If you find another song that references the great Bergman film Wild Strawberries, please tell me in the comments. And what better gauge of the state of your relationship than “sometimes it gets bad, it never gets Bergman bad”. Here’s a Friday open thread.
Archives for September 2013
Why Not?
Barney Frank on the Maddow Show:
Citing new polling data that shows widespread support by the American public for the peaceful, negotiated resolution of the chemical weapons crisis in Syria without having to bring the U.S. military into action, former Congressman Barney Frank made the case to that public sentiment against further U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan is even stronger […] Frank recommends that his like-minded former colleagues in Congress draft a resolution calling for an accelerated withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan, targeting the end of 2013 instead of the end of 2014, and allow the will of the American public to propel that legislation into reality[…]
I’m skeptical that the “will of the American public” can propel anything through Congress as currently constructed, but let’s face it: if Obama wants a 2014 withdrawal and a 2013 withdrawal comes to the House floor, as usual there will be a couple hundred votes for whatever Obama doesn’t want. But I doubt Obama would make this some kind of last stand. He would probably show his trademark flexibility, pivot, and get behind the resolution.
For those of you who have been keeping close track of Afghanistan, what’s the downside of an earlier-than-expected withdrawal?
Open Thread: (Still) Rooting for Injuries
@mmfa "So vote Republican. We'll make sure you don't have a choice OR a job!"
— billmon (@billmon1) September 20, 2013
Dealing with Rep. Pete “Mucker” King is like living with a rescue pit bull — it ain’t for amateurs, or philosopher-kings. TPM is happy to point out that Ted “Tailgunner” Cruz doesn’t seem to be up to the job:
In a day marked by the clash between House Republicans and Sen. Ted Cruz over defunding Obamacare, Rep. Pete King (R-NY) had another message for the Texas senator: Mind your own business.
“We as House Republicans should stop letting Ted Cruz set our agenda for us,” King said on CNN. “He should stay in the Senate, keep quiet. If he can deliver on this, fine. If he can’t, he should keep quiet from now on and we shouldn’t listen to him.”…
Remember, Pete “Not the Cantalope Guy” King is officially running for President in 2016, as a vanity project to raise his Q ratings. So if Cruz blows up the whole economy in his own quest for a bigger share of the GOP grift, it’s going to be a gross personal inconvenience to Peter King, which is the best and perhaps only way to get a Repub’s attention…
Elsewhere, a House GOP aide told National Review Online that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi “is more well-liked” than Cruz.
Buuuuuurrrn!
Open Thread: (Still) Rooting for InjuriesPost + Comments (56)
Late Night Open Thread
The complete and total moral decline of Walter White and his descent into complete and total indifference to the feelings and concerns of others in Season Five is really quite breathtaking. I’m trying to figure out how much of his decline makes me think by comparison that Jesse has been redeemed, or if maybe I need to watch it all the way through again (once I finish) and that maybe Jesse was a moral being from episode one, but just a confused junkie who when his head cleared became more of the person he really is.
I was also thinking it would be interesting to gauge the opinions of people who watched the show like I am (3 episodes a night) as opposed to someone who watched it week by week over a five year span. I think I am experiencing a far more dramatic sensation as to the shifts in character because every previous episode and season is so fresh in my mind, so I think the arc of White’s decline may be more dramatic for me than for someone who had months in between episodes.
Basically, what I am trying to say is that the way I am viewing this series, I’m experiencing a time lapse photography version of the show, so the arcs may be clearer and more vivid.
By Request: Steve
He’s doing what he does at this hour, which is to store up energy so he can run around the house all night long and make the dogs bark:
Here is Rosie chewing the hell out of a toy:
Lily is under the comforter in the bed, where she spends 75% of her life (and God Bless her for her), so no pics about her.
*** Update ***
Check out this glamorous monster I found on my glass door when I just let the girls out:
We all know how much my photography sucks, but this was worse than normal because it was on a glass pane at night with an iPhone. Regardless, this baby was every bit of 6-7 inches.
I’m Too Sexy For My Phone, Too Sexy For My Phone, Too Sexy By Far
Found this on my iPhone (thanks ios7!) when I got back from walking the piglets this morning:
For the record, I was wearing a sweaty gray t-shirt, shorts, flip flops, and I was mildly aroused and intrigued until the end. On the other hand, I was supremely impressed that my first foray into sexting was with someone who could spell “you’re.”
I’m Too Sexy For My Phone, Too Sexy For My Phone, Too Sexy By FarPost + Comments (37)
Let’s get to the point, let’s roll another joint
I don’t know what the definition of rational discourse is, but I think part of the idea is that you try to argue without using ad hominem arguments. My experience has been that ad hominem arguments — interpreted broadly — are the most useful type of arguments in terms of understanding what the other person is really getting at. People come to conclusions based on their own psychology, not on anything to do with facts (to the extent that there is such a thing as facts), so why is it considered a virtue to pretend otherwise?
I know it’s considered rude to say “you’re just a global warming skeptic because you enjoy being contrarian” or “you want to scrap the social safety net because you want the poor to suffer” or “you just want to bomb these people because you get off on the idea of violence and force” but the truth is that’s probably a lot more accurate than “you arrived at this conclusion by a careful examination of the existing literature blah blah blah”.
Nowadays, in part because of the internets, people can just make up their own facts. You can find some country somewhere where they eliminated all social services and the economy boomed or where the temperature went down the last ten years or where a long period of bombings and shootings was followed by a period of peace and stability.
So why should anyone have to argue against the Estonian miracle or the Pax Pol Pot given the knowledge that someone who likes Randism or genocide or increased carbon emissions can probably find some example about how Randism or genocide or increased carbon emissions worked somewhere, given enough time and access to google?
I think this is where liberals screw up. Nobody — not even the most hardcore tote bagger — is that convinced by an Ezra Klein piece about CBO estimates given that they can find some Tyler Cowen piece about CBO estimates that says the opposite.
Let’s get to the point, let’s roll another jointPost + Comments (102)