Guess which state accidentally banned all computers and smartphones

Source: HuffPo

Rob Ford caught smoking crack on tape, his lawyer takes "deny everything" strategy to the next level

The headline about covers it on this one.  Someone taped Toronto mayor Rob Ford smoking crack and is now selling it to the highest bidder (for some reason, there is a crowdfunded group attempting to buy it--actually, scratch that, there are at least five crowdfunded groups trying to buy it.  Getting pretty tired of your shit, Indiegogo).  At this point a number of journalists have seen and publicized the video, though the video itself remains unreleased.  Rob Ford's lawyer responded to the allegations, wondering, "How can you indicate what the person is actually doing or smoking?"  Apparently not recognizing the inanity of this line of thinking, he went on to ask, "Truly, what is reality?  Does each of us not create our understanding of the world around us on a moment-to-moment basis, crafting a tapestry of perception that is unique to our own experience?"

Now, I have no clear evidence either way.  I just want to ask one question: does the gif below depict the actions of a man who is not on crack?  I rest my case.

If your desire for bizarre Rob Ford moments continues unabated, you may view a full list here.

Texas Congressman says most Texas Congressman-y thing possible

Mitch McConnell's latest campaign ad: actually kind of clever

Ben Howe demonstrates the amazing power of imagination

What happens when you imagine that Google is a different thing than it actually is?  How about when you imagine that Google is secretly working with Democrats to manipulate elections?  Hypothetically, you might get a headline like this:

As it happens, it's not hypothetical--that's the title of Ben Howe's latest work over at Red State.  Ben has some thoughts about Google and the Obama campaign, and they're certainly...let's say interesting.  Here's what he had to say:

Remember that enormous, sophisticated data operation the Obama campaign had? The one that gave them massive daily data on public opinion trends in almost every segment of potential voters.

You mean the Internet? 

It’s almost as if Democrats had access to some sort of huge database of real time information about what the public was reading or writing online. The kind of breathtakingly large, real-time data that could be used for real-time trend analysis, predictive modeling and even behavioral manipulation.

This still sounds like you're just accusing them of using the Internet.  At least, it did until that behavioral manipulation bit--I've occasionally tried to change people's minds about things online and it's goddamn impossible.  The level of discourse is not especially high. 

On a completely unrelated note, former RNC eCampaign Director Michael Turk wrote Monday that “the frightening advantage the left has is in a less touted entity known as the Analyst Institute (AI) and a consortium of behavioral scientists” who are “concerned not only with your characteristics and voting behavior, but how they can manipulate that behavior.”

Hey, that isn't completely unrelated!  Liar.  I won't say it's not weird that presidential campaigns do extensive research into how to campaign successfully online, but it's not like Obama invented the idea (obviously, Al Gore did.  It is known).  Everyone campaigns online now, and there are tricks to that just like there are for all other sorts of media.  The main thing you seem to be upset about is that the Democrats are better at it, which: tough shit, dude. Also, the Republicans might be a little behind in the "manipulating people with the Internet" field, but by most measures they're way better at good old-fashioned alterations of the electoral process and voting districts.

Now, combine Obama’s political campaign with Google’s near-comprehensive real-time data and the left’s behavioral analysis.  What do you get? Beat.

Wow, that definitely is a winning combination!  If it were a real thing that actually happened, that is.  I think if Obama actually had information from Google about how to best appeal to the online population, his campaign literature would have looked something like this:

This goes beyond just campaigns.  Google likes to brag that they can detect flu outbreaks two weeks before the CDC based on search volume. Eric Schmidt once bragged that the company could predict stock market movements.

Imagine how much more could be learned if Google’s computer algorithms combined not only search data but also all of the data they get by reading everything written in or sent to Gmail and whatever you store on Google docs and Google Drive.

Imagination time!  Incidentally, citing accusations made by Microsoft as evidence of Google's wrongdoing is pretty weak, dude.

Then imagine what Democratic voter data groups like Catalist (which launched as a for-profit operation, allowing it much more latitude in working with outside groups…or companies)

The ominous ellipsis makes an appearance!  Sorry Ben, I'll let you finish your sentence now.

could do with that data.

Yes, imagine what the Democratic groups could do if Google shared their data.  That'd be highly illegal and one of the dumbest things Google could do with said data, but imagine!

With a  few tweaks to their algorithms 

Just imagine, if they tweaked their algorithms

Google could easily have near perfect insights into the voting behaviors and patterns of the U.S. population at large down to specific precincts, neighborhoods or even households.

Wait, are you suggesting they'd be able to figure out that I vote based on which candidate will keep beer prices lowest?  That's pretty advanced.

