The Republican debate was scheduled first. (And it's an important one, at the Reagan Library, with Rick Perry's first appearance in a debate.) Obama swiftly relocating his personal speech bubble into the media space bubble currently occupied by his GOP challengers. But following the Emily Mills rule of political bocce ball, the GOP media bubble must honor the Obama bubble and bounce out of the way (because the second-arriving bubble has the power to oust the first bubble, especially when the incoming bubble come in from the left).
But the President can't just barge into Congress whenever he wants. (Ever heard of the notion of separate co-equal branches of government?) He's got to ask, and he's got to ask John Boehner, and Boehner says no. But not because of the debate. Oh, no no no. Because the House isn't reconvening until the following day and because it's a lot of work setting up the security for a presidential visit.
I just have 2 more questions:
1. If all the other networks aired the Obama speech, do you think fewer people would watch the debate (assuming MSNBC and CNBC would stick to their plan and show the debate) or do you think more people would watch? That is, if Obama preempted the regular shows people like, they might flip over to the debate. How many of the people who want to watch the debate would pick an Obama speech instead?
2. Should Obama be criticized just for doing a Joint Session of Congress, quite aside from the debate? This proposal isn't going to amount to anything, is it? It's political grandstanding. There's something dreadful about locking all the members of Congress in place where they're supposed to sit silently — God forbid anyone yells "you lie!" or whatever — or cheer and laud the President. Frankly, I don't think it's presidential, because — in America — we have 3 branches of government, and the President's forays into the Capitol should be rare, dignified rituals of a nonpartisan nature.
August 31, 2011
Honor my personal space bubble!
David Blaska notes a hilarious assertion by Isthmus blogger Emily Mills (who still owes me an apology). Mills, in an effort to spin the Wisconsin Supreme Court "chokehold" incident, says:
Yes, everyone agrees that Bradley was moving toward Prosser.... And if I were moving toward someone, asking them to leave a room, I would also expect them to move. You don't have to be "charging" someone to expect that. It's called a personal space bubble - most people reflexively honor it.So... when you're standing there in your personal space bubble, and I decide to swiftly relocate my personal space bubble into the place currently occupied by your bubble, you need to move your bubble? I'm picturing something like bocce ball, but more bouncy. There's honor for you!
Fighting the revolution in Iran with squirt guns.
Innocent fun or serious political threat?
After heeding a call on Facebook, a group of nearly 800 young men and women were among those who showed up at the park....Facebook... flash mobs... is it just fun and games? Look at London. In Iran, perhaps the regime is threatened by something that is only fun and games. But now that the authorities have cracked down, it's become political... and politicizing to the young people — the under-30s — who make up 35% of the population.
They chased strangers around a giant water fountain, screaming and laughing as they splashed each other with water from toy guns, bottles and plastic bags.
"We had a blast. It was a rare chance for boys and girls to hang out in a public place and have fun," said Shaghayegh...
Farzan, a 22-year-old university student who was one of the organizers of the Tehran water war, says police tracked him down through Facebook and raided his house in the middle of the night. He was arrested, held for three days and beaten up, he says.Didn't the American revolution begin with a snowball fight?
Young Iranians say although the event started out as innocent fun, it has now turned political. They are vowing to challenge them with more events.
A nationwide water war is scheduled for Friday, after the end of the fasting month of Ramadan.
EcoKat backlash.
What's the matter with Kansas? (Via Instapundit.)
Sorry, I was totally distracted by the cat head. But that's Willie the Wildcat, which is apparently the school's regular sports mascot, their Bucky Badger, if you will. EcoKat is the lady: "played by a K-State student who auditioned for the role... outfitted in a costume made of 90 percent repurposed materials." They say her outfit is "sustainable." But it is not sustainable! Because people will not stand for it.... or wait. Is this a trick? So bad it's good? So bad it gets people to tweet and blog about how bad it is? Kind of like the Burger King king? But the Burger King king is passé. He's ousted. Dethroned. Get with it Kansas! Creepily bad is not somehow cool. Not anymore.
Kansas State University recently introduced EcoKat, a special mascot to promote environmental causes -- and the fans are not thrilled. The Kansas City Star reported that, on Twitter, the #ecokat hashtag suggests considerable dislike, and that a #fakeecokat has also emerged on Twitter. Among recent tweets: "#EcoKat makes me want to leave my porch light on 24hours and drive two blocks to the gas station for a pack of gum," "EcoKat: The worst idea since the Power Towel" and from a University of Kansas fan "MY GOD. What is #kstate thinking? And you ask why you get made fun of ... #EcoKat. Please never change."Oh, how bad can it be? Aaaah!
Sorry, I was totally distracted by the cat head. But that's Willie the Wildcat, which is apparently the school's regular sports mascot, their Bucky Badger, if you will. EcoKat is the lady: "played by a K-State student who auditioned for the role... outfitted in a costume made of 90 percent repurposed materials." They say her outfit is "sustainable." But it is not sustainable! Because people will not stand for it.... or wait. Is this a trick? So bad it's good? So bad it gets people to tweet and blog about how bad it is? Kind of like the Burger King king? But the Burger King king is passé. He's ousted. Dethroned. Get with it Kansas! Creepily bad is not somehow cool. Not anymore.
"Sarah Palin Appearance at Tea Party Rally in Iowa 'No Longer Confirmed.'"
That seems to suggest — am I reading too much into it? — that she had intended to declare her candidacy for President has changed her mind — or is in the process of changing her mind — due to the meteoric rise of Rick Perry.
"In his two weeks as a presidential candidate, Rick Perry has done something that neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney could do..."
"... wake up the left."
Says Politico.
From my perspective here in Wisconsin, I had not noticed that the left was asleep. Indeed, I've noticed that it could use some sleep. A long, restful, sanity-restoring snooze. In a bed, not on a marble floor.
Says Politico.
From my perspective here in Wisconsin, I had not noticed that the left was asleep. Indeed, I've noticed that it could use some sleep. A long, restful, sanity-restoring snooze. In a bed, not on a marble floor.
Don't call me Shirley/Buddy.
The file on the police investigation of the Wisconsin Supreme Court "chokehold" incident contains accounts of 2 incidents in which someone used a too-familiar name and the immediate consequence was an inappropriate touching. In putting these 2 accounts together here, I don't mean to vouch for their truth. I simply want to juxtapose them for the purpose of examining their similarity.
First is the "chokehold" incident itself, as described by Justice Ann Walsh Bradley (page 34): Justice Bradley said when she approached Justice Prosser, she said to him, "Buddy, get out of my office." Justice Bradley explained that the sobriquet "Buddy" put her "in control" and Justice Prosser "in the diminutive." By "in the diminutive," Bradley meant something like making him seem small or putting him in the state "of being familiarly known, lovable, pitiable, or contemptible." There were accompanying gestures from Bradley, and, as we know by now, Prosser proceeded to put his hands around her neck.
In the second incident, from 2008 (page 64), Justice Gableman "remembers making a comment to the chief justice in a joking manner and used her first name, Shirley, during this comment towards her."
In the first instance, the person who used the name did so with an intent to express disrespect, and the named person is the one who does the touching. In the second instance, the named person's reaction isn't even described. We don't know what the Chief Justice thought of Justice Gableman calling her "Shirley." (It's simply her first name, not a diminutive.) It is Justice Bradley who imposed the interpretation of disrespect and who inflicted retribution (in this story, as told by Gableman, whose veracity remains in issue).
So we have 2 stories depicting Justice Bradley as having a heightened sensitivity to the wounding effect of an over-familiar form of address. In one, she deliberately uses a hostile epithet to diminish and control someone who is already the target of her anger. In the other, someone becomes the target of her anger after he uses someone's real name in what seems to have been a reasonably friendly if awkward effort at conversation.
First is the "chokehold" incident itself, as described by Justice Ann Walsh Bradley (page 34): Justice Bradley said when she approached Justice Prosser, she said to him, "Buddy, get out of my office." Justice Bradley explained that the sobriquet "Buddy" put her "in control" and Justice Prosser "in the diminutive." By "in the diminutive," Bradley meant something like making him seem small or putting him in the state "of being familiarly known, lovable, pitiable, or contemptible." There were accompanying gestures from Bradley, and, as we know by now, Prosser proceeded to put his hands around her neck.
In the second incident, from 2008 (page 64), Justice Gableman "remembers making a comment to the chief justice in a joking manner and used her first name, Shirley, during this comment towards her."
Justice Gableman said right after he said the chief justice's first name, Justice Bradley came over to him, hit him on the back of the head and told him that he needed to show respect to the chief. Justice Gableman said that he believed Justice Bradley was not joking because nobody was laughing at the time. Justice Gableman said he has not told anyone about that incident and has not talked about that incident with anyone, including Justice Bradley, after it happened.In both instances, a name is used and it's Justice Bradley who regards the name as disrespectful. In both instances, the name immediately precedes a regrettable touching. In one instance, Justice Bradley is the person who says the name and receives the regrettable touching, and in the other, she hears the name and performs the regrettable touching.
In the first instance, the person who used the name did so with an intent to express disrespect, and the named person is the one who does the touching. In the second instance, the named person's reaction isn't even described. We don't know what the Chief Justice thought of Justice Gableman calling her "Shirley." (It's simply her first name, not a diminutive.) It is Justice Bradley who imposed the interpretation of disrespect and who inflicted retribution (in this story, as told by Gableman, whose veracity remains in issue).
So we have 2 stories depicting Justice Bradley as having a heightened sensitivity to the wounding effect of an over-familiar form of address. In one, she deliberately uses a hostile epithet to diminish and control someone who is already the target of her anger. In the other, someone becomes the target of her anger after he uses someone's real name in what seems to have been a reasonably friendly if awkward effort at conversation.
Analogizing the Wisconsin Supreme Court "chokehold" incident to... basketball.
This is email from a reader, which I am posting in full, without additional comment, except to say that it's a theory and I don't agree with every aspect of this theory, nor do I understand whether the statements made about the rules of basketball are entirely correct. This is a framework for discussion, presented in that spirit. (If you need more background on the incident, click the Wisconsin Supreme Court tag and scroll.)
A reader writes:
A reader writes:
I admire your blog and, as a distinctly separate matter, some evident personal traits. You are willing to research, document and state clearly, the conclusions you draw from those findings. That, though important, is secondary to your tenacity. I have read every post on the Prosser-Bradley Affair known as the "Choke-Hold Incident" and until recently, every comment made to each. It is evident by the content of your posts that you have intentionally avoided a "post simply to post" redundancy, keeping it fresh by adding newly found material and incorporating new conclusions in their proper place, to include a summary and time-line when it became appropriate.
