…except for this one we have here. Ernst Stavro Blofeld explains the rest, and I note that I’m not the first to see the parallel to modern times:

Our friend in Portales, New Mexico, needed to have this explained to him. I agree with him that somewhere, within the boundaries of this fine nation is a dignified, handsome, sophisticated, masculine paladin who is ready to take front-and-center in the battle to dethrone the Holy Emperor Obama. And to make victory a heady possibility in a way Sarah Palin cannot.

Trouble is, whoever that guy is, he’s a yellow-belly. He’s a “smart” Siamese fighting fish, holding back, letting the others take chunks out of each other so he can snare an easy triumph. An easy personal triumph, might I add…good for his own campaign, but not for the country.

I cannot criticize the fellow beyond that. I can’t, because I don’t know who he is. That’s my point. Whoever he is, he’s what my grandparents used to call a “no-account.” You can only criticize him so much, because you don’t know who he is. There’s nothing honorable about this.

Gingrich made a couch commercial with his failed successor as House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, legitimizing the global warming scam. Romney had an ObamaCare-style health care plan in Massachusetts, which is an abject failure by now. Huckabee is saddled with a reputation for being soft on crime, which he richly deserves. All three of them have clung to the hope they can be rehabilitated by ducking-and-covering while the hottest part of the pre-nomination battle burns itself out. And, like the smart Siamese fighting fish, maybe they’re right.

They’re still cowardly pussies, if that’s their plan. If it’s not their plan, then they’re just plain lazy. Either way: Not the kind of leadership the country needs.

Now, as to their noisy cheerleaders like our friend in Portales, and those in agreement with him. Ah…they aren’t cheerleaders yet, are they. The object of their cheer has to stick his head out of the ground, identify himself, and accept the cheer. So let’s call them anti-Palin ankle-biters I guess. They insist it’s far too early to figure out who is to be the champion of the movement, and they have a point about this, until they do some more speaking and then they don’t. It is certainly not too early to shout “quitter!” and “unqualified!”…and other little cliches that have been re-used and re-used so often, and then re-used some more, that some more substance behind them would do them justice. But the substance never comes.

Buck sez…

The Palin fanbois will weep. Or gnash their teeth. Or both. That’s fun to watch, actually.

…and that is not what I saw in the underlying thread. What I saw was, I challenged the ankle-biters to produce another name, and what I got was a bunch of retread-rhetoric. I ended up calling them Libertarians. Not as in, lovers of freedom, but such perfectionists that it wasn’t possible to get a coherent plan out of ’em. Just criticism for the status quo…no constructive alternatives, none whatsoever.

Well, I can look past this somewhat. There is lots of time. Palin does have her share of baggage — but doesn’t everyone. In my book, anybody who just repeats it over and over again without participating in a deeper discussion of the meaning, is just running scared. And they’ve lost sight of the issue, I think. Once we start bellyaching about somebody’s voice being annoying, we’re embroiled in a contest of personalities. And that really isn’t where things need to be going. It didn’t work out so hot the last time.

But I don’t think the ankle-biters are engaged in an argument about personalities. I think, for the most part, they’re good-hearted Republicans (and conservatives who aren’t Republicans) who want Palin dis- qualified, not un- qualified…as in, they’ll be safe, it won’t matter how many votes Palin gets later because she’ll have been “disqualified.” In other words, they aren’t satisfied with being able to cast just one vote. They want a guarantee.

Why are they so scared? Because Palin is a front-runner…perhaps the front-runner…and she deserves to be. Take a look at this video Buck embedded. See how chief Palin ankle-biter Charles Krauthammer recoils at the mention of that name “Romney”:

There is no excitement here. None. And there should not be. This business taking place with the 2010 midterms was…well, I don’t want to say a “big fucking deal,” I’ll let the other folks talk up their efforts that way.

But it was a long, sustained effort. Anybody who remained anonymous throughout the entire thing, having not a single word to say about anything, can hold that position as far as I’m concerned. Off with ya, and don’t let the doorknob hit ya where the Good Lord split ya. Is that unfair? If so, where am I going wrong?

I just think we’re losing sight of something here. We’re failing to envision the future. Palin goes up against Obama, and I’m told that’s where her “unqualified”-ness comes front and center as The Anointed One squishes her like a bug. Hmmm…well, for that to happen, some of these people who wanted Obama driven out of there, decided to cross over and vote for Him anyway because He came up against such a hopeless snowbilly ninny. Now, then. Who are these people? The ones who have made up their minds we’re going to pay an untenable price for bad government as long as Obama stays where He is…and then…decide, well, it’s just going to have to be that way, because after all Sarah Palin is dopey.

I’m just not buying it. I don’t doubt there are people who will vote for Obama over Palin. But I think just about all of those people would vote for Obama over just about anyone. Because they like Him. They’re democrats.

Oh, some of them call themselves Republicans. But they aren’t. My point is, those votes don’t exist. A voter who pulls the lever for Obama over Palin, for the most part is going to pull the lever for Obama over Romney, Gingrich, Huckabee, Giuliani…

I suppose I’m wrong. Some folks will loathe a Palin candidacy, but in a pinch, punch Palin’s chad. And guess what? If that is what makes me wrong — then she’s qualified.

If it’s late enough that some can say otherwise, then it is late enough to figure out who’d do better. If it’s not late enough to figure out who’d do better, then it’s not late enough to disqualify her. And it isn’t; she hasn’t said what she’s going to do yet.

Ah, but there’s all this passion behind getting her out of the running before she’s even in it. So much excitement. So much adrenaline…you can hear it pump, pump, pumping away.

I understand some people don’t like her. I understand some people find her voice annoying. I have found her voice annoying, too, on more than one occasion. And so I can understand why some might labor under the belief that a different candidate might have a better shot. A different, dignified, sophisticated, middle-aged male guy. I understand the desire.

But I don’t understand the exuberance behind it. Not while he remains unnamed; not while he remains “some guy who might step forward someday soon.” I don’t see how that stirs passion. Something is wrong, if it does. I think these are people who are just fond of the eighteenth letter of the alphabet. They care more about a change of party, than they do about the vision & message behind such a change.

Friendly reminder: It’s not enough to get Obama fired. We need a fighting spirit behind it, one that makes so much sense that it doesn’t need a sonorous, dignified, sophisticated “great speaker” to get it sold. The message needs to be rock-solid. Domestically, it needs to be: If we want the economy to turn around, we have to make it alright for people to make (and keep) money. With regard to foreign policy, it needs to be: The United States will be the best friend you ever had, and if you make her your enemy, she will become the worst nightmare you ever imagined. Those are the goals. That’s where we need to be. Next to them, having a President with the letter “R” after his name doesn’t mean a whole lot.