 The threat isn’t just that Google openly supports left wing politicians and policies.  That’s obvious, and that relationship goes both ways.  Google+ hosted Joe Biden for a “fireside chat” about gun control and Obama is doing a Google+ “hangout” immediately following his State of the Union speech tonight.

You can tell how biased Google is because they didn't ban Obama and Biden from using their freely available social media service and giving Google huge amounts of free publicity.

The real threat is that Google, or perhaps just a few people within the leadership of Google, may be quietly operating as a private intelligence agency for the left.

"I imagined it, and therefore it may be happening.  THREAT LEVEL MIDNIGHT!"

And every time you use Google or Gmail you could be contributing just a little bit more of your behavioral data to the left.

Hey, did you know that Chrome has this awesome Incognito mode!  It lets you hide what kind of porn you like from Obama.  There certainly are problems with living in America today, but it's nothing compared to living in the terrifying autocracy that Ben Howe and other overwrought writers imagine they live in.  Personally, when I use my imagination, I prefer to imagine a world where all people have stuffed animal heads, because why not?

OK fess up, who gave Marco Rubio a spoonful of peanut butter right before he went on TV

Warning: this video is about as unpleasant to watch as you'd expect from the title.

I guess maybe if he'd learn how to drink water without doing a Hunchback of Notre Dame pose he might do it more often.

Chechnyans have overcome separatist rebels, now turning their attention to the non-Muggle population

From the Telegraph

Guys, it's pretty simple--if Ronald Reagan touched it, you don't get to

Bill Kelly writes a recurring column in the Washington Times called "Bill Kelly's Truth Squad".  Ostensibly, this column is a forum where "A conservative satirist takes on the worlds of politics and entertainment in humorous pursuit of truth, justice and all things America."  Looking at his recent work, I'm not really seeing the "humorous pursuit" part:

Anyway, his most recent work is titled, "Reagan's home could become a parking lot for Obama's library".  It's a terrifying description of a present-day Cold War where Obama seeks to relentlessly destroy all historical landmarks related to past presidents!  No, really--see for yourself:

CHICAGO, Illinois, January 25, 2013 - A new Cold War is brewing here in Chicago’s Hyde Park neighborhood and it has nothing to do with the frigid temperature.

Just for fun, I'm going to keep track of all the items in this column that could be classified as "jokes".  Since I am assuming that Bill Kelly is aware that the Cold War was not started by cold temperatures, I will begrudgingly give him credit for +1 joke there.

The apartment building at 832 E. 57th Street was once the Chicago home of a boy who would become a President.

No, it’s not Barack Obama of Hawaii.

Nice job, reminding us that Obama was born in Hawaii.  This seems like a vague dig at Obama not being American, but I don't really get it.  +0 jokes.

It was at the apartment’s first floor window that a young Ronald Reagan looked out upon the world. 

But some powerful Chicagoans are planning to demolish Reagan’s historic home.

Did you tell them that Reagan looked through the window?  I'm shocked that didn't sway them.  Here's how I assume Bill ranks potential historical sites in order of importance:

1. Reagan looked at, through, or nearby a part of the building (double if he touched anything)
2. Biblical figure appears in shower mold and/or toast
3. Places that have something to do with actual historical events

+0 jokes.

Is it politically motivated? Is Mayor Rahm Emanuel behind the move? 

I gave it some thought, and I decided that I might injure my neck if I shake my head as much as this question deserves.  I will allow this dog to take care of it for me.  Also, +0 jokes.

It was a different world back in 1915. Reagan's family had moved here from Tampico, Illinois. His father had gotten a job at the famed Marshall Field’s – now only a memory. A coin-operated gas lamp was the only home’s only source of heat.  

What is a "coin-operated gas lamp"?  It doesn't appear to be a real thing, at least as far as I can tell.  +0 jokes.

But it didn’t stop a young “Dutch” Reagan from dreaming.

I have no clue what "Dutch" means there.  Is Reagan from a Dutch family?  Did young Reagan insist on splitting the tab equally on dates?  Something about jump-roping?  +0 jokes.

Young Reagan would watch the horse-drawn fire engines galloping wildly down the streets to save the day and he decided that he, too, would become a firefighter. It was here, too, that he survived a bout with pneumonia – he had the fight in him even then. 

You can almost imagine him skipping down these streets, playing with his brother Neil,  whose nickname was “Moon.” 

Great anecdotes, guy.  If you can imagine it so well, why do we need the building?  Just use your imagination-pictures of what Reagan was doing in 1915.  Also, I'm suspicious of anyone being nicknamed "Moon".  How does that even happen? 

