Still Hating America.

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I don't know that one can have that luxury if one has kids and family.

Finger - nose.

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I've seen six of my relatives die like dogs of cancer. Two things I can say for certain. 1. My death cert will not list cancer as the cause. 2. I won't die in a hospital. Nor will I let my wife. From every relative I've known who's dealt with losing as loved one to it, the proper course is to run things out as Burger advised, and then off yourself when you're too sick.

This also avoids having any waterheads say "It was God's will" at your funeral. Bullshit. The Fates might pick the year. I'll be picking the exact moment. And I have no intent of it being profound. Drunk and in the mindset of "Whatever - I was just another shaved monkey running around the orb for a while... It was a nice ride," is the proper exit platform.

But then, who am I kidding? I'll get run over by a city bus crossing the street drunk...*

*Already been hit by a car pretty solidly once.

I have you beat. I was hit by an Sf Muni bus, moving slowly as it pulled out from a stop, but I still did a full somersault with a half twist, before walking off only shocked.

And, yes - the only useful thing to come from HST's last 20 years - a lesson on when and how to go. I will neither go gently into that good night.

LessinColonia, Uruguay

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by LessinSF
I have you beat. I was hit by an Sf Muni bus, moving slowly as it pulled out from a stop, but I still did a full somersault with a half twist, before walking off only shocked.

And, yes - the only useful thing to come from HST's last 20 years - a lesson on when and how to go. I will neither go gently into that good night.

LessinColonia, Uruguay

I can't compete with that hit by car incident. I can offer this... I was struck with lightning in high school.

Caveat: I was getting into my truck, between a house and a tree. Lightning doesn't strike in a single point. It comes up from the ground and "hits" in a bigger "area." I guess I was in that "area" because the bolt knocked me from a position leaning into my truck into the truck (felt like someone kicked me in the back), cracked branches off the trees, fried the tires on the truck (melted them to the wheels) and blew up the electric system in the house. The strangest thing was that the electricity followed the root system of the tree underneath the driveway and caused all the gravel just above it to shoot up in the air, raining down on my truck, but after the incident, I saw live insects on the tree. You'd figure they'd be fried.

Hunter did the End right, which indeed made up a lot done wrong in his closing years. Still, some of his later pieces ripping Bush (the ESPN Page 2 stuff and the occasional Rolling Stone rant) weren't bad, and his obit on Richard Nixon remains one of the most mean spirited things ever put to print.

BTW, Read Matt Taibbi. He's a great cross between Hunter and early PJ O'Rourke, and if it can be so, more cynical than either (yes, I realize Hunter wsn't a cynic, but what else do you call a defeated idealist?). O'Rourke should be boiled for his later right wing slop. The man who wrote Modern manners should have a goddamned decency not to turn into a pro-life Republican in his old age. You'd swear he was trying to make up for something to get into Heaven.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
True. Only if you're a democrat.

I'm not even going to pretend I understand your meaning here.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

I say Fri. around 6:00p Alberto Gonzales's resignation is announced.

merged -- t.s.

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I can't compete with that hit by car incident. I can offer this... I was struck with lightning in high school.

Caveat: I was getting into my truck, between a house and a tree. Lightning doesn't strike in a single point. It comes up from the ground and "hits" in a bigger "area." I guess I was in that "area" because the bolt knocked me from a position leaning into my truck into the truck (felt like someone kicked me in the back), cracked branches off the trees, fried the tires on the truck (melted them to the wheels) and blew up the electric system in the house. The strangest thing was that the electricity followed the root system of the tree underneath the driveway and caused all the gravel just above it to shoot up in the air, raining down on my truck, but after the incident, I saw live insects on the tree. You'd figure they'd be fried.

Hunter did the End right, which indeed made up a lot done wrong in his closing years. Still, some of his later pieces ripping Bush (the ESPN Page 2 stuff and the occasional Rolling Stone rant) weren't bad, and his obit on Richard Nixon remains one of the most mean spirited things ever put to print.

BTW, Read Matt Taibbi. He's a great cross between Hunter and early PJ O'Rourke, and if it can be so, more cynical than either (yes, I realize Hunter wsn't a cynic, but what else do you call a defeated idealist?). O'Rourke should be boiled for his later right wing slop. The man who wrote Modern manners should have a goddamned decency not to turn into a pro-life Republican in his old age. You'd swear he was trying to make up for something to get into Heaven.

Holidays in Hell is must-read for any serious traveller.

[Tables R Us]

Iran's President shows his true colors:

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I can't compete with that hit by car incident. I can offer this... I was struck with lightning in high school.

Caveat: I was getting into my truck, between a house and a tree. Lightning doesn't strike in a single point. It comes up from the ground and "hits" in a bigger "area." I guess I was in that "area" because the bolt knocked me from a position leaning into my truck into the truck (felt like someone kicked me in the back), cracked branches off the trees, fried the tires on the truck (melted them to the wheels) and blew up the electric system in the house. The strangest thing was that the electricity followed the root system of the tree underneath the driveway and caused all the gravel just above it to shoot up in the air, raining down on my truck, but after the incident, I saw live insects on the tree. You'd figure they'd be fried.

