Rule 5 Blogging: Jordan!

It’s the weekend and time, once again, for THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL’S version of Rule 5 Blogging. Robert Stacey Stacy McCain described Rule 5 as posting photos of pretty women somewhat déshabillé, but, on this site, our Rule 5 Blogging doesn’t put up pictures of Megan Fox in her summer clothes, but women, in full military gear, serving their countries in the armed forces. The terribly sexist authors on this site celebrate strong women, women who can take care of themselves and take care of others, women who have been willing to put their lives on the line in some not-so-friendly places, women who truly do have the “We can do it!” attitude.

This week, I had sought photos of soldiers from Jordan, given that it is Jordan whose leadership actually has the nerve to fight against Da’ish. There was only one photograph of a female Jordanian soldier I could find, but there were man of the police forces, which recently opened places for women.

A Jordanian female police demonstrates her skills during a ceremony to celebrate Jordan's King Abdullah's birthday at a police academy near Amman February 17, 2009. In a male dominated country, authorities have opted to recruit more women to work in police forces, with some organizing traffic in busy streets of the capital and others joining counter terrorism forces. REUTERS/Ali Jarekji (JORDAN)

A Jordanian female police demonstrates her skills during a ceremony to celebrate Jordan’s King Abdullah’s birthday at a police academy near Amman February 17, 2009. In a male dominated country, authorities have opted to recruit more women to work in police forces, with some organizing traffic in busy streets of the capital and others joining counter terrorism forces. REUTERS/Ali Jarekji (JORDAN)

Continue reading ‘Rule 5 Blogging: Jordan!’ »

From Around the Blogroll

I hate taxes, I despise taxes, I abominate taxes!

The harder you work, the more the fornicating government steals from you.

The Florida Gators played inspired basketball to start the game, but the top-ranked University of Kentucky Wildcats pulled it out in the end!

Kentucky Wildcats guard Aaron Harrison (2) shot over Florida Gators guard Kasey Hill (0) as the University of Kentucky played the University of Florida in the Stephen C. O’Connell Center in Gainesville, Fl., Saturday, February 07, 2015. This is first half college basketball action. Photo by Charles Bertram | Herald-Leader Staff

Cats put it on the line at Florida, come away with 68-61 win
By Jerry Tipton | | February 7, 2015

GAINESVILLE, Fla. — After breezing through the season’s first three-plus months, Kentucky’s so-called Pursuit of Perfection got messy Saturday night.

Florida had won in eight of the last 10 times Kentucky played in the O’Connell Center. The possibility of another setback, which would mean UK’s first defeat of the season, stared Kentucky in the face.

Fittingly, perfection (or close enough to perfect) helped Kentucky prevail 68-61.

The Cats made 16 of 17 free throws in the second half to rally to victory and complete a 21-for-22 night at the line.

Willie Cauley-Stein (a 47.7-percent free thrower in his career) made five of five, including two with 3:18 left.

The free throw gods showed they had a sense of humor. With UK clinging to a 61-59 lead, Jon Horford (an 89.7-percent free thrower this season) missed two for Florida.

UK made its first 16 free throws. The Cats’ only miss — by Andrew Harrison — came with 42.2 seconds left in the game, much too late to do any serious harm.

Kentucky improved to 23-0, which matched Rupp’s Runts for the second-best start to a season in program history. The Cats improved to 10-0 in the Southeastern Conference.

Afterward, UK took pride in going toe-to-toe with yet another inspired opponent, and surviving for the third straight game without freshman Trey Lyles (and 13th without Alex Poythress).

“We’re a beat-up basketball team right now,” UK Coach John Calipari said. “We’re in a championship fight every time we step in a building.”

Freshman Karl-Anthony Towns, who scored 19 points and grabbed eight rebounds, noted the deafening roar.

Read more here. And now, on to the blogroll!

Dishonest and stupid.

Even The Washington Post is trashing Brian Williams!

Why war reporters can’t stand the Brian Williams scandal
By Dan Lamothe | February 5 at 12:55 PM

Sitting in a dark suit and tie on “The Late Show with David Letterman” in 2013, NBC News anchorman Brian Williams recalled the scary day that the Chinook helicopter he was in purportedly took enemy fire during the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

“We were in some helicopters, and what we didn’t know is that we were north of the invasion,” Williams recalled. “We were the northernmost Americans in Iraq. We were going to drop some bridge portions across the Euphrates [River] so the 3rd Infantry [Division] could cross on them. Two of our four helicopters were hit by ground fire, including the one I was in.”