Still, even with such praise, I write with some objections because I believe that this issue is of major importance, not just for the city or your state but nationally, and this will only become obvious in time, when looking back on it. The principle reason that I have become reluctant to read every comment is not because of the sheer number of contributions, but their repetition and the rather narrow framework within which the issue has fallen, in the matter as it is addressed.
Perhaps I should tell you why I do not like or follow sports.
"you cannot ride bikes in NYC. too many fatalities every year even when you follow the rules"
Comment on a very sad story of the death of a 29-year-old woman.
Deceptive Daily News headline: "Muslims, police scuffle at Rye Playland over amusement park's head scarf ban."
Did Rye Playland have a head scarf ban?
One woman, Entisai Ali, began arguing with cops over the amusement park's head scarf, or hijab, rule, said Dena Meawad, 18, of Bay Ridge, Brooklyn.What is the actual rule? No hats? The ban was "not Muslim specific," so what was it exactly? If you read far enough into the article, you finally get to this:
The ban, which is not Muslim specific, was imposed about 3 years ago mostly to prevent hats from falling onto the tracks of roller coasters and other rides, park officials said.
Peter Tartaglia, deputy commissioner of Westchester County Parks, said the Muslim American Society of New York was warned in advance of the rule barring head scarves on rides for safety reasons.The rule barring head scarves? That paraphrase dissserves Tartaglia, but at least they finally give us a direct quote:
"Part of our rules and regulations, which we painstakingly told them over and over again, is that certain rides you cannot wear any sort of headgear," Tartaglia said. "It's a safety issue for us on rides, it could become a projectile."You cannot wear any sort of headgear...
Many Muslims were given refunds as they left the park disappointed.I'd say they were the opposite of an easy target. It was, in fact, very difficult to hold them to a rule that applies to everyone. They demanded a special exception, caused a scene when the didn't get it, extracted refunds, and brought some terrible press to the park and the police.
"In this heightened state of Islamaphobia, a woman wearing a hajib is an easy target these days," said Zead Ramadan, president of the Council on American-Islamic Relations - New York.
"But for the incandescent aficionados, fluorescent lights tend to be associated with morgues, prisons and tenement hallways."
Cultural historian Christopher Cook says they have a "'cold creepiness' and make you feel like you're being interrogated."
An apt feeling, conveying the message of government coercion. But they'll get used to it, even the sensitive ones.
From "At Home: A Short History of Private Life," by Bill Bryson (page 112):
An apt feeling, conveying the message of government coercion. But they'll get used to it, even the sensitive ones.
From "At Home: A Short History of Private Life," by Bill Bryson (page 112):
We forget just how painfully dim the world was before electricity. A candle—a good candle—provides barely a hundredth of the illumination of a single 100-watt lightbulb. Open your refrigerator door and you summon forth more light than the total amount enjoyed by most households in the eighteenth century. The world at night for much of history was a very dark place indeed.The world at night for much of history was a very dark place indeed. And history extends into the future, where it may not be so dark, but it is cold and creepy.
Occasionally we can see into the dimness, as it were, when we find descriptions of what was considered sumptuous, as when a guest at a Virginia plantation, Nomini Hall, marveled in his diary how “luminous and splendid” the dining room was during a banquet because seven candles were burning—four on the table and three elsewhere in the room. To him this was a blaze of light. At about the same time, across the ocean in England, a gifted amateur artist named John Harden left a charming set of drawings showing family life at his home, Brathay Hall in Westmorland. What is striking is how little illumination the family expected or required. A typical drawing shows four members sitting companionably at a table sewing or reading by the light of a single candle, and there is no sense of hardship or deprivation, and certainly no sign of the desperate postures of people trying to get a tiny bit of light to fall more productively on a page or piece of embroidery. A Rembrandt drawing, Student at a Table by Candlelight, is actually much closer to the reality. It shows a youth sitting at a table, all but lost in a depth of shadow and gloom that a single candle on the wall beside him cannot begin to penetrate. Yet he has a newspaper. The fact is that people put up with dim evenings because they knew no other kind.
August 30, 2011
"A green alternative to cremation... dissolving the body in heated alkaline water."
"Body tissue is dissolved and the liquid poured into the municipal water system. Mr Sullivan, a biochemist by training, says tests have proven the effluent is sterile and contains no DNA, and poses no environmental risk. The bones are then removed from the unit and processed in a 'cremulator,' the same machine that is used to crush bone fragments following cremation into ash. Metals including mercury and artificial joints and implants are safely recovered."
Or... try Promession:
Here's my question: Isn't old-fashioned burial greener? It's carbon sequestration, right?
Or... try Promession:
Coffins are fed in one end [of a machine], and the body removed from the coffin within the unit and then treated with liquid nitrogen.And the whole thing is supposed to become soil fairly quickly.
The body is then vibrated until the body fragments, after which the remains are dried and refined further, and then passed through filters to remove metals, including dental amalgam. The remains are then poured into a square biodegradable coffin, again automatically, for shallow burial.
Here's my question: Isn't old-fashioned burial greener? It's carbon sequestration, right?
"I never imagined it would be this bad... I'm not a bad man. I'm really not."
"We had no intention of stealing TVs, anything that was of value to them, real value. I just seen a couple bottles of liquor there and figured they wouldn't miss it... I didn't know [the cameras] were rolling, so I was caught red handed... I never had no felonies, got a six-year-old daughter I'm taking care of by myself. I'd be pissed if someone came in my house and took some liquor, too... I apologize. I shouldn't have snatched the liquor. I didn't think it was gonna be this big of a deal, really. It's just bottles of liquor, but I'll help you rebuild your house Ms. Robinson. I really want to apologize."
Man — caught on camera looting a house wrecked by a Hurricane Irene tornado — now, on camera again, cries his regrets.
IN THE COMMENTS: pbAndjFellowRepublican said:
Man — caught on camera looting a house wrecked by a Hurricane Irene tornado — now, on camera again, cries his regrets.
IN THE COMMENTS: pbAndjFellowRepublican said:
That Robinson house tried to seduce him.
"Break into my house in the middle of the night and it's nightie night."
Milwaukee State Journal readers react to a news story about a Waukesha County prosecutor delaying making a decision whether to charge a man who shot a home intruder to death.
I favor the bill myself, because people who are considering breaking into a house shouldn't have a complicated set of risk/benefit factors to weigh. It should be really clear.
The incident... will likely prompt more debate about the status of Wisconsin's self-defense law and efforts to broaden it to include the so-called castle doctrine.Judging from the debate in the comments, the people favor the pending bill, which "would extend a presumption of reasonableness to anyone using deadly force against people unlawfully in their residence, whether they were armed or threatening or not."
I favor the bill myself, because people who are considering breaking into a house shouldn't have a complicated set of risk/benefit factors to weigh. It should be really clear.
Greta Van Susteren asks if anyone is demanding that Justices Prosser and Bradley step down.
"Are any of the newspaper asking for them to step down? People have very serious disputes and their whole lives depend on decisions on the Supreme Court, and this isn't fair to the people. Are newspaper editors saying they got to go?"
The answer from her guest, Jason Stein of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
By the way, I'm hearing a rumor that Justice Crooks might resign. I don't know what that's about, but I was just reading about the 1995 election that originally brought Justice Bradley to the court. She defeated none other than Patrick Crooks in that election, and Crooks (who later won election, in 1996), was the conservative in the race, with the backing of Gov. Tommy Thompson and many Republicans. Bradley had the liberal backing, including the AFL-CIO. Both candidates portrayed themselves as "strict constructionists," and Bradley emphasized judicial independence and the importance of keeping the judiciary above politics. Crooks criticized her for her unwillingness to talk about how she would decide even cases that had been decided in the past. (Sorry for the absence of links there. I'm reading old newspaper articles, and they are not up on line.)
Crooks — who now votes in a bloc with Chief Justice Abrahamson and Justice Bradley, reaching liberal outcomes — called himself "the conservative for the court." When Bradley cited judicial ethics as her reason for refusing to address the issues, he said, after he lost: "I think it's unfortunate we didn't have a chance to show there was a clear, ideological difference between the two of us... It's important for the public to have a sense of candidates' judicial philosophy and how they go about making decisions." Bradley, by contrast, said she won because she refrained from labeling herself and Crooks did not. She said: "I think people ended up not wanting those kinds of conservative labels in a Supreme Court race... You have to be careful not to politicize the court."
A mere 3 years after joining the court, in 1999, Crooks considered resigning. He told the editorial board of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that the problem was the “way Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson is running the court.... abusing her position by micromanaging the court system, making unilateral decisions on administrative matters that should come to the full court, and jeopardizing the court’s neutrality by awarding grants to groups with lobbyists and social agendas."
Crooks, you may remember, was the only justice who was not present for the "chokehold" incident. He had gone home for the day. On another occasion — in 2008, when Justice Bradley allegedly hit Justice Gableman in the head for calling the Chief "Shirley" — Crooks was — allegedly — reading the horoscopes. Crooks was born May 16, 1938. That makes him a Taurus. It says here: "Can you take the day off? Now is the perfect time to do just that. If you’re locked in for some level of responsibility, you can still make the most of your freewheeling energy by creating a party atmosphere." So... no announcement today, probably.
ADDED: From the investigative file (and relevant to Crooks's attitude toward the recent incident):
The answer from her guest, Jason Stein of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
You are right this is sort of funny, but no joke. One thing that I've heard the time when this all came out Governor Walker talked about the possibility of having an appointed rather than elected court. And that didn't go anywhere. It didn't seem like that proposal -- seems like it would be dead on arrival in our legislature. But certainly there's been a number of people saying, look, this can't go on. Something has got to change.Total failure to answer the question!
By the way, I'm hearing a rumor that Justice Crooks might resign. I don't know what that's about, but I was just reading about the 1995 election that originally brought Justice Bradley to the court. She defeated none other than Patrick Crooks in that election, and Crooks (who later won election, in 1996), was the conservative in the race, with the backing of Gov. Tommy Thompson and many Republicans. Bradley had the liberal backing, including the AFL-CIO. Both candidates portrayed themselves as "strict constructionists," and Bradley emphasized judicial independence and the importance of keeping the judiciary above politics. Crooks criticized her for her unwillingness to talk about how she would decide even cases that had been decided in the past. (Sorry for the absence of links there. I'm reading old newspaper articles, and they are not up on line.)
