The NY Times presents a "News Analysis" reminding their readership of the many successful applications of violence in recent Middle East history. Why? I have no idea, but when Obama's unofficial press agency floats stories like this I get nervous.
We will know more today when the two-day Iran nuclear talks in Vienna wrap up but this Powerline discussion of Obama's latest troubled Magic Pony ride is very good.
Very briefly, the US has been pushing Iran to send its low enriched uranium to Russia and France for processing into nuclear fuel that can't be weaponized; this will be returned to Iran to power an old Iranian nuclear reactor used for medical purposes. As TIME explained:
But both sides have reasons to seek progress: if the deal were to go forward, the U.S. would have succeeded in securing most of Iran's existing stockpile against weaponization. Iran, for its part, could see the deal as legitimizing their enrichment of uranium in violation of U.N. demands.
However, the first day of talks did not go well (sometimes that is just posturing, obviously); one worries that by taking discussions this far Iran has already achieved whatever patina of legitimacy they were seeking for their stockpile, and is now deciding to hold on to the uranium.
Rather than thinking of this as a diplomatic initiative that failed, let's try to think of it as a diplomatic initiative that succeded in reminding the world (including, perhaps, some of the folks at 1600 Pennsylvania) that Iran is not a reliable negotiating partner.
THAT WENT WELL: Iran essentially walked away from the talks, refusing to deal with France (Finally, someone takes the advice from the right to heart!). This bit begs for a video:
French, U.S. and Russian delegations were seen circulating a draft document during the day. But a 1430 GMT target for resuming the meeting was not met, with Western diplomats saying Iran was hesitating to give its position.
Iran's delegation chief was later spotted leaving the IAEA compound in a car. "Consultations are continuing with the delegations involved," Iranian Ambassador Ali Asghar Soltanieh told reporters chasing him, without elaborating.
He didn't elaborate, he just gunned the engine of his gas-guzzling sedan and started screaming "Flee before my wrath, infidels!" Well, maybe...
Almost absurd the way Obama keys on the purported Persian need for enrichment, their domestic use, rather than the obvious geopolitical struggle, not just Anti-Israel, but the Sunni-Shia dust-up, too, as Spengler has nicely pointed out. It's a theme we've hammered here before. The two schisms still find rationale for beating on each other.
==============================
Posted by: And Persia is clearly percolating. | October 20, 2009 at 07:23 AM
And we've a wooden puppet with a growing nose admiring his own conceits in the mirror of the media.
==================================
Posted by: Isn't there a whale in this story somewhere? Noah way. | October 20, 2009 at 07:24 AM
I think this is the Powerline link:
Iran Double-Crosses Obama
Also, If I remember right, Fresh Air linked this from Spengler in the Asia Times in an earlier thread:
When the cat's away the mice kill each other
Very interesting, including his analysis of Russia's motives vis a vis Iran, his summarization of the regional issues, and his conclusion that Obama is an anti-American radical, bent on taking us down a few pegs, and how the czars help him in this effort.
Posted by: Extraneus | October 20, 2009 at 07:28 AM
This is patent madness. Iran already has acknowledged having the uranium which is the subject of this latest round of therapy talk. It's Iran's not so under the radar weapons program that is the key.
If Obama is going to dither while Iran continues its weapons program, he has lost whatever legitimacy he has left in the world. Russia has already rolled him on missile defense, and the Iranians are in the process of rolling him on their nuclear weapons program.
Khamenei in a coma has more grand strategy smarts than Obama fully alert.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | October 20, 2009 at 07:36 AM
It's amazing that anyone could be so stupid as to believe that Iran would actually go for such a deal. Really amateurish.
And this is why Obama turned his back on the protesters in June? Because this super-secret deal was in the works? Wow.
Posted by: Extraneus | October 20, 2009 at 07:40 AM
Good morning everyone!
End game underway? WaPo pulls out all the stops by headlining their poll showing support for the public option at 57% and growing fast. The Baucus bill was 1500+ pages so I can only imagine what will emerge from behind those closed doors where the Senate dems are negotiating with (playing with?) each other over what to put in their final version - before it goes to Conference to emerge in all its glory. Doesn't it seem that they really are going to do this to us? I just don't see the usual hedged bets...
Posted by: Old Lurker | October 20, 2009 at 07:40 AM
Where does one learn about 'frame narratives' in school? Detecting the one in use is how one tests the integrity of news organizations.
Quiz for today: Which one is news?