That story — and variations of it that Williams has told over the years — unraveled Wednesday under scrutiny from soldiers who were there that day. Williams recanted the story in an interview with Stars & Stripes, saying he actually was in another Chinook that was not under fire. Then he apologized on air:

The anchorman — one of the nation’s most recognizable journalists — has been widely mocked online since by Internet jokesters, as this Checkpoint piece notes. But he also has taken criticism from fellow journalists, particularly those who have spent time in dangerous countries.

There’s more at the link, but further down there’s one more paragraph which needs to be noted: CBS News then anchorman Dan Rather was forced to resign after using unverified documents, which turned out to have been forged, in an attempt to damage President George Bush before the 2004 election. Several other CBS News people were forced to resign, while producer Mary Mapes was fired outright. Mr Rather can at least say that he didn’t know that the documents were forgeries — the linked news stories noted that he rushed to get them aired even though he was told the researchers hadn’t been able to verify them — so he could have believed them to have been true, while Mr Williams deliberately told lies.

This whole story is mind-boggling. Mr Williams actually covered the story about Hillary Clinton’s lie that she and her daughter had to duck sniper fire in Bosnia-Herzegovina:

I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.

Mr Williams told his helicopter-being-shot-down story last week, long after he noted Mrs Clinton’s false story. A wise man would have learned that a public figure can get away with a blatant lie for a little while, but cannot get away with it forever. Mr Williams told a blatant lie after he had seen what could happen, after he saw what using the forged documents did to Mr Rather’s career. That he told the lie not only proves that he is a liar, it also proves that he’s a stupid liar.

Mr Williams is paid $10 million a year by NBC News, and is now a wealthy man.  He could have continued as NBC News weeknight anchor for another ten years, or more, if he wanted; he’s only 55 years old.

But now, he has to go: NBC cannot be seen as tolerating that kind of dishonesty, something even worse than Mr Rather’s transgression, by allowing Mr Williams to stay.


Twisted liberal logic

President Obama tells us that people are whatever they identify as being, so if a male thinks that he’s actually female, well then, he’s female, and we have to recognize him as female under the law.

But if a group identifies itself as “Islamic State,” and do horrible, horrible things, well they’re not really Islamic, and we should never identify them as such.

€urosclerosis: Schadenfreude!

From The Wall Street Journal:

ECB Suspends Greek Collateral Waiver for Regular Lending Facilities
Move Deals Blow to Greek Government’s Attempt to Rewrite Bailout Terms
By Brian Blackstone | Updated Feb. 4, 2015 5:18 p.m. ET

FRANKFURT—The European Central Bank on Wednesday said it would no longer accept junk-rated Greek government debt as collateral for regular central bank loans, dealing a major blow to the new government’s attempts to rewrite the terms of its €240 billion bailout.

The announcement came as officials across Europe raised pressure on the far-left government to come to terms with international creditors on the country’s bailout program, and fanned fears that the divide between Athens and other European governments may be too wide to overcome.

“It is currently not possible to assume a successful conclusion of the program review” for Greece, the ECB said in a statement.

Krishna Guha, vice chairman of Evercore ISI, said: “This is consistent with our expectation that the ECB will take a hard line on Greece.”

The euro fell and gold rose after the ECB statement. The common currency traded at $1.1338, from $1.1424 earlier. Gold for April delivery, the most active contract, was recently at $1,271 an ounce, from $1,264.50.

There’s more at he original.

Greece’s bonds are junk, and by that I mean that they are rated as junk bonds: back in 2012, Standard & Poors raised Greece’s credit rating to junk bond status (CCC), from SD, or selective default. And that sort of gets to an amusing story. A couple of weeks ago, I asked, would you lend money to a country in which the voters can just decide not to pay you back? Well, apparently the son-in-law of the last Secretary of State would!

Hedge Fund Co-Founded by Chelsea Clinton’s Husband Suffers Losses Tied to Greece
Eaglevale Partners’ Main Fund Lost Money in Two of Past Three Years
By Rob Copeland | Updated Feb. 3, 2015 6:46 p.m. ET

Hedge-fund manager Marc Mezvinsky with his wife, Chelsea Clinton, at a Clinton Global Initiative event in 2014 PHOTO: INVISION/ASSOCIATED PRESS

The hedge fund co-founded by Bill and Hillary Clinton’s son-in-law suffered losses tied to an ill-timed bet on Greece’s economic recovery, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.Eaglevale Partners LP, founded by Marc Mezvinsky and two former colleagues from Goldman Sachs Group Inc., told investors in a letter sent last week they had been “incorrect” on Greece, helping produce losses for the firm’s main fund during two of the past three years, according to the letter. Mr. Mezvinsky married Chelsea Clinton, the former first daughter, in 2010.