Hunter did the End right, which indeed made up a lot done wrong in his closing years. Still, some of his later pieces ripping Bush (the ESPN Page 2 stuff and the occasional Rolling Stone rant) weren't bad, and his obit on Richard Nixon remains one of the most mean spirited things ever put to print.

BTW, Read Matt Taibbi. He's a great cross between Hunter and early PJ O'Rourke, and if it can be so, more cynical than either (yes, I realize Hunter wsn't a cynic, but what else do you call a defeated idealist?). O'Rourke should be boiled for his later right wing slop. The man who wrote Modern manners should have a goddamned decency not to turn into a pro-life Republican in his old age. You'd swear he was trying to make up for something to get into Heaven.

I was in a train crash where people died. the rest of you should shut up with your little bumps.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I don't know that one can have that luxury if one has kids and family.

It ain't a luxury, brother. That's not negotiable. You're taking that package whether you like it or not.

The most loathsome thing on the planet are these people who contionue to work at some godawful shiite like law right up till the very end. They put all kinds of crap in the local legal rags about how "Jim was sooo brave. He worked until the infection had engrossed 95% of his body in festering sores. His dedication was inspiring."

Inspiring? The uncreative son of a bitch couldn't find something better to do with his last months than push a stack of pointless fucking paper in circles? A more appropriate eulogy would be "Jim died years ago, but it was real tragic the way he stopped breathing last week. I'd say he was a good man, but I don't know a goddamned thing about him. I'm just the firm chairman, so they ask me to comment on all this stuff."

[Tables R Us]

Jim Cramer talks about shady games by hedge funds on The Street and then backtracks on Imus.


Cramer's The Street Interview

Cramer's Imus Interview

[Gattigap]

From David Kuo:

• Elizabeth Edwards and I shared a common experience of overcoming dreaded disease. Hers was breast cancer. Mine was a brain tumor. We got each other.
  
  I told her how one of my blog readers, a neuro-oncologist, had chided me because I had taken up professional bass fishing after my White House days. I was irresponsible, the doctor told me. I should be advocating for brain tumor patients. I told her I didn't want to become known as "the brain tumor guy."
  
  She understood. Even though she wrote about her breast cancer recovery, she didn't want to be the breast cancer woman either. She wanted to go on and live life. We left with a promise to pray for each other.
  
  My MRI was fine. I've wondered how her tests had gone and smiled thinking no news was inevitably good news. Then this morning's word that there would be a campaign announcement about her health. I knew what it was, what it had to be and I just stopped and images of needles and pills and chemo came flooding in...things I know too well.
  
  I had no doubt about what would happen to the campaign. It would go on. She wouldn't allow anything else. To quit the campaign would be to give in to the disease - it would be the ultimate admission of being the "cancer woman."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Is Obama blue enough?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Why Spanky doesn't believe in global warming?

• Your typical conservative has little interest in the issue. Of course, neither does the average nonconservative. But we nonconservatives tend to defer to mainstream scientific wisdom. Conservatives defer to a tiny handful of renegade scientists who reject the overwhelming professional consensus.
  
  National Review magazine, with its popular website, is a perfect example. It has a blog dedicated to casting doubt on global warming, or solutions to global warming, or anybody who advocates a solution. Its title is "Planet Gore." The psychology at work here is pretty clear: Your average conservative may not know anything about climate science, but conservatives do know they hate Al Gore. So, hold up Gore as a hate figure and conservatives will let that dictate their thinking on the issue.
  
  Meanwhile, Republicans who do believe in global warming get shunted aside. Nicole Gaudiano of Gannett News Service recently reported that Representative Wayne Gilchrest asked to be on the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio refused to allow it unless Gilchrest would say that humans have not contributed to global warming. The Maryland Republican refused and was denied a seat.
  
  Representatives Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) and Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.), both research scientists, also were denied seats on the committee. Normally, relevant expertise would be considered an advantage. In this case, it was a disqualification; if the GOP allowed Republican researchers who accept the scientific consensus to sit on a global warming panel, it would kill the party's strategy of making global warming seem to be the pet obsession of Democrats and Hollywood lefties.
  
  The phenomenon here is that a tiny number of influential conservative figures set the party line; dissenters are marginalized, and the rank and file go along with it. No doubt something like this happens on the Democratic side pretty often too. It's just rare to find the phenomenon occurring in such a blatant way.
  
  You can tell that some conservatives who want to fight global warming understand how the psychology works and are trying to turn it in their favor. Their response is to emphasize nuclear power as an integral element of the solution. Senator John McCain, who supports action on global warming, did this in a recent National Review interview. The technique seems to be surprisingly effective. When framed as a case for more nuclear plants, conservatives seem to let down their guard.
  