I’m all done talking to people who say Palin is not that person…that she’s a “quitter” or that she’s “unqualified.” Until she says she’s running, this is a waste of time. So my question is — who’s going to make this happen? Who, besides her, has the balls to say things like “[Barack Obama] is a man who can who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting, and never use the word ‘victory’ except when he’s talking about his own campaign“?

Point him out. If the hour is late enough to criticize her, it’s plenty late enough to throw in another name. But if you want me to support him, he must pass that test. He has to have brass balls, at least enough to match that dumb ol’ girl you’re wishing back to the kitchen.

Politico:

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele faces an all-but-impossible path to reelection this month, as a majority of the RNC’s 168 members indicate that they will not support the controversial chairman for another term.

A weeklong canvass of the party’s governing board by POLITICO revealed 88 members who have decided not to vote for Steele, either opting to support one of his opponents or simply ruling out Steele as a choice in the race.

Fifty-five members, some of whom have endorsed one of Steele’s challengers, have signaled that they will not support the chairman under any circumstances. An additional 33 pledged their support elsewhere.

Couldn’t happen to a nicer fella.

Steele represents a brand of leadership, which is bipartisan in nature — I saw Janet Napolitano, somewhere, doing the same thing — which could be accurately albeit clumsilly described as “since the status quo is something I like and you don’t, let’s treat it as an inevitability and stop discussing anything.” Or, as they used to say in my last job, if you just unclench back there it’ll go in a lot easier.

I’ve often suspected Steele is in no position to be taking such a stand. Seeing some solid evidence of this is reassuring.

His message is woefully out of step with what’s going on. A Republican party stepping forward in 2012, to tell America “This is just the way things are going, and you need to get used to it” isn’t gonna win. It would scare the bejeezus, quite rightfully, out of the moderates who’ve had about all they can stand of Obama and His shenanigans, but still live in quaking terror of a new Christian theocracy in a fashionable 1980’s kinda way.

And ideology aside, it doesn’t fit the spirit of the country. We’re having something of a resurgence of the Spirit of 1776 right now…a rather pale, wispy imitation of what came before, no doubt, but it’s still there. We’re not in the mood to shut up and do what our “leaders” say just because they’re where they are and it’s too much trouble to dislodge them. Well, most of us aren’t. And it has not escaped my notice that most, or all, of Steele’s defensive rhetoric has taken on this form: I am where I am, getting rid of me is more trouble than it’s worth, that couch you’re sitting on is comfy, shut up, let me do my thing, there are some great re-runs coming on.

If Steele’s identity is to be festooned to such a message…and I think that is a decision that has been lifted from his hands, by now…and he somehow manages to stay put, he’ll be even more out-of-place as the 2012 campaign takes off, than he is right now.

The Republican party that prevails next year, is a Republican party that’s about putting the people back in charge of things. (Hey, that’s exactly what the hippies used to say…funny, innit?) Steele is an establishment elitist snot down to the very core. He doesn’t fit and he needs to go.

Updated to correct my horrible misspelling.

I don’t want to comment with too much certainty on what’s going on with the weather in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, but I do agree with Gov. Ed Rendell that there is a wussification problem going on. I don’t think I’m that old, but when I was a kid things were different. Where I grew up, when the winter had a mind to wreck wreak (thanks to the two pedants in the comment section) some havoc it meant business. And was school ever closed? I don’t recall it happening. Not one single time. I was done with riding the bus just as soon as I was old enough to ride a bike, and this was not an unusual arrangement at all. So we walked or we biked, regardless of what the weather offered…some kids got driven by their parents. Some. Not many.

Now, I know the Atlantic is less friendly than the Pacific and this can make a big difference…but there is definitely a wussification taking place. Emergency this, disaster that. Because it’s cold and there’s snow?

Now there’s some kind of scandal involving Christie in New Jersey. Melissa is having none of it…

The snow plow guys know what they have to do, right? The vast armies of Union workers are entirely competent, correct? They know how to Get The Job done, right?

So why does the Governor have to be there? It’s not like it’s freaking Katrina. It is snow. It is snow that will be plowed and cleaned up and that will eventually melt.

People will shovel. Workers will scrape. Life will go on. It’s Winter. It’s not a surprise.

What a molly-coddled society we’ve become that we even care what the Governor is doing during a snow storm. Man.

I think this is fair criticism. The Governor “needs” to be there for only one reason that I can think of: To declare the place a disaster area so the feds can jump in, if needed. So I have to lean in Melissa’s direction on this one: It’s snow. It’s not a volcano or a tsunami.

William Teach, that is. Fellow Right Wing News contributor and owner/proprietor/CEO/Chief-cook-and-bottle-washer of Pirate’s Cove. He has a challenge for the global-warming/climate-change alarmists in 2011:

What I want for them to do, from the biggest of big climahypocrites, such as Al Gore, James Hansen, Barack Obama, and Leonardo DiCaprio, to the smallest climate dupes, is tell us exactly what the climate will do this year.
:
Any alarmist up for the challenge? And no cheating be reading the Farmer’s Almanac, which tends to be right way more than the Met, NASA, UN IPCC, and other alarmist groups are. Forget about your PR blitzes, “spreading awareness” campaigns, your advocacy, your stunts, and tell us what will happen. If you’re correct, for a change, maybe people will start to believe you again.

I think I know the answer: In ten years the oceans will be desalinized, receded, flooded, boiling, frozen, etc….and then they won’t, and we’ll move the goalposts another ten years. Also, in fifty years the ice caps will be all melty, and in ten years we’ll move those goalposts too.

Every winter we’ll all be commanded from on high to think about the meaningful difference between “weather” and “climate”; and, the following summer, we’ll be commanded from on high to forget all about this crucial distinction yet one more time. Newspapers will be flying around like confetti, with “[insert name of famous city here] experiences its hottest [insert date here] ever!” Your local megalopolis liberal nutbag fish-wrap of record…mine…everybody’s. Every June, just before the fireworks stands go up, global climate & local weather become the same. Again.

That’s my prediction.

TheRaider.net:

Once the transformation from angel to demon has been effected, the full fury of the awesome forces within the Ark is unleashed against the Nazis violators. Flames leap forth from the open chest, and in a matter of moments, Dietrich’s face shrinks to a mummy-like visage. Toht’s features melt away from his skull, and Belloq’s head explodes into a pulpy mess. Spielberg had decided that the villains should be disintegrated. The storyboards dictated close-ups of Belloq, Toht and Dietrich with their faces shutter and crumble away but after many efforts and thoughts they realized that they couldn’t do such a thing, so instead of disintegrating them they decided to give to each of them a different kind of death. Life molds of the characters in the screaming positions they would ultimately reach had to be taken. They had them hold their positions while they took castings of their faces and then special make-up artist Chris Walas had to rebuild their faces from the molds. Walas produced a series of three artificial heads. The first, representing Colonel Dietrich, employed inflatable bladders which when pumped up with air, sustained the face’s proper shape. Joe Johnston’s hand was used during shooting in the close-up to impart some added life to the scene. When the air was sucked out, the bladders deflated and the face became instantly mummified. It took eight or nine people to control the effect, manipulating different levers inside the head, all of which had to be done on hand.

