiculously raising expectations, when in fact he was doing the opposite. I’ll crib the full quote from Tina Korbe at Hot Air:

“We obviously are planning to win here in Iowa. We don’t have to win. We’re not like some of the other candidates who have put all their eggs in one basket. [But] we have to do well here. We have to finish in or near the money. … I’m convinced that’s happening and it will happen and I feel very confident that we’ll have a bounce coming out of Iowa that will lead to a surprise finish in New Hampshire. Then, off to the races.”

To be “in the money” in horse racing means top three, and therefore “in or near the money” means at least fourth place in Iowa. If Santorum maintains his current momentum, I think he’s actually lowballing the estimate.

While it would be wildly irresponsible to predict a Santorum victory in Iowa, he would have a dramatic impact if he finished second or third. Why? Because Santorum’s the guy that all the “experts” have written off, and he’s got a fraction of the money raised by Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney and Rick Perry.

Should Santorum finish in the top three in Iowa, at least one of those big-money candidates would suffer a disastrous humiliation, having finished behind a longshot candidate with a low-budget campaign. The most likely victim of such an embarrassment is Rick Perry.

As Bob Belvedere says, the Perry campaign absolutely reeks of desperation these days, and desperation is not attractive.

Big news: Santorum is going to Mass and eating his vegetables while on the campaign trail. Thanks to Lisa Graas for asking about that. Meanwhile, The Lonely Conservative has more:

When asked why he hasn’t caught fire as the anti-Romney “flavor of the month,” Santorum replied “I’m pretty boring — married 21 years, 7 kids, no scandals, give answers that make sense in debates.” He said that the “low expectations” the media and the pundits have for his campaign is a good thing. “Exceeding expectations is better than not, we saw that with Tim Pawlenty who finished third [in the Aug. 13 Ames Straw Poll] and he’s out.”

The point here is that, in an underdog campaign like this, you go all-out, every day, playing to win, and try not to worry too much about the odds against victory. Because if you stopped to think about the odds — when all the “experts” say it’s hopeless — you’d quit. But a lot of crazy things have already happened in this campaign, and it’s not completely insane to think that a hardline social conservative who has practically lived in Iowa since May might have a shot.

If you bought InTrade shares for Santorum to win Iowa, $100 today would pay off more than $5,000 should he pull a miracle upset Jan. 3.

I’m just sayin’ . . .

Steve Ertelt got online with the first article about the conference call:

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum said Friday that he doesn’t recall former Speaker Newt Gingrich leading the battle on pro-life issues during the time to two lawmakers served together in the House. . . .
Although Gingrich compiled a 98% pro-life voting record, Santorum said “he was not a pro-life warrior, that was not his gig.”

Keep in mind that Santorum didn’t bring up this topic. Ertelt asked the question, and Santorum gave his honest opinion. This wasn’t gratuitous Newt-bashing. NTTAWWT.

My own interest was trying to capture a sense of how the campaign “feels” out there in Iowa, so my American Spectator story began:

Rick Santorum says his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination is on pace to exceed expectations in the Iowa caucuses Jan. 3.
“We’re hitting our stride at just the right time,” the former Pennsylvania senator said Friday as he traveled across the Hawkeye State, where he has campaigned relentlessly all year. The news media have repeatedly tried to portray the GOP campaign as a two-man battle between former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and a series of “flavor of the month” rivals — the latest being former House Speaker Newt Gingrich — but Santorum said, “again, they are wrong.”

Gut hunch? They think they’re finally catching fire, but they’ve had this feeling before and were disappointed, so they don’t want to get too optimistic just yet. With 25 days to go, they’ll know for sure soon enough.

Da Tech Guy has a list of bloggers who asked questions during the call, but I was shocked to learn after the conference call ended that somehow Zilla of the Resistance didn’t get her invitation to the call. Somebody goofed.

Finally: TeresAmerica has endorsed Rick Santorum, and you know that every time a blogger endorses Rick Santorum, an angel gets his wings.

 

 

Category: Election, Iowa, Rick Santorum

So Elena Kagan Has About The Same Notion Of Integrity As Eric Holder

Posted on | December 9, 2011 | 2 Comments

by Smitty

CNSNews reports:

Internal Justice Department email communications made just days before the House of Representatives passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act show that then-Solicitor General Elena Kagan was brought into the loop as DOJ began preparing to respond to an anticipated legal complaint that Mark Levin and the Landmark Legal Foundation were planning to file against the act if the House used a procedural rule to “deem” the bill passed even if members never directly voted on it.
In another internal DOJ email communication that same week, Kagan alerted the chief of DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel to the constitutional argument that a former U.S. Appeals Court judge was making against the use of this rule.

Read the whole thing, which goes on to describe redacted emails and enough detail to really make you wonder whether that woman can tell the difference between the Constitution and a horoscope.

Via Michelle Malkin, we have Eric Holder attempting to describe the Obama Administration of lying:I guess that, in the Postmodern emotional realm in which Obama and his chums operate, it’s only lying if you felt naughty while you did it, notwithstanding sex, where naughtiness is considered erotic.

I hope that Kagan understands that ObamaCare is going to dog the rest of her professional life, and that her honorable course is to retire quietly.