Crooks — who now votes in a bloc with Chief Justice Abrahamson and Justice Bradley, reaching liberal outcomes — called himself "the conservative for the court." When Bradley cited judicial ethics as her reason for refusing to address the issues, he said, after he lost: "I think it's unfortunate we didn't have a chance to show there was a clear, ideological difference between the two of us... It's important for the public to have a sense of candidates' judicial philosophy and how they go about making decisions." Bradley, by contrast, said she won because she refrained from labeling herself and Crooks did not. She said: "I think people ended up not wanting those kinds of conservative labels in a Supreme Court race... You have to be careful not to politicize the court."
A mere 3 years after joining the court, in 1999, Crooks considered resigning. He told the editorial board of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that the problem was the “way Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson is running the court.... abusing her position by micromanaging the court system, making unilateral decisions on administrative matters that should come to the full court, and jeopardizing the court’s neutrality by awarding grants to groups with lobbyists and social agendas."
Crooks, you may remember, was the only justice who was not present for the "chokehold" incident. He had gone home for the day. On another occasion — in 2008, when Justice Bradley allegedly hit Justice Gableman in the head for calling the Chief "Shirley" — Crooks was — allegedly — reading the horoscopes. Crooks was born May 16, 1938. That makes him a Taurus. It says here: "Can you take the day off? Now is the perfect time to do just that. If you’re locked in for some level of responsibility, you can still make the most of your freewheeling energy by creating a party atmosphere." So... no announcement today, probably.
ADDED: From the investigative file (and relevant to Crooks's attitude toward the recent incident):
Justice Crooks said early in his tenure as Supreme Court Justice, he recalls a meeting in which Justice Prosser had called him a "viper" in an aggressive manner. Justice Crooks believed it was sometime around the fall of 1999 when Chief Justice Abrahamson was running for re-election for supreme court. Justice Crooks said he was not supporting her re-election at the time, and Justice Prosser was. It was during a meeting with the other Justices that Justice Crooks stated he was not going to support the Chief Justice's re-election. Justice Prosser had stood up and aggressively called him a "viper" during that meeting because he was not supporting the Chief Justice. Justice Crooks recalled Justice Prosser had walked out of the room, and slammed the door hard enough to cause the glass to vibrate. Justice Crooks said he had never forgotten that incident, and believes since then things have been either just as aggressive from Justice Prosser, and in some cases they have escalated.
Romney having trouble raising money from Jewish donors who say they prefer "the Jewish candidate" — Michele Bachmann.
What's going on here? Republican fund raisers are exploiting Obama's weak support for Israel, but Mitt Romney is not doing so well with Jewish donors. If these donors aren't responding to Romney, and if they are indeed calling Bachmann "the Jewish candidate," are they really making a mistake, as the NY Post puts it, not realizing that she's Christian? I doubt it! Bachmann flaunts her Christianity, and her critics critique her for it. And a mere mistake could simply be corrected.
The NY Post article goes on to say:
What might have motivated the Romney people to get the idea out there that Michele Bachmann is really Jewish? It could be to generate unease among voters who have some anti-Semitism.Think of the rumor that Barack Obama is really Muslim. The Romney people should not want people to think they meant to ignite that kind of suspicion about Bachmann. Oddly, Romney himself has to deal with the antagonism toward his religion — the religion he actually follows. You'd think his campaign folk would be more sensitive. It's almost as if they're trying to generate a rumor that Bachmann's not Christian at all to deal with his problem with some people thinking Mormons aren't Christian enough (or at all).
But what was the point of saying that the prospective donors are mistaken about such a basic fact about Bachmann? If you're trying to warm people up to your candidate, you don't normally insult them!
UPDATE: I'm told this proves she's not Jewish:
[S]ome in Romney's camp have been wondering whether Bachmann and her allies are pushing the "Jewish" rumor to help their own fund-raising, sources said.Some! The dreaded some! Sources said. Maybe some in Romney's camp are pushing the Jewish rumor rumor to to help their own fund-raising!
The NY Post article goes on to say:
[Bachmann] has enjoyed strong popularity among Jewish voters and often talks about her stay on a kibbutz during the summer of 1974, when she was a teenager.
In a speech to the American Israel Political Action Committee last year, Bachmann recalled being guarded by soldiers while working on the kibbutz.I think if any of these donors are calling Michele Bachmann "the Jewish candidate" they mean it in the figurative and satirical sense that Toni Morrison used when she called Bill Clinton the first black President.
"While we were working, the soldiers were walking around looking for land mines," she said. "I really learned a lot in Israel."
She went on to say, "I am a Christian, but I consider my heritage Jewish, because it is the foundation, the roots of my faith as a Christian."
Bachmann also told an AIPAC gathering earlier this year that she and her family make sure each year to attend at least one Jewish-theme play or movie.
People misunderstood that phrase. I was deploring the way in which President Clinton was being treated, vis-à-vis the sex scandal that was surrounding him. I said he was being treated like a black on the street, already guilty, already a perp. I have no idea what his real instincts are, in terms of race.There's a somewhat common phrase "honorary jew." It's noted in the Urban Dictionary. It turns up over 20,000 Google hits, and, on the first page, we see discussion of whether Sarah Palin and, elsewhere, Hillary Clinton should be counted as "honorary Jews." Here's a cute blog post about Sarah Palin, noting 10 reasons why Palin counts as a Jew. You get the idea. The big one is support for Israel.
What might have motivated the Romney people to get the idea out there that Michele Bachmann is really Jewish? It could be to generate unease among voters who have some anti-Semitism.Think of the rumor that Barack Obama is really Muslim. The Romney people should not want people to think they meant to ignite that kind of suspicion about Bachmann. Oddly, Romney himself has to deal with the antagonism toward his religion — the religion he actually follows. You'd think his campaign folk would be more sensitive. It's almost as if they're trying to generate a rumor that Bachmann's not Christian at all to deal with his problem with some people thinking Mormons aren't Christian enough (or at all).
But what was the point of saying that the prospective donors are mistaken about such a basic fact about Bachmann? If you're trying to warm people up to your candidate, you don't normally insult them!
UPDATE: I'm told this proves she's not Jewish:
"Top stylists from New York to Hollywood told me their liberal clients are guiltily requesting the Bachmann Look."
Forget politics! They love her hair:
(Remember when Carly Fiorina said Barbara Boxer's hair was "so yesterday"?)
"A lot of clients have asked for Sarah Palin hair in the past four years, and now, it's Bachmann," says Andi Scarbrough of Byu-ty Hair Therapy in L.A. "Politicians are the new celebrities, because they're real. They didn't just spring up out of the red carpet."Having the best hair is an important step. If you're betting on who will win in politics, you'll come out ahead, I think, if you always pick the candidate with the best hair. Male or female. But with female candidates, the hair can be a distraction if it's not resolved into a predictably sensible yet pretty style.
However, she admits, "I have women who come in with photos with the face cut out sometimes."
"She has great coppery color that warms her up a little bit," said Angelo David at his E. 43rdSt. salon, who confirmed a spike in copycat requests for the candidate's look. "Not everybody wants to look like Kim Kardashian."
Bachmann's style "is safe, but not soccer mom. It's sexy," said Alma Qeraxhiu at her AlmaG Salon and Spa on E. 21st. St.
"I have found it a little bit amazing how many women have been coming in asking for her hair style, even though they don't agree with her politics."
(Remember when Carly Fiorina said Barbara Boxer's hair was "so yesterday"?)
August 29, 2011
At the Glittering Water Café...
... you can sparkle all night.
ADDED: Chip Ahoy adds a Rocky touch...
... a double Rocky touch, right? I see 2 pop culture references.
The special prosecutor said no criminal charges, but what will the Wisconsin Judicial Commission do about the "chokehold" incident?
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel examines the case:
But they aren't going to be removed. I predict a reprimand or at most censure. Still, I must say, that if the tables were turned and the liberal justice had done what Prosser did and the conservative justice had done what Bradley did, there would be cries for removing the justice who did what Bradley did. Look at the investigative file. Picture the Wisconsin protesters picking through that in search of material to make the strongest case against the justice who did what Bradley did. And if the Democratic party controlled the legislature? The protesters would be screaming for impeachment.
But the conservatives are mostly giving Bradley a pass. As long as Prosser's going to be okay, let's just forget about it. That means it paid off to frame a completely unfair charge against Prosser and demonize him in the press, which is exactly what damaged public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Who did that? Who leaked the story to the politically partisan journalist, Bill Lueders? Surely, the judicial commission is going to tell us. It may not have been relevant to the question whether there should be a criminal prosecution — which would explain why the police investigative file doesn't tell us. But it's obviously central to the inquiry into judicial ethics.
The judicial commission is separately investigating the case for violations of the state's code of ethics for judges. That code says that a judge "shall avoid impropriety" and "shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary."Clearly, leaking the story — and leaking it in a deceptive form — was a decision to diminish public confidence in the court. (You might want to question whether the code should say that: What if the court doesn't deserve public confidence in its integrity and impartiality? Are the judges compelled to keep quiet about it?)
If the judicial commission found any wrongdoing, the case would go first to a three-judge panel and then to the Supreme Court to consider.... If the Supreme Court finds misconduct in a judicial ethics case, it can reprimand, censure, suspend or remove a judge.So, wouldn't Prosser and Bradley recuse themselves? That would leave a 3-2 conservative majority on the court. If the commission found wrongdoing by both Bradley and Prosser, then that majority could attempt to display neutrality by voting to remove both justices. I'm partly serious, but mainly being amusing. You do see what is amusing about portraying that as neutral-looking. Governor Scott Walker would have the power to make 2 appointments. From a political perspective, losing Prosser would put conservatives in a better position. They'd have a new justice, without the baggage, and he/she would be smart, strong, and relatively young. And, of course, Bradley would be replaced by a smart, strong, relatively young justice too. Both new justices would naturally be principled conservatives with excellent credentials.
But they aren't going to be removed. I predict a reprimand or at most censure. Still, I must say, that if the tables were turned and the liberal justice had done what Prosser did and the conservative justice had done what Bradley did, there would be cries for removing the justice who did what Bradley did. Look at the investigative file. Picture the Wisconsin protesters picking through that in search of material to make the strongest case against the justice who did what Bradley did. And if the Democratic party controlled the legislature? The protesters would be screaming for impeachment.
