Line of the Day: 2010-07-21

If a democracy cannot make up its mind precisely why it needs to start a war, it is surely better not to start one in the first place.

The above is from a review by Ian Buruma of Christopher's latest book, Hitch-22, and if it's not already obvious, it refers to the sell-job of the invasion of Iraq by the United States.

People who do not like Hitchens for whatever reason will be delighted with this review. But if you are like me -- someone who admires Hitch for at least some things -- I'd encourage you to read it despite its generally harsh tone. The thing about Hitch for me is that I was delighted to hear him articulate so well our shared feelings about religion, and when I learned of some of his views on other topics -- disagreeable being a multipurpose word here -- I think I might have valued Hitch more. It is a good thing to have your own views challenged from time to time by someone who is skilled at making arguments, especially if you already respect that person. I wouldn't at all say that Hitch has persuaded me on the doubleplusgoodness of George and Dick's Excellent Adventure, but I feel better for having had to go through some of his challenges to my initial instinctive reactions.

(h/t: TC, via email)

__________

More Hitch-related stuff:

• As you may already know, Hitch is currently undergoing treatment for esophageal cancer. As you will be unsurprised to hear, this has meant no small amount of yammering on the topic of praying for him. Ross Douthat has a nice post on this.

• I came across this thing from about six weeks ago: David Frum has posted a podcast of an interview he did of Hitch that took place when Hitch was still out doing promo for his book, and before he had received (or shared) the news about his illness. It's about twenty minutes long. Pretty interesting, though perhaps for fans only. (Don't let a distaste for Frum put you off, if you suffer from such an affliction -- he's just being a straight-up interviewer here; it's not a neocon wankfest.)

Heh, Forsooth!

Refudiate this!

(?)

[Added] Follow-up here.

ScienceBlogs Meltdown, Part II

A couple of weeks ago, the collection of blogs collectively called ScienceBlogs experienced a storm of protest from within its ranks, due to management's decision to let PepsiCo run a self-fluffing Science™! "blog" on the Sb site. This decision was reversed within about a day, as your correspondent described elsewhere.

However, the change of mind was not enough to mollify some of the Sblings (not mine, wish it were). Some saw it as the final straw and departed to blog elsewhere. And it's beginning to look like the unhappiness isn't over -- two more bloggers, PalMD and Bora, have announced their departure, and PZ Myers's most recent post (dated noon yesterday) features a giant ON STRIKE banner and an explanation of why he's stopped blogging.

Obviously, I have no knowledge of the inner machinations of Sb beyond what I read during Pepsigate and the occasional hint I've picked up from reading PZ over the years. That said, it seems beyond dispute that (1) most if not all of the bloggers are quite unhappy (and that's just counting the ones who haven't already left), and (2) their complaints are legitimate. It's also beyond dispute to say how sad it be for Sb to fall apart.

(h/t: uncle ebeneezer, via PM)

__________

[Added] In case you've not heard of ScienceBlogs, or are only vaguely aware of the name, this graphic (via Bora's post) may help illuminate its importance:

[Added2] Scab! ;)

[Added3] PZ: "The strike is over. We had a productive discussion with the Seed Overlords …"

Birdwatching Update

In case you visited fairly soon after it was posted, be advised that the cat and gull video post has since had a couple of additions.

Finally! Help for those of us who write screeds on the Internet!

(Updated below)

Oh stop lying. You know you're as bad as me -- if you're not pounding on wingnuts in the Bloggingheads.tv forums, you're explaining at length to Donald Douglas why he is an idiot. Or writing a sternly-worded admonition to the guy currently posing as the WaPo's ombudsman. Or whatever. So you know that sick feeling of composing a lengthy masterpiece, only to have the site, or your connection, or your browser, or your computer, choke at exactly the wrong moment. And then where is your deathless prose? Gone, that's where.

But maybe that doesn't have to happen, ever again! (If you're using Firefox.)

