Marie sent me this article today with the comment: “Surprisingly, not an Onion headline.”
The article says:
The Texas congressman said that if Mr. Obama persists in executing the office of the Presidency as defined by the Constitution, he could face “impeachment and/or deportation.” … “Mr. President, there’s still time for you to get in line. But if you continue to fulfill the duties of President of the United States that are expressly permitted in the Constitution, you are playing with fire.”
If true, Reality has jumped the shark.
I found this comment amusing:
Finally, [Megan McArdle] as an approximately 6’ tall, moderately attractive woman — who likes guns — libertarian, objectivist, and conservative fan-bois glommed on to her like a million sperm all trying to fertilize the same egg, which provides its own kind of mockworthy spectacle
The college I went to had a 6:1 guy:girl ratio at the time. Being an institute full of socially stunted nerds just like me, they had their own word for when multiple guys talking to or associating with a single girl: “glomming.” While it has morphed beyond its original meaning—it is short for “agglomeration”—it has become part of our urban dictionary, and the above example shows it in its original definition.
One day during Rotation, I was hanging out on the Triple on the second floor, and watched “glom pools” forming around the night’s new batch of Freshman girls in the dorm’s courtyard below. The image of “a million sperm all trying to fertilize the same egg” is an especially apt description. I can trace a direct line to my intense shyness around women to that singular and instructive moment.
- glom v.t. to accost a girl who is already surrounded by multiple guys
- glommer n a male who gloms serially
- glom pool n an aggregation of many guys around a single girl
Oh yeah, if any Techers at the time are wondering about all the hacked copies of
CrystalCaltech Quest on campus—the one where ResEdit to add Caltechisms like the infamous and indestructable “glom monster” toward the end? That was me.
Stephen Colbert finds his humor best, when people are at their worst:
It’s amusing to read right wing defenses of these actions. My personal favorite is “the clip is too short”—as if you can’t use the googlez to find that the full clip is even worse.
Another interesting one is that this is okay because Berkeley “accepts about 10-12% public money (or 88-90% private).” A cursory use of the google shows that they’re one quarter state funding. The other three quarters are from public AND private funding. For instance, any professor who brings in a grant (most grant, but not all, are publicly funded), has about 40% siphoned off by the university as overhead. This has always been the case. The university is also supported by a $3.15 billion endowment.
(State funding used to be a much higher percentage of Cal’s budget, but was cut by the governator so the state could keep its prisons. The largest single private grant to the university was done by the hippies at British Petroleum. Those two facts explain why the “powers that be” at the University of California tacitly approved of these actions and the one in 2009.)
No matter, the discussion of “public” vs. “private” with respect to speech is a red herring. The Free Speech Movement, which began in exactly the same place, settled this matter. Arguing that “pitching tents” is a bridge-too-far isn’t really going to save a lost cause when videos of your police dragging people by the hair and beating 4’10″ asian girls in the stomach are going viral on the intarwebs.
But perhaps the most damning argument comes from this observation:
If we were to view the actions of police as Americans watching people attempting to gain their rights in a foreign country, we would find them appalling. Yet somehow there are those in this country who are all too happy to deny rights afforded to all Americans under the Constitution. The right of peaceful assembly is guaranteed and those who seek to deny them are ignorant of this “fact.”
Whether or not it is legal to “nudge with batons” to take down some students’ tents, it is clear what is right—which is why, I suppose it, is a Right.
“The individuals who linked arms and actively resisted, that in itself is an act of violence.
—UC Police Capt. Margo Bennet
It is unfortunate that some protesters chose to obstruct the police by linking arms and forming a human chain to prevent the police from gaining access to the tents. This is not non-violent civil disobedience.
-UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert J. Birgeneau
Good luck with that line of thought. Bull Connor approves!
It is said that the reason many poor are opposed to social programs that benefit them is a fear of coming in “last.”