From HotAir:

Just watch Kirsten Powers and her disbelief in this interview when the bomb is dropped about 6:00 in. She’s so flustered when she finds out the truth that President Bush vetoed the 2008 bill with the end-of-life provision in it and it was the Democrat Congress that overrode the veto and forced it into law.

This is where we run into problems having these “friendly discussions” with our liberal friends. A lot of the time, when we get into the most trouble, we aren’t even trying to confront them or disagree with them in anyway…it comes under the heading of stopping them from making fools out of themselves as they repeat a bunch of drivel they were given by someone on the next terrace up in their little MLM pyramid, which they never bothered to research. Just trying to save a friend from looking like a horse’s ass.

But if it’s true, and doesn’t serve the interests of their agenda…it’s “not true.” They’ve got their own definition.

Update 1/2/11: Powers does the honorable thing and ‘fesses up.

I want to be very precise in my criticism of her and people like her. We all have only a limited amount of time we can spend on research, and we’re all flawed. It’s silly to pretend there’s something wrong with her just because she got a detail wrong…

It is the immediate dismissal of something that didn’t fit her preconceived notions. The reasonable response would have been something on the order of “that’s the first I’ve heard of that, I don’t know about that, I’ll have to look into it…” which I’ll concede would have looked a little silly on live teevee, maybe her nerves got the better of her.

My point is: This is as good a definition of any, of “extremist.” Someone tells you something that’s news to you, and you figure out whether it’s true or not based on whether it helps prove what you want proven. At that point, you’ve created your own bubble, your own little version of “truth.” And there’s a lot of it going around lately; molding and shaping the facts to fit the theory rather than the other way ’round.

Yes I know it’s ancient…but it still cracks me up.

And part two:

Don Surber:

Ezra Klein made the biggest mistake that can be made by a liberal — progressive — socialist — communist — no labelist — whatever the heck they call themselves on the 31st of the month.

He was being honest.

He does not believe in the Constitution.

He is cynical about it and he projects that same cynicism onto those who disagree with him.

Hat tip to Althouse, via Instapundit.

“People who know how to create [wealth] are free to do so.” That’s good enough for a bumper sticker.

More on the same subject: Bias for Inaction (hat tip again to blogger friend Gerard). Rhyms With Girls and Cars is invoking an argument to which I’ve long been hostile, that repealing the filibuster to make it easier to “get things done” is a fool’s errand…

At face value, one can only interpret such caring to indicate that the carers passionately want the Senate to be constantly doing stuff. If the Senate isn’t doing stuff, or is thwarted from doing as much stuff as a majority of it seemingly would like to, that’s something akin to a tragedy and certain people just can’t abide it. Why, the Senate could be doing more stuff – writing more laws and regulations, handing out more pork and earmarks – and it’s not! Ipso facto, reform is needed – say some people.

Sonic Charmer‘s position on this is not quite gelled, nor is mine. I don’t necessarily want the Senate to be doing more stuff, I want the majority party, whoever it might be, to establish a stronger ownership of the results for good or for ill. And I have to admit, in the last year or so, I have been very happy to see the filibuster in place. But it didn’t stop ObamaCare…it just seems to perpetuate the “is not is too” aspect of our republic that so many others find loathsome.

Ultimately, it allows those who promote bad policies — you can tell from watching the video I have found worth embedding, which side I think that is — to claim that their policies are not bad, and that the opposing position is not good. It gives them a bunch of stuff that looks like firm, robust evidence, which they can then use as weapons.

Which brings us back to Sowell, who at segment 2, time index 5:29 says “when the House of Representatives is in the hands of the opposite party, I don’t know how any President can take any credit for…whether there’s a surplus or not.”

This is the key to putting the electorate in a good place to figure out what policies are good and what ones are not…which, in turn, is vital for seeing some good decisions made in the years ahead. What needs to happen is that the supports get knocked out from under the democrats, under the Keynesians, the hippies, the tree-huggers, the neo-communists. So that the spirit of the country is aligned with the objective of seeing to it that the people who know how to create wealth, are free to do so. There’s nothing else on God’s green earth that’s gonna get us out of this mess.

And that, in turn, is a problem much simpler than the way we envision it. People are not going to stop voting for democrats when a Republican is made to look more wonderful, or more dignified, or like he has a happier marriage or that he has contributed more meaningful service in time of war. None of those things address what’s really broken. What’s broken is that we have been looking at things that don’t work, as if they work, and vice-versa.

Make it okay to make money, and people will. Then they’ll get more work than they can handle and they’ll start hiring other people.

That’s the way it’s supposed to work…right?

Schooled.

…that’s your photoshop theme for this thread over here.

I appreciated this one as well…

Ann Coulter is not done beating up on the liberals over their charitable contributions, or rather the lack thereof. She has another column up revisiting the same theme as before…

…and the final sign-off easily snags the one hundred fifteenth Best Sentence I’ve Heard Or Read Lately (BSIHORL) award:

The only evidence we have that Democrats love the poor is that they consistently back policies that will create more of them.

Kapwing, Zowee, Ker-Sploosh and other Batman-fight sound effects. Somehow, “gonna leave a mark” doesn’t quite cover it.

That’ll fit on a bumper sticker, right?

What made the show so great when the situations were so stupid?

Each character, in each scene, had a story to tell. And a unique role to play in the larger story.

I’m voting for Ted Knight as the major contributor to success here. Think of Jerry Seinfeld trying to do this…or Carrot-Top. It would still work, but not quite as well.

Fellow Right Wing News contributor William Teach brings us an interesting one:

Nothing like coordinated anarchists to say anarchy

ROME – A loosely linked movement of European anarchists who want to bring down state and financial institutions is becoming more violent and coordinated after decades out of the spotlight, and may be responding to social tensions spawned by the continent’s financial crisis, security experts say.

Italian police said Tuesday that letter bombs were sent to three embassies in Rome by Italian anarchists in solidarity with jailed Greek anarchists, who had asked their comrades to organize and coordinate a global “revolutionary war.” [emphasis in Teach’s]

“Let’s all work together for anarchy!”

Thing I Know #What a self-parodying mess it is when a command hierarchy is constructed within any rebellion, for there it becomes undeniable: The rebel is only a fair-weather friend, at best, to the act of rebelling.