  In reality, nuclear plants may be a small part of the answer, but you couldn't build enough to make a major dent. But the psychology is perfect. Conservatives know that lefties hate nuclear power. So, yeah, Rush Limbaugh listeners, let's fight global warming and stick it to those hippies!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

If you were reading this weekend, you may have missed Burger's challenge, which was in a separate thread until moments ago.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Why Spanky doesn't believe in global warming?

• Your typical conservative has little interest in the issue. Of course, neither does the average nonconservative. But we nonconservatives tend to defer to mainstream scientific wisdom. Conservatives defer to a tiny handful of renegade scientists who reject the overwhelming professional consensus.
  
  National Review magazine, with its popular website, is a perfect example. It has a blog dedicated to casting doubt on global warming, or solutions to global warming, or anybody who advocates a solution. Its title is "Planet Gore." The psychology at work here is pretty clear: Your average conservative may not know anything about climate science, but conservatives do know they hate Al Gore. So, hold up Gore as a hate figure and conservatives will let that dictate their thinking on the issue.
  
  Meanwhile, Republicans who do believe in global warming get shunted aside. Nicole Gaudiano of Gannett News Service recently reported that Representative Wayne Gilchrest asked to be on the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio refused to allow it unless Gilchrest would say that humans have not contributed to global warming. The Maryland Republican refused and was denied a seat.
  
  Representatives Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) and Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.), both research scientists, also were denied seats on the committee. Normally, relevant expertise would be considered an advantage. In this case, it was a disqualification; if the GOP allowed Republican researchers who accept the scientific consensus to sit on a global warming panel, it would kill the party's strategy of making global warming seem to be the pet obsession of Democrats and Hollywood lefties.
  
  The phenomenon here is that a tiny number of influential conservative figures set the party line; dissenters are marginalized, and the rank and file go along with it. No doubt something like this happens on the Democratic side pretty often too. It's just rare to find the phenomenon occurring in such a blatant way.
  
  You can tell that some conservatives who want to fight global warming understand how the psychology works and are trying to turn it in their favor. Their response is to emphasize nuclear power as an integral element of the solution. Senator John McCain, who supports action on global warming, did this in a recent National Review interview. The technique seems to be surprisingly effective. When framed as a case for more nuclear plants, conservatives seem to let down their guard.
  
  In reality, nuclear plants may be a small part of the answer, but you couldn't build enough to make a major dent. But the psychology is perfect. Conservatives know that lefties hate nuclear power. So, yeah, Rush Limbaugh listeners, let's fight global warming and stick it to those hippies!

This is true but incomplete and offered without full context.

The author totally disregards that the Left does the same thing. The Left paints the fringe religious right as the mainstream of the GOP and uses their shrillness and lack of rational thinking to demonize economic conservatives. The Left refuses to argue with "libertarian" conservatives because it knows it can't win those arguments and by engaging in them would put into question the notion that economic liberalism that placates their biggest voting bloc (unions, teachers, those who want "security" and don't want to compete) has to be married to social liberalism.

The Left also distrorts statistics. The alleged "wealthiest" people in this country (many of whom are merely upper middle class - $300k outside Manhattan or DC is NOT wealthy) are said by many independent publications to pay anywhere from 40 to 50% of income taxes. The Left focus on this entirely from the perspective that it shows wealth allocation disparity, never once recognizing how much money those "wealthy" pay. The Left repeatedly paints the economic conservatives of the GOP as fat, rich white men pursuing policies aimed at screwing the poor. It tries to argue the GOP is actually making its money off the backs of the poor, except when a company moves its operations offshore, in which case the GOP is suddenly the party that allowed companies to abandon the poor. In simple sum, the Left refuses to acknowledge a force bigger than the Democrat Party or GOP is controlling the economic changes that are hurting the Democrats' core constituancy. Why does it do this? For the same reason the Evangelicals try to paint every debate as "Everybody v. Jesus" - because war galvanizes the base.

They both lie - all the time. Citing one and not the other implies a stream exclusively coming from one side where what you've actually got is something closer to an open septic tank.

You're also missing the biggest piece of the puzzle - nobody likes Lefties. I dislike both Lefties and Righties because I think anyone taking a side has to wear blinders and make a fool of himself to pitch his case. But Righties will admit they're gaming the system, or are so damn deluded they're comical. Lefties have this annoying, self-righteous attitude. They all come off like Paul Krugman - whiny, short, nasally... You can imagine them debating some crap from Mother Jones over organic wheat pancakes at the nearby Whole Foods. "Have you read Frank Rich's new book, 'What's the Matter with Kansas?' It's fascinating. These Kansans are so manipulated by the Religious Right."

I agree with them a lot, but when I have to listen to them, I just want to slap them. It's like a knee jerk Darwinian thing - an instinctual urge to muzzle the influence of something that appears, well... very defective, in every regard. As to their counterpart Jesus Freaks, I find them too loony to be annoyed or angered. Maybe that's it - the Left sucks because they don't give us the involuntary humor people like them are supposed to.