Whiskey Fire

Strictly Comedy

I swear to god. Dan Riehl:

Yes, I activated Infolinks last night to see what it was like. No, I'm not thrilled about it myself, is my initial reaction to seeing them. I was thinking I might make my story links more clear, but it's only the first day. The first thing this morning some self-professed loyal readers who say they love the blog and read it every day are threatening to leave. I can appreciate that.

Unfortunately, I must also note that back on July 8th I noted that it was my birthday and, if anyone wanted, they could always hit the tip jar. The sum total of that haul was $0.

For small and medium size blogs, I doubt Infolinks will generate significant money. The various ad programs don't, though I certainly can't complain, either. But then, it isn't as though I'm trying to make a living off of just this blog out here.

Highlighted: "Unfortunately, I must also note that back on July 8th I noted that it was my birthday and, if anyone wanted, they could always hit the tip jar. The sum total of that haul was $0."

I may never stop laughing.

George Will: Hipster

Seriously.

Regarding climate change, the U.S. government, rushing to impose unilateral cap-and-trade burdens on the sagging U.S. economy, looks increasingly like someone who bought a closetful of platform shoes and bell-bottom slacks just as disco was dying.

Is George Will (!) as qualified to pronounce upon fashion (!) as he is to pronounce upon science (!) or public policy (!)?

Hmmmm.

Perhaps a free clip-art dancing leprechaun can help us understand this strange juncture in American science and fashion history.

Regions of My Disease

Marc Ambinder has kind of an interesting post title:

Should The GOP Take The Birther Threat Seriously? Rush Does....

By "the birther threat" he means stuff like this, a video of an insane woman and an insane audience expressing their outrage that GOP Representative Michael "Mike" Castle of Delaware thinks Barack Obama is an American citizen.

I cannot for the life of me fathom why the bonkers birther stuff is any sort of a "threat" to the Republicans. Why? This class of stuff has been the meat and potatoes for large chunks of the GOP base forever; indeed, these people are the most reliable GOP voters. Have the 1990s vanished so quickly from memory? Has Hillary Clinton's murder of Vince Foster, shooting him in the head with a lesbian bullet, been so completely forgotten?

The birther stuff is extreme, sure, and is extremely easy to refute. But then let's run down the GOP dogma, the things no Republican politician could ever say in public without getting lynched, perhaps even just metaphorically: (1) global climate change is a serious crisis caused by human activity; (2) the mainstream media is not committed to electing Democrats; (3) a spending freeze in a severe recession is insane; (4) Rush Limbaugh is rather a blowhard (to quote Rush's latest, from Armbinder, "Rush Limbaugh claimed today that Obama "has yet to prove that he's a citizen"); (5) Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were never remotely in cahoots; (6) Barack Obama is not, in point of fact, a "socialist"; (7) the government is not about to send agents into your house to take your guns; (8) gay marriage is no big whoop... need I go on?

The birther madness is a minor, entirely predictable symptom of what the GOP is. Indeed, compared to the climate change guff, the birther mania is downright benign.

Bluntly. The GOP lets James Inhofe talk about science. In public. And the "MSM" is cool with that. And so is the rest of the Republican party.

What's a little birth certificate tomfoolery next to that? You know?

The only thing keeping Serious Journalists from worshiping the "birther" garbage as the Legitimate Wisdom of Heartland Voters is that it's déclassé. That it's, empirically speaking, bullshit, has no bearing. 

Mightier than the Sword? Oh, you naughty boy!

by Ripley (whose manliness should not be put into question by the image, below, which is totally not representative of his enormous manhood thing, which is totally huge and manly)

Just to riff off Thers' latest, which I'm pretty sure you all read because it was only the last post and all, but...

So, anyhoo... Thers got me thinking, like he often does, about the tenor and taste of some wanktacular dillrod's latest warbling.  And I said to myself, "Hey, Rip - don't you know someone who's a lady-person... and also a Doctor?"   Turns out, I DO know someone who's a lady-person and a Doctor... all at the same time!  She's my sister! I don't know who's luckier - me or her?!?  Where was I...?  Oh yeah... lady stuff...

So, this is just going to flat-out blow your minds, man.  My sister, the board certified, OB/GYN of some great renown, tells me that the ladies have different parts.  In their tum-tums.  I've already forgotten the technical terms and doctor-y, latin-esque vagina mango tango stuff she was babbling on and on and on about, but she seemed pretty convinced that women have different "health issues" than men.  (Again, I apologize for the medical talk - just transcripting what she told me.  I worked in retail for a while and I'd heard about "freight issues" but... you know... right?)