1) "Rather than thinking of this as a diplomatic initiative that failed"
2) "let's try to think of it as a diplomatic initiative that successfully reminded the world that Iran is not a reliable negotiating partner."
Posted by: sbw | October 20, 2009 at 07:57 AM
Where do they get those numbers OL? Only 41% support the bill.
Posted by: Jane | October 20, 2009 at 08:01 AM
Jane, LUN
Posted by: Old Lurker | October 20, 2009 at 08:06 AM
Jane, wrong LUN...here is the correct one I think. It was a WaPo-ABC poll yesterday.
Posted by: Old Lurker | October 20, 2009 at 08:07 AM
Old Lurker,
"End game underway?"
That's the problem with WaPo and our elected idiots: they think what's going on is all "just a game" while the rest of America thinks it's deadly serious.
Fearless prediction: if the Democrats actually ram through their abortion of a health bill, next November they'll be facing an electoral tsunami of biblical proportions.
Posted by: MarkJ | October 20, 2009 at 08:15 AM
let's try to think of it as a diplomatic initiative that successfully reminded the world that Iran is not a reliable negotiating partner
and so what? does anyone think Obama is going to do anything different? per the old adage: the definition of stupidity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result.
Posted by: steve sturm | October 20, 2009 at 08:20 AM
Start building your Ark, Mark. The inside the beltway signals sure suggest this cramdown is going to happen. It will be interesting to see if Clarice reads the paper the same way. I hope I'm wrong.
Posted by: Old Lurker | October 20, 2009 at 08:31 AM
MarkJ, I think the cause and effect go the other way. I think the Dems, understanding full well that they will face an electorate in Nov. of 2010 whose wrath will equal the wrath of the Old Testament God against the ancient Hebrews who worshipped the idols, are trying to anchor the electorate so securely to nanny state idols that after the 2010 flood, those idols will remain ascendant!
Posted by: Thomas Collins | October 20, 2009 at 08:41 AM
As a reader on Instapundit commented - applicable here, too, though the reference was to the Obama strategy against Fox News:
"... They don’t care how this makes them look; they’re playing this game for keeps, not to win the “good sport” award ..."
I think this public option health bill may be important enough to them that they may be willing to anger a majority of the electorate in the knowledge that once it is passed, it gives them incredible control over people in the years to come.
They may lose an election cycle or 2, but eventually, the long-term effects of this legislation will radically alter our economy, culture, and society.
What's more important than being able to control who lives and who dies - or even who gets conceived? - or who gets diagnosed as "mentally ill" or "anti-social"?
Posted by: fdcol63 | October 20, 2009 at 08:45 AM
But then why wait three years, to implement it, there is nothing good that come of this, it will hemorrage the dollar, along with cap n trade, it will crumble our economic base, America's standing in the world will fall to nill. I know that's the plan, The irony of course, is that Kevin Baker, a decent naturalistic novelist turned
polemicist at Harper's, sketched these consequences from the failure of these initiatives, in a little dystopian ditty
called 'Change without motion". Suggesting
a coup d'etat, and even the 'faith based
rule of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin' which of course, well warmed the cockles of my heart, by applying topical paranoia.
Posted by: narciso, | October 20, 2009 at 09:00 AM
Have read the powerline article but not the WaPo yet--
"Khamenei in a coma has more grand strategy smarts than Obama fully alert"
The guy's an uneducated moron. I told you so.
Posted by: clarice | October 20, 2009 at 09:01 AM
Obama's To-Do List:
Health Control - [Max?] check
Carbon Dioxide Control - [Carol?] check
World Government Control - [George?] check
Press Control - [Anita?] check
NFL Control - [Roger?] check
Pelosi/Reid Control - [Rahm?] check
Karzai Control - [SKerry?] check
Fox News, Putin, Biden, Rush, Iran, NorK, IOC, Beck = working
Posted by: Jack is Back! | October 20, 2009 at 09:05 AM
The leftist true believer "experts" have won the day. They write all this legislation. Environmental and climate change "experts" have, through law or litigation, essentially halted industry. Now the health "experts" will tell us how to live and die. Education "experts" have ruined the public schools.
...and all these true believers have been hired into the federal government. We saw the rot at State, CIA, DOJ,...under Bush. It will be worse for whoever is President in 2012.
Posted by: Janet | October 20, 2009 at 09:22 AM
And Anita Dunn demanded to know who did the counting, ACORN or FOX NEWS?
You'd think someone at the White House would figure out that if they're going to be such babies about FOX News ("Wahhh!" Glenn Beck is using our own words against us! Wahhh!!!"), our enemies will figure out that this administration is going to be pretty weak against said enemies.