Merle Haggard has some nice things to say about the current President:

“It was also nice to meet Obama and find him very different from the media makeout,” Haggard told the magazine. “It’s really almost criminal what they do with our president. There seems to be no shame or anything. They call him all kinds of names all day long, saying he’s doing certain things that he’s not. It’s just a big old political game that I don’t want to be part of. There are people spending their lives putting him down. I’m sure some of it’s true and some of it’s not. I was very surprised to find the man very humble and he had a nice handshake. His wife was very cordial to the guests and especially me. They made a special effort to make me feel welcome. It was not at all the way the media described him to be.”

But the most interesting comment appeared to be a back-handed compliment. When asked about Obama’s biggest misconception, Haggard, 73, said, “He’s not conceited. He’s very humble about being the president of the United States, especially in comparison to some presidents we’ve had who come across like they don’t need anybody’s help. I think he knows he’s in over his head. Anybody with any sense who takes that job and thinks they can handle it must be an idiot.”

Well yes, Barack Obama is nothing if not humble. That’s what He said, isn’t it?

“This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” What a difference two years makes! Now, when the time comes to find some compliments to toss in Chairman Zero’s direction, it’s something like He has a nice handshake and He must know He’s in over His head.

I guess we’re still waiting for the moment when those oceans are going to start receding. Blub blub.

Art Horn, writing in Pajamas Media:

Studies by Raval & Ramanathan (1989) estimated that the greenhouse effect of a cloudless atmosphere is 146 W/m2 (watts per square meter) for the average Earth. They further pointed out that water vapor is accounting for most of this greenhouse effect, leaving about 8 W/m2 for the total amount of atmospheric CO2 — some 8%. In addition, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 4th Assessment showed that 3% of the atmospheric CO2 comes from man-made sources. Global gross primary production and respiration, land use changes, plus CO2 from the oceans totals 213 gigatonnes of carbon exchanged each year between the Earth/oceans and the atmosphere. The IPCC figure also shows man-made carbon emissions to be about 7 gigatonnes, bringing the total to 220 gigatonnes per year. So from this, we can see that making energy from fossil fuels is producing about 3% of the carbon dioxide added to the air each year. From that, the total human component of the greenhouse effect is therefore about 3% of the total carbon dioxide component of the greenhouse effect, which is 8%.

That gives us a value of .2% from man-made carbon dioxide. If you think that’s a small number you’re right.

I thought Taranto’s contribution to the global warming non-debate debate yesterday was pretty funny:

Everyone loves frolicking in the winter: sledding, building snowmen, laughing at global warmists. OK, not everyone. The last one aggravates the global warmists, and they have a point: Weather is not climate. That it is cold here today does not mean the earth isn’t getting warmer on the whole over decades.

It’s not just the weather, though. Their climatic claims keep changing too. A reader sends along this item from the Environmental News Service, dated Dec. 14, 2009: “Snow and ice across the planet are melting much faster than anticipated, and the cryosphere — the Earth’s ice and snow cover — is very vulnerable to climate change, finds a new report presented today at the United Nations Climate Summit by former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Store.”

But according to Judah Cohen, writing in the New York Times the other day, the opposite is occurring: “As global temperatures have warmed and as Arctic sea ice has melted over the past two and a half decades, more moisture has become available to fall as snow over the continents. So the snow cover across Siberia in the fall has steadily increased.”

So laugh away at the global warmists. And don’t even feel bad that they’re right about the weather-climate distinction. After all, they forget about it every summer.

All of this is neither here nor there. The readings of “global temperature” or “earth mean temperature,” even taken all together, are subject to reasonable suspicion with regard to their integrity and even if they weren’t, they tell only part of the story. They could very well be concluding this mean-temperature metric is on a steady upward trend, when it’s really falling…or vice-versa. The sum of all these measurements is as strongly related to what the earth is going to be doing over the next century, as local weather patterns are, to it.

If the global warming proponents were honest, they’d start a political movement with a name something like “sit on your ass and don’t do anything” — that’s what they really want. Global warming is just the excuse.

Big. Really big. And getting bigger, as people vote with their feet against high taxes and nanny-state laws:

Texas will pick up four more congressional seats, expanding the state’s U.S. House delegation to 36 seats and further boosting Texas political clout in the nation’s Capitol.

Texas had the biggest increase of any state as the Census Bureau announced new congressional apportionment based on population shifts over the past decade.

Eric Torbinsen jots down a few ideas — just a few of the ideas — why the rush is taking off in that direction (hat tip to blogger friend Gerard). He’s speaking from personal experience.

New York, I love you — but I can’t make the math work.

Like lots of media professionals (and fashion mavens, artists, musicians, et al.), I’ve penciled out the numbers for what it would mean to take a job in New York City. There’s barely enough room on the back of the envelope for subtracting the double-dose income tax hit from the city and state, and that’s before even adjusting for cost of living.

That’s one of the reasons I’m in Dallas. You know, Texas, the state that parlayed this year’s census data into four new House seats — pinching the two lost by the Empire State — because people actually want to live here.

Lots of Texas professionals love New York this way: fly in for $200 round trip, suck down the city’s beefy marrow of culture for a weekend and jet back to live cheap and pay no income tax. It’s all the pleasure and we keep our treasure.

Folks are voting with their pocketbooks; between 2000 and 2008, $846 million of New York’s personal income saddled up and jingle-jangled down to the Lone Star State.
:
Texas creates jobs like a fiend, in part because businesses large and small have no worry of obstacles such as plaintiff-friendly courts, consumer-friendly regulators or oversight-friendly lawmakers. Pro-business isn’t just a mantra; they put it in the water.

It should be noted that Texas has a budget problem like everybody else. But it hasn’t completely exhausted its revenue streams, its credit, its options like a lot of the blue states — in particular, New York, and my own, California.

In places like ours, we have put up a vivid illustration of how a state government can not work. It’s gotten to the point where our newspapers are exquisitely boring because they can’t print any real news. It’s all “here’s a case study of someone pathetically dependent on such-and-such a program, and they don’t know what they’re gonna do because it’s getting cut, aw boo hoo hoo.” Turn the page, it’s the same thing. Wait a day, buy the same paper, it’s the same thing. Week after week, month after month, year after year. Daily digest of a failed system.

If you’re not buying the paper for the crossword puzzles or the comics, you’ve got no use buying it. It’s fish wrap. And I mean that as no slight against the talent of the writers. It’s the information going into it; the material. The story never changes and they’ve got nothing to work with, they only update the numbers.

So now there’s a census, and with it, hard statistics behind the massive population shift we knew was happening already.

Hey — if now is not the time to draw some conclusions about how government should & should not be run…then what’s the event we’re looking for? What’s it take?