Now, my sister's a smart gal but she was a little confused by Thers' last post (to be precise, the reference within), and 1) wanted to know who these "bloggers" are and what the hell we do, and 2) wondered why I haven't found a real job yet and, OH MY GOD! what would Mom think about you talking about the lady parts on the computer?!? and... ahem.. 3) wondered who are these dumb motherfuckers that listen to Sam the Joe but don't understand basic human plumbing?   (In your FACE, internets!!  I don't even know what that means, but...)

According to my sister, women need all kinds of crazy medical attention or "they'll get the Cancer and die or their lady bits will go all crazy and eat their heads and moths and you wouldn't understand because you don't have ovaries and blah blah blah something about Pat Boone and what have you!!!"   Yeah...  Snark aside - ladies need medical attention every year.  Seriously.  What, the guys are going to go all gay when the ladies go away?  (I know what you're thinking, you cock-hungry Xian brothers!  Wait for it...)

And this is where we find ourselves, as it regards pretty much everything that "the Right" vomits up every day.  As Thers so aptly pointed out, there's "men and women" and there's "men and women".  We're bombarded by craptacularlrists like Brent Bozell (the Third! the Third, my good man!) who know shit-all about... I don't know... shit-all?  My sister is apparently not smart enough or eager enough or cute(?) enough to secure a national column discussing topics that she might know something about - health care, women, women's bodies, women's health, health insurance, being a doctor in the 21st Century?   Oh, I forgot, she has an ACTUAL FUCKING JOB IN HEALTH CARE.  Sorry... Brent Bozell never loses his cool - I shouldn't, either.

My sister's been in the medical field for 20-some years, working to heal women and make them feel whole and healthy.  Not that's it releveant to this discussion, but I don't know if she's pro- or anti-abortion, only because I've never asked her.  She knows how the system DOES NOT work.  (Was that too subtle?)  She's worked in private practice, she's "worked for" an HMO, she's torn her hair out trying to make a living while she battled PPO paperwork.  She dedicated her Life to healing women, regardless of their race or class or BMI or any damned thing you could pull out to judge a woman.

But you know what we need, you and I and everyone in America?  Oh, I'll tell you what we need.  We need people like Brent Bozell (the Third! the Third, my good man!) and Sen. Jim DeMint and a bunch of morally retarded social cowards in Congress to tell us that we don't deserve the same coverage they have.  We need people to shout "FREEDOM!!!" and whisper "socialism, ewwww..."  We need people to tell us to suck it up and get over it.  We need, it seems, to die.

More, please...

[Update] - I meant to post these videos but, in my self-righteous blogging-fugue, I forgot. Regardless, enjoy, ladies!  This is what the Promise Keepers, the Republicans, the manly men want you to hear.  This is how they want you to live.  Trust your lady parts to the men in charge!

Rip -

She's a BOY!

A truly Shocking Scandal has been uncovered by the intrepid journalists over at CNSN, the Brent Bozell news establishment founded, we are informed, in order "to fairly present all legitimate sides of a story and debunk popular, albeit incorrect, myths about cultural and policy issues," which, translated from the original wingnut, means "to shovel a lot of paranoid horseshit that will be greedily spooned up like so much Chubby Hubby by resentful, gullible halfwits who'd gleefully inject frog piss into their eyeballs if they thought that might cause a half-second's annoyance to some imaginary liberal."

Anyway, here is the shocking scandal, which is indeed shockingly shocking in its shocking shockitude.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee’s health care legislation will give the Health and Human Services secretary the authority to develop “standards of measuring gender” -- as opposed to using the traditional "male" and "female" categories -- in a database of all who apply or participate in government-run or government-supported health care plans.

Shocking! Somehow! I guess! Somehow! For some reason!

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is required by the proposed law -- The Affordable Health Choices Act,which was voted out of committee on July 15  --  to create a database within one year of the law’s enactment that will include detailed information about those who sign up for government-run or supported health care programs, including their race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, language and disabilities.
 
The proposed law states that the database can use the Office of Management and Budget “standards for race and ethnicity measures.”
 
But for the collection of “gender” data, instead of using the categories “male” and “female," the legislation calls for “developing standards for the measurement of gender.”