(reposted here 'cause I see the previous thread's dead)
Posted by: PD | October 20, 2009 at 09:39 AM
Well said, Janet.
Posted by: Old Lurker | October 20, 2009 at 09:40 AM
I mean, it's almost like they're putting the KICK ME signs on their own backs.
Posted by: PD | October 20, 2009 at 09:52 AM
No. it's more like 'kick us' as this LUN, shows about the manufacturing czar,
Posted by: narciso, | October 20, 2009 at 10:05 AM
OL--From the poll internals available on the online version, the internals (remember 48% oppose the present legislative options and 45% approve), it appears the pool is not an accurate one:
10/18/09 33(Dem) 20 (Rep)
There are not 11% more Dems than Reps.
It's what Kaus would call a "hamburger helper poll" IMO--something designed to support the paper's editorial point of view.
Posted by: clarice | October 20, 2009 at 10:12 AM
So will the NYT apologize about this later ?
Posted by: Neo | October 20, 2009 at 10:15 AM
PD-
I mean, it's almost like they're putting the KICK ME signs on their own backs.
Our enemies already are. Leeden (iirc) reported that during the Iranian talks in Vienna over the weekend, when the subject of human rights came up, the Iranian negotiator said they were pleased that the United States doesn't torture anymore. Pretty much closed off that conversation.
Posted by: RichatUF | October 20, 2009 at 10:20 AM
Janet, Do you ever feel like this? :)
Posted by: Ann | October 20, 2009 at 10:22 AM
They may lose an election cycle or 2, but eventually, the long-term effects of this legislation will radically alter our economy, culture, and society.
Newt thinks that if it gets passed there will be such an upheaval in Congress that it will be repealed in the next election cycle. I'm not willing to bet on that.
I wish someone would analyze how this will effect MA. Will my rates go up with the rest of the country - or have I already paid my dues.
(Like I don't know the answer)
Posted by: Jane | October 20, 2009 at 10:23 AM
Iraq Sweetens Oil Field Terms, Attracts Interest
This can't be right. I thought we went over there to steal all their oil.
Posted by: PD | October 20, 2009 at 10:24 AM
LUN
HR3200 School-based health clinics. Sounds okay, but...to be run by Planned Parenthood?
The go-to teen sex "experts".
Posted by: Janet | October 20, 2009 at 10:26 AM
Call me whacky, but I have serious concerns about people who support late-term partial birth abortions providing medical care to my kids in school.
Posted by: fdcol63 | October 20, 2009 at 10:32 AM
Ha, ha Ann! Government taking everything. The sad thing is, with all my faults, I tend to be very generous. I want to give to what I want to give to...not what the government demands I give to. My husband quotes a line...Where the milk of human kindness turns to yogurt. I have become yogurt.
Posted by: Janet | October 20, 2009 at 10:33 AM
This is the thing that drives me up the wall about Newt, forget his personal peccadiloes for a moment. He sees the outline of the left offensive, yet then he choses to cooperate with them, on the
'quagmire' narrative, on the AGW garbage,
now the Scozzofazza matter,I guess I don't
have a Ph.d from Tulane to figure it out.
Posted by: narciso, | October 20, 2009 at 10:37 AM
--Newt thinks that if it gets passed there will be such an upheaval in Congress that it will be repealed in the next election cycle.--
Well it obviously isn't getting repealed prior to Barry leaving office since the bill to repeal would need his signature.
--Very briefly, the US has been pushing Iran to send its low enriched uranium to Russia and France for processing into nuclear fuel that can't be weaponized--
Since even Barry admits the Qom plant is intended for weapons why would they want their uranium to be non weaponized? Because Barry threatens sanctions? Please.
Russia has already made it clear that ain't going to happen.
Only a moronic leftist thinks you can convince a determined fanatic to do the opposite of what he intends by threatening to slap him with a velvet glove after telling him your mailed fist is under lock and key.
Posted by: Ignatz | October 20, 2009 at 10:39 AM
Yeah narciso, I'm no Newt fan either.
Posted by: Janet | October 20, 2009 at 10:39 AM
I say this as one of his previously biggest fans, followed him from his special order
in the House, through the early hope and subsequent dissolution with the House majority, and the crack up somewhere between
the government shutdown and the Lewinsky brouhaha
Posted by: narciso, | October 20, 2009 at 10:47 AM
Obama: Stop, or we'll shake this wet noodle in your face!