But the conservatives are mostly giving Bradley a pass. As long as Prosser's going to be okay, let's just forget about it. That means it paid off to frame a completely unfair charge against Prosser and demonize him in the press, which is exactly what damaged public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Who did that? Who leaked the story to the politically partisan journalist, Bill Lueders? Surely, the judicial commission is going to tell us. It may not have been relevant to the question whether there should be a criminal prosecution — which would explain why the police investigative file doesn't tell us. But it's obviously central to the inquiry into judicial ethics.
"Americans view the computer industry the most positively and the federal government the least positively..."
"... when asked to rate 25 business and industry sectors. All five of the top-rated sectors this year are related to either computers or food."
Food and computers, baby! We love that stuff!
The federal government fares worst, but no other government entity was on the list. Anyway, this is interesting, showing the decline of appreciation for the federal government over the last 8 years:
There's a steady decline in the Bush years. Things perk up when Obama steps in, but plummet faster than under Bush.
Food and computers, baby! We love that stuff!
The federal government fares worst, but no other government entity was on the list. Anyway, this is interesting, showing the decline of appreciation for the federal government over the last 8 years:
There's a steady decline in the Bush years. Things perk up when Obama steps in, but plummet faster than under Bush.
"'Ugliness' is not a personal trait that many people choose to embrace..."
"... those whom we classify as protected might not be willing to admit that they are ugly. But with the chance of obtaining extra pay and promotions amounting to $230,000 in lost lifetime earnings, there’s a large enough incentive to do so."
For enough money, you'll call yourself ugly.
Now, I see a problem in this line of thinking: It's easier for men to say I'm ugly than for women. The men are going to rake in all the money. Look at me! I'm so ugly! Imagine presenting that to a jury! Or do you think women have an advantage because they can appear in court without makeup and hairstyling?
For enough money, you'll call yourself ugly.
Now, I see a problem in this line of thinking: It's easier for men to say I'm ugly than for women. The men are going to rake in all the money. Look at me! I'm so ugly! Imagine presenting that to a jury! Or do you think women have an advantage because they can appear in court without makeup and hairstyling?
Do you know how to drive on a "bicycle boulevard"? Do you even know what a "sharrow" is?
Well, don't drive in Madison, Wisconsin until you learn. We were biking around town for about an hour last evening, and the problem out there is obvious. Some car driver gets outraged that a bicyclist is acting like he owns the whole lane and he won't move over when you blare your horn or yell at him. Car driver, learn the rules! Or there are going to be a lot of angry encounters and — I'm afraid — fights.
We bicyclists love the "bicycle boulevards," which entitle us to use the whole lane and require the motorist to stay in line and proceed at whatever speed the bicycle is establishing. But it's not so enjoyable when the motorist can't believe we have rights like this. But we do!
Drivers need to learn the rules, and the police need to do some enforcement, especially against the drivers who use their cars to intimidate the cyclists into yielding the space that has been provided to us for our safety. And bicyclists: Get out there and use those boulevards — claim the power of the sharrow! — so it become obvious that this is the way things work around here.
We bicyclists love the "bicycle boulevards," which entitle us to use the whole lane and require the motorist to stay in line and proceed at whatever speed the bicycle is establishing. But it's not so enjoyable when the motorist can't believe we have rights like this. But we do!
Drivers need to learn the rules, and the police need to do some enforcement, especially against the drivers who use their cars to intimidate the cyclists into yielding the space that has been provided to us for our safety. And bicyclists: Get out there and use those boulevards — claim the power of the sharrow! — so it become obvious that this is the way things work around here.
Glittering: "assault" or "wonderfully fabulous way to protest"?
Diane Anderson-Minshall, executive editor of The Advocate, the gay news magazine, says throwing metallic flecks in someone's face is a "wonderfully fabulous way to protest": "It's peaceful and it doesn’t hurt anybody. But it does get a really important point across in a fun way."
Newt Gingrich, who's been on the receiving end of this supposedly "fun" protest, says: "Glitter bombing is clearly an assault and should be treated as such... When someone reaches into a bag and throws something on you, how do you know if it is acid or something that stains permanently or something that can blind you? People have every right to their beliefs but no right to assault others.”
The NYT tries to get a legal opinion by asking First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams:
This is like the childhood game of taking a swat at someone, without hitting him, and then hooting "You flinched!" In that childhood game — is it still played? — if the person flinched, you then have the right to punch him in the arm. Hard. But imagine adults playing with each other that way. Or would life work better? Justice Bradley charges right up to Justice Prosser, gets in his face, with fists flying but not touching him, and he flinches/touches. Well, then Justice Bradley immediately has the right to punch Prosser — hard — in the arm. And that's the end of it. Instead... oh, lord!... the troubles we have in Wisconsin!
(And here's that thread from last month where we talked about pie-throwing and where, in the comments, there was some extensive discussion of glittering.)
Newt Gingrich, who's been on the receiving end of this supposedly "fun" protest, says: "Glitter bombing is clearly an assault and should be treated as such... When someone reaches into a bag and throws something on you, how do you know if it is acid or something that stains permanently or something that can blind you? People have every right to their beliefs but no right to assault others.”
The NYT tries to get a legal opinion by asking First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams:
"I don’t think you’d get much disagreement that like so much else in the law, it’s all a matter of degree... Touching someone’s body can be criminal. But it’s awfully unlikely that there would be a prosecution if it’s just a bit of glitter. But in theory, the more that’s dropped, the more likely is prosecution."That's a pragmatic assessment from the point of view of police and prosecutors, not an opinion about whether it is a crime. Did Abrams address the point of view of the recipient of the attack (as Gingrich did, above)? If someone rushes at you and makes gestures of attack, but it turns out to be only glitter, you still have the fear, and you (or your bodyguards) don't know what is about to happen. Then maybe it's funny to laugh at the person who felt the fear or overreacted. And there they are covered in glitter. Ha ha.
This is like the childhood game of taking a swat at someone, without hitting him, and then hooting "You flinched!" In that childhood game — is it still played? — if the person flinched, you then have the right to punch him in the arm. Hard. But imagine adults playing with each other that way. Or would life work better? Justice Bradley charges right up to Justice Prosser, gets in his face, with fists flying but not touching him, and he flinches/touches. Well, then Justice Bradley immediately has the right to punch Prosser — hard — in the arm. And that's the end of it. Instead... oh, lord!... the troubles we have in Wisconsin!
(And here's that thread from last month where we talked about pie-throwing and where, in the comments, there was some extensive discussion of glittering.)
What we still don't know about the Wisconsin Supreme Court "chokehold" incident: Who leaked the story to the press?
Here's something I wrote in early July, a week after the story first appeared in the media:
Another thing we know from the investigation file is that, 2 days after the incident, Justice Bradley gave a carefully prepared speech to the assembled justices in which she framed — in her own terms — a problem that needed to be solved. Portraying Prosser as the workplace bully, she stated: "If I cannot get any assurance from you, the court, that this problem is going to be addressed, then I will go to the outside and take other means." Since she did not get that assurance, the record gives support to the inference that it was Justice Bradley who went to the media. The investigators did not ask her if she made good on her threat and took "other means" by going public through Bill Lueders, perhaps because it did not relate to whether a crime was committed, but I think the public deserves to know.
On page 43 of the investigative file, Justice Prosser seems to imply that it was Justice Bradley who leaked the story (and leaked it in a damagingly incomplete form):
But we do know, from the text of Justice Bradley's own speech, that she thought the threat of going public was something she could use for her own purposes to compel the other justices to act as though the problem was Prosser and Prosser alone. Frame it my way, don't blame me at all, see me only as the victim, or I will take it upon myself to devastate this court's reputation. Even if Bradley was not the one who leaked to Lueders — in the all-Prosser's-fault form — that was, to put it mildly, injudicious and self-serving.
And I still have the question I had on July 3d:
Judges are supposed to work out their human frailty problems outside of public view. Which is why the "chokehold" incident should never have been leaked to the press. That's why my writing on the subject has focused on who leaked and why. I would like to think that it was someone other than one of the Justices, someone who didn't understand the stakes for the prestige of the court. If it was, in fact, one of the Justices, what was the reason? Why would you damage the reputation of the court like that instead of working on resolving the problems quietly internally?Now, the investigation has taken place and we have had the opportunity to read the entire file. It does not reveal who went to the media — to Bill Lueders of WisconsinWatch.org — with the story. It does reveal that the story originally published by Lueders was shamefully inadequate, because it said only that Justice Prosser "allegedly grabbed fellow Justice Ann Walsh Bradley around the neck in an argument." It had nothing about Bradley's initiating the physical encounter by "charging at" him and suddenly and deliberately getting right in his personal space, possibly with a fist in his face. Either Lueders left out Bradley's initial physical aggression, or he received the story in that inadequate form. So who talked to Lueders, and did that person tell him the story with crucial details omitted to cast Prosser in the worst possible light?
And don't tell me: Because choking somebody is a serious crime! If it were that straightforward, the choker should have been arrested — or the charge should have come to light — shortly after the incident. Instead, a politically partisan journalist broke the story 12 days later. Someone made a decision to go public through him, and that makes it look like a political tactic. Is that someone a supreme court justice? Intolerable.
Another thing we know from the investigation file is that, 2 days after the incident, Justice Bradley gave a carefully prepared speech to the assembled justices in which she framed — in her own terms — a problem that needed to be solved. Portraying Prosser as the workplace bully, she stated: "If I cannot get any assurance from you, the court, that this problem is going to be addressed, then I will go to the outside and take other means." Since she did not get that assurance, the record gives support to the inference that it was Justice Bradley who went to the media. The investigators did not ask her if she made good on her threat and took "other means" by going public through Bill Lueders, perhaps because it did not relate to whether a crime was committed, but I think the public deserves to know.
On page 43 of the investigative file, Justice Prosser seems to imply that it was Justice Bradley who leaked the story (and leaked it in a damagingly incomplete form):
Justice Prosser said when there is a charge made by a woman that a man choked you, and you leak it out to the press allover the world, and that man is on the WI Supreme Court, "You are doing absolute maximum damage to a public figure that you can do". Justice Prosser said he did not feel Justice Bradley was telling the truth because if she were, then she would have to say how she charged at him.It was not damaging solely to Prosser. It was damaging to the entire court and to the viability of the rule of law in Wisconsin. As I wrote, back in early July: "Why would you damage the reputation of the court like that instead of working on resolving the problems quietly internally?" I'm still trying to understand how anyone who cared about the prestige and legitimacy of the Wisconsin Supreme Court would take this matter public.