It may surprise you, or it may not, given the high journalistic standards of a Brent Bozell enterprise, to learn that there is a truncated quotation in that last paragraph (as well as the lede) gasp. The original (pdf) reads:

In collecting data described in paragraph (1), the Secretary or designee shall... develop standards for the measurement of gender, geographic location, socioeconomic status, primary language and disability measures.

See, what they wanted you to think was that the US government wants to make it illegal for men not to like shopping, and girls not to like sports. Sibelius would come to your house and make all the guys wear panties, and all the chicks put on Axe Body Spray. At gunpoint! But instead it's just about collecting boring old demographic data in regards to how federal money is being spent on healthcare. Which is too bad, really, because if it were the panties and Axe thing, I would have gladly proposed John Waters be put in charge of the Gender Rectification Enforcement Squads, which would have made the typical COPS episode far more watchable.

Anyway, the bill is using "gender" not in place of the "categories" of "male and female" but rather in place of the word "sex." Apart from grammarians, most people nowadays see the terms as basically interchangeable. So what's the fuss? GAYS. GAYS ARE THE FUSS.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), “sex” refers to the biological and physiological differences that define men and women. “Gender” refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women....

“Gender identity” is routinely used by homosexual groups to define differences in sexual orientation, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and, in some cases, “questioning.”

I'd draw attention to the rather hysterical obsession with policing "socially constructed gender roles" betrayed by "Penny Starr" (the name of the article's author, who presumably grew up on Starr Street and once owned a Pekingese), who decided to read 410 pages into proposed legislation in order to horrify idiots about how homos are taking over the nation based upon a tendentious reading of word choice in the section about demographic data collection. But I assume you already caught on to that.

Instead I will invite you to read through the comments over there and get ready to laugh yourself ill, because they're (a) funnier and (b) spookier than anything I could ever write in a million million years. Oh what the heck, just one:

Since when is determining the *** of one person so bloody hard. God created men and women differently and this difference has worked for thousands of years into identifying if a person is a male (man) or female (woman). If my three year old can figure it out, you'd think the HHS Secretary and Congress would also be able to. As usual this is about putting individuals into groups of people (read voting blocks) and not about health care reform. Hey, you in Congress, we voting American citizens (well, a darn good number of us) are not stupid....how will this improve health care? Seriously, why put this into the law if you knuckle-heads are trying to bring health care costs under control? These are honest questions that deserve honest answers from the wizards of smart in Washington, DC.

This one is good because "Wizards of Smart" would be a fun band name, and because it demonstrates that if the bill did use the term "sex," "Penny Starr" would still have been able to gin up a preposterous lunatic freakout of a "scoop."

MORE. I don't think this is likely to turn out to be the exact same Penny Starr, but you can see how the name confusion could have tortured a prissy dimwit unto... madness! Or at least slightly more madness than was there already.

News-Paper of Record

According to the New York Times, Michael Steele, GOP chair and well-known comical ignoramus, spoke on healthcare today at the National Press Club:

But hours earlier, Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, labeled the administration’s approach “socialism” and spoke of a political “cabal” behind it.

“Under the Obama plan, the vast majority of Americans will pay more to get less — it’s that simple,” Mr.Steele said during a news conference at the National Press Club here. .

There is, in fact, no “Obama plan” — the president has yet to endorse any of the approaches being worked on by congressional committees. Still, Mr. Steele said, Democratic proposals would leave Americans with “fewer options and less care and we still won’t cover all of the uninsured.”

Asked whether the emerging approach, including a new government-run plan that would compete with private insurers, constituted socialism, Mr. Steele replied briskly, “Yes. Next question.”

But that's not all that Steele said:

Asked whether he supports an individual mandate — an issue that became a point of controversy in the 2008 election between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama — Steele was completely ignorant. “An individual requirement? What do you mean?” Steele could only respond that there are “differing opinions” on this...

When stumped with numerous health care policy questions, Steele said, “I don’t do policy."

Right.

Of course there is a difference between "doing" policy and understanding policy, and Steele clearly does not understand healthcare policy if he doesn't know what a mandate is.  But he knows it's "socialism"!

I'd say the overwhelming majority of those who oppose healthcare reform don't understand the issue much beyond "socialism!" either, and they're agin' it.

The people egging them on, though, understand the issue perfectly well, and they are quite clear on the fact that they stand to lose a lot of money. That people without health insurance are dying, well, that's too bad, maybe we could compromise and keep the system we have now, only maybe we can give you a tax break if you die uninsured, or something. You know, in the spirit of bipartisanship.