Posted by: fdcol63 | October 20, 2009 at 10:48 AM
Well it obviously isn't getting repealed prior to Barry leaving office since the bill to repeal would need his signature.
That's not a bad election issue for 2012.
Posted by: Extraneus | October 20, 2009 at 10:49 AM
One thing Newt never learned is when to shut up. He should have done it immediately after the 1994 election, but he couldn't help himself; and 15 years later, he still can't.
Posted by: Extraneus | October 20, 2009 at 10:53 AM
"Barack Obama will skip the 20 Year celebration of the Fall of Communism that will be held in Berlin on November 9"
Question is, will he declare a day of mourning and order flags at half mast.
Posted by: ben | October 20, 2009 at 10:54 AM
Is there an official JOM mop?
Posted by: Jack is Back! | October 20, 2009 at 10:58 AM
Newt also received $300 thousand from Freddie Mac in 2006, to support their business model and minimize regulatory intervention.
Posted by: ROA | October 20, 2009 at 10:58 AM
Me too, Janet.
I usually love Halloween. However, this year I don't even feel like decorating. "Scary" doesn't seem fun anymore.
Even had an evil thought this morning that I should dress up like Michelle Obama and sit outside on an antique highback chair. Won't all the children be surprised when Michelle demands that they give all their candy this year to President Obama.
Posted by: Ann | October 20, 2009 at 10:59 AM
"Only a moronic leftist thinks"
Oxymoron, Ignatz?
Posted by: Old Lurker | October 20, 2009 at 11:03 AM
I read that column and it sounds like the kind of thing, that Samantha Powers would write. The self proclaimed 'genocide expert'
is tone deaf to the consequences of her policy suggestions.
Some of the Iranian facilities, are more accesible than others. A seal team could have tried a round against Bushehr. Reading
that map of Tehran, that bombing onTaleghani
street, seems to have fallen down the memory hole, reminded me of an old Robert
Littell novel, 'the Once and Future Spy'
which centered on a CIA plot to trigger
an implosion at the Amir Kabir facility, and blame it on an earth quake.
Posted by: narciso, | October 20, 2009 at 11:04 AM
Newt is a lovely speaker and a charming fellow but leaves something to be desired in the strategist dept.
Posted by: clarice | October 20, 2009 at 11:07 AM
You can bet Google will have an appropriately mournful logo recognizing the fall of the Berlin Wall and the USSR.
Or maybe they'll just continue to pretend it never happened.
Posted by: fdcol63 | October 20, 2009 at 11:12 AM
The fall of the Berlin Wall, was a
catastrophe for the seekers of social justice, it made America the sole
'hyperpower', from this point of view.
It's a good thing for them, that Chavez
and Kirschner and Zelaya, were able to regroup and America has come to it's sense, except for some bitterclingers, like that
Facebook posting 'Christianist chillbilly'
Posted by: narciso, | October 20, 2009 at 11:49 AM
So,Rohde, seems to have come to his sense, up to a point, the folly of the hudnas with
the Taliban, has never been clearer
Posted by: narciso, | October 20, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Should have put quotes around that whole passage
Posted by: narciso, | October 20, 2009 at 12:16 PM
Don't we feel great, that we have advisors of this caliber with the President, in the LUN, yes the sarcasm is fully intended
Posted by: narciso, | October 20, 2009 at 01:00 PM
He makes it up afterward, why shouldn't he make it up before, too?
=========================================
Posted by: This is the full monty meaning of 'reality based'. | October 20, 2009 at 01:05 PM
Titfmmo"rb".
Do you know the origin of "full monty"?
Posted by: PeterUK | October 20, 2009 at 01:10 PM
I hope you all read that the DoJ has prevented a town which overwhelmingly voted to drop party affiliation from local election ballots was stymied by the DoJ who said that blacks would be denied represenation if the term"democrat" was dropped from the ballot and voters had to choose simply by name.
Posted by: clarice | October 20, 2009 at 01:11 PM
Clarice,
Perhaps they could just place a picture of a jackass on the ballot next to those whom the blacks are meant to support?
Posted by: Rick Ballard | October 20, 2009 at 01:24 PM
That seems to be the opposite of what the film suggests, Peter
Posted by: narciso, | October 20, 2009 at 01:25 PM
And here is our lovely Andrea Mitchell saying George Soros isn't far left. LUN
Posted by: Janet | October 20, 2009 at 01:27 PM
Rush talked about it, says the town has decided not to pursue any sort of legal appeal. Does that end it?