Category: Corruption, Democrats, Eric Holder, Health Care, Politics, Supreme Court

BREAKING: Team Romney Snubs Conservative Media in Anti-Newt Call UPDATE: Team Romney Denies

Posted on | December 9, 2011 | 46 Comments

UPDATE (8:50 p.m. ET): Both Da Tech Guy and Hot Air have received e-mails from the Romney campaign denying that there was any bias in the operation of the conference call. However, I have received an e-mail from Matt Lewis saying he sticks by his story.

So: Accusation or denial — which do you believe?

** PREVIOUSLY (3:21 p.m. ET) **

Mitt Romney’s campaign organized a media conference call Thursday on which two Romney surrogates — Missouri Sen. Jim Talent and New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu — took turns bashing Newt Gingrich.

Matt Lewis at Daily Caller points out that although they took questions from left-wing outfits like Talking Points Memo and Mother Jones, the Romneyites couldn’t find time for any conservative media.

UPDATE: Just to give you a small sample of the many mainstream media headlines that conference call generated:

Romney seeks high ground
as allies attack Gingrich
— Associated Press

Newt’s nastiness comes back to haunt him
— Washington Post

First Thoughts: Newt’s moment of truth
— MSNBC

And I emphasize that this is a small sample — a teaspoon from the ocean — of anti-Gingrich coverage generated by that phone call, in which it seems a “No Conservatives Need Ask Questions” policy was enforced.

While I have zero love for Gingrich, there are ways to fight that are fair and honorable, and ways that are unfair and dishonorable. Team Romney did themselves no favors by their choice of weapons and tactics.

UPDATE II: Da Tech Guy says this isn’t going to win Mittens no love, and Ed Morrissey — also not invited to the conference call — has this video in which Romney lays the knife into Newt’s spleen:

You know who’s smart to stay out of this ugly infighting among Republicans? The next President of the United States, that’s who!

UPDATE III: Alana Goodman at Commentary:

Something that may resonate with Iowa Tea Partiers even more than the Romney ad is this devastating Rand Paul column in the Des Moines Register attacking Gingrich as a phony conservative “establishment” figure.

Ron Paul fans will want to frame Goodman’s post –probably the only time you’ll see favorable notice for someone named “Paul” at Commentary.

Category: Election 2012, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich

Holder Delenda Est, Rep. Adams Edition

Posted on | December 9, 2011 | 12 Comments

by Smitty

Eric Holder gives worms a bad name. Watch as the words ‘yes’ and ‘no’ become too simple, transparent, and understandable for him. Worst. Attorney. General. Ever.

via The Shark Tank

A late Friday resignation? That would be the most useful thing Holder has done, at least during this administration.

Category: Democrats, Eric Holder

The National Popular Vote Is A Fine Way To Ferret Out Progressive Idiots

Posted on | December 9, 2011 | 39 Comments

by Smitty

Senator Mitch McConnell swings by Heritage for a quick interview on current topics.

Screw these National Popular Vote fools. McConnell points out that the Electoral College, while perhaps not perfect, is the Constitutional mechanism in place. It provides a final sanity check. In the Information Age, where there is an increasing gut feeling that the Democrat Party is as capable of participating honestly elections as it is capable of getting a budget passed in the Senate, that Electoral College looks increasingly prescient.

The same people that tell you that establishing the validity of a vote via a photo ID is raaaaacism are trying to argue that a historically working system, the Electoral College, must be replaced by something with fewer checks for fraud. And the ‘arguably’ best example they’ve got of why this recreational change should be rammed through, Saint Albert of Gore in 2000, is a bloated pile of Nobel/Academy/Scientific fraud.

And the means employed to enact the NPV, a state-level end-around of Article V of the Constitution, further underscores the doublethink involved in the discussion. Do this correctly, or do it not at all.

Furthermore, look at who wants it. If the value of an idea isn’t clearly good or bad, then check its supporters. When you look at the States that have bought this NPV line of hooey, you note that they are all Blue. This is just another brick in the wall of the mausoleum of our Republic. The moocher States are setting out to suck more from the producer States.

Rather than pass this, we need to let the SCOTUS know on no uncertain terms that ObamaCare must go, and start rolling back every false, crypto-Marxist, anti-liberty, Progressive piece of poo passed into law in the last century. Anyone in favor of NPV is either on the wrong side or hasn’t thought it through fully. And that’s how I feel about NPV.


I don’t agree entirely that this election is about Barack Obama himself. #OccupyResoluteDesk is the culminating point of the Progressive project. We could maintain this general course toward a bureaucratic state, where liberty is a fond memory, you pick your patron early and find your way to claw out some existence within the body of Leviathan.

Or, as I think is going to occur, we will review history outside of what the Media Overlords want us to hear, realize we’ve been rooked, and painfully set about improving matters. It won’t happen quickly. Progressives have counter-attacked liberty successfully in Ohio, and are trying in Wisconsin. But liberty and God are on the side of Americans, and not these Union thugs.

Update: linked at Legal Insurrection.

Category: Barack Obama, Democrats
« go back — keep looking »

    About

    This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

    Subscribe to our feed

    Search

    Admin