I Write Music for Soundtracks Now

Atrios and Amanda both say that the Harry Potter books, and novels generally, would be better off if dramatized as TV series as opposed to movies. The Cerulean Cherub avers:

Someone should try a big serial. My guess is that if Harry Potter came out today (with associated popularity) it might be a good test case.

But people have tried big serial versions of novels for the small screen, and very successfully, too, artistically and popularly. The BBC has been doing this for quite a long time. See for instance the 1995 version of Pride and Prejudice. That's probably the best film representation of the book going, not least because, well, the book has an episodic structure, as ought to be unsurprising for a project that got started in the late 18th century.

Some further points. First, the Harry Potter books could be dramatized as a very excellent TV series, yes, but they were always going to be movies first, because that was the easiest way to make a lot of money. To be more more aesthetically charitable, though, I'm not sure the more strictly artistic case for a TV serial was as solid when the rights were first sold as it is now when the book series is over. And indeed, if it were me running the show, I would not say a HP series should be seven seasons -- it should be no more than six, with the first two books collapsed into one.

Second, the P&P example shows not just that the Brits are happier with dramatizing Lit'rature, but also that the Brits are far more (or at all) able to conceive of a series that has an originally intended narrative conclusion. Novels may very well be more suited to a serial form, as, again, is not a surprise given the history of the novel as a genre, but that that does not mean that novels are at all well suited to the traditional American notion of a TV series, where much of the impetus is to get renewed for as long as possible. Even the best (by general acclaim, not necessarily my own opinion) American series of recent memory, The Sopranos, The Wire, Lost, all have had conclusions that were not quite there from the beginning in any sense that resembles what you'd see in anything but the most serial-y of novels. Whether this is good or bad depends on taste, I suppose, but it's still a reality that has definite narrative implications. American TV can be quite good, I likes some of it myself quite a bit, but even the best of it never has an ending that resonates with a beginning in the same way that, well, Pride and Prejudice does.

Incidentally this goes to something I've long thought, that the American version of The Office is superior to the original British version -- precisely because the British version has a definite narrative conclusion. The British version, by having a resolution, strikes me as unfaithful to the lived reality of office work, which is circular, interminable, and very nearly unbearable.

Anyhow it's interesting to think of how differing economies of production have profound yet almost invisible results, such as whether or not it would even be possible in America to produce a sitcom deliberately designed to end after two seasons, like, say, Extras. (A dead-on-balls properly executed American Extras would be fantastic television, but would end the careers of everyone involved. Decades later they would get a nice Testimonial Dinner, which would be nice, but that's still a long time spent waiting tables)

Anyway MollyI & I liked Half-Blood Prince and thought it was great, but then we were out of the house without the kids (had a mostly crack-free babysitter), so we were in quite the damn mood to enjoy anything, especially if we paid $40 for it with the soda and popcorn, motherfucker.

Productive ways to spend 1.5 trillion dollars

-By Jake T. Snake

Michelle Malkin is ranting about health care again and how tremendously expensive it will be. She is concerned that 1.5 trillion dollars over 10 years is unaffordable. That is a lot of money, no two ways about it. Perhaps, if we could cut the budget in another area we might be able to actually take care of our fellow citizens, but what budget item could we cut that would put this much money back in the budget. This item would  do it. 

Michelle has also trotted out the usual tripe about government programs being defacto inefficient simply by virtue of being government programs. Isn't it time to put that myth to rest? Here are the numbers, not rhetoric with no basis.

As I have noted previously, you can tell what people really value by watching where they put their money. So which do we value more killing people in other countries or caring for the health of our own? It is time to start down the path to universal coverage and contain costs as we go. It is not ideal, but delaying allows those looking to turn a profit on human misery more time stop the forward progress of health care reform.

It was nice to see this on the front page of the Times this morning. I would prefer coverage for everyone, but coverage for children is a small step away from being complete barbarians. Still, if my parent is sick and can't work my family is still fucked. I guess that is just another bigger bootstraps moment, eh?

Update: A big thank you to El Cid for steering me to the Congressional Budget Office's report on how much the accountants believe the proposed health reform will cost. We knew Malkin's numbers were wonky, we just didn't realize how far off they could be. Try this on for size;

By the end of the 10-year period, in 2019, the coverage provisions would add $202 billion to the federal deficit, CBO and JCT estimate. That increase would be partially offset by net cost savings of $50 billion and additional revenues of $86 billion, resulting in a net increase in the deficit of an estimated $65 billion.

We Participate

The Ole Perfesser twangs his braces.