Enter this add-on I just happened across, Lazarus: Form Recovery, which proclaims:

Never lose anything you type into a web form again! Lazarus securely auto-saves all forms as you type, so after a crash, server timeout, or whatever, you can go back to the form, right click, "recover form", and breathe a sigh of relief.

And at more length on its home page:

Ever had one of those “oh $*#@” moments when you've finally finished filling out a long form, and hit submit only to see an error message? And when you hit the back button, the form was blank... If so, you know you need Lazarus. And if not, you have a chance to install Lazarus before disaster strikes!

Using Lazarus, you can recover lost forms with a single click. Lazarus automagically encrypts and saves every form as you type. If the submission fails or if you forget to send it or your computer or browser crashes, then you can return to the page and recover the form data you originally entered.

Now works with WYSIWYG editors, Rich text boxes and AJAXified forms.

So far, all I can tell you is it installed from here without drama in the usual add an addon way. Under the principle (corollary to Murphy's Law) that if you bring an umbrella it never rains, I suspect that I will not have a browser crash while I am in the middle of typing away for at least the next six months, by which point I'll have long since forgotten that I installed this thing.

But who knows? Maybe you will give it a shot and it will save you some agita. Please let me know in the Comments or by email if it does. Or if it already has. Thanks! (Or, you're welcome!?)

---

Update

2010-07-21 09:16

Eponym reports in the Comments that he has done a little testing, and it appears to work as advertised.

2010-07-21 12:03

Just ran a quick test of my own, and it also worked. See Comments.

Rats Fleeing Ship Sinking In Boston Harbor

Previously on this blog:

Ta-Nehisi tweets (via @elonjames):

An occasional reminder as to the precise nature of the motherfuckers you are dealing with.http://bit.ly/cdSevD

That URL leads to this:

A Final Thought

Here is former head and current spokesperson for the Tea Party Express Mark Williams …

And now for some updates (via tip from KK):

NY Daily News reported yesterday (Sunday 18 July 2010):

"We have expelled Tea Party Express and Mark Williams from the National Tea Party Federation because of the letter that he wrote," federation spokesman David Webb said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

[...]

In a press release, the National Tea Party Federation says it ordered the Tea Party Express to kick Williams out and say so "prominently" on their Website. They did not.

Williams' response: who's the National Tea Party Federation anyway?

"There are internal political dramas amongst the various self-anointed tea party 'leaders' and some of the minor players on the fringes see the Tea Party Express and Mark Williams as tickets to a booking on Face the Nation," he said.

"There is no tea party leadership; every tea partier is a tea party leader."

And everyone gets a trophy at the Special Olympics, which I believe is Central To His Point™.

TPM has more news here and here of other teabagger groups scrambling to Distance Themselves.

Media Matters wonders why CNN is still allowing him on their channel. My response: You're asking this of a station that hired Erick Erickson?

(x-posted)

Sadly, I know the answer to this one, Jill

"The real question is why the Democrats refuse to point this out."

Because it's more fun to grouse about Obama not being perfect, that's why.

(h/t: @siouxeeq | x-posted)

McSoreloser

Steve Kornacki has an interesting take on He Who Was Once Considered Honorable™ -- it's easy to see everything John McCain has done over the past decade as a childish reaction to those who opposed him -- George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and now J.D. Hayworth.

Steve's latest is here, and he refers to an April post of his, here. Both are worth reading.

A merging of two cults

Roy Edroso's latest Village Voice column is up. Intro here, full column here. This week's topic: "Rightbloggers Go Alex Jones." Why? Because:

In other words, both major parties have kept the People down -- with liberalism!

I'd call your attention to the part near the end where Roy notes a rare effort by Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds to write a blog post where his contribution goes beyond a hehindeed. My own reaction: It'd be pretty funny if Instapundit's fantasy came true, and one of the first symbols of the elite ruling class to take a bullet from a fired-up yahoo was none other than ruling class member in good standing, elitist college professor, and full-time government employee, Glenn Reynolds.

Unfortunately, the universe does not have a well-enough developed sense of comedic justice.

(x-posted)

Oh, Sylvester and Tweety, What Have Ye Wrought?

