A bad day's work

I'm going to get to the print piece, promise. There's a half-written draft n everything, but first we've gotta cover today's output. Lots of posts, little sense. So here we go.

Hillary of Arc:

I've said before that I suspect at least some Democrats want Hillary as their candidate in part because they view her as the most partisan. They think their moment in history has come, they are tired of compromise and they want her in part because the Republicans hate her so much, because she will be their warrior. (I'm not sure why they think this; Edwards seems more incendiary and confrontational. But it feels as if they do.)

It feels as if they do? I don't even need to link to where we've covered this ground before. Your ass is not connected to the political pulse, Megan. If lefties take solace that our political opponents, who have spent the last 15 years demonizing us to the point of eliminationist rhetoric, hate Hillary more than we do, that doesn't equal contrarian based support. It is, in fact, the right which has based roughly half of their ideology on what they think will tweak hippies.
And Megan, your pathological hatred of Hillary is a strong marker for you being the conservative you allowed Nutellaontoast to call you. It's not the country that hates Hillary, it's you who, like Chris Matthews and the rest of the Village, are projecting your own issues. Megan doesn't link to a poll or any serious research showing Hillary won't do well with independents, because it doesn't exist. I loathe Hillary too, but fuck this Villagers with pitchforks shit.

What happened in Iowa?: Women are weak, and allow their men and feelings of loneliness to determine their political decisions. This, and poor organization, are why Hillary really lost in Iowa. But apparently these factors only affected Iowa, and won't hinder Hillary in the future. Unless the bitch keeps crying.

Ron Paul's downfall: but is it good for the libertarians?:

I was at an event last night where this came up a few times, and the words "The Movement" got thrown around. This always feels a little strange, since I'm not really a member of "The Movement": I didn't come to my squishy libertarianism until rather late in life, and so I missed the round of internships, political meet-and-greets, and low-level think-tank jobs that cement people into it.
Nonetheless, I am now on its fringes. And sufficiently steeped in it to know, as all younger libertarians in the wonkosphere kind of know, that it has some ugly moments in its history. Specifically, a lot of its funding used to come from crazy old white people hoping to turn back the clock to the days before minorities and women got all uppity.

Now it's just about making sure minorities don't get so uppity they start demanding fair pay or unions or non-lethal working conditions. Remember, the liberty part of libertarian is for me, not thee.

Untitled:

The Economist says, of the state of economics education in France and Germany, "I desperately hope it's not really this bad." Unfortunately, I think it's really that bad. When the 35 hour work week was proposed, I was talking to someone in the French consulate who did economics and trade. "Aren't you worried that this will raise employer's costs and lead to business failures or higher unemployment?" I asked.

You know, like child labor laws did. Or the 40 hour workweek did here, back when that was the workweek. What's it now, 45-50 hours? Let's not worry about the welfare of human beings when there's profit to be considered, silly commie frogs.

I had the exact same thought: Ok, then maybe you can explain what the fuck snow in Baghdad has to do with Al Gore? Is it cuz Iraq has lots of desert, meaning snow equals proof global warming is a total myth and the week of 60 degree weather in January NYC has had is perfectly normal? Or is it a reference to the fact that had Gore won the odds are we wouldn't be in Iraq right now? Or is Gore so boring the air in Baghdad stopped moving at a molecular level, leading to a drop in temperature and snowfall?
Oh, it's because

It is a funny but irrelevant fact that freak cold snaps have occurred several times that Al Gore was giving a big speech on global warming.

See, just cause Megan is inherently hostile to the leading advocate in the goddamn world for addressing climate change doesn't mean she's a climate change skeptic. Where would you get that idea?
And let's not forget the non-denial denial of being a climate change skeptic,

I'm still working out how much I think we should be prepared to do about this, but I believe it's happening.

Untitled, again: Omigod, you guys! Some chump from a dead magazine started by a pornographer's less talented son asked me a question. I'm, like, totally gonna be famous.