OKAY, I STEPPED OUTSIDE A LITTLE WHILE AGO, and it was actually a bit chilly. In Knoxville, in mid-July. My dad says it hasn’t broken 90 all summer, which may be right. I’m saving real money on A/C bills this year. Could be worse — could be Michigan.

Meanwhile, Nate Silver says it’s all in your mind. Two thoughts: (1) I hope so — better that than living in a John Ringo novel. (2) Just remember Nate’s stuff when the press is yammering on about a hot day, or a hurricane, being “caused by global warming.”

UPDATE: Reader Bobby Clarke writes: “Here in Austin, we’re having one of the worst summers ever. We’re on the tail end of a 2 year drought, and we’ve had record highs for most of July (well over 100). I don’t want to think about the utility bills. Those 70 degree days sound pretty good to us right now. So it’s cold in most of the country, and hot in the other parts. Its almost like weather is some amazingly complex and hard to understand system!” Nah — hot or cold, it’s always because of global warming. I think that’s in the AP stylebook or something.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader Steve Schroeder of Mantorville, Minnesota writes:

"In regards to the post about Minnesota Temps Nate Silver is just picking out high temps for a weird period of time – 6/21/09 to 7/17/09. What really matters in Southern Minnesota is Growing Degree Days – how is the Corn growing? Here is a link showing that we are behind by 131 growing degree days for the entire 2009 growing season. I have lived in Southern Minnesota for over 45 years and can say that the field corn is behind in its’ development and we are also behind by about a week or two eating the great sweet corn that grows here in Minnesota. In the real world these are the statistics that matter because it is a major economic driver for our local economy."

My tomatoes aren’t doing well, either. I don’t know that that says much about the global temperature, but you can bet if it were unseasonably hot we’d be hearing that it’s a vindication of Al Gore.

As a reminder, we're getting this Snuffy Smith bullshit because John Hinderaker is too fucking stupid to properly operate a thermometer.

Dance, my leprechaun, dance!

The drinker's guide

“People are losing 5, 10, 20,000 dollars a day in the stock market, and he’s sitting there drinking a beer,” one caller said. “It’s insulting. There’s a lot of people suffering.”

Another caller complained, “The president is the president 24 hours a day. I don’t think he should drink on the job.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25043.html#ixzz0LeyVTtYf

by flory

So whenever Congress finally gets around to creating the new Consumer Financial Protection Agency -- or whatever they're calling it today -- the kidz at Politico have a surefire solution to saving your eroding 401(k) - a teetotalling preznit. (Because that worked so well for the last 8 years.)

It's true! A preznit who drinks will put you in the poorhouse! They even have quotes:

People are losing 5, 10, 20,000 dollars a day in the stock market, and he’s sitting there drinking a beer,” one caller said. “It’s insulting. There’s a lot of people suffering.”

Another caller complained, “The president is the president 24 hours a day. I don’t think he should drink on the job.”

It's all been a diabolical plot by the worldwide cerveza conspiracy.  Fermented hops caused a global financial meltdown. It's been reported that in Washington the super secret Treasury Department term for 'sub-prime mortgage' is actually  'Bud Lite'.

If Barack Obama could just back away from the bar the ponies would all come home.

(h/t Ezra)

People are losing 5, 10, 20,000 dollars a day in the stock market, and he’s sitting there drinking a beer,” one caller said. “It’s insulting. There’s a lot of people suffering.”

Another caller complained, “The president is the president 24 hours a day. I don’t think he should drink on the job.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25043.html#ixzz0LeyuznPe

People are losing 5, 10, 20,000 dollars a day in the stock market, and he’s sitting there drinking a beer,” one caller said. “It’s insulting. There’s a lot of people suffering.”

Another caller complained, “The president is the president 24 hours a day. I don’t think he should drink on the job.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25043.html#ixzz0LeyuznPe

People are losing 5, 10, 20,000 dollars a day in the stock market, and he’s sitting there drinking a beer,” one caller said. “It’s insulting. There’s a lot of people suffering.”

Another caller complained, “The president is the president 24 hours a day. I don’t think he should drink on the job.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25043.html#ixzz0LeyuznPe

People are losing 5, 10, 20,000 dollars a day in the stock market, and he’s sitting there drinking a beer,” one caller said. “It’s insulting. There’s a lot of people suffering.”

Another caller complained, “The president is the president 24 hours a day. I don’t think he should drink on the job.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25043.html#ixzz0LeyuznPe