Barliman calls this "An embarrassment to cats, everywhere."

(alt. video link)

One of Barliman's commenters, John H., saves feline dignity: "I imagine the cat telling the gull, 'If you want it, it’s yours. This new food tastes horrible!'"

Another explanation: the master species is allowing the bird-brained one to fatten itself, in order to serve as a more bountiful feast tomorrow.

(h/t: @SissyWillis, via Roy Edroso)

[Added] Belinda, via email:

Everyone knows cats can't be bothered unless the result outweighs the comfort of the current napping position. And we humans will refill that bowl tomorrow. Smart cat.

[Added2] MK reminds us this isn't the first time the terrorists have been caught on camera. Remember this al Qaedagull?

Good News From Down South

South of the Equator, I mean. It would appear that my friend Ocean's recent arrival on that continent is already paying dividends.

The Argentine Senate voted 33-27 last Thursday to allow same-sex marriage, making Argentina the first Latin American country to provide full marriage equality. The House of Deputies had already passed the bill (by a vote of 125-109), and President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner will sign it on Wednesday.

As Nate’s graph shows, the number of countries allowing gay marriage is slowly but steadily ticking upward. No longer is it unique to the stereotypically liberal Benelux and Scandinavian countries. Spain, Portugal and Argentina--Catholic countries with histories of right-wing, military dictatorships--now permit gay couples to wed. Polls show 70% of Argentines favoring the new law.

There's More...

And here is the chart referred to above:

A quarter of a billion Judy Garland fans can't be wrong, can they?

;)

[Added] Instaputz has a nice touch of schadenfreude to help you enjoy this story just a bit more. Everyone point and laugh at Maggie Gallagher!

Another note of Administrivia

In addition to adding that "after the jump" feature mentioned earlier, I have also restored the "email this post" icon, for your sharing pleasure. Should you be so inclined, look to the bottom of the post and click that little envelope with an arrow on it. A pop-up window will appear, and from there, it's clear what to do.

The ShareThis icon offers link-emailing among its choices as well, but it has come to my attention that some readers have found this less than obvious.

And now, also in the spirit of sharing, here is a snippet from The West Wing that I stumbled across. (I linked to it earlier, but I'm betting not that many of you made it to the end of the post where the link appeared.) From Vertical Hold:

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

I suppose I shouldn't really be surprised to see djb have a page of post hoc fallacies. It's still pretty funny though, in that old, bearded, unix crank kind of humor of course.

Of course, I doubt djb would flip anybody a nickel to buy a new computer.

President: After it, therefore because of it. It means one thing follows the other, therefore it was caused by the other. But it's not always true. In fact it's hardly ever true. We did not lose Texas because of the hat joke. Do you know when we lost Texas?

C.J.: When you learned to speak Latin?

President: Go figure.

Fun with the Googles

I was looking for a picture to decorate the end of the last post, so I image-Googled old bearded guy from dilbert and who do you suppose should suddenly be revealed to be a …

SECRET UNIX GURU BENT ON DENYING REALAMERICANS™ THEIR GOD-GIVEN RIGHT TO USE WINDOWS FOREVER?

Click it to big it:

Welp, we already have seen several other instances (etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.) of his vast stores of coolness, so why not Unix guru, too?

Also, should you follow the Google link, you will see an even more mysterious result farther down the page. Bill Kristol? Eh, I suppose this could have happened because someone referred to the PHB.

Breaking up long posts on your Blogger blog

This is mostly just a note to self, but maybe it'll be of interest to others.

If you've got a Blogger/Blogspot blog and you would like the option to show just the first part of your longer posts on your main page, or, perhaps, hide a punchline or an NSFW picture or whatever below the fold, as they say, you can now do that easily in Blogger.

I'm not sure how recently this feature has been added, but last I looked (a year or two ago), you had to go out and find a hunk of third-party Javascript and mess around with the HTML in your layout template to insert it. No more. Now it's built in, and it's just a matter of clicking a button on the post editor's toolbar.