One part Atlas Shrugged, one part It’s a Wonderful Life, two parts the reality we’ve been living. Enjoy.

Hat tip to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air, who adds:

For those who don’t recall, or who have blocked the memory, “Bob” was an unmitigated failure by Microsoft for an operating system (really just an overlay for Windows) that gave novice users a supposedly friendly, safe interface. It did that by restricting how the computer could be used, while giving owners a treacly “smiley-face” character and other animated characters to shepherd users through a virtual house that opened applications such as a word processor and calender. Shortcuts to the program appeared in picture frames on the walls. The only thing missing was padding on the walls and a straitjacket for the user.

Jack has two things right about why the FCC would love Bob. It put you in your place, and it treated you like a child.

We’re coming closer to the end times. If you want to understand what people around you are saying…even if you’re trying to earn a grade, that depends on your comprehension of what is being discussed…that makes you a RAY-SCIST!!!

A teenage schoolgirl was arrested by police for racism after refusing to sit with a group of Asian students because some of them did not speak English.

Codie Stott’s family claim she was forced to spend three-and-a-half hours in a police cell after she was reported by her teachers.
:
Codie was attending a GCSE science class at Harrop Fold High School in Worsley, Greater Manchester, when the incident happened.

The teenager had not been in school the day before due to a hospital appointment and had missed the start of a project, so the teacher allocated her a group to sit with.

“She said I had to sit there with five Asian pupils,” said Codie yesterday.

“Only one could speak English, so she had to tell that one what to do so she could explain in their language. Then she sat me with them and said ‘Discuss’.”

According to Codie, the five – four boys and a girl – then began talking in a language she didn’t understand, thought to be Urdu, so she went to speak to the teacher.

“I said ‘I’m not being funny, but can I change groups because I can’t understand them?’ But she started shouting and screaming, saying ‘It’s racist, you’re going to get done by the police’.”
:
A complaint was made to a police officer based full-time at the school, and more than a week after the incident on September 26 she was taken to Swinton police station and placed under arrest.
:
She only returned to lessons this week and has been put in a different science class.

Yesterday Miss Stott, 37, a cleaner, said: “Codie was not being racist.” “The reaction from the school and police is totally over the top and I am furious my daughter had to go through this trauma when all she was saying was common sense.”

That’s the final frontier, really. When you want to understand something you can’t understand, and it’s a crime. Kinda encroaches on the whole “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” thing. Of course, that isn’t happening in America — yet.

Holy crap.

Hatemongers of your kind have stolen land, property all these years and you still think that SMART black people cannot recognize your strategy. All of you meet on a regular basis, have meetings and plots as to what or how to get rid of OUR president. We are watching, too.

Your article in the AJC dated December 25, 2010 shows that you are putting out lies/scare tactics about Internet and media communications through talk radio and others…
:
All of you are jealous of Obama’s and the FIRST LADY’S smartness and education…please do not under estimate black people smartness.

Regular meetings? How come nobody told me?

This literary work of art apparently flowed from the pen of a wizened sage in response to Neal Boortz’s following…

This past week Obama’s Federal Communications Commission adopted what are called “net neutrality” rules for the Internet. As John Fund describes this in The Wall Street Journal; “The losers are likely to be consumers who will see innovation and investment chilled by regulations that treat the Internet like a public utility.” The Internet may be the most vital element of our free market economy right now, but this move places it under strong executive department control.

There was no call for this move from the public, nor was there any need. None of the problems this net neutrality purports to solve actually exist. A federal court ruled that the FCC did not have the power to make this move. Three hundred members of Congress signed a letter opposing this idea. Yet, on Obama’s orders, the FCC went ahead. Few Americans have any real idea what this regulatory power grab means. I’ll bring you up to speed; but first some history on how this came about. In short, this is part of the drive by the left – the far left – to seize control of the greatest vehicle for information sharing we have today, the Internet (this column notwithstanding).

Once again: Our hopey-changey President wants to put something under government control that previously was not…and if you have a problem with it, you’re a racist. As if, if some white guy came along and proposed the exact same government take-over, everyone would think it was just peachy keen.

Well you know what? I’m going to go way out on a limb and predict the person who wrote the “secret meetings” letter has not a single clue what net-neutrality is all about — nor does she have a need to know anything about it. And you couldn’t explain it. It would be like explaining trigonometry to your pet goldfish or something.

Oh sorry, was that racist?

One: Folsom, California.

People are constantly getting twisted off at you for being in their way, when you aren’t. And then they get in your way. When they think they aren’t. Yes, that has a certain recursive quality to it…it means the place is Zombie-Land. I feel myself becoming one of them. An urban jackass.

But I know I am not imagining it, because when people are about to get in my way they move like prize stallions. And then they get in there…the deceleration is noticeable. Measurable. Christ, some days I swear there are skid marks on the pavement — and they have all the time in the world. It’s like a dick measuring contest. Struttin’ around, ooh yeah, look at me, I’m big n’ bad…I’m in this guy’s way.

Two: California in general. We love communication. It’s all-important, we live it and we breathe it. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: If a little-school tyke has what it takes to communicate and doesn’t know jack about the academic material, don’t worry, he’ll make it to the next grade. If he has a sturdy command of the academic material but can’t communicate, or won’t communicate, they’ll hold him back or put him in a class for learning-disabled cases. Communication is everything! It does everything! We need to sit down with our enemies and talk out our differences!

And yet, whenever I hit this state’s highways…I’m constantly guessing what the fuck the other guy is going to do, every second, every inch, until I park. Nobody signals for anything anymore. Communi-fucking-cation my left nut.

This is common for me. We just got the reservations made for the post-Christmas-unwinding at our favorite spot, and sometime in the 24 hours afterward it hits me how much I need to take a break. Maybe I’m getting soft.

I was thinking over twelve hours ago as I was driving the car out of the garage, for some reason or another the thought just jumped into my head, “I wonder if Jeffords has ever reviewed the Silicon Avatar episode? Tonight at beer o’clock I shall have to look that puppy up.”

Guess I don’t need those doses of Vitamin E after all. I dutifully remembered without writing down a single thing, after a busy day thinking about white papers for technical conferences, buffer overruns, Linux builds, old film cameras, the household Netflix queue, where the hell are they stocking Muscato at Beverages & More, hey have we got our vacations lined up for the right day and is the hotel going to let us have 50% Sunday through Thursday, et cetera et cetera…and I remembered to search through the archives of Eye of Polyphemus. And the answer is, yes, he did. No, he did not find it to be the worst episode ever, but he did find it to be the second worst. Oh my. One mystery resolved, another one created.

What’s the worst? I vote for this one. I shall have to peruse the archives some more and see if I’m close.