The main fund dropped 3.6% last year, far trailing the 5.7% rise for similar hedge funds tracked by HFR Inc. That followed an Eaglevale gain of 2.06% in 2013 and a loss of 1.96% in 2012, the documents show. It returned 6.24% this January, helped by bets on the U.S. dollar, said a person familiar with the situation, putting it in positive territory since its inception in 2012.

Among investors in Eaglevale’s main fund is Goldman Sachs Chairman and Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein , people familiar with the matter said.

A smaller Eaglevale fund focused only on Greece plunged 48% last year, said the person familiar with the situation, hurt by the belief Greece’s economy will see a quick rebound.

There’s a lot more at the link, including information on how Mr Mezvinsky used the influence of the Clintons to get investors. It was all perfectly legal, of course, but it demonstrates the sometimes silly results of betting on influence.1 Your Editor does not have a PhD in economics, nor is your Editor on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, nor is he a professor at some prestigious university. But somehow, some way, he managed to see this coming:

New elections may very well change the government, and the promises of austerity which have been reluctantly made by the current government could well be abandoned. If that happens, and depending upon when that happens, there would be huge losses among the eurozone nations which contributed to the bailout deal, the International Monetary Fund, the European Central Bank and the private investors, huge losses beyond what are already anticipated. The eurozone countries are accepting the losses they have, because the Greek debt is spread so widely through their economic systems that a default and bankruptcy would mean much worse losses, much more disorderly losses, and losses which could lead to a cascading stream of bankruptcies. The Europeans are hoping to spread the losses in such a manner that everybody loses a little, but nobody, or at least nobody important, goes broke. Whether it works remains to be seen, but your editor is not optimistic.

That was just 2½ weeks short of three years ago, when I also noted that “the private creditors who have been enabling Greece to live well beyond its means for decades will have lost out on more than half of their investments, and will probably have to count themselves as fortunate to have lost only that much.” Basically, we told you so!

Mr Mezvinsky and his in-laws are, of course, among our betters; they are the Ivy League educated people who are just smarter than us, who know better than we do what is good for us. Yet, somehow, some way, this son of privilege2 couldn’t see what is obvious to conservatives, that investing in countries a hair away from bankruptcy, whether in those countries’ government bonds or their private investment markets, isn’t a particularly wise idea.

And now the Greek people have done what I predicted: they voted against the pain of paying their debts. How is it that the son-in-law of the Secretary of State couldn’t see that that was a real possibility, and one which threatened his company’s investments?

Your Editor admits to a sense of schadenfreude here. :)

More from The Wall Street Journal:


  1. Mr Mezvinsky was described, in 2013, by Institutional Investor as a “hedge fund rising star.”
  2. Mr Mezvinsky’s father, Edward, was a two-term congressman representing a district in Iowa, and then United States Ambassador to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. He later spent time in federal prison on 31 counts of various forms of fraud. His mother, Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky, once represented a congressional district in Pennsylvania.

Our President and الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام

From the Victory Girls:

Obama Announces That ISIS is Holding an American Hostage, Is Deploying All Assets to Rescue Her
by Cassy Fiano on February 4, 2015

ISIS has committed any number of atrocities over the past several months, with Obama’s response mostly being to take a break from his busy schedule of golf games and celeb-filled fundraisers to lecture the world about how these actions will not be tolerated… yet taking absolutely no action whatsoever to strike back. From executing children for the crime of watching soccer and murdering 150 innocent, defenseless women, to beheading civilian hostages, the crimes of these terrorists haven’t been able to spur Obama to action. But apparently, the particularly horrific murder of Jordanian pilot Muath al-Kaseasbah, who was burned alive in a cage, was enough to call the Obama administration to action, in their own special way. Jordan promptly executed the ISIS hostages they had been holding; Obama let ISIS know that our military forces were coming their way, since it’s always a good idea to give our enemies a heads-up before we launch an offensive.

And, following a long internal quote by the author:

Hey, know what ISIS will probably do now that they know we’re coming to rescue this hostage? Kill her. That’s what.

This little nugget of brilliance, to announce to the world that we’re sending troops to stage a rescue, comes from the same people who accidentally named the hostage in a press conference less than two weeks ago. It’s as if the Obama administration is actively doing everything they can to put the hostages that ISIS is holding at risk. And while plenty of people will undoubtedly be crying “traitor” over this, that’s probably not entirely fair to Obama. He’s not a traitor for ISIS; he’s just an incompetent moron.