For details, see here.

Thanks, Blogger crew!

[Added] And now for a test of this exciting new feature!

MORE »

"The Good News About Mel Gibson"

You might already have looked at it, if you headed over to the NYT op-ed page based on my previous recommendation, but in case not: see Frank Rich's latest column. Starts off funny, with Rich putting his tongue in his cheek and his old reviewer's cap on his head, but then he gets a bit more serious and makes an interesting argument about the parallels of the decline and fall of Mel and societal progress in the United States over the same time.

I guess anti-parallels might be a better word. Anyway, a good read.

(x-posted)

Another Occasion, Another Reminder

As the man said:

An occasional reminder as to the precise nature of the motherfuckers you are dealing with.

Except in this case, please replace man with woman and mother with child.

Today, MoDo is righteous.

While we're on that reposting thing ...

... here's a note from Stuart Shapiro:

A Do-Something President, Not Afraid Of Big Things

Earlier this week, Congress passed financial reform which will be signed by President Obama in the days ahead. As Sheryl Gay Stolberg notes in the New York Times, this marks the third economy-wide statute that has been passed in a year and a half under Obama.

The financial regulatory bill is the final piece of a legislative hat trick that also included the stimulus bill and the landmark new health care law. Over the last 18 months, Mr. Obama and the Democratic Congress have made considerable inroads in passing what could be the most ambitious agenda in decades.

In a mere one-and-a-half years, Obama has pushed through Congress bills more far-reaching than any President since Nixon. If he stopped now, his policy legacy would be the largest overall since Reagan and the largest domestically since Nixon or Johnson.

The charges of socialism, are of course, ridiculous, as both health insurance reform and financial reform left the market in a central role in these areas. However, both Obama’s critics and supporters are right to note that he has made a big difference. With 2.5-6.5 years to go in his presidency, the potential is there for him to reach his goal of being a truly “transformative” President.

(h/t: @Karoli, RTed by @sonjablair | x-posted)

One More TNC

Along the lines of the previous post, and just in case you haven't gotten the hint to go directly to the source, here's one more from which I cannot help but excerpt a lot. It's part of "Why Black Writers Tend Not to Shout."

(Aside: note diff betw URL and title.)

In 2007 Barack Obama began campaigning for the presidency. Since that time, his reception by the American Right has included claims that he is--among other things--a covert Muslim, a welfare thug, a "racist...with a deep-seated hatred of white people or the white culture," and as a president with a policy of landing on the side that "favors the black person."

During the 2008 campaign, one GOP congressman called Obama "uppity", while another referred to him as "that boy." At the Values Voters summit, vendors showed up hawking Obama Waffles, while a California Republican group sent out fake food stamps with Obama surrounded by ribs and chicken. By the end of the campaign, Palin-McCain supporters were repeatedly showing up at rallies publicly announcing that Obama was a Muslim, mocking him as a monkey and openly flaunting the fact that they opposed him because he was black. The monkey jokes continued into Obama's presidency--with South Carolina GOP activist Rusty DePass noting that an escaped gorilla was "probably just one of Michelle Obama's ancestors."

The racial nuttiness has not been limited to Obama. His first Supreme Court nominee, was dismissed as "Miss Affirmative Action 2009." His second nominee has been dismissed for having been influenced by one of the architects of desegregation. Lindsey Graham, a supposedly sensible Republican, attacked health care because it would hurt his state, which is "31 percent African-American population." (Presumably, all those people are poor, while all the white people in South Carolina are not.) When John Lewis walked to the House to vote for health care, he was called a nigger by the mob, and then called a liar for claiming as much. After Tom Tancredo opened the Tea Party convention by calling for literacy tests and asserted that, "people who could not even spell the word 'vote', or say it in English, put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House," the conventions convener lauded Tancredo for giving "a fantastic speech."