But we do know, from the text of Justice Bradley's own speech, that she thought the threat of going public was something she could use for her own purposes to compel the other justices to act as though the problem was Prosser and Prosser alone. Frame it my way, don't blame me at all, see me only as the victim, or I will take it upon myself to devastate this court's reputation. Even if Bradley was not the one who leaked to Lueders — in the all-Prosser's-fault form — that was, to put it mildly, injudicious and self-serving.
And I still have the question I had on July 3d:
Someone made a decision to go public through [the politically partisan journalist Bill Lueders], and that makes it look like a political tactic. Is that someone a supreme court justice?I said it then, and I can't see any reason to change my opinion: Intolerable.
Lady Gaga's Andrew Dice Clay routine — "Joe Calderone."
She's one of the guys.
All the big pop stars want to be actors, don't they? But only 2 have succeeded, by my count. Most fail, following Elvis... not that following Elvis is such a bad thing.
All the big pop stars want to be actors, don't they? But only 2 have succeeded, by my count. Most fail, following Elvis... not that following Elvis is such a bad thing.
"Oh my God, it's beautiful... Everyone here is so much nicer than in New York, too."
The new students are arriving in Madison. And the ones from New York, some of them, don't really get the Midwest yet. Here's a tip: If they're not nice, they won't let it show on the surface, like they do in New York. Don't make the New Yorker's mistake of thinking you're more sophisticated than the rubes in the Midwest. The truth is, you need a new kind of sophistication to detect when folks aren't nice.
But welcome to Madison, everybody. It really is beautiful... and a great place to study. Open your minds. Open your books. And step away from the politics.
But welcome to Madison, everybody. It really is beautiful... and a great place to study. Open your minds. Open your books. And step away from the politics.
Madison's long tradition of student activists included thousands rallying in the spring, during protests over the collective bargaining bill and the state budget. UW students will continue to be active, said Ben Manski of WisconsinWave.org.Be wary of the grasp of the Manski! Consider majoring in science. Real science. Not the social kind. Develop your rational mind and learn some hard, useful stuff. Don't indulge what these politicos will flatter you to call idealism.
"Students are still idealistic, and they should be," he said. "More of us should be. So, they provide inspiration for older folks to try to do things that we may have given up on."
Man lives in a 78-square-foot space.
He's an architect in his 20s, living — roommate free! — in New York City. Based on the street scene, he's right about here. He seems reasonably satisfied with it, as he describes minimalist impulses going back to childhood. There's room for a bed/sofa and a desk. My only outburst, watching that video, was "does he have WiFi?"
Picture a prison cell that size. Would it be too cruel? But inject the freedom to walk out the door at any time and have all of NYC. It's not cruel at all. When you're sleeping in your bed, the space around you doesn't really matter, and when you're sitting at that desk, it's not too different from a carrel in the library.
Picture a prison cell that size. Would it be too cruel? But inject the freedom to walk out the door at any time and have all of NYC. It's not cruel at all. When you're sleeping in your bed, the space around you doesn't really matter, and when you're sitting at that desk, it's not too different from a carrel in the library.
August 28, 2011
At the Cloudscape Café...
... you can see, touch, and taste everything.
(If you enjoyed the music that happened to be playing on the car radio in that little clip and you don't already have it, please buy it: here.)
"Labor Day parade organizers confirm that no Republicans will be allowed to participate in this year's Labor Day Parade."
"[Marathon County Labor Council] president Randy Radtke says they choose not to invite elected officials who have 'openly attacked worker's rights' or did nothing when state public workers lost most of their right to collectively bargain."
From Congressman Sean Duffy's chief of staff: "Having walked in this parade in past years, Congressman Duffy was hoping that for a moment, we could set our differences aside and simply have some fun in a family-friendly event."
Fun? Family-friendly? Wisconsin?!
From Congressman Sean Duffy's chief of staff: "Having walked in this parade in past years, Congressman Duffy was hoping that for a moment, we could set our differences aside and simply have some fun in a family-friendly event."
Fun? Family-friendly? Wisconsin?!
"Lockerbie bomber Abdel Basset al-Megrahi is comatose, near death and likely to take secrets of the attack on Pan Am Flight 103 to his grave."
Says who?
And "the National Transitional Council, the rebel movement that toppled Gadhafi, announced Sunday that it won't allow the dying al-Megrahi to be extradited."
CNN found al-Megrahi under the care of his family in his palatial Tripoli villa Sunday, surviving on oxygen and an intravenous drip. The cancer-stricken former Libyan intelligence officer may be the last man alive who knows precisely who in the Libya government authorized the bombing, which killed 270 people.Who is this "CNN"? They have a photo of a man lying in his own bed in a villa, not in a hospital, wearing an oxygen mask, and they have the statement of his son. That proves this man will never speak again? I don't believe it. We were told this guy was near death 2 years ago, when he was released from prison in Scotland. Libyans welcomed him home as a hero. Why would we accept these new assertions as true?
"We just give him oxygen. Nobody gives us any advice," his son, Khaled Elmegarhi, told CNN.... There is no doctor. There is nobody to ask. We don't have any phone line to call anybody."
And "the National Transitional Council, the rebel movement that toppled Gadhafi, announced Sunday that it won't allow the dying al-Megrahi to be extradited."
"We will not give any Libyan citizen to the West," NTC Justice Minister Mohammed al-Alagi said.Will President Obama speak to this?
Wisconsin "Singalong" Protesters Confront Workers and Chant About Boycotting Their Employer.
Meade recorded this video at the 8/26/11 anti-Scott Walker singalong at the Wisconsin Capitol. Toward the end of what is their regular hour-long protest, workers from The Bruce Company, who were installing a new sprinkler system, began using their noisy equipment near the singalong.
A man jumps up and shouts "Boycott the Bruce Company," and a chant immediately breaks out with lots of people raising their fists and shouting "Boycott Bruce! Boycott Bruce!" — seemingly based solely on the assumption that the workers are deliberately disrupting their singalong. An older male protester directly confronts one of the workers. The police show up to observe and, seemingly, keep the peace. A young female protester wants to know what Meade is up to. What's his take on this? Her take is that the workers started working there for the purpose of drowning out the singers. Meade is heard saying "You don't think maybe you're being a little paranoid?"
If you care about workers — and that is the subject of the songs they sing and sing and sing — why are they harassing these guys? If they care about justice, why do they instantly — based on a paranoid impulse — chant for a boycott? If they care about jobs, why would they want to denounce and injure a local business?
"In trying to talk prosecutors out of weak cases, I have been told more than once, 'I wasn’t there, man, and neither were you. Let the 12 of them figure it out.'"
Writes Scott Turow (in an op-ed about Dominique Strauss-Kahn):
In practice, this means that even defendants who are probably innocent must endure the anguish of trial. I once represented a young man in a gang murder case who had been arrested and indicted along with eight other people, even though his name was never mentioned in the grand jury testimony. Although it seemed clear that the police had mistaken this young man for his brother, both the prosecutors and the judge told me to “put it on,” meaning go to trial; the client sat in court for several days, in jeopardy of a lengthy prison term, before the case against him was finally dismissed.
"I think having land and not ruining it is the most beautiful art that anybody could ever want."
Said by the same person who said: "An artist is somebody who produces things that people don't need to have."
"If Ann Althouse was assaulted, so was Justice Bradley. Or, if you prefer, if Justice Bradley wasn't assaulted, then neither was Ann Althouse."
Crazy-ass thread hijack over at Blaska's, by one Jeremy Schultz. Meade pushes back, as do other commenters. It's interesting to me, as a law professor, to witness this struggle with analogies. When people are pig-headedly committed, politically, their efforts to grapple with facts are comical... or irritating — depending on your emotional orientation. Me, I'm serene, even amidst the anti-Althousiana, especially when Meade is on task.
(Click on the relevant tags if you need more information on the Wisconsin Supreme Court "chokehold" allegation or the attack I recently experienced. Note that I didn't charge or rush up to the man who attacked me, nor did I evince anger or order him to do anything.)
(Click on the relevant tags if you need more information on the Wisconsin Supreme Court "chokehold" allegation or the attack I recently experienced. Note that I didn't charge or rush up to the man who attacked me, nor did I evince anger or order him to do anything.)
18 seconds of raw class warfare.
Scary!
"It's coming! Get ready! All you fucking tea-party-baggers. It's coming. Get ready."
Meade visits the Wisconsin Capitol singalong — "Which side are you on?" — last Friday, August 26th.
R.A.A.N. = Red & Anarchist Action Network. I'll let you Google that yourself. It seems to be connected with a record label, and I can't help viewing this as mostly about promoting music. It's a tired old musical message at this point in punk history. But who knows? Maybe these people are coming to get us.
"It's coming! Get ready! All you fucking tea-party-baggers. It's coming. Get ready."
Meade visits the Wisconsin Capitol singalong — "Which side are you on?" — last Friday, August 26th.
R.A.A.N. = Red & Anarchist Action Network. I'll let you Google that yourself. It seems to be connected with a record label, and I can't help viewing this as mostly about promoting music. It's a tired old musical message at this point in punk history. But who knows? Maybe these people are coming to get us.
"Sure a baby has a swimming reflex but that doesn't mean watching them swim isn't absolutely terrifying."
Says a Metafilter participant, linking to several videos. I watched these videos and didn't find them terrifying at all. These are people teaching babies ISR — Infant Swim Self Rescue. The babies are learning how to save themselves from drowning. Immersed in pools, with supervision, they learn to roll over face up and stabilize themselves in a position where they can breathe. I was inspired by the success of the babies in learning a very specific and highly useful skill. Hooray for the babies!
As for the people on Metafilter (and in the comments at YouTube) who think it's terrible to scare babies and make them cry.... Well, all I can say is maybe they don't know any babies. You don't melt into a pool of sympathy when a baby cries. You deal with whatever the situation is, if you can figure it out. By the way, a drowned baby doesn't cry.
As for the people on Metafilter (and in the comments at YouTube) who think it's terrible to scare babies and make them cry.... Well, all I can say is maybe they don't know any babies. You don't melt into a pool of sympathy when a baby cries. You deal with whatever the situation is, if you can figure it out. By the way, a drowned baby doesn't cry.
"I spent a lot of time thinking about contemporary Christianity, and obviously the rapture kept coming up."