Now, the University of Chicago Medical Center has announced plans to turn Reagan’s Chicago home into a parking lot.

In 2012, the Commission on Chicago Landmarks denied Reagan’s home landmark status. The University of Chicago set demolition for January and the bulldozers quickly moved in. The wrecking balls are ready.

A "plaque" could mark the historic spot instead, say university representatives.  

A "plaque"??? Just one?  There should be a plaque for every time he was inspired to fight for America when playing with his brother Moon, and a statue, and a hologram of Reagan playing on the street as a child that other children can interact with and be inspired.  Also, +0 jokes.


While the university is planning to kill Reagan’s home, University of Chicago is also aggressively lobbying to be the site of President Barack Obama’s presidential library. 

The presidential library won't be built for another <checks watch> four years, buddy.  Also, the word for what we do do demolish buildings isn't "kill".  That just sounds over-dramatic and like you want the situation to sound worse than it actually is.

Could the Reagan site become a parking lot for Obama’s library? Opponents of the demolition say yes.

There is good reason for them to be suspicious. 

First Lady Michelle Obama and the president’s close advisor Valerie Jarrett are former top executives of the University of Chicago Medical Center. President Obama was a lecturer at the law school for twelve years. And let’s not forget, Obama’s Hyde Park home is here too. 

Some people connected to Obama used to work at the university and he used to live nearby!  He probably has ultimate control over the local historical society and how they determine what is and is not a landmark.  +0 jokes.
 
This is still Chicago. Barack Obama’s Chicago. Rahm Emanuel’s Chicago.

It is safe to say that Democrats don’t want any reminders of a Republican president named Reagan and his glory days a stone’s throw from a future Obama Presidential Library.

It is safe to say that you have given this more thought than anyone involved with planning the library four years from now.  You are aware Democrats aren't mindlessly enraged to the point of destruction by seeing things that remind them of Reagan, yes?  You seem to be equating it to how bulls see red capes.

Better to raze the building now, than later. But do they have the right to erase Ronald Reagan from Chicago history? 

Erase him from Chicago history?  They are tearing down a house he one time briefly lived in.  They aren't trying to scrub him from textbooks or anything.  As it happens, Reagan is better known in Chicago for the time he was calling a Cubs game when the wire that was providing the play-by-play to him went dead, so he fabricated an at-bat involving a record number of foul balls to delay the broadcast until the wire was back up.  Is Obama behind the efforts to renovate Wrigley Field, too?  It certainly seems suspicious, right? 

Only time – and that wrecking ball - will tell. 

For what it's worth, time has kind of already told, in that the historical society decided the house won't be a landmark.  Grand total of jokes in the column: one, and even that was pretty borderline. 

The Obama Culture Arrives, in the form of various aging celebrities

L. Brent Bozell III writes for cnsnews.com, a well-known bastion of responsible journalism online.

Well, okay, maybe not "responsible".  "Journalism" might be a stretch, too.

Today, he has some thoughts about the "Obama Culture", and who the cultural winners of Obama's America are.  Off the top of my head, I'd assume it'd be individuals and groups who are invested in cultural issues like gay marriage, abortion rights, the whole Obamacare debate, that sort of thing, but I'm really excited to find out what Bozell thinks, because I bet it's way crazier than that!

The year 2012 was a depressing time for people who are already pessimistic about the state of our common culture. Conversely, the re-election of Barack Obama, in large measure made possible by the heavy financial support of Hollywood, projects the optimism of the cultural Left. They anticipate increased blue-state voting patterns in favor of gay "marriage," legalized pot, gun regulations, and what next? Legalized prostitution? Euthanasia subsidized by Obamacare?

"Subsidized by Obamacare" doesn't really make sense, but whatever.  I actually have to admire Bozell for possessing some shred of restraint; while legalized prostitution and euthanasia aren't likely to be actual issues anytime soon, they are real things that could potentially exist.  I was expecting something more outrageous: "What's next?  Prostitution subsidized by Obamacare?  Pot 'marriage'?"

 So let's just line up the cultural winners of Obama's America, where the only impediments to progress are those who believe in religion, manners and "family values."

 I like how he just threw "manners" in there.  Not only does Obama hate his own religion and families, but he's also just so rude, you know?  You know what else is rude: when you go on television and say that the President looks like a skinny crackhead.  Not like that would happen ever, just a thing I was thinking about randomly.

Winner: Seth MacFarlane, the creator of the sick "Family Guy" cartoon and other Fox animated smutcoms on Sunday nights. 