Perhaps you could argue that some of these instances aren't about race. Certainly, you could note that many of them are about race plus several other factors. But even granting those points as caveats, what you have is disturbing pattern among the GOP that sometimes floats up to the top. Black writers working in the mainstream, and even at liberal publications, are in a constant dialouge with white audiences. It is utterly useless, and to some extend brand-damaging, to repeatedly call on conservatives to repudiate racism in their midst. What many of us chose to do instead is to try to extend some sympathy, and get into the head of the offending party, in hopes of building a bridge.

I think, for those who are skeptical of the NAACP, something of a turn-about is in order. If you were black what would you think, faced with this pattern? If you were the NAACP what would you to say to this? The downside of the Obama approach, one that I still embrace, is that it tacitly supports Chait's notion that conservative opposition to Obama has "generally lacked much in the way of racial animus." I just don't think the facts bear that conclusion out--at all.

Shouting and resolutions are not my way. I firmly believe that racists, and those who work with the machinery of racism, must ultimately answer for themselves. But without someone shouting, we tend to forget and to elide uncomfortable realities that we have deemed unspeakable. I'm haunted by the words of a black Republican, who was a member of the group that sent out the Obama foodstamps. "This is what keeps African-Americans from joining the Republican Party," she said. "I'm really hurt. I cried for 45 minutes."

The leader of the group responded by asserting her support for Alan Keyes.

(x-posted)

More TNC

Following up from earlier …

Ta-Nehisi tweets (via @elonjames):

An occasional reminder as to the precise nature of the motherfuckers you are dealing with.http://bit.ly/cdSevD

That URL leads to this:

A Final Thought

Here is former head and current spokesperson for the Tea Party Express Mark Williams satirically responding [← link omitted, for reasons soon to be made obvious --bjk] to the NAACP:

[That really stupid, racist, and unfunny thing noted earlier. Or, click through to TNC's post for a copy. --bjk]

Williams has since taken the original down and posted a half-hearted justification. Mark Williams is the same man who has denounced Barack Obama as "Indonesian Muslim" and a "welfare thug." If Mark Williams is not a racist, then there are no racists in American society--a position which many, some liberals among them, no doubt find plausible.

It's been asked in comments, a few times, what good has come of the NAACP's resolution. I would not endeavor to speak for anyone but myself when I say that I owe the NAACP a debt of gratitude. I have, in my writing, a tendency to become theoretically cute, and overly enamored with my own fair-mindedness. Such vanity has lately been manifested in the form of phrases like "it's worth saying" and "it strikes me that..." or "respectfully..."

When engaging your adversaries, that approach has its place. But it's worth saying that there are other approaches and other places. Among them--respectfully administering the occasional reminder as to the precise nature of the motherfuckers you are dealing with. It strikes me that this is a most appropriate role for the nation's oldest civil rights organization.

(x-posted)

More Plagiarism Accusations for Mr. Stealy

No, not Mr. Steele. Mr. Stealy!

That Republican ex-Congressman and current gubernatorial hopeful who was busted last week for taking big money for a report he pretty much Ctrl-c, Ctrl-v'ed? Scott McInnis? Yeah.

Turns out the Denver Post has found more:

Storm over possible plagiarism in McInnis writings escalates

A new example of possible plagiarism by Scott McInnis surfaced Tuesday as the Republican gubernatorial candidate faced calls to repay $300,000 he received for plagiarized essays on water that he submitted as "original works."

A Denver Post review of McInnis' floor speeches and columns published during his congressional career found striking similarities between a 1995 speech and 1994 column by McInnis and a previously published Op-Ed in The Washington Post.

[...]

McInnis has declined interview requests from The Denver Post since the paper first reported that the "Musings on Water" articles he submitted to the Hasan Family Foundation as "original works" included passages that were similar to or copied directly from a 1984 essay by now-Colorado Supreme Court Justice Gregory Hobbs.

[...]

McInnis on Tuesday declared the plagiarism of the water essays a "non-issue" that Colorado voters don't care about.

We interrupt here to point out that if you click that link up there, you get to vote in a non-scientific poll about how much of a non-issue this is!