"My first impulse was ... to laugh it off — it's sort of a funny idea, people just floating away. But I kept thinking: What if it did happen? ... I thought, I'm such a skeptic that even if it did happen, I would resist the implications of it, and I also thought that three years later, everyone would have forgotten about it. No matter what horrible thing happens in the world, the culture seems to move on."
Tom Perrotta, author of "Election" (which was made into a terrific movie) has written a novel about life after the rapture called "The Leftovers." Obviously, there's a big fiction genre on this subject, so what's interesting here is that a literary (as they say) novelist is applying his mind and methods to the Rapture.
Listen to the audio at the link. He's extremely insightful. I'm going to read the book. (Use my links please if you feel like buying it too.) Perhaps it irks you to think of a fancy "literary" writer — with access to NPR promotion — appropriating the material that "genre" writers have made their own. But if you listen to the interview, you'll see that he's not full of himself and not disrespectful toward those other writers. He seems genuinely interested in exploring the idea.
Tom Perrotta, author of "Election" (which was made into a terrific movie) has written a novel about life after the rapture called "The Leftovers." Obviously, there's a big fiction genre on this subject, so what's interesting here is that a literary (as they say) novelist is applying his mind and methods to the Rapture.
Listen to the audio at the link. He's extremely insightful. I'm going to read the book. (Use my links please if you feel like buying it too.) Perhaps it irks you to think of a fancy "literary" writer — with access to NPR promotion — appropriating the material that "genre" writers have made their own. But if you listen to the interview, you'll see that he's not full of himself and not disrespectful toward those other writers. He seems genuinely interested in exploring the idea.
"I've spent the last 48 years chasing hurricanes to ride the swells."
Says our commenter Surfed:
"Get the hell off the beach.... You've maximized your tan..."
"You've maximized your tan..." really applies independently of the hurricane. Come on, Jersey kids. Enough!
Was a Florida hurricane correspondent for Surfline.com for a few years. I've been caught in a few. First the wind comes in blowing in one direction for several hours. Then the eye passes over and things go quiet. The sun comes out birds sing and people wander out of doors to asses[s] damage. Make sure your car is allright. Surfers bike/walk to the beach to check out the swells and wind. Then as the eye wall passes you run back in doors as the wind comes in from the opposite direction. Roofs blown free come back at you. Everything that was blown off is returned as the wind swings around. If you're actually hunkered down on the coast you do a lot of praying. There are no athiests in a hurricane. As it all subsides and if the damage isn't to great it's time to go surfing. If you're an older surfer like me you have to be more aware of your physical limitations. It's easy to die in big waves. A 55 year old high school teacher (like me) died in New Symrna Beach yesterday. If it's a Class I you'll generally be allright. Less so as you move up the scale. Class IV and above? Run like hell. At any rate the waves are calling so I'm out for my second session of the day...In that light, Governor Christie says:
"Get the hell off the beach.... You've maximized your tan..."
"You've maximized your tan..." really applies independently of the hurricane. Come on, Jersey kids. Enough!
What's it like in the hurricane/tropical storm?
I'm looking at the Charging Bull Cam (on Wall Street in NYC) and seeing people in tourist mode strolling up to look at the big bull statue. The umbrellas are manageable and not turning inside out. The signs on the traffic lights are waving gently.
I got to that link from this set of links on my son John's blog. He's in lower Manhattan, and I thought he'd be off line because of power outages (and electricity conservation in anticipation of power outages), but there he is on IM. Hi, John!
He says: "barely even raining out."
ADDED: Actually, "electricity conservation in anticipation of power outages" doesn't make sense in the context of laptop computer and other rechargeable batteries. You can't get more charged than 100%, so if you keep it plugged in, there's nothing to do in anticipation of an outage.
I got to that link from this set of links on my son John's blog. He's in lower Manhattan, and I thought he'd be off line because of power outages (and electricity conservation in anticipation of power outages), but there he is on IM. Hi, John!
He says: "barely even raining out."
ADDED: Actually, "electricity conservation in anticipation of power outages" doesn't make sense in the context of laptop computer and other rechargeable batteries. You can't get more charged than 100%, so if you keep it plugged in, there's nothing to do in anticipation of an outage.
August 27, 2011
At the Canna Café...
... you cannot say the wrong thing.
IN THE COMMENTS: Clyde said:
If it was in Leadville, it would have been the Canna Bistro...He's talking about the 5th picture here.
The Capitol Pedaler.
A familiar sight around the Capitol Square here in Madison. You'll know it's Madison from the outburst at 0:40.
"Power could be shut off in Lower Manhattan, hitting Wall Street, a precaution against storm surges as Hurricane Irene strikes..."
Reports the Wall Street Journal.
"The most important thing is to make sure their facilities aren't damaged, which would take a long time to repair. If saltwater gets into the underground cables and those cables are carrying electricity, there is a real chance of damage to those lines," [said Mayor Michael Bloomberg.] "There is a lot less chance of damage to the lines if those power cables are not carrying power."
Justice Bradley's speech to the Wisconsin Supreme Court Justices and the nuances of identifying the workplace bully.
Here's the original document, the typed-up speech that Justice Ann Walsh Bradley gave to the assembled Justices 2 days after the so-called "chokehold" incident. As we know from the memos in the police investigation file, page 19, Justice Bradley said "she had typed these notes and rehearsed them like a speech because she wanted to tell the other justices how she was feeling."
In the original document, Bradley identifies "a right to go to my workplace without fear of verbal abuse or physical abuse." This is the workplace bully problem, and it's important, but the question I have is: Who gets to identify the bully?
We know from the investigation file that Bradley suddenly rushed up to Justice Prosser and got in his face. The interviews vary a bit in their emphasis on the speed with which she entered his personal space, but everyone agrees that the physical movement began with Bradley, and Prosser's physical act was a reaction to what she did. Bradley also acted first in identifying the bully, the one who needs to be controlled by the rights that others have to a "workplace without fear." But what if Prosser had acted first and characterized Bradley as the aggressor for rushing at him (with, according to some of the interviews, fists raised)? Then Bradley would have found herself on the receiving end, as the violator of the right she deems important. A right like that, if we are not careful, would empower the most aggressive person in the workplace!
Who gets to frame the story of the workplace bully? A person who fears accusation as the aggressor might opt for a preemptive strike, and that could have been the case here. During the incident, Justice Roggensack pulled Bradley away from Prosser and said, more than once, "This is not like you." Bradley describes herself becoming very emotional. Perhaps she was shocked by her own behavior and self-defensively saw it as in her interest to portray Prosser as the aggressor. From the memo on the Bradley interview, page 34:
In the original document, Bradley identifies "a right to go to my workplace without fear of verbal abuse or physical abuse." This is the workplace bully problem, and it's important, but the question I have is: Who gets to identify the bully?
We know from the investigation file that Bradley suddenly rushed up to Justice Prosser and got in his face. The interviews vary a bit in their emphasis on the speed with which she entered his personal space, but everyone agrees that the physical movement began with Bradley, and Prosser's physical act was a reaction to what she did. Bradley also acted first in identifying the bully, the one who needs to be controlled by the rights that others have to a "workplace without fear." But what if Prosser had acted first and characterized Bradley as the aggressor for rushing at him (with, according to some of the interviews, fists raised)? Then Bradley would have found herself on the receiving end, as the violator of the right she deems important. A right like that, if we are not careful, would empower the most aggressive person in the workplace!
Who gets to frame the story of the workplace bully? A person who fears accusation as the aggressor might opt for a preemptive strike, and that could have been the case here. During the incident, Justice Roggensack pulled Bradley away from Prosser and said, more than once, "This is not like you." Bradley describes herself becoming very emotional. Perhaps she was shocked by her own behavior and self-defensively saw it as in her interest to portray Prosser as the aggressor. From the memo on the Bradley interview, page 34:
Justice Bradley said as she was approaching Justice Prosser on June 13, "I was in control, I knew exactly what I was doing." Justice Bradley said when she approached Justice Prosser, she said to him, "Buddy, get out of my office." Justice Bradley said she remembers specifically saying the word "buddy" to him as she was telling him to leave her office. Justice Bradley recalled this because as she was talking to her daughter about this incident after the fact, her daughter had mentioned how the only other time she heard her use the term "buddy" was three years ago when her daughter and her were in Bangkok, Thailand, in a taxicab. Justice Bradley said the taxicab driver was not taking them where they needed to go so she felt she needed to take control and she remembers saying, "Buddy, you take us back where you picked us up." Justice Bradley said that was the only other time she could remember using the term "buddy". Justice Bradley said, "Buddy puts me in control and them in the diminutive." Justice Bradley again said she knew exactly what she was doing and saying to Justice Prosser on the evening of June 13, and added, "I intended to do it just the way I did it." Justice Bradley repeated several different times during our conversation with her that she was in control on June 13, 2011 and she knew exactly what she was doing the whole time.Isn't it interesting that she denied her own aggressiveness right after describing herself as a woman in control and deliberately exercising domination? What if Justice Prosser had felt and acted in a similar way? He would have made a speech focusing on Bradley as the aggressor. He would have said, as Bradley said at the July 15th meeting:
Justice Bradley then said, "This aggressiveness they are trying to spin is not true."
I have a right... to enter my workplace without any fear of verbal abuse or physical abuse...Go to the outside and take other means?! Is that a victim seeking the shelter of the protections of the law, or is it the bully trying to instill fear? It's not too clear! But we know that Bradley, in the original incident, deliberately sought control. And in the the June 15th meeting, she also sought control. She had her prepared speech. It was studded with legalisms and warnings. She demanded submission, or else. You don't need to look past her own words to see that.
If I cannot get any assurance from you, the court, that this problem is going to be addressed, then I will go to the outside and take other means.
Is there a video camera that you don't turn off in exactly the same way you turn it on?
Meade and I have failed to record so many things that we thought we were catching because of this limitation. There's a button that you push to begin recording, but it's the same button you push to end a recording. If you lose track or if you fail to push it hard enough at some point, you may be turning it off when you think you are turning it on or turning it on when you think you are turning it off.
For example, yesterday, Meade went down to the Capitol Square to see what the singalong was like this week (the day after the special prosecutor announced that no one would be charged in the Wisconsin Supreme Court "chokehold" incident). He came home with a lot of video in the Flip camera, but he was especially interested in one clip.
An angry man, recognizing Meade, rushed up and demanded "What are you doing here?" He called Meade a "son of a bitch." He told Meade he didn't belong there and he should leave. Meade asked "Isn't this a public space? Doesn't it belong to all of us?" and the man answered "Yes, it belongs to us." Another man, seeing Meade, yelled at him and called him "a fucking tea bagger." He also called out: "Death to Republicans!"