Amusing side note: this article was reposted on Fox News.

He'll mock anything to shock the viewer, from portraying Jesus as a lying drunk, to joking Ronald Reagan was gay, even to making fun of domestic violence. Tinseltown loves this man. He guest-hosted "Saturday Night Live" in their season debut, was named host of the 2013 Academy Awards telecast and ABC's Barbara Walters named him one of the year's 10 "Most Fascinating People."

Again, Bozell gets points for restraint, because on his scale of "shocking", domestic violence rates higher than joking about Reagan being gay.  I would have assumed that a CNS news writer would think a joke about Reagan was a borderline breach of the Ten Commandments at this point.  I feel like I'm being somewhat liberal with these restraint points, but I can't help but be amazed when an article like this drunkenly veers in the general direction of sanity, even for just a moment.

"Seth is the vision and the sensibility behind America's most popular and profitable cartoon series," Walters cooed. "Seth is a hands-on mastermind." She proclaimed, "The 'Family Guy' franchise is said to be worth nearly 2 billion dollars." She concluded by promoting his Oscar hosting gig: "In two months, hundreds of millions will be watching this writer, producer, actor, cartoonist, singer, multi-millionaire and all-around genius, and we'll all find out just how far Seth MacFarlane can go."

MacFarlane's filthy semi-animated movie, "Ted," grossed (literally grossed) 

Yuk yuk yuk!

$218 million at the box office. This was the movie described efficiently as "a boy's teddy bear comes to life and becomes a profane slacker who practically lives inside a bong and hires hookers in groups." The most unnecessary scene of the year was this teddy bear coming on to a sleazy fellow employee by not only doing pelvic thrusts, but also by spraying himself in the face with hand lotion — a porny orgasm shot on a child's toy. 

Don't worry, guys!  Bozell probably has a really good way to connect this back to his original point, which was...oh, it was that certain people in Obama's culture are "winners" and something something family values.  Well, then.

That's "sensibility," says the Obama culture.

I don't get it.  What are the quotes for?  Did someone say this?  Is there something I'm missing that in any way connects Obama and "Ted"?  There's nothing here that indicates that Seth McFarlane and Obama are in any way related, except that McFarlane made an inappropriate movie last year and OH MY GOD IS OBAMA FORCING HOLLYWOOD TO SUBVERT FAMILY VALUES WITH GROSS MOVIES

Winner: MacFarlane's older sidekick, Bill Maher, the toxic atheist HBO star and the epitome of self-indulgent Hollywood liberalism, a man who shamelessly denounces the rest of America as a nation of idiots.

Maher wrote a million-dollar check to Obama's Super PAC Priorities U.S.A.
The liberal media labored mightily to connect Mitt Romney to Donald Trump, but have said almost nothing to connect Maher to Obama.

I mean, Maher gave Obama money and supported him, and Trump did the same for Romney, and both of these facts are pretty much common knowledge now, and how is this relevant to your point about the Obama culture?  

Maher had another year of vicious commentary. Late in the campaign, he joked, "If you're thinking about voting for Mitt Romney, I would like to make this one plea: black people know who you are, and they will come after you." After Obama's victory, Maher joked about Karl Rove, "It was a little Hitler's bunker, wasn't it? I wanted to rush in with a cyanide capsule there."

I mean, we can all agree on the fact that Bill Maher is a dick, so okay.

He summed up the election this way: "It is your choice, America, because for me it is a win-win. If it's Obama, America wins, and if it's Romney, comedy wins." Maher has set the tone: Comedy is strictly deployed against the people who don't like Obama. 

Hey, what about that joke you made earlier about how gross "Ted" was?  You're violating the Obama comedy deployment regulations.  Please report to Sector Five for cultural reprogramming.

If that feels like a Third World backwater to you, welcome to the Obama culture.

Bozell's definition of Third World country: a place where comedy cannot freely be used because Bill Maher said so.  I must say that the whole far-right panic over Obama ruining America makes much more sense if we accept that America can be ruined by minor celebrities saying stupid shit on television. 

Winner: Roseanne Barr. 

Fun fact: Roseanne Barr ran for President in 2012 for two different political parties, has announced her candidacy for Prime Minister of Israel, and said that Wall Street Bankers should be beheaded or sent to re-education camps if they don't agree to massive fines.  OBAMA CULTURE

Can we stop for a second?  All of these people who are allegedly Obama's cultural winners are really not new faces on the scene.  McFarlane became prominent when Bill Clinton was president in 1999.  Barr and Maher both arrived in the early 1980s, under Ronald Reagan.  If these people represent a new Obama worldview, they were absolute visionaries.  Maybe I'm unclear on what exactly "cultural winners of Obama's America" means, but none of these people seems to be more than remotely related to Obama in any way whatsoever. They aren't exactly great representatives of the current culture, nor do they have much to gain from Obama winning the election, and frankly it just seems like you picked people that you hope your readership would find offensive in the hopes that their mindless anger would overcome any desire they might have to read an article that makes actual sense.