No point in quoting much more, since of course you are going to do that fun poll. But let me just note one more hilarious bit that shows how little words mean to people like Scott McInnis:

Although his campaign manager put out a statement late Monday saying McInnis believes the "buck stops" with him, McInnis spent Tuesday asserting that he failed only in that he did not monitor his research assistant closely enough.

Now that's responsibamility!

This is having some effect on voters' views of him, as you might expect. However, there is one thing that will sour your enjoyment of delicious schadenfreude.

… when given a list of other Republicans who could be the party's nominee, 64 percent of GOP voters picked another candidate over McInnis.

When asked who would be the "strongest Republican gubernatorial candidate," former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo easily led the pack …

Ugh. That guy?

Eh, who knows. Could be for the best -- an extremist xenophobic loon like Tom Tancredo ought to be easier to beat in the general. Good thing the Democrats have stopped their infighting, so we can be confident about this!

(h/t: Jack Stuef)

He's makin' a list, he's checkin' it twice ...

… He's gonna tell you who's naughty and who's …

THE MOSTEST BIASEDEST LIBERALZ IN THE WHOLE LAMESTREAM MEDIA!!!1!

Readers of Sadly, No! will already be familiar with this guy, Warner Todd Huston, better known as The Walrus. He was for about four years one of the those constantly tumbling out of Bozo's clown car; evidently he iz naow impordant freelance writer guy!

Anyway, he is currently hard at work on a very serious, thoughtful piece of journalism that has never been made in such detail or with such care. And it is gonna blow the roof right off'n this hot dog stand!

Behold (and no longer a beard!):

You can see #6 being teased. Here's The List ... so far:

#10: Neil Steinberg, Chicago Sun-Times
#9: Liz Sidoti, Associated Press
#8: Christiane Amanpour, CNN
#7: Howard Fineman, Newsweek
#6: Rick Sanchez, CNN

Ladies and gentlemen, place. your. bets!

I for one am astounded that no one from MSNBC or the NYT has shown up yet, so that is going to narrow my guesses. Certainly Maddow and Olbermann are going to be #1 and #2, unless The Walrus has decided they aren't even journalists and he has banished them from consideration, because, come on, no RealAmerican thinks they are, amirite?

---

[Added]

Oh, wait. I just started reading post #10, which gives us a little introduction, and ... well, do I know my wingnuts or what?

\[sic]This list will be restricted to working journalists (or one who just retired in one case), so biased old hacks like Dan Rather, Walter Cronkite, or Walter Duranty will be excluded even as we take their leftism for granted. Also you will not find those whose career is but a cartoon of journalism. People such as Keith Olbermann, John [sic] Stewart, Rachel Maddow, Maureen Dowd, or Chris Matthews do not belong on a journalist list, even one highlighting left-wing bias.

Seriously, how can a Very Serious Watchdog of Liberal Media Bias NOT know how to spell Jon Stewart by this point?

(x-posted)

Follow-up on the Twits

Y'know, when I was writing the last post, I kept thinking, Is this clan doing nothing but permanently auditioning for reality teevee?

Apparently, I am not the only one so moved. Maureen O'Connor reports.

(h/t: Benjamin Frisch)

Move over, "Math is Hard!"

A world of feminists weeps, now that future First Sister of Future First Son-in-Law has signed up for one o' them newfangled Internets thingamawhatchas.

Also, is this how they do good wishes, in Alaska there?

Today has been a very eventful day. I congratulate you big brother and my soon to be sister in-law.I hope this is sincere. GoodnightEveryone

(previously)

(h/t: Josh Fruhlinger)

Finally, someone has praise for George Steinbrenner

And that would be, according to Gail Collins, Sen. Jim Bunning.

The Kentucky Republican praised the Yankee owner in the Senate Finance Committee for being “smart enough to die in 2010,” when the estate tax is temporarily suspended.

[Added] I hope she's kidding about this, regarding teabagger poster boy Mario (Marco, actually) Rubio:

Most Republicans are not joining Boehner in his call to repeal the financial reform bill because they are too busy calling for the repeal of health care reform. “The bill should be scrapped and replaced with much better ideas,” said Mario Rubio, the Republican Senate candidate in Florida.