Besides the obvious worry over whether the death spiral will reach our shores, there’s the question of how Rupert-Murdoch-on-steroids could run the third largest European economy (7th largest in the world) into the ground, what’s with right wing obsession with inflation in times of deflationary spirals, and why this prediction seemed to only have been made by liberals.
So my thinking is our laughter has a touch too much nerves.
Scientific thinking requires that the more outlandish the claim, the more compelling the evidence must be. It is this thinking that rejects the libertarian’s love children: Freakonomics, The Bell Curve, or nearly any book by Malcolm Gladwell.
During lunch, I exhausted my daily newsfeed and started to troll the top hits on digg when I ran across this linked article in which a journalist and amateur geographer explains the Tea Party movement.
Here is the central claim that forms the basis for the author’s entire argument:
We’ve never been a nation-state in the European sense; we’re a federation of nations, more akin to the European Union than the Republic of France, and this confounds both collective efforts to find common ground and radical campaigns to force one component nation’s values on the others.
What a load of crap! Continue reading about regionalism after the jump→
“This is another song from a Swedish band.”
“Are they Swedish or something else?”
“I don’t know—some Scandinavian country I think. The song isn’t bad.”
“I think it’s a bit overplayed—it’s featured in a lot of TV and movies.”
“Yes, I guess you’re right. Did you know that it’s played a lot in evangelical churches, even though it not about religion?”
“Yeah, listen to the lyrics… ‘Save me, I’m lost.’… ‘Oh lord I’ve been waiting for you.’”
“Wow, he was asking for it!”
Laughs “Yeah. He probably shouldn’t have added ‘Oh Lord.’”
(The fact that the lead singer looks like White Jesus doesn’t help either.)
I find the cheering of 234 executions extremely odd for supposed supporters of the death penalty.
Rick Perry’s success in the primary hinges on being the daddy-figure posture with the right wing bedwetters. Given that he’s on record as having [executed an innocent man][new yorker death penalty], he has to double down to cover his mistake. So, I understand Rick Perry’s political strategy here.
But why cheer executions? Have we as a country sunk so low? Continue reading about the economics, statistics, and morals of the death penalty after the jump→
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
235 Cannon HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Representative Pelosi,
Congressional Democrats took aim Thursday at conservative Republicans who oppose raising the federal debt ceiling, with Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) charging that a top GOP negotiator, Rep. Eric Cantor (Va.), “shouldn’t even be at the table” in crucial White House talks on the issue.
The blogger opined:
Can you imagine Steny Hoyer even thinking about pulling this shit on Nancy Smash? If he did it in a dream, he’d wake up and apologize.
I had to let out a chuckle. (Nancy Smash is you. It’s a nickname based on a photo of you holding a gavel when you bright the ACA bill to the Capitol.)
I’m young, healthy, and with a great paying job, but I have friends who have already been impacted (positively) by “Obamacare” so I’m so proud of what you and the others in Congress have achieved with ACA. It is a landmark legislation and accomplishment when you were Speaker. In a generation, your opponents on the other side of the aisle will campaign on preserving it.
Politically, I’m pretty conservative—which means I’m probably to the left of most of your colleagues in the Democratic Party. But I can’t tell you how happy I was when I realized I’d be voting for you in 2008 — that you were my representative. And again in 2010, though under less enjoyable circumstances.
I work in technology building free software that powers 12% of sites on the internet and therefore I do everything electronically, but I’ve been told that if I write a letter to you (moreso if it is handwritten), that you might actually read it. I don’t want to request anything except to say, keep fighting the good fight…
A citizen of your District since 2008
“My mom said she voted for anything that is going to lower her taxes.”
Great so your mom voted for Prop 19 which failed. But the other stuff? You realize that your dad is the only breadwinner in the family and he’s a government employee. When California is forced to submit a budget, and all alternate taxation and alternate funding resources have been closed, the first thing they’re going to do is lay off your dad (again).
It’s sad, but it’s the cold hard reality of those votes. I’m sure they’re going to enjoy the no new taxes when they’ve got no income to go along with it.
Enjoy the consequences of your actions.