She just won't go away. She was honored as comedic trailblazer for women with a Comedy Central roast. Katey Sagal, who played a foolish bimbo mom on "Married with Children," used the occasion to whack at Ann Romney: "Roseanne, I feel honored that you and I broke new ground as TV moms who didn't cook, didn't clean and didn't make any money. In the '90s, that made you a bad mom. But today it makes you Mitt Romney's wife."

Mrs. Romney, you may seek help here.

Roseanne also exemplified the Obama culture's reaction to Chick-fil-A, in several Christian-bashing Twitter rants in July, including: "Anyone who eats S—t Fil-A deserves to get the cancer that is sure to come from eating antibiotic filled tortured chickens 4Christ". Then came the geopolitics: "Off to grab a s—it fil-A sandwich on my way to worshiping Christ, supporting AIPAC and war in Iran."

One of the very best things about the internet is that after a prolonged election campaign during which Chik-Fil-A played a prominent role in demonstrating some of the key cultural conflicts between the involved parties, we have a full record of what everyone said about Chik-Fil-A.  Let's take a look at what Obama said, so we can better understand what an Obama culture would look like, vis-a-vis chicken sandwiches:

For those who don't enjoy math, let me sincerely not apologize for this. 

As math-inclined people and those who had to take real college courses instead of satisfying their requirements with courses titled "The Way Things Work" will already know, that means that Obama said not one thing about Chik-Fil-A.  I'm not sure Ms. Barr's comments "exemplify" the Obama culture, at least in this regard.  As for worshiping Christ, supporting AIPAC, and threatening war with Iran, those are all things Obama actually does, so I'm not sure how mocking them counts as part of his culture. 

Winner: Howard Stern. NBC parted with $20 million to bring in the old shock-jock as a sharp-tongued judge on their summer show "America's Got Talent." The ratings dropped, but in the Obama culture, that's not really the point. 

The point is...?  You missed a great opportunity to make up a point, like "requiring that gun control laws also apply to military units" or "creating a new Disneyworld only open to gay couples so that kids will want to be gay".

NBC just announced Stern signed a new contract for 2013 to repeat his "towering presence and opinions," because his "dedication comes across in a genuine way to our viewers who share his passion." 

The slogan for Team Obama in 2012 was "Forward." There's nothing forward about the Obama culture, however. It is down, down, straight down, into the abyss.

You just wrote an entire article alleging that the Obama culture is upon us and doom, destruction, etc.  Every single "example" you gave to support this is just a person who happens to exist while Obama is President, and at no point did you demonstrate any connection between any of them and Obama.  Using that process, you could have made the Obama culture be absolutely anything you wanted it to be, and you went with older celebrities who are kinda assholes and sorta liberal.  I guess that's worth one more restraint point, for a grand total of three.  Feel free to turn those in for any of our great prizes on your way out.

Either Maddie is the smartest baby ever or this guy is a goddamn liar

It's a little weird when you repeatedly suggest that a baby that you apparently stole from someone knows a lot about single-payer healthcare. 

Here is a thing that really happened: Donald Trump has publicly proved that his father is not an orangutan

Donald Trump has made the news several times recently for being a sad, lonely hairpiece who just wants love and attention repeatedly demanding to see Obama's birth certificate, even after Obama had already shown him (and the rest of America) said certificate.  When I was young, my parents would sometimes let me have three girl scout cookies, so often I'd eat one really fast and be like "hey, guys, you only gave me two cookies, that's totally not fair and I should get another one!" and then they'd be like "god, five-year-olds are fucking idiots, even if this one did successfully use an adverb correctly just now".  I'm not really sure how that anecdote relates to Trump, but it seemed important to share it.

 Anyway, Trump is once again in the news regarding a birth certificate, this time his own.  Bill Maher recently pledged $5 million to a charity of Trump's choice if Trump could prove that he was not "the spawn of his mother having sex with orangutan…".  Trump, sensing a chance to get people to look at him, actually chose to release it, so now we have access to that, for whatever it's worth.

The only thing remotely of note is that he requested this on May 22, 2012, which suggests that he ordered it several months ago and has been impatiently waiting for someone to demand to see it since then. 