Obama has proved, time and time again, that he is hands down the worst president this country has ever had, with the most unprofessional, non-transparent, gutless administration behind him. He’s too scared to use the words “terrorists” to describe ISIS, he bumbles and fumbles practically everything he does, and because of his idiocy, American lives are at risk. and what’s worse, he doesn’t learn from his mistakes, either. The rise of ISIS was allowed to happen because Obama decided to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But guess what? Wars aren’t “ended”. They’re either won or lost. You can’t just pull our troops out and call it a victory when the war hasn’t been won yet. Doing so just left a massive power vacuum in the Middle East, one that ISIS was happy to fill. Yet Obama is still persisting with his moronic idea to withdraw all troops from Afghanistan, refusing to react after ISIS has killed innocent American civilians, laughing off their atrocities by calling them the “JV team”, and in general, behaving like the gutless boy wonder that he is.

In one way, I disagree with Mrs Chesser: the announcement didn’t change anything; ISIS already knew we were looking for her. The only question now is whether will they burn her alive, or just cut off her head?

ISIS are actually pretty savvy: the beheadings were gruesome enough, but the civilized world got as used to those as we could get; the immolation of Lt Muath al-Kaseasbah was simply the next step, a new way to shock and awe the civilized world. There aren’t much worse ways to die than to be burned alive, and even those of us who don’t watch the video can gruesomely imagine it, and feel horrified.

ISIS are telling the civilized world that they reject the notions of civilization as the West sees them; ISIS are telling the world that there are no bounds they will not cross, no restrictions they will obey, to get their way.

And they are challenging a wimpy President, telling both the American people and the Western world at large that they will do whatever they damned well please, because they know that Barack Hussein Obama won’t do what needs to be done, which is to send in 50,000 soldiers and Marines to hunt down ISIS and kill every last one of them. He might send drones, to try to pick off the top leadership, but the leadership can, and will, be replaced; this is one of those cases where you have to kill off the whole army, not just the generals.

Instead, the man male Mrs Chesser referred to as “the worst president this country has ever had,” a description with which I am in full agreement, somehow thinks that the way to fight Islamist radicalism is to release terrorist fighters from Guantanamo, because it is “a prison that the world condemns and terrorists use to recruit.” That there has been a substantial recidivism rate of released detainees from Guantanamo returning to the battlefield doesn’t seem to bother the Commander-in-Chief of the American soldiers who might be put at greater risk by those releases.

Da‘ish, an Arabic acronym for الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-‘Irāq wash-Shām, or ISIS, don’t care about Guantanamo; their fighters aren’t locked up there. But our esteemed President’s policy of releasing Islamist fighters to return to the battlefield and shoot at our own soldiers leads only to mockery and disrespect for the United States and Mr Obama. They have shown us what they believe ought to be done with prisoners, and look at President Obama’s policies as indicating, to put it bluntly, that he has no balls. Da’ish are not impressed by countries that have no balls, and everything that they are doing indicates that. The West, and most especially our President, are so wrapped up in sophistication, so determined to find an intellectual answer, that they cannot recognize the simplicity of the problem: Da’ish do not care about intellectual answers or diplomatic solutions, but are simply determined to get their way by the ruthless use of force.

For the American left, for the Western liberals, and for President Obama personally, the notion of war, of the need to use force against people who are determined to use force against us, is simply outside their intellectual paradigm. They don’t understand it, and they certainly don’t appreciate it, and somehow think that Da’ish and the other Islamist forces can just be calmed down and dealt with and shamed like schoolyard bullies, that they can be talked out of behaving badly, given a “time out,” and brought to heel by their intellectual betters.

Da’ish just showed them how wrong they are.

We told you so! Another business is closing due to minimum wage increases.

From Twitter:


And the story:

Borderlands Books in SF announces closure, cites minimum wage increase
By Michael Barba

Borderlands Books in San Francisco’s Mission district owner Alan Beatts announced the closure of his bookstore citing the minimum wage increase as the primary reason the store is forced to close. (Mike Koozmin/The S.F. Examiner )

When San Francisco voters approved a minimum wage increase in the November election, Mayor Ed Lee sent what he called a loud and clear message to the nation: “We can give a well-deserved raise to our lowest-wage workers, and we can do it in a way that protects jobs and small business.”Yet a month after the initial phase of the increase took effect, Borderlands Books became the first business Sunday to cite The City’s higher minimum wage as the catalyst for its closure.