Meanwhile, a big thumbs-up on the negative review. It might’ve been written by myself, word for word:

What irks me is Picard’s attitude. The Entity has committed multiple acts of genocide because it has to in order to survive. Nothing indicates it is a particularly intelligent creature. It is essentially an animal acting on instinct. I will concede the implication in “Datalore” it was intelligent enough to communicate with Lore and had a malicious demeanor, but those points appear to have been tossed by the wayside here. It is a long shot the entity can be reasoned with, yet that is Picard’s only goal.
:
…Because communicating and compromising with a genocidal creature is much more important than justice for the murdered or saving any additional lives. Picard is — and I hate to say this — being stereotypically French. Kirk would have put on boxing gloves and battled this entity himself. He has practically dome so several times in TOS and, in my view, justifiably so. Picard’s attitude goes to show the progressive avoidance of conflict is not always the best way to go.

I’ve never understood the thinking here. The writers, the producers, Rick Berman; what did they think back in 1975 when Jaws came out? The situation is precisely the same. Did they cry when the shark got blown up? Throw their popcorn, stamp their little feet?

Progressives truly are a puzzle to me. I don’t think I’d be able to truly figure them out, even if I lived to be a thousand.

Yeah yeah, there must be something to it or else it wouldn’t have been repeated so many times. So the mere observation that it is just a cowardly retread and nothing more, must be a confession that there must be some truth to it…or, at the very least, that a lot of people think it:

Obama is an intellectual powerhouse and Sarah Palin “cannot stand on the same stage” with He Whom Oprah Called Brill-Yunt.

“There is nobody out there except for Sarah Palin who could absolutely dominate the stage and she can’t stand on the intellectual stage with Obama.”

Unfortunately, there’s very little to back up that last bit, save for the ritual “of course…” and “we all know…” And, for those who care about empirically observed recent history, facts, figures, evidence and logic, there’s quite a bit to challenge it.

Go RTWT. That’s a-gonna leave a mark.

Obama’s just like Wiley Coyote. Except He talks — oh my goodness, how well He can talk! Always with teleprompter in tow wherever He goes, and there’s a sonorous, dulcet, almost musical “I meant to do that” every time a boulder lands on Him.

Intellectual stage, indeed.

Failure. Universally available, and free. No person, enterprise or industry is “Too Big To Fail” — ever. Failure is regarded as something that is always possible, to be avoided at all costs, but never to be ignored or sidestepped once it is earned. Depriving a man of the failure he has justly earned, is rightfully seen as just as deplorable as depriving him of wages he has justly earned.

Number 4 in my 42 definitions of a strong society. We broke that rule when we bailed out the banks (although, to be fair about it, I only scribbled it down after the events had transpired). Nevertheless, an attribute of a strong society it is, therefore it is an attribute of a weak society to say “Aw, you poor dear…you’re too big to fail…that’s a ‘gimme’ for you.”

So we bailed them out. Now what happens.

Nearly 100 U.S. banks that got bailout funds from the federal government show signs they are in jeopardy of failing.

The total, based on an analysis of third-quarter financial results by The Wall Street Journal, is up from 86 in the second quarter, reflecting eroding capital levels, a pileup of bad loans and warnings from regulators. The 98 banks in shaky condition got more than $4.2 billion in infusions from the Treasury Department under the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

Financial blogger Mike Shedlock says…

Most of these failures will be relatively small ones. The median TARP infusion for the 98 banks was $10 million. The grand total of the 98 banks was about $4.2 billion. In contrast the first 8 large recipients received a total of $125 billion, now repaid.

Commercial real estate loans gone sour are at the heart of many small bank failures. One consequence of these failures is the too big to fail banks keep getting bigger. [emphasis mine]

Exactly. Any time you throw money at something, you get a lot more tomorrow of whatever it is today.

There is another interesting attribute illuminated for our inspection here, and that is an attribute of Obama apologia. It is an attribute of self-contradiction. The Obama administration’s selling point is one of “change,” as in, a definable and perceptible difference from what came before. But when you criticize Obama for having supported the bank bailout, the knee-jerk response you get back is that you don’t have your facts straight — it’s the guy before Obama who actually got it started.

Our agent of change…is to be defended from attack because He is merely continuing the policies that came before.

Meanwhile, there is very little by way of solid evidence to persuade us that this was some kind of a good idea. If…y’know…you happen to be into that whole thing about evidence & ideas. And I realize that’s going out of style very quickly.

Hat tip to Memeorandum.

…and LastDay is coming for us, here in the City of Domes. Soon we will participate in Carousel, and reach Sanctuary. If you try to run, the Sandmen will come for you and then you will not find Sanctuary.

The fact that such a controversial change was kept quiet for so long, and that the Obama administration took steps to keep it quiet, is most troublesome of all.

What are we talking about? The End-Of-Life counseling that was part of ObamaCare…then a certain hick from Wasilla told us about “death panels,” and the liberals and lefties and grown-up-hippies and pseudo-intellectual snots started chuckling derisively about her false statements. Then someone realized there was nothing false about them whatsoever, so they took a few minutes to scrub the death panels from the bill and returned to their derisive chuckling.

Now the death panels are back. You have just been manipulated through a process of diversion…Runner.

When a proposal to encourage end-of-life planning touched off a political storm over “death panels,” Democrats dropped it from legislation to overhaul the health care system. But the Obama administration will achieve the same goal by regulation, starting Jan. 1.

Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.

Congressional supporters of the new policy, though pleased, have kept quiet. They fear provoking another furor like the one in 2009 when Republicans seized on the idea of end-of-life counseling to argue that the Democrats’ bill would allow the government to cut off care for the critically ill.

The word “democrat” is supposed to come from the Greek word for “people”; the idea is that they are supposed to promote a democracy, in which the “people” have a more direct say in what our government will do.

How come they’re always working so hard to fool and manipulate the people?

I’m guessing not. It seems to exclude me from that group:

Gov. Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii, who befriended President Obama’s parents when they were university students here, has been in office for less than three weeks. But he is so incensed over “birthers” — the conspiracy theorists who assert that Mr. Obama was born in Kenya and was thus not eligible to become president — that he is seeking ways to change state policy to allow him to release additional proof that the president was born in Honolulu in 1961.

The document I consider definitive, a birth announcement from a Honolulu newspaper in 1961, is not mentioned in this story. To me, this is much more satisfying as “proof” than that certificate-of-live-birth. And so if a “birther” is supposed to “assert that Mr. Obama was born in Kenya and was thus not eligible to become president,” then I’m certainly outside of that. That’s a good thing to see.

However, the precedent that was established when Barack Obama was sworn in, without presenting anything more concrete than that pink paper, is awful. It’s simply unacceptable. And now that I’ve been exonerated as a not-a-Birther, I can state for a fact that you’ve got people who are not Birthers, agreeing that this is the case. Regardless of where Barack Obama was born, our nation has started something here that it shouldn’t have.