But — wouldn't you know? — that is the clip that didn't record!
Now, by paying enough attention to the LED screen on the back of the camera, you can ensure that you are really recording. But when you're shooting a lot of video and things are happening quickly — especially out of doors when it's hardest to see the screen and especially when you need to be looking out for attackers and camera snatchers — you can't check accurately every time.
For example, yesterday, Meade went down to the Capitol Square to see what the singalong was like this week (the day after the special prosecutor announced that no one would be charged in the Wisconsin Supreme Court "chokehold" incident). He came home with a lot of video in the Flip camera, but he was especially interested in one clip.
An angry man, recognizing Meade, rushed up and demanded "What are you doing here?" He called Meade a "son of a bitch." He told Meade he didn't belong there and he should leave. Meade asked "Isn't this a public space? Doesn't it belong to all of us?" and the man answered "Yes, it belongs to us." Another man, seeing Meade, yelled at him and called him "a fucking tea bagger." He also called out: "Death to Republicans!"
But — wouldn't you know? — that is the clip that didn't record!
Now, by paying enough attention to the LED screen on the back of the camera, you can ensure that you are really recording. But when you're shooting a lot of video and things are happening quickly — especially out of doors when it's hardest to see the screen and especially when you need to be looking out for attackers and camera snatchers — you can't check accurately every time.
There's a mysterious drop in malaria-carrying mosquitoes in some parts of Africa, and some say maybe it's because of climate change.
Oh, no! Global warming is bad bad bad! Maybe it's causing Hurricane Irene!
global warming climate change and anything bad that happens must apply the same kind of reasoning to anything good that happens. Otherwise they won't be able to maintain the pretense that they're all about the science.
“Irene’s got a middle name, and it’s Global Warming,” environmental activist Bill McKibben wrote Thursday night in The Daily Beast. He argued that this year’s hot Atlantic Ocean temperatures and active spree of hurricanes — coupled with droughts, floods and melting sea ice elsewhere on the globe — are “what climate change looks like in its early stages.”But what if it's doing something fabulously good?
Patterns of rainfall in these years were more chaotic in these regions of Tanzania and often fell outside the rainy season. The scientists say this may have disturbed the natural cycle of mosquito development.Global warming — or, as they say, "climate change" (for maximum coverage of any possible condition) — is probably not the cause of the hurricane or the big mosquito drop-off, but those who like to wring their hands about the connection between
But the lead author of the study, Professor Dan Meyrowitsch from the University of Copenhagen, says that he is not convinced that it is just the changing climate.
"It could be partly due to this chaotic rainfall, but personally I don't think it can explain such a dramatic decline in mosquitoes, to the extent we can say that the malaria mosquitoes are almost eradicated in these communities."
3 big Obama fund-raisers in the Hamptons are threatened by Hurricane Irene.
Will this beleaguered man's troubles never end? It's as if all of nature is aligned against him! Where is the mercy? Irene! Hit North Carolina, scatter the sands of the Jersey Shore, but for God's sake, leave the Hamptons alone!
The schoolgirls have "meltdowns" when mom packs the lunch in ziploc bags.
Because the girls "don't want to be shamed" at school.
Because enviromentalism is the religion taught in public schools, and it's the kind of religion done with shaming young people.
But also:
1. Some people wash and reuse ziploc bags. So don't presume you know that the ziploc-user is an enviro-sinner.
2. Kiddies, if you are old enough to understand environmentalism and to pressure your mother with it, you are old enough to pack your own lunch. And if you're so hot on being saintly, start helping your mother, not making her life any harder.
Because enviromentalism is the religion taught in public schools, and it's the kind of religion done with shaming young people.
But also:
1. Some people wash and reuse ziploc bags. So don't presume you know that the ziploc-user is an enviro-sinner.
2. Kiddies, if you are old enough to understand environmentalism and to pressure your mother with it, you are old enough to pack your own lunch. And if you're so hot on being saintly, start helping your mother, not making her life any harder.
August 26, 2011
United States of America v. Ebony Wood in Various Forms.
The Fish and Wildlife Service agents come after the manufacturer of electric guitars.
And why you don't want to travel outside of the country with a vintage guitar... or maybe any wooden guitar.
And why you don't want to travel outside of the country with a vintage guitar... or maybe any wooden guitar.
I've finally waded through the "chokehold" investigation file.
Maybe you didn't notice all the summary and quotation I produced in the form of updates to the post titled "There never was a "chokehold" in the Wisconsin Supreme Court — so who put that word out there and why?" It was quite a task, so I'm going to reprint all that material here. I would also draw some conclusions or at least make some pithy observations, but it's late. I'm going to sleep on it and see how it strikes me when I read this in the morning. For now, click on "Read more," read more, and tell me what you think. I'll take that into account too.
"Where does David Prosser go to get his reputation back?"
Asks David Blaska.
How are they not oppressed by their own shame? Seriously, for the purposes of writing the previous paragraph, I channeled the feeling of shame that I would feel if I had done that, and now I am literally nauseated. If I had said what the people in the video at the last link said, I would be weeping now and begging forgiveness. But I am not them, so I will simply ask that they stage a rally in support of Justice Prosser and they publicly retract their earlier statements and commit themselves to the core principles of liberalism: fairness and due process.
Blaska demands apologies from people who should be "ashamed of their lynch mob mentality." He names the "practitioners of the dark arts of 'by any means necessary.'" Check out his list (which unfortunately includes the name of a UW law student). I'll highlight this:
ADDED: My analysis of the investigative report that was released today is in the previous post.
There are some people who need to apologize to Mr. Justice David Prosser now that he has been cleared and soon. They took a shallowly researched and preposterous allegation -- that Prosser held fellow justice Ann Walsh Bradley in a chokehold -- and ran to the guillotine with it.Yes, let's look back on the public demonstrations. Let's remember that protesters had a big ugly balloon effigy of Justice Prosser, which they tied by the neck to a lamppost. Look at their signs. Let's remember how these protesters strung together "allegations about Justice Prosser choking Justice Bradley [with] much more general issues about abortion and violence against women." As I said at the time:
I heard no acknowledgements of the uncertainties about what we know about what happened and no sensitivity about fairness and due process. I heard: 1. declarations about the importance of women's issues and 2. a demonization of Justice Prosser.This is the level of left-wing activism we witnessed here in Madison. A justice is despised because his decisions do not please liberals, and so, without thought, they forgot about things liberals like to love themselves for caring about, such as fairness and due process. These are the same people who have been chanting the chant "shame, shame, shame" for months up at the Capitol.
How are they not oppressed by their own shame? Seriously, for the purposes of writing the previous paragraph, I channeled the feeling of shame that I would feel if I had done that, and now I am literally nauseated. If I had said what the people in the video at the last link said, I would be weeping now and begging forgiveness. But I am not them, so I will simply ask that they stage a rally in support of Justice Prosser and they publicly retract their earlier statements and commit themselves to the core principles of liberalism: fairness and due process.
Blaska demands apologies from people who should be "ashamed of their lynch mob mentality." He names the "practitioners of the dark arts of 'by any means necessary.'" Check out his list (which unfortunately includes the name of a UW law student). I'll highlight this:
Ms. Emily Mills owes an apology for blogging that UW law professor and bloggress Ann Althouse "has gone to great and terrible lengths to excuse the alleged behavior, attack the credibility of only the anonymous sources with whom she disagrees, suggest that no arrests (yet) mean no wrongdoing, impugn the honor of Justice Bradley, and cast doubt on the very justice system of this state." Looks like it is the other way around, Ms. Emily.(Here's my contemporaneous pushback of Mills.) Blaska ends his column with a request for more names. I have one: Bill Wineke. Like Mills, he owes me an apology.
ADDED: My analysis of the investigative report that was released today is in the previous post.
There never was a "chokehold" in the Wisconsin Supreme Court — so who put that word out there and why?
[NOTE: See the updates to this post, which originally relied on the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel report. The updates summarize the actual investigation file, which contains many reference to a "chokehold."]
This morning, the Dane County Sheriff's Department released 117 pages of records from the Wisconsin Supreme Court "chokehold" investigation. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel summarized this way:
On June 25, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported through an unnamed source:
Reading that story, I wrote:
Let's remember that it was Bill Lueders at the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism who originally broke the story of the incident. On June 25, he wrote:
UPDATE: I'm now looking at the investigative file, here. I'll note the references to choking as I encounter them.
This morning, the Dane County Sheriff's Department released 117 pages of records from the Wisconsin Supreme Court "chokehold" investigation. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel summarized this way:
In interviews with a detective on July 8, [Justice David] Prosser said that during an informal argument between two groups of justices Bradley "charged" him and he put up his hands to defend himself.So... she was "standing face to face to confront him." How did she get to the point where she was standing there? Did she "charge" him? It's not so much a discrepancy in the testimony as a time gap in the Bradley version.
"Did my hands touch her neck, yes, I admit that. Did I try to touch her neck, no, absolutely not, it was a total reflex," Prosser said.
Bradley said during the argument she wanted Prosser to leave the suite of offices that serve her and her staff and confronted him to tell him to leave because she felt he was being disrespectful to Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson.
"You get out of my office," Bradley said she told Prosser during an interview with a detective on June 28. While saying that, she said she was "standing face to face to confront him."
Later, Bradley said, she could recall the contact of Prosser's hands on her neck but no pain or pressure that affected her breathing. She did, however, say that she had become emotional after the incident.So Bradley concedes that Prosser's hands merely made contact with her neck, after she got into the position of being in his face. This seems like a plain statement that there was no chokehold. But we have heard that Bradley called it "a chokehold."
On June 25, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported through an unnamed source:
Bradley felt Prosser "was attacking the chief justice," the source said. Before leaving, Prosser "put his hands around her neck in what (Bradley) described as a chokehold," the source said.[ADDED: That story begins with a direct quote from Bradley, giving directly to the newspaper: "The facts are that I was demanding that he get out of my office and he put his hands around my neck in anger in a chokehold."]
Reading that story, I wrote:
I want to know not only what really happened at the time of the physical contact (if any) between the 2 justices, but also who gave the original story to the press. If Prosser really tried to choke a nonviolent Bradley, he should resign. But if the original account is a trumped-up charge intended to destroy Prosser and obstruct the democratic processes of government in Wisconsin, then whoever sent the report out in that form should be held responsible for what should be recognized as a truly evil attack.So what I want to know is who put out the story that Bradley said she was choked and did Bradley herself ever claim to have been choked? It sounds as though she never said that to the investigators (or it would be in the report and the MJS summary today). Did she say it to anyone else?