Rubio’s own idea is to eliminate the requirement that healthy people have insurance, but keep the part that says insurance companies have to cover people with pre-existing conditions. This sounds like the ideal solution — no one would have to buy insurance until they got sick, and then they could make the companies sell them a whole bunch of coverage. I don’t know why nobody thought of this before.

I know candidates say simplistic feel-good shit to get the yahoos fired up, but that is inexcusably dumb, even for a Republican.

I Dunno, TBogg

Much as I share your contempt for the rePubOLITICO, I am tempted to give Andy Barr credit for being intentional with this one:

“For Washington consultants to sit around and personally disparage the governor anonymously to reporters is unfortunate and counterproductive and frankly immature,” said the aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

@the rest of you: Yep, the campaign for the 2012 GOP nomination is already in full swing. As Parfigliano observes: It's Mormon vs. Moron!

Tell it, Brother Shrill One!

Redo That Voodoo

Republicans are feeling good about the midterms — so good that they’ve started saying what they really think. This week the party’s Senate leadership stopped pretending that it cares about deficits, stating explicitly that while we can’t afford to aid the unemployed or prevent mass layoffs of schoolteachers, cost is literally no object when it comes to tax cuts for the affluent.

And that’s one reason — there are others — why you should fear the consequences if the G.O.P. actually does as well in November as it hopes.

For a while, leading Republicans posed as stern foes of federal red ink. Two weeks ago, in the official G.O.P. response to President Obama’s weekly radio address, Senator Saxby Chambliss devoted his entire time to the evils of government debt, “one of the most dangerous threats confronting America today.” He went on, “At some point we have to say ‘enough is enough.’ ”

But this past Monday Jon Kyl of Arizona, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, was asked the obvious question: if deficits are so worrisome, what about the budgetary cost of extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, which the Obama administration wants to let expire but Republicans want to make permanent? What should replace $650 billion or more in lost revenue over the next decade?

His answer was breathtaking: “You do need to offset the cost of increased spending. And that’s what Republicans object to. But you should never have to offset the cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans.” So $30 billion in aid to the unemployed is unaffordable, but 20 times that much in tax cuts for the rich doesn’t count.

The rest.

(x-posted)

STFU

Shorter New York Times Fashion & Style section:

Aging Gracefully, the French Way

Here is a picture of Catherine Deneuve. There, that wasn't so hard, was it?

__________

Equivalent article in the sports section:

Easy Money in the Big Leagues After 40

Okay, not really. But still ... curse you, Most Emailed List!

Ah, man. Maybe someday I'll make it.

Ann Althouse has directed her dishwater version of withering scorn in my direction a couple of times, including one unforgettable occasion where she really thought she was taking me to the woodshed (she addressed me half a dozen times in the same post as "bj" and yeah, quoted it just like that, each time), but forget that weak noise.

This is big time, baby:

G. Gordon Liddy once told me my writing makes him want to vomit, which is the greatest compliment I've ever been paid ever.

Can't touch that!

That's from Allison Kilkenny's T/S profile. Note to other winguts seeking emetics: she now blogs here.

(h/t: some gossip who is probably now mad at me ;))

No way. I mean, I guess, but ...

You know how when you're reading your Gmail you sometimes see ads along the side? That are, in theory anyway, connected to what you the reader might be interested in, or at least to the content of the email you are reading? So, I was replying to a gossipy thing about office machinations, the fourth or seventh exchange depending on how you're counting between this friend and me on this topic, and what should appear in the sidebar but this:

I guess I can see it, in the sense of the Internet-age equivalent of posting your business card on the community bulletin board at the grocery store or something, but … seriously? Wouldn't anyone who actually wanted such services go looking for them him- or herself? On the Internet? And would you want a customer who didn't, or couldn't?

What a suprise: The rePubOLITICO is misrepresenting the leftosphere has its two heads up its many asses again.

Greg Sargent and Dave Weigel throw good punches in return.