Furthermore, people-who-are-not-Birthers — me — are rightfully offended, on behalf of those Birthers, by passages like this:

But on the matter of the birthers, Mr. Abercrombie grew serious. “I’m going to take care of that,” he said, though he acknowledged that they would be difficult to convince. [emphasis mine]

As popular of a recurring trope as this is, is there anyone anywhere who is being fooled by it?

In the middle of a presidential campaign in which Barack Obama became a walking pop-culture fad, the hottest out of any since Cabbage Patch Dolls, Hawaii started up the printing presses and churned out a fresh pink document that was supposed to mean something. I’m sorry to whoever is frustrated by those who would like to see more than that, but it’s just a logical request to make. Obama’s refusal to consent is what defies reason.

And, it bears repeating…the question about precedent is an important one. The President’s precedent. What, in this country, do you have to present before you’re sworn in? Is it a sliding scale, that depends on how popular you happen to be? Shouldn’t we all agree that that would be un-American and wrong?

“I certainly hope by the fourth year of our administration that we’ll have dealt with this burgeoning birth controversy,” the White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, told reporters last year.
:
[Abercrombie] is angry about legislation in several states that would require presidential candidates to document that they were born in this country. A similar bill died in Congress last year.

“My thought was, ‘Wait a minute, why didn’t you ask me, my friends in the national Congress, the House of Representatives?’ ” he said. “They know me, they know that I was here, but they didn’t even bother to have the courtesy to do that, which is disappointing to me, because it is very difficult for me not to conclude that bills like that are meant as a coded message that he is not really American. My thought is, rather than get into some kind of argument or play into that mentality, why not just simply try to authenticate this and let the facts speak for themselves?”

This story really tells you everything about democrats you need to know. Let me paraphrase:

Here we are in “our fourth year,” we’re always right — at least WE think we are — and oh so popular, at least we used to be. We’ve tried smearing, we’ve tried sneering, we’ve tried bludgeoning and browbeating. And still these crackpots insist we haven’t presented any real proof just because we haven’t! Obviously, they’re never gonna go away no matter what.

So hey, purely as an afterthought…in our fourth year…let’s try maybe arguing the point based on facts. Or, at least, announcing that is what we are going to do.

Meanwhile, here the rest of us sit ready to start 2011. Barack Obama — and this is not the name He has been using for His entire life, for a long time He was Barry Soetoro — is finishing up His second year as our nation’s chief executive. How many reasons are there for us not to be ringing in the new year, staring, whether we like it or not, at the “long form” released by Obama? The one that rolled off the printing presses during some year other than the one in which Barry became a rock star? Why should that paper not be a public record now? How many reasons…none. Not a single one. But anyone who notices that and points it out, must be a loon. Because He Whom Oprah Called Brill-Yunt is so dang popular.

I’ve thought for awhile they need a new word to describe people like me. Like “quasi-Birthers” or “neo-Birthers” or “penumbral Birthers.” I consider the matter to be proven, Obama was born in Honolulu. The time and logistics required to travel to Kenya and back in 1961 — it just doesn’t add up. People would know, and they’d remember. The birth announcement in the newspaper would not exist…

…but when I see stories about how nutty those Birthers are, I end up thinking Obama and His most ardent supporters are the ones laboring under a pathological illness. They’re calling the other side nutty, just because that other side has not awarded them with the benefit of the doubt they think they deserve. Apparently, they aren’t able to cope if the benefit-of-doubt matter is decided any other way; their cogs slip out of the machinery completely.

Imagine what it is like to go through life with this expectation you place on other people to believe whatever you have to say about anything…whether you know what you’re talking about, or not…just sort of automatically dismissing whoever so much as harbors a residual question about what you have to say. Imagine that. Let’s subject this one to the “Freeberg house sitting test” shall we? Who do you want taking care of your house while you’re on vacation for a week. Some spoiled brat who works for Obama, and was able to fool his mother into think he was putting the cookie back in the jar — and demands that intellectual deference out of anybody & everybody he meets since then, and from here on? Or, one of those whack-job Birthers who thinks Obama was born in Kenya because Obama hasn’t released the long form?

Considering the low magnitude of effort Obama would have to put out to release the form, I’d opt for the Birther. I’d even let him duplicate the key. And I’d sleep like a baby, unless you’ve got something else on him. The slobbering Obama fan who can’t handle anybody questioning him about anything, I don’t think I’d even want that guy to know what zip code I’m in.

How about these other people? Have you seen a picture of Neil Abercrombe, this beacon of sanity? Yeesh. New York Times columnists who talk about “the Birthers” with descriptions that could fairly fit a single individual person, but dissolve into puddles of illogical silliness when you describe a faction of people unified by a single idea…like…”they’ll never be convinced no matter what.” How about politicians who talk endlessly about meeting the challenge of diversity, overcoming our divisions, unifying ourselves, and then seeking to marginalize anybody who doesn’t think the way they do? How about slobbering Obama fans who say they’ll be on easy street now because Holy Man is going to pay their mortgage and put gas in their car?

If any of those people found out where I live, I think I’d move.

But the birther-apologists interest me the most. To them, you’re a nut if you don’t believe every single thing they say. Even if they know nothing of the subject matter they seek to discuss. Robert Gibbs, for example, seems older than he really is because he brandishes an ability to equivocate and lie that is typically not mastered until the passionate liar reaches his early fifties. He’s a full decade younger than Obama. And here he is derogating the competence of people who doubt what they’re told about his boss’ birth, as if he was there! He’s given a story to pass on…he passes it on…gets some resistance, and he can’t handle it.

These are the people who are going to stop wars from happening, and keep the missiles in their silos, with their refined diplomatic skills?

This is their negotiating tactic. The other guy does what you want, says what you want him to say, thinks what you want him to think, or else you call him crazy. It would appear they have none other.

Just ponder the ramifications of that for awhile. And Happy 2011, everybody.

Hat tip to Memeorandum.

Update: You know, it occurs to me: Barack Obama is a skillful, practiced speaker and in a certain way, He is a positive role model for young men wondering how to cope with life, who might be lacking in any other lodestar they could follow. Other than those two things…everything I “know” about President Obama, is something I don’t really know. Except for the unflattering stuff (those items, for the most part, there is substantial evidence to back them up here & there).

I “know” He was born in Honolulu, not Kenya, because swarms of angry Obama zealots and New York Times columnists are ready to send some ridicule in the direction of anybody who offers something else.

He has said “I just think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody” and “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.” But don’t worry, He’s not a socialist…I “know” that He isn’t a socialist…because someone is ready to make fun of me if I think He is one. I don’t really have any other way of knowing He isn’t a socialist.