Posted by: Extraneus | October 20, 2009 at 01:29 PM
Nope, Pete; I've just enjoyed the movie.
=======================
Posted by: Lady Killers is the best. | October 20, 2009 at 01:30 PM
The Pielke-DeLong skirmish is escalating, here's the latest:
That last about Tim Lambert is exactly what my experience was with him a few years ago.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | October 20, 2009 at 01:30 PM
Heh, Rick.
Posted by: Extraneus | October 20, 2009 at 01:32 PM
Just because your paranoid doesn't mean that nobody is out to get you.
Posted by: Neo | October 20, 2009 at 01:43 PM
See LUN for an example of a brilliant grand strategist. The Pope's courting of the Anglicans is pure genius. As the article points out, the prize here is in Africa, not the UK. Bringing the African Anglicans into the Rome fold would be a great coup for the Pope, who, far from being tied to the past, knows what he must do to grow the Roman Catholic Church in the future.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | October 20, 2009 at 01:51 PM
If I called a Black person "less than human" or somebody "unAmerican", I would be said to be espousing "hate speech".
It sure seems like Gibbs and other member of the White House staff are spreading "hate speech" about FoxNews.
Posted by: Neo | October 20, 2009 at 01:53 PM
Wow Neo and TC - Not sure how many here at JOM are Bible believers, but if anyone has ever done a study on Daniel, or Revelation...it sure seems like a lot of pieces are moving into place.
Posted by: Janet | October 20, 2009 at 01:58 PM
I wonder if the brothelkeepers at Dimon, Blankfein &c are getting nervous watching AG 'Moonbeam' Brown taking up the populist shield on behalf of CalPERS versus State Street Bank? Would an attack of nerves prompt them to turn off the DOW bubble machine for a few days in order to tug their strings leading into the Oval Office?
Pinocchio is going be performing a rather odd dance if Dimon, Blankfein &c start jerking hard on one side while Ayers is pulling hard on the other.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | October 20, 2009 at 01:59 PM
Bringing the African Anglicans into the Rome fold would be a great coup for the Pope, who, far from being tied to the past, knows what he must do to grow the Roman Catholic Church in the future.
As an apostate Episcopalian, I've enjoyed observing that the only areas of growth in the Anglican church are in Africa and Asia where they're going toe-to-toe with Islam and, as a result, are extremely conservative. The simpletons in the US and UK, who have done their best to alienate the likes of me, have responded in the past by referring to them as illiterate savages for not embracing all the prog causes des jours. This is a brilliant move by the Pope and may result in my returning to the church with purposes other than expelling the catamites and whore mongers.
Posted by: Captain Hate | October 20, 2009 at 02:05 PM
This instance, really has to qualify as an act of chutzpah, in light of currentevents, in the LUN
Posted by: narciso, | October 20, 2009 at 02:08 PM
Gov. Pat Quinn, AFSCME and SEIU told to pound sand
This is the union election that had state officials threaten some of the home health care workers who wanted to remain non-union.
Posted by: Neo | October 20, 2009 at 02:09 PM
--As an apostate Episcopalian, I've enjoyed observing that the only areas of growth in the Anglican church are in Africa and Asia where they're going toe-to-toe with Islam and, as a result, are extremely conservative.--
The really interesting thing CH, is to observe the prospect of the "savages" sending missionaries from the jungles of deepest Africa to the streets of the USA to try and save the lost souls of the brotherhood of Karl infesting our mainline houses of ill repute.
Posted by: Ignatz | October 20, 2009 at 02:13 PM
Real Chutzpah,narciso. Perhaps his right and left brains are disconnected so that when he makes all these completely contradictory moves he doesn't notice.
Posted by: clarice | October 20, 2009 at 02:15 PM
Neo - LUN is the link to the organization, So We Might See. I feel sick to my stomach seeing the Lutheran Church there. Raised in the Lutheran Church, but go to a Bible Church now.
Posted by: Janet | October 20, 2009 at 02:15 PM
No, it's more like the apocryphal tale of George Smather's 1950 campaign, where he regaled the 'bitter clingers' with the opponent's daughter being a real thespian
who matriculated. Turns out there is very
little proof of this, probably something spun by Claude Pepper to excuse his loss
His real view of 'bitterclingers' are well established, in the right audience
Posted by: narciso, | October 20, 2009 at 02:26 PM
Kaus cites to Pollster graph of polls on Obamacare--average shows 6% more Americans oppose it than support it.
http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/healthplan.php
Posted by: clarice | October 20, 2009 at 02:27 PM
The largest Catholic seminary in the world is in Nigeria. Despite the tremendous contradictions of Africa, the greatest faith is there as well.