A letter from Trump's lawyer accompanying the certificate reads:

Dear Mr. Maher:

I represent Mr. Donald J. Trump.  I write on his behalf to accept your offer (made during the Jay Leno Show on January 7, 2013) that Mr. Trump prove he is not the "spawn of his mother having sex with an orangutan."

Attached hereto is a copy of Mr. Trump's birth certificate, demonstrating that he is the son of Fred Trump, not an orangutan. 

Well demonstrated, sir.  Maher's response to this was “I’m not looking for a feud with Donald Trump,” which: he's really approached this whole situation incorrectly, then.  Personally, I can't wait to see this non-feud progress, since I can't think of two people I'd rather see compete in an effort to look the most ridiculous.  

 BOTH: "No, MY hair is the silliest!"

We as a nation have reached the point where congresspeople are introducing bills specifically saying that the government can't mint magic platinum coins

Well, okay, they aren't talking about magic coins, per se.  What they are talking about is trillion dollar platinum coins which the Treasury can mint because of a loophole in an older law allowing them to make commemorative coins of whatever value.  Our government, right now, is talking about whether or not we are allowed to make a trillion dollar coin so that we can turn around and give ourselves this coin so that we have a trillion dollars.  To be clear, this isn't just people being all "oh yeah let's give ourselves a trillion bucks for shits and giggles"; the government previously passed all these bills saying it was okay for us to spend money and now we actually have to send the check.  Which: we can't right now, because somebody decided that all of a sudden it was funny to actually debate not raising the debt ceiling, because I guess it's pretty hilarious when Obama has to put on his sincere face and talk about looming financial crises so that we can do the governmental equivalent of paying our credit card bill. 

Anyway, someone came up with this idea where we avoid the entire debate over whether we can give ourselves more money to pay the bills by minting a commemorative trillion-dollar coin, since these commemorative coins are not subject to approval by Congress, and at present Congress works about as efficiently as a group discussion in a 6th-grade sex ed class.  This proposal has understandably alarmed some members of Congress who were hoping to have a big symbolic fight about the debt ceiling for approximately the 39th time this month.  Notably, Greg Walden (R-OR) has announced a bill that will specifically prohibit the government from minting "high-value platinum coins".  Per his website:

“Some people are in denial about the need to reduce spending and balance the budget. This scheme to mint trillion dollar platinum coins is absurd and dangerous, and would be laughable if the proponents weren’t so serious about it as a solution. I’m introducing a bill to stop it in its tracks,” Rep. Walden said.

Even the proponents of the coin don't seem to regard it as a "serious" solution.  As Paul Krugman said in today's column,

"Should President Obama be willing to print a $1 trillion platinum coin if Republicans try to force America into default? Yes, absolutely. He will, after all, be faced with a choice between two alternatives: one that’s silly but benign, the other that’s equally silly but both vile and disastrous." 

So, yes, the coin thing is silly.  However, the alternative is for us to turn around and tell all of the foreign countries and federal workers that we owe money to that we purchased goods and services from them, but actually we won't be paying.  This would understandably upset a few people.  On the plus side, pissing off foreign countries might give us a chance to use this ginormous military we've been spending so much on, so that's a plus for efficiency, I guess?

“My wife and I have owned and operated a small business since 1986. When it came time to pay the bills, we couldn’t just mint a coin to create more money out of thin air. We sat down and figured out how to balance the books. That’s what Washington needs to do as well. My bill will take the coin scheme off the table by disallowing the Treasury to mint platinum coins as a way to pay down the debt. We must reduce spending and get our fiscal house in order,” Rep. Walden said.

OK, let me explain why this argument is totally ludicrous.  You are comparing the government to a family business, which is not an inherently awful comparison.  But, you are comparing not buying something (in the case of you and your wife deciding how to balance the books) with not paying for it (which is what will happen if we don't raise the debt ceiling or, barring that, mint a silly $1,000,000,000,000 coin).  Congress has already approved all of the various things the money will be used for--in fact, most of the spending is mandated by law.  The current debate is literally about whether they will let the money (which was already committed to be spent) actually be sent to the people we owe.  To go back to your business comparison, let's have you role-play Congress, and your wife will play President Obama.

So, last month, you were all "hey Prez, we gotta get a new truck for the business," so your President-wife Obama went out and bought a truck.  Then yesterday, the bill showed up, so your wife says "welp, time to pay this," and you're like "whoa, I didn't say we could PAY for this--I just wanted to buy it!"  Because of that, you're now divorced and desperately alone, because it's hard to find people that are into roleplaying where one party is dressed up as a bilateral legislative chamber.  