The Valencia Street bookstore expects to clear its shelves and lay off employees by the end of March after struggling to compete with online book sales and a national shift to electronic readers, owner Alan Beatts said.

But San Francisco’s minimum wage increase to $15 by 2018 was the final straw for Borderlands.

More information at the original, including measures that the bookstore had taken in the past to reduce costs. The owner noted that to have stayed in business with the required wage increases, he would have had to have increased sales by an unrealistic margin, and that he could not simply increase the prices he charged for his books, because those prices are already printed on the books themselves.

Somebody has to pay for wage increases; surely you didn’t think that business owners wouldn’t just pass it on?

Of course, we had already said that this would happen. The Congressional Budget Office had also said this, but, of course, the highly educated economists in the White House disputed that:

White House Disputes CBO, Says Minimum Wage Hike Won’t Cost Any Jobs
By Sahil Kapur – February 18, 2014, 4:53 PM EST4644

The White House’s top economist moved to dispute a Congressional Budget Office finding on Tuesday that raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour could cost up to 500,000 jobs once implemented in the second half of 2016.

“[The CBO finding] does not reflect the consensus view of economists who have said the minimum wage would have little to no impact on employment,” Jason Furman, the chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers (CEA), told reporters on a conference call. “It goes outside the consensus view of economists when it comes to the impact of the minimum wage on employment.”

Well, once again, all of those PhDs in economics were wrong, while your Editor, who has only his baccalaureate degree, was right. Jason Furman, the chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, earned an M Sc from the London School of Economics, and then his PhD from Harvard:

In 1996, while he was a graduate student at Harvard Department of Economics, Furman was hired by economist Joseph Stiglitz to serve a one-year stint as Special Assistant to the President for Economic Policy in the Clinton Administration and on staff of the Council of Economic Advisers. He later worked with Stiglitz at the World Bank. Furman was involved to varying degrees with the Presidential campaigns of Al Gore and Wesley Clark, along with his wife, Eve Gerber, who also contributed as a speechwriter for Clark.[6] In 2004, he took a position as Director of Economic Policy for the 2004 Kerry presidential campaign.

In recent years, Furman worked as a budget expert at the Brookings Institution. There, he worked with former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and directed the Hamilton Project, an economic policy research group that develops policy proposals to achieve shared economic growth.

He was a Visiting Scholar at New York University’s Wagner Graduate School of Public Service. He has been a visiting lecturer at Columbia and Yale Universities. Furman’s research and policy focus includes the subjects of taxes, health care, and the U.S. Social Security program. Furman’s qualified defense of Wal-Mart’s business model provoked criticism from some labor organizations when he joined the 2008 Obama presidential campaign.

Yet, with all of that expensive education, and with a stellar professional résumé, Dr Furman was wrong, while your Editor was right. President Obama ought to be calling me, right now, to replace Dr Furman, because while I might not be able to do some of the fancier diagrams and calculations his current Council of Economic Advisers was able to do when earning his degrees, I can still get the right answers, while Dr Furman cannot.1

It’s really pretty simple: if costs are increased, then either revenues must be increased as well, or the business becomes unprofitable, and goes out of business. The exact numbers and mechanisms are going to vary by the individual businesses in question, but the basic math stays the same: businesses must make a profit, or they go out of business. Some will plug along, trying to reverse their fortunes and regain a profitable status, but it cannot continue forever. People with simple common sense, and just a little bit of experience in business, can tell you this, but it seems that the President’s Council of Economic Advisers cannot.

  1. The possibility exists that Dr Furman did know what would happen, but was told to say something different. Were President Obama to replace him with me, I would quickly get fired, because once told to say something I knew to be wrong, I would refuse.

The American Left: Do as I say, don’t do as I do!

Is there a more leftist city in the United States than San Francisco? Via Donald Douglas:

As Parents Get More Choice, S.F. Schools Resegregate
San Francisco faces a challenge: promoting educational options without undermining classroom diversity
By Jeremy Adam Smith | San Francisco Public Press | February 2, 2015 – 8:40am

Each January, parents across San Francisco rank their preferences for public schools. By June, most get their children into their first choices, and almost three-quarters get one of their choices.

A majority of families may be satisfied with the outcome, but the student assignment system is failing to meet its No. 1 goal, which the San Francisco Unified School District has struggled to achieve since the 1960s: classroom diversity.

