My peers have no intellectual capabilities and act like little children. My opponents are jerks for pointing this out and no one should get healthcare because of it.
In the article, he actually says that Obama is "too professional." Yeah, we need more leaders who fly headlong into decisions based on gut reactions. Screw this thinking shit. It has never worked.
Megan's website redo seems to have messed up my Google reader, as I haven't been seeing any of her posts. I'm too lazy to go to her URL, click on the read more button and then actually read her drivel, so, fuck that. This might be the end of me. Go over and read her columns yourself, imagining a smug ass guffawing and calling her stupid periodically, and you'll have an experience similar to what you get when reading me. A quick glance shows she has an article about the killer Shamu, which has got to be amusing. Apparently she's qualified to discuss marine life now. Those MBAs are fucking handy.
I haven't been in the mood even to look at McArdle lately, but a visit to Snark-Hunting Susan's informed me that there's a new site design at The Atlantic, & it appears (So excited that we had to post this w/o too much investigation.) that commenting will be easier.
Obviously, if one's not in the mood to read MMcA, reading the comments is even less likely, & Susan advises that it's all pretty much droolers eating the slightly less drooly now. We'll see.
Also noted: Megan can now double post her stuff, under "Business" & "Politics." (And "National" as well.) New favorite category? "Personal." Oh boy.
Ann Althouse suggests that liberal magazine sales are down now that Obama is in office. From what I understand, that's not exactly surprising; the conventional wisdom around here is that political magazines do best when their party is out of power. On the other hand, there is this recession on, and I don't know that conservative magazines have seen their circulation rise. Personally, I just decided not to renew our subscription to Harper's, not because it's run out of anti-Bush hate, but because I've been reading it less and less. On the other hand, I guess you could argue that Bush hatred infused the magazine with an energy that it's now lost.
So, Megan, tell us about the magazines you read!
And -- so as to save brad the trouble of making the note -- as far as we know, neither Megan McArdle, nor myself, nor brad, nor M. Bouffant, nor Connor Friedersdorf, nor Ann Althouse is, in fact, Ann Althouse.
Update: She doesn't even read her own links (like me!)! From the Vanity Fair article Ann Althouse links:
The year 2009 was a tough one for magazines in general, with circulation down 2.23 percent overall, according to ABC (the decline in advertising revenue was far greater and more detrimental, but that’s another story). The three leading liberal political magazines, however, fared particularly badly. The Nation’s circulation in 2009 was down 7.4 percent from 2008, Mother Jones was down 6.7 percent, and Harper’s was down 5 percent.
(...)
What about the conservative magazines? The most prominent and biggest-selling, The National Review, definitely seemed to experience an Obama-hatred bump in 2009. Paid circulation was up a solid 4.8 percent from 2008, and was 16 percent greater than the magazine’s 2003-2008 average. The Weekly Standard rose by 8.4 percent, with an especially big spike in the second half of the year. As for relative newcomer Newsmax, which has less name recognition than the Standard but a higher circulation (an average of 101,370 copies in 2009 versus 77,470), its circulation held steady.
So the women's hockey team will be fighting for the gold in a few days, as they usually do. Women's soccer is also a sport at which America excels.
Though it's only two data points, I wonder if this is perhaps because women have more equality here in certain regards? I have no idea how other quantifiables line up, like income disparity and such, but I find the dominance in those two sports interesting. The soccer is especially note worthy, given our general mediocrity in the men's field.
Andrew Sullivan has been doing a lot of blogging about Ryan Sorba, the [expletive deleted] who got up on stage at CPAC to condemn them for inviting GOProud. Andrew's mostly given a lot of space to illustrating what a [censored] [redacted] Ryan Sorba is, and I fully agree. One can only cherish the hope that thirty years from now he will writhe in shame at this performance, and given the vagaries of youth, there is a good chance that eventually, he will.
But [expletive deleted]s getting up at political conferences and saying asinine things are not exactly a surprising happening. To me, the news story was this: Sorba got booed off the stage. At CPAC.
Well, he didn't seem to leave the stage. Maybe the "booing off" happened later. Maybe it's just an expression.
Or maybe that a handful of people at CPAC have part of their hearts and brains still intact doesn't change the fact that the GOP has been championing gay-hate for as long as I've been paying attention. So have a number of assholes Dems. So fucking what? America hates gays; the Republicans slightly more so -- or maybe just more honestly so, but whatever. A handful of fucktards at CPAC that are fucktarded in a different way doesn't change the fact that an open homophobe was invited to talk at CPAC. Does she think Sorba didn't make his stance on homos known before he hit the podium? I'm gonna guess he did, though you can prolly guess whether or not I will bother to look it up.
Anyway, this is what booing sounds like:
I wish I had the chance that Gomez did to tell Palin what a horrible person she is in front of thousands. Alas, Scotty appears not to have taken the opportunity. Fucking Alaskans, always sticking together.
UpdateHere's a video showing that he did, in fact, leave the stage. Immediately the MC started saying "freedom of opinion" over and over. That has nothing to do with anything, though. Skip to 1:30.
Despite having declared the death of the health care bill before almost anything else, I don't want to say that the thing's impossible. [My emphasis]
Context doesn't help, it's just plain ole piss poor writing. I honestly don't know what she's trying to say. Before anyone else, I guess? Thank goodness she's also an editor and will catch this before it's published, heh.
As for her commentary on the prospects of reform being enacted, I think she manages to dismiss her own views far better than I ever could.
McMegan is awful, just awful, but at least she's no longer employed by The Atlantic. Still, no one can read her every day and live, so we've all but given up trying. Let's just be glad her upwards failure has leveled off. Posts here will likely remain few and far between, as will my tweets. M. is still at his place and twitter and now also Whiskey Fire, and Clem maintains well deserved alumnus privileges.
for some reason Google slowly deletes votes from random polls. I think they're trying to rig the results for Jebus. You know Google, always going on about the Good Book and His word...
Who should be fired?
Who is the biggest embarassment to their respective organization?
Which fictional poor kid does Megan picture in her mind when writing about inner city public schools?
Who is the biggest methed-up self-hating queen?
Who's worst at accepting criticism?
Who has the worst case of Clinton derangement syndrome?
Who is Megan's secret dream candidate for President?
If/when Hillary drops out, who will Megan shift her hatred onto?
Posts