"So then this goes into--where?  No, wait, that feels wrong.  Do all 535 of these people really have to be here?"

To recap: I may have some issues with staying on point.  Basically, though, raising the debt ceiling is just a way to pay for the things we already agreed to pay for.  When Walden says, "My bill will take the coin scheme off the table by disallowing the Treasury to mint platinum coins as a way to pay down the debt," he's demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of what this idea would do--no one's advocating that we just print up a bunch of coins and then throw them in the air while screaming "DEBT FREE!".  They just need a way to allow the government to spend the money that we have in effect already spent.  If only Harry Potter were real, we might have a magical alternative, but at present all we have is silly coins.

Michael Barone discovers percentages, treats them like a child treats Play-Doh

Michael Barone has some thoughts about the 2012 election, now that it's been a whole seven weeks.  Specifically, he thinks that it's interesting how the 2004 and 2012 elections were similar, and thinks that if he shows us some math, we might be interested in that too.  Unfortunately, he seems to think that mathematical operations are just things you can arbitrarily perform on numbers to make them more interesting so that you can have something to write about in your online column.

In combing through the results of the 2012 election — apparently finally complete, nearly two months after the fact — I continue to find many similarities between 2012 and 2004, and one enormous difference. 

Does "combing through" mean "reading some article someone else wrote and using those ideas for your own"?  Because this sounds familiar.

Wowie zowie!  Two elections in the same country separated by eight years were kinda the same but also kinda different in some ways also! 

Both of the elections involved incumbent presidents with approval ratings hovering around or just under 50 percent facing challengers who were rich men from Massachusetts (though one made his money and the other married it).

Logically, these elections were basically the same then!

Whoa!  In a country where people divide themselves roughly evenly into liberal and conservative factions, a president from either side is liked by about half the people!  This math shit is off the hook, you guys.  Also, really loving the random dig at Kerry there.  Excellent stuff.

In both cases, the challenger and his campaign seemed confident he was going to win — and had reasonable grounds to believe so.

Debatable.

In both elections, the incumbent started running a barrage of negative ads defining the challenger in the spring. And in both elections, the incumbent had at least one spotty debate performance.

I don't think there are any elections involving incumbents where these aren't true statements. 

In both elections, each candidate concentrated on a more or less fixed list of target states, and in both elections the challenger depended heavily on outside groups’ spending that failed to achieve optimal results.

"In both elections, candidates focused their efforts in areas where they might matter.  The loser and his friends also spent lots of money, which indicates that they did not expect to lose and thought the money might make a difference.  I am a real writer and these are real insights, I swear."

The popular-vote margins were similar — 51 to 48 percent for George W. Bush in 2004, 51 to 47 percent for Barack Obama in 2012.

These numbers are scintillat--zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Wow!  I care so much that I fell asleep there for a second.  Is this column actually just a list of numbers that you thought were weird?  You guys, in the past several elections, the winning party received an odd number of votes.*  Maximum weirdness!

The one enormous difference was turnout. Turnout between the 2000 and 2004 elections rose from 105 million to 122 million — plus 16 percent. Turnout between the 2008 and 2012 elections fell from 131 million to 128 million — minus 2 percent.

You make kitty bored as fuck.

For what it's worth, the only reason these numbers look interesting is that turnout in 2000 was low because it was 2000 and people were all rocking out about the fact that Y2K never happened.**  When I say "interesting", I of course mean "any word other than interesting, preferably one which means the opposite of interesting".

Turnout is a measure of organization but also of spontaneous enthusiasm. In 2004, John Kerry got 16 percent more popular votes than Al Gore had four years before. But he lost, because George W. Bush got 23 percent more popular votes than he had four years before.

I'm spontaneously enthusiastic!  Not about this article, of course.

This paragraph is a basic explanation of how the way to win is to get more more votes than the other person if they get more votes than the person who tried before and oh my god i am bored someone pls send help.

Kerry voters were motivated more by negative feelings about Bush than by positive feelings for their candidate. They disagreed with Bush’s major policies and disliked him personally. The Texas twang, the swagger, the garbled sentence structure — it was like hearing someone scratch his fingers on a blackboard.

Turn my swag on

Bush voters were more positively motivated. Political reporters had a hard time picking this up. His job-approval rating was weak, but Bush voters tended to have a lot of warmth for him. He had carried us through 9/11, he had confronted our enemies directly, he had pushed through with bipartisan support popular domestic measures such as his education bill and the Medicare prescription-drug benefit.

Meh.