Since 2010, the year before the current policy went into effect, the number of San Francisco’s 115 public schools dominated by one race has climbed significantly. Six in 10 have simple majorities of one racial group. In almost one-fourth, 60 percent or more of the students belong to one racial group, which administrators say makes them “racially isolated.” That described 28 schools in 2013–2014, up from 23 in 2010–2011, according to the district.

But the San Francisco Public Press has found the problem may be even more stark: If Asian and Filipino students are counted together — the standard used by the Census — together the number of racially isolated schools in the last school year rose to 39.

The drive toward racial isolation in the district parallels a larger trend in the city: With many wealthier families opting for private alternatives, the public school system is becoming racially and economically isolated from the city as a whole.

See more here.

Of course, the good liberals of San Francisco aren’t alone: you can read through the 203 comments on this article at the Delaware Liberal, where you have liberals like Donviti admitting that yeah, he scrambled to find better, safer charter schools for his kids when the parochial school they were in shut down, and the very liberal frequent commenter Geezer saying:

Now explain the value of our investment in the vast number of minority kids who drop out before graduation. You can pretend there’s no difference between “their kids” and “my kids,” but most people will refuse to play along with that. Indeed, they already do, which is why charter schools have support among the public.

Read this and all related threads in DL history. The sales pitch boils down to, “It’s unfair of you to seek advantages for your own kids.” Fighting against human nature is always a bad bet.

When my family moved to Mt Sterling, Kentucky, in March of my third grade year, I went to the all-white Mt Sterling Elementary School. At the time, the school system was completely segregated. Then, while a fairly controversial integration plan was being worked out — it would have phased in racial integration over three or four years — the W E DuBois school, the school for blacks, was burned down, in August of 1964, between my fifth and sixth grade years. The start of school was delayed a week or two, but the system was fully integrated for the 1964-1965 school year because there was nothing else that could have been done. It might have been traumatic for the adults, but for the students, it didn’t seem like that big a deal, at least not as far as I can remember.1 But, whatever hard feelings might have existed among the adults, it was somewhat mitigated by the fact that they were not being asked to have their own children bused to a different school, just for integration, because there was only one school!

But, once you got to larger cities, with multiple schools, then yes, white parents who supported the concept of integration were far less thrilled when it came to busing their kids away from neighborhood schools, when it came to using their children for social engineering purposes.

The Delaware Liberals argued about that, and the white parents in über-liberal San Francisco are doing the same thing, perhaps not by talking about it, but by using their money and influence and resources to make sure that their kids aren’t the ones who have to attend school with Hispanics and Negroes.

Our American Left just couldn’t exist without hypocrisy, from progressive superstar Elizabeth Warren urging higher taxes on the wealthy while declining to pay higher rates herself, to environmentalists and income inequality worriers flying hundreds of private jets to conferences in Switzerland, to the integration-for-thee-but-not-for-me attitudes we see in liberals. They are very, very good at telling us how we should live our lives, and very, very bad about living their own lives the way they say we ought to live ours.

  1. I was more used to integration than most students, because the schools in Antioch, California, where I attended kindergarten and the first and second grades were racially integrated, though that meant more Hispanic than black students. My best friend in Antioch was Mexican, but I didn’t really think anything about it at the time, because Tino was just the boy across the street, and I didn’t know that that was somehow supposed to make a difference.

Best Super Bowl ad

I just wish that this ad had come from an American automobile company.

Obviously a joke, but can you imagine the reaction from the feminists . . .

. . . if the picture were reversed!

People Are Calling This The “Best Engagement Photo Of All-Time
By Michael Cantrell

Photo credit: Joshua Rainey Photography. Click to enlarge.

“Save The Date” photo announcements for big life events–such as getting engaged or having a baby–are all the rage these days.
While there are absolutely TONS of these photos floating around the Internet–and many of them are super funny and creative–there’s one in particular making it’s away across the web and for all of the right reasons.

This may seriously be the best engagement photo of all time.


From BuzzFeed:

Here’s what the photographer had to say about the shot. Meaning the photograph, not the “shot” that bagged this gal her dude. Obviously.

More at the original.

I can just imagine Amanda Marcotte foaming at the mouth over this one. The engaged couple obviously thought the whole idea was humorous, and the photo is a gag; it’s only purpose is to be funny. But the feminists will wax wroth over this, and the only thing which would be worse would be one modeled on the old caveman-hits-cavewoman-over-the-head notion.

Me? I am smart enough to realize that jokes are just that: jokes. But, then again, I’m a horribly sexist pig.