Let's remember that it was Bill Lueders at the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism who originally broke the story of the incident. On June 25, he wrote:
"Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser allegedly grabbed fellow Justice Ann Walsh Bradley around the neck in an argument in her chambers earlier this month."Reading that, at the time, I questioned this approach to journalism:
I agreed with [Ian Millhiser at the lefty blog Think Progress] that "if it's true Prosser reached a breaking point and started strangling Bradley, he should go." But I wanted to know the whole story. It seemed to me that Lueders had given us "just the snapshot of one hard-to-comprehend instant within the longer event." I was skeptical about the version of the story Lueders had put out, because there had been no arrest and because I found it hard to picture an elderly, dignified man suddenly grabbing a (somewhat less elderly) woman by the neck.I quoted myself saying "whoever sent the report out in that form should be held responsible for what should be recognized as a truly evil attack" and said:
When I wrote that, it did not cross my mind that the "truly evil" person might be Lueders himself.Lueders has not yet responded to the special prosecutor's decision not to bring charges. The spotlight belongs on him right now. I want to know who put the word "chokehold" out there and why.
UPDATE: I'm now looking at the investigative file, here. I'll note the references to choking as I encounter them.
Should Obama leave his Martha's Vineyard vacation early...
... just because everyone else on the island is mobilizing in advance of Hurricane Irene?
The only issue is optics. Should he be "enjoy[ing] a low-key day amid the white sands and tall waves of the private Pohogonot beach" when the commoners are scurrying for their lives/safety? As you answer that, please consider all the many disasters that have befallen our young President, making a wreck of the years of his presidency, years once envisioned as Camelot.
Ah.. sorry... it is so sad. This loss. Of the hopes. The dreams. Of the fleeting wisp of glory.
Now, let our king rest for a few brief shining moments on that beach in... <dramatic whisper> Camelot.
Vineyard hotel managers urged guests to plan their exits as soon as possible, and emergency officials told locals to stock up on four days of food and water....Of course, the little people — even rich little people — have to make their escape early, when they are dependent on commercial operations that will be overtaxed as everyone tries to leave at once. But the President has his own transport. He can leave at the precise moment he chooses, as long as the storm is not so close it's grounding the planes.
The only issue is optics. Should he be "enjoy[ing] a low-key day amid the white sands and tall waves of the private Pohogonot beach" when the commoners are scurrying for their lives/safety? As you answer that, please consider all the many disasters that have befallen our young President, making a wreck of the years of his presidency, years once envisioned as Camelot.
Ah.. sorry... it is so sad. This loss. Of the hopes. The dreams. Of the fleeting wisp of glory.
Now, let our king rest for a few brief shining moments on that beach in... <dramatic whisper> Camelot.
George Will said it!
It's been said before, and was said over and over, months ago, but now George Will is saying it.
"The good news is that [a hurricane] would have to make something of a bank shot, as Hurricane Agnes did in 1972, in order to pass directly over New York City."
"It is intrinsically fairly hard for a storm to make landfall upon New York City itself rather than somewhere else along the Atlantic," explains Nate Silver.
A considerably more likely scenario is that a hurricane-strength storm would come ashore on central Long Island. That would still be extremely bad: a weak Category 2 storm with an eye that passed about 50 miles from Manhattan would result in about $10 billion in damage, according to the model.And more than a Category 3? Directly hitting NYC? It's never happened. "[I]in recorded history, no storm has made landfall in the Northeastern United States while stronger than a Category 3." But if it did — and Silver says maybe with global warming it might — the economic impact would hit the trillions.
Although highly unlikely to be experienced in the case of Hurricane Irene, it is theoretically possible that an even stronger storm might hit the city at some point in the future. A Category 3 hurricane, one with wind speeds of 111 miles per hour or higher, could plausibly produce an economic impact in excess of $100 billion if its eye were to pass directly over Manhattan, according to the model. A stronger Category 3 storm, passing immediately over Manhattan, could rival or exceed the roughly $235 billion in economic damage estimated to have been caused by the Japanese earthquake and tsunami.
Keep in mind that New York’s annual gross domestic product is estimated to be about $1.4 trillion — about one-tenth of the nation’s gross domestic product — so if much of the city were to become dysfunctional for months or more, the damage to the global and domestic economies would be almost incalculable. The property value of New York City real estate, meanwhile, is estimated to be about $800 billion, and property damage represents only a portion of the overall economic loss that might be incurred from a catastrophic hurricane.Where would the people go? What would happen to them?
August 25, 2011
The recurrence of "Build Me Up Buttercup"... coincidence? I think not!
Deja vu: "Several hundred chanting, cheering protesters entered the Capitol rotunda Thursday around the 6 p.m. closing time. "An hour later, Capitol police carried 13 of them away."
Sorry, I wasn't there to photograph the scene:
ADDED: Here's 9 minutes of video somebody else made at today's incident.
Sorry, I wasn't there to photograph the scene:
The first wave of protesters entered the statehouse carrying banners, shouting and banging on drums and cowbells...."Build Me Up Buttercup"! What the hell? Had they been reading the Althouse blog this morning? At 10:28 a.m., I wrote:
"Whose house? Our house!" the protesters shouted. Then they broke into a chorus of the labor song "Solidarity Forever!"
Later, the group of 13 mostly young protesters sat on the floor of the Capitol and clutched an American flag and heart-shaped balloons as the sounds of floor cleaners echoed through the mostly empty building. Capitol police and a few State Patrol troopers started carrying them out shortly before 7 p.m. after giving them a chance to leave on their own.
The protesters - many of them the veterans of past protests and arrests - chatted and sang popular songs like the Foundations' "Build Me Up Buttercup"...
Songs Meade is driving me crazy playing on YouTube this morning.Wow, I'm sorry I missed them. But the question is: Did they miss me? Seems like they were ready for their YouTube magic moment. I don't have it. I was off photographing poodles.
"Young Girl," "Love Grows Where My Rosemary Goes," "Everlasting Love," "Lady Willpower," "Build Me Up Buttercup," that "Star Trek" hippies song, "Count Me In," "This Magic Moment"...
ADDED: Here's 9 minutes of video somebody else made at today's incident.
Are you in a "hurricane evacuation zone" in New York City?
Have you noticed how weird and unrealistic it is?
What does it mean for me to live in a "zone"? If the city issues a "hurricane evacuation order," the government will order me to leave my home "immediately" and either (a) stay in an area that's not in a "zone" (which, again, could be as close as 3 blocks away) or (b) go to a "hurricane center." Where's the closest "hurricane center"? Oh, between 192nd and 193rd St. In order to get there, I'd need to travel almost the whole length of Manhattan....
What's really going on here is that the government is trying to signal that it is taking the hurricane very, very seriously — so seriously that it has a plan for evacuating a large portion of the city. The truth is, that's impossible. So the government makes up some arbitrary rules, as if the hurricane is going to carefully observe these neat distinctions between the various streets of Greenwich Village.
Matt Yglesias is pointlessly pigheaded about his misstatement of what Ron Paul has proposed to do about abortion.
Yglesias responds to a post of mine:
Yglesias goes on to quote something Ron Paul said about the fetus being a person. I'm well aware, as my post clearly shows, that Paul believes the fetus is a person who deserves rights. The issue, however is whether he has "loudly trumpet[ed a] plan to impose criminal penalties" on women who have abortions. He has not done that.
Ron Paul's proposals are about diverting the matter to the state courts, as I clearly describe in my post. Now, if you want to say that voters who care about preserving abortion rights should not trust Ron Paul, then I agree with you. But you should agree with me that he most certainly did not "loudly trumpet[ a] plan to impose criminal penalties." Why can't you just fix your misstatement? Why this pointless pigheadedness? You're doing yourself no favors, Matt, and insulting my intelligence — "she’s apparently incapable of reading between the lines" — is — as they say — incivil.
Ann Althouse chooses for some reason to dispute that Ron “respecting the God-given right to life—for those born and unborn” Paul wants to ban abortion.No. I dispute that he has "loudly trumpet[ed a] plan to impose criminal penalties" on women who have abortions. Those are your words, Matt, and it is quite dishonest to change the language as you embark on your attempt to discredit me.
Since she’s apparently incapable of reading between the lines of such proposals as “Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a Sanctity of Life Act’” she might be interesting [sic] in some other quotations from Congressman Paul such as....Well, the fact is, Matt, I really am interesting. I'm so interesting that you ought to pay attention to the precise words that I use in disputing you. Pay attention to the text before you embark on your flights of interpretation that you gratuitously insult me for supposedly lacking the capacity to perform. Pay attention to my text and to your own text (which needs editing). You ought to learn to read and be honest about what you have read.
Yglesias goes on to quote something Ron Paul said about the fetus being a person. I'm well aware, as my post clearly shows, that Paul believes the fetus is a person who deserves rights. The issue, however is whether he has "loudly trumpet[ed a] plan to impose criminal penalties" on women who have abortions. He has not done that.
Ron Paul's proposals are about diverting the matter to the state courts, as I clearly describe in my post. Now, if you want to say that voters who care about preserving abortion rights should not trust Ron Paul, then I agree with you. But you should agree with me that he most certainly did not "loudly trumpet[ a] plan to impose criminal penalties." Why can't you just fix your misstatement? Why this pointless pigheadedness? You're doing yourself no favors, Matt, and insulting my intelligence — "she’s apparently incapable of reading between the lines" — is — as they say — incivil.
Found at the Qaddafi compound: an album filled with photos of Condoleezza Rice.
It's not surprising, considering his past expressions of fondness for the ex-Secretary of State:
"I support my darling black African woman," he said [in 2007]. "I admire and am very proud of the way she leans back and gives orders to the Arab leaders. ... Leezza, Leezza, Leezza. ... I love her very much. I admire her, and I'm proud of her, because she's a black woman of African origin."
The following year, Gadhafi and Rice had an opportunity to meet when the secretary of state paid a historic visit to Libya — one that made steps toward normalizing relations after the United States went decades without an ambassador in Tripoli. ...
During the visit, he presented Rice with a diamond ring, a lute, a locket with an engraved likeness of himself inside and an inscribed edition of "The Green Book," a personal political manifesto that explains his "Third Universal Theory for a new democratic society."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