His criticism of his opponents was measured and never personal, and he blamed none of his difficulties on his predecessor (who had blamed none of his on his).

Maybe that's because Bush's predecessor left him a balanced budget and relatively few long-term problems, whereas Obama entered office with several foreign conflicts and a...how do you say...not-balanced budget?  Weighted budget?  Whatever.  Also, I feel compelled to note that it was very easy for Bush to avoid personal attacks because Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and a legion of Swift boaters took care of those for him. 

The 2012 election was different. Barack Obama got 6 percent fewer popular votes than he had gotten in 2008. And Mitt Romney got only 1 percent more popular votes than John McCain had four years before.

"See, what I did there was I took the numbers and I...mathed them.  After the mathing, there was some really interesting stuff, with the numbers and the maths and all that.  Percent!

In retrospect, it looks like both campaigns fell short of their turnout goals. Yet examination of election returns and exit polls indicates that the Obama campaign turned out voters where it really needed them. That enabled him to carry Florida by one point, Ohio by three points, Virginia by four points, and Colorado and Pennsylvania by five points. Without those states, he would have gotten only 243 electoral votes and would now be planning his presidential library.

I never thought of that!  If several million people had voted differently someone different might have won.  Inception!

For what it's worth (I wouldn't know how much it's worth, since I'm not as good at math as Mr. Barone here), 5 points in Pennsylvania was about 310,000 votes.  This whole paragraph is a giant exercise in "just imagine if everything was totally different!"

But the conservative bloggers who argued that the Obama campaign’s early-voting numbers were below target may have been right. If Mitt Romney had gotten 16 percent more popular votes than his predecessor, as John Kerry did, he would have led Obama by 4 million votes and won the popular vote 51 to 48 percent. Romney, like Kerry, depended on voters’ distaste for the incumbent; he could not hope to inspire the devotion Bush enjoyed in 2004 and that Obama had from a diminished number in 2012.

But to continue this counterfactual scenario, if Obama had won 23 percent more popular votes this year than in 2008, he would have beaten Romney by 85 million to 69 million votes and by 54 to 44 percent. In reality, Obama’s vote and percentage went down. Considering what happened in Bush’s second term, that suggests a course of caution and wariness for the reelected president and his party.

The key word here would be "counterfactual". This has been your day's exercise in pretending numbers are different and painting a word picture of what that might mean, which as I understand it is the heart of modern mathematic theory.


*facts may be fabricated if I see fit
**probably not the real reason

Foxnation, wtf r u doin

The Patriot Guard Riders, a pretty cool group of bikers who follow groups such as the Westboro Baptist Church around in order to blockade them from protesting funerals and such, is now in Newtown.  Which: that's good to know, because the WBC is one of the few groups I can think of that I'd like to see disrupted in any legal or illegal way possible, because fuck them, for serious.  Foxnation is reporting on this, but they seem to have done a little bit of editorializing:

I don't really get this at all.

Just to be sure, I checked out the Patriot Guard Riders site, which states on the front page:

So Fox Nation made it up.  Despite being concise, that sentence is excessively redundant.

Why are we talking about guns when the real menace to America is ping-pongs

Texas state representative Kyle Kacal has some things he'd like to say about some recently suggested gun control measures. 

As someone who operates a hunting business, Kacal said he's opposed to stricter legislation on firearms.

For example, Kacal, who lives on a 2,400-acre ranch in Brazos County, said he wouldn't support a proposed bill instructing residents how to secure their assault weapons.

"People know what they need to do to be safe. We don't need to legislate that -- it's common sense," he said. "Once everyone's gun is locked up, then the bad guys know everyone's gun is locked up."

It may be common sense, but people are still fucking it up sometimes.  Still, it does seem like people are getting better at preventing accidents, at least in the hunting business, so there's at least a hint of a decent point there.  However, Kacal loses pretty much all credibility with his follow-up statement:

Kacal echoed a common nationwide argument that guns don't kill people, people kill people.

"I've heard of people being killed playing ping-pong -- ping-pongs are more dangerous than guns," he said. 

Holy shit.  What was that again?

ping-pongs are more dangerous than guns

Wow.

ping-pongs are more dangerous than guns

In fairness, people do sometimes suffer very serious cases of tennis elbow.  I was unable to find any cases of death by ping-pongs.

 "Flat-screen TVs are injuring more kids today than anything."

Indeed, it is false.

 It sounds like Kacal heard (made up?) a case where someone was injured by a ping-pong, and decided this was a legitimate argument to be made.  Watch out for those ping-pongs, you guys.  And the flatscreens.  They are the true menace to society.