He’s just ramrodded through a START II treaty that has Russia’s best interests at heart but not America’s. But again, I “know” He is loyal to America…not because of any hard evidence that tells me so…but because someone is ready to call me a whackadoodle and a kookburger if I believe that He is not.

He is a Christian and not a Muslim. Now, I really don’t care about this one way or the other. But how do I know He’s a Christian? Because He went to Jeremiah Wright’s church, of course! But of course that would mean He’s also an anti-white bigot. But no. He went to Jeremiah Wright’s church for twenty years to listen to all the Christian-ish sermons…but was snoozing through all the America-bashing sermons. Yes to Christianity, no to America-hating, because Obama was coincidentally tuning out at all the right times. Again, how do I “know” this? Because someone’s ready to ridicule me if I believe anything different. I don’t have any other reason to “know” such a thing. None.

This seems to be the situation with every little thing I “know” about Barack Obama. At least, the positive stuff. There’s no time to get to the evidence, because the people who stopped learning to do critical thinking while they were still in middle school, or the hippie zealots like Abercrombie, leap in to press the peer-pressure smackdown and hurl their invective about how offended they are, and contaminate the debate before we get to evaluate the hard facts. And so the facts get walled off and sealed out, because the Obamapologists have to have the first word as well as the last one.

And it’s the other guys who are fanatical.

Merry Christmas to you and yours.

First off, big congratulations to blogsister Cassy for her name’s prominent mention in the pages of the Weekly Standard under the pen of Bill Kristol. Her take on this:

At what point does concern turn into hysterics, and when does it becoming insulting to our honorable men and women in uniform?

I think this is a valid question, and I’m glad she got the attention she deserves. I’m not in complete agreement on this though because, based on what I have seen, “hysterics” is an unfair description. If you’re going to argue about arguments, I think before you form your counter-argument you should make observations about the arguments that are accurate and hysteria is not accurate.

What I have seen is fairly cross-sectioned at Neptunus Lex (hat tip to blogger friend Buck). These are mostly-vets who are just plum worn-out from all the social experimentation on what is supposed to be our nation’s first & last layer of defense against enemies to the republic. What I’m seeing here is not hysteria, not even close; it’s fatigue. Something has to be said. I don’t know about you, but I’m not seeing a single shrill syllable in the lot of it.

I do agree with where she’s going with it though. Her point is that these men and women are tougher than a lot of people think, and they’re professionals. They’ll take their orders and they’ll find a way to make it work.

As for whether it makes sense to repeal DADT: I’ll leave it to those serving in combat, and those who have served, and those who command those who serve in combat to comment on the effect of the repeal. As a civvy, I’m just looking for a reasoned, rational and explainable selection — by someone who’s supportive of homosexuals serving in the military — out of one of the only three available options:

1. Bill Clinton and Sam Nunn are bigoted homophobes.
2. Bill Clinton and Sam Nunn lack socially progressive vision.
3. Bill Clinton and Sam Nunn got it right: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Which must mean Barack & pals just screwed things up.

I suspect the most popular response would be: None of the above. True to form, I’m looking for independent, critical thinking where nobody ever said such things exist even in trace quantities. This isn’t about making sense, it’s about bowing to the inevitable. It’s where the wind is drifting, and it makes sense for our fighting forces to follow along. Or lead the way. Whatever.

And here we come to my concerns about what’s going on: As a technology & software guy, I have made myself monotonous over the years repeating a tired mantra in the work place (very rarely): Doing things exactly the same way some other guy is doing them, or a bunch of other people are doing them, is the opposite of what technology is. Well, bowing to the inevitable and going-along-to-get-along is the opposite of defense’s ostensible purpose. If that is the mission, then there is no mission.

A fighting force should be kept in a state of readiness. And the readiness is to rise up, to interfere with something that is happening, and to reverse course.

If you agree with that — and I don’t see how you can disagree — then you must necessarily agree “they need to do it because that’s just the way it’s going” is simply not good enough.

London Daily Mail:

They say you should never judge a book by its cover.

But when it comes to the opposite sex, it seems that’s exactly what women do.

It takes a woman just three minutes to make up her mind about whether she likes a man or not, a study has revealed.

The average female spends the time sizing up looks, physique and dress-sense as well as taking in scent, accent and eloquence of a potential suitor.

Women also quickly judge how he interacts with her friends and whether he is successful or ambitious.

It also emerged most women believe 180 seconds is long enough to gauge whether or not he is Mr Right, or Mr Wrong.

The study also found women rarely change their mind about a man after their initial reaction – and believe they are ‘always right’ in their assumptions and judgments.

The report which was commissioned among 3,000 adults to mark the release of Instinct, a new book by Ben Kay.

Kay said: ‘I think a lot of people believe in trusting their instincts when dating. It makes it seem more magical, like it’s coming from somewhere deeper.

‘But it’s surprising how quickly women make a decision. That’s barely enough time to finish a drink together.

‘It’s interesting that so many women trust their instincts and yet still give men the opportunity to change their minds.

‘Some men might think this is leading them on but I would imagine most women just want to give every bloke a fair shot.’

Um, yeah. About that last bit: I wouldn’t imagine that.

Back in my single days, I had formed a theory. Women are generally much more practiced than gentlemen about shopping in general. Practiced translates to “competent” if…and only if…you are working with the familiar. When there’s a paradigm shift it might still mean competent, but the practice can work against the interests of the practitioner if the paradigm shift alters the equation too much. And when you shop for a spouse, of course, you’re shopping for a living thing and not a set of napkin rings or a painting to hang on the wall.

Practiced, in that context, means entrenched. Entrenched in methods that aren’t likely to get the re-think they might need, for this new challenge.

I think men who’ve had experience dating, on average, will see something to this theory. I know I see it in a lot of my ex-girlfriends — they gave me a “yea” based on how I looked, as if I was some kind of fashion accoutrement. Or, that I had a promising career as a software engineer, and they were engaged in something more humble.

You pick out a set of wine goblets based on how happy they will make you, you pick out a CD player for your car based on how happy it will make you. You pick out a man…well you know, when you’re choosing a new alarm clock for your bedside or a new coffee table for your living room, yes three minutes does seem like plenty.

Kay’s study, I think, has proven my theory. The average woman — not the woman who is ecstatically happy with the choice she has ended up making, but just the average one — makes a mistake of choosing a life-helpmate the same way she chooses her next bedspread. She doesn’t alter her methods to suit the new effort, as she should.

As far as how well this works for her, don’t ask her. Ask her friends.

As for me, I altered my methods when I figured out it didn’t matter what kind of reception I got from “most” women; I couldn’t keep more than one, so it made no sense trying to appeal to any more than that. That was a good call on my part. I recommend it.