The challenges are exactly the reason faith is so strong. Faith is what gives them the strength to face the impossible.
As Europe and America sink into ennui, I would hope that faith in a higher purpose would give people the strength to face what we are facing. Unfortunately, I see the seven deadly sins taking over even more these days. Yeats was never more right.
Posted by: matt | October 20, 2009 at 02:28 PM
Guess the NYT left off this bit ...
Posted by: Neo | October 20, 2009 at 02:34 PM
Oh yeah baby, lookie here, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091020/ap_on_bi_ge/us_earns_caterpillar>here's a green shoot:
You remember Jim Owens, right?
He made the appearance with Obama during the debate over the stimulus bill. Obama claimed Owens had told him that Caterpillar would rehire a number of recently laid off employees if the stimulus bill passed.
Owens then came out the next day and said, http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6866995&page=1&page=1>"uh, not exactly".
Anyway, a little more from the article:
Demand picking up! Rebound!
The article tells us that Cat currently employees roughly 94,000 people, and that they've laid off roughly 16% of their workforce since seeing the economy going in the toilet.
Of course, in my current situation, I promptly went out to cat.com to see what kind of job prospects might be available.
Go ahead, take a guess at how many jobs Cat currently is listing on its website, in anticipation of a recovery and a pickup in business.
Nope.
Lower.
Try...
...
...
Fourteen.
Posted by: hit and run | October 20, 2009 at 02:35 PM
BTW, did you see where Palin is going to be on Oprah Nov 16th, the day before her book comes out?
Posted by: hit and run | October 20, 2009 at 02:40 PM
Did you check their Chinese site, hit?
Posted by: Extraneus | October 20, 2009 at 02:41 PM
If you want the skinny on the "Anonymous Battle" then read the LUN. I remember it from early press reports since I was following the war closely having mustered out in 69. Unbelievable unit heroism.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | October 20, 2009 at 02:42 PM
--As an apostate Episcopalian, I've enjoyed observing that the only areas of growth in the Anglican church are in Africa and Asia where they're going toe-to-toe with Islam and, as a result, are extremely conservative.--
Ditto, except I've gone from being apostate Episcopalian to conservative Anglican, in a church explicitly not part of ECUSA. So, though I understand the reasoning, I'm not thrilled about the Pope cultivating the African Anglicans. They are the Anglican Church's only hope and they've been our allies for years.
Posted by: Porchlight | October 20, 2009 at 02:45 PM
I'm sure it was a remarkable effort, just like La Drang Valley was, I just don't think he means it that's all
Posted by: narciso, | October 20, 2009 at 02:54 PM
Fourteen.
We need the control condition. How many were there before this terrific recovery?
Posted by: PD | October 20, 2009 at 03:03 PM
Porch, back before Cahrels Jhosnno's window of sanity permanently closed, I interacted with another poster at LGF, goddessoftheclassroom, who told me of a conservative Anglican parish she attended in the Pittsburgh area. That's a bit far of a commute for me but the concept was intriguing because I still find the liturgy beautiful and won't jump to something more convenient (Mrs Hate is a Lutheran and, even though I find them to be nice I'm not able to deal with things like them not having a general confession prior to communion; not to be overly dogmatic but that was a WTF moment for me plus I've taken a certain perverse pride in belonging to a religion founded on a flawed individual's unslakable lust). As an altar boy I regarded every attempt of the church to become more "relevant" with eye-rolling, head-shaking and thoughts of "this won't work out well".
Posted by: Captain Hate | October 20, 2009 at 03:10 PM
Oh Good!
The Full Monty. Some have laid false claim to this but it is,working class argot,probably Mancunian. There was a gentleman's outfitter by the name of Montague Burton which supplied morning suits,evening dress and the like for hire at a time when few people owned such attire. To turn out so clad was called wearing the "Full Monty". This,over time became a euphemism for "the lot". Hence a complete reversal.
Posted by: PeterUK | October 20, 2009 at 03:11 PM
Right, that's why it dodn't make any sense,
given the context of the film.
Posted by: narciso, | October 20, 2009 at 03:16 PM
Extraneus:
Did you check their Chinese site, hit?
Well, in the https://pscareer.cis.cat.com/career_us.html>job search page one gets to going through their US page, locations are available globally, both in selection criteria and in results.
Posted by: hit and run | October 20, 2009 at 03:28 PM
for the men of the erstwhile factory town, having lost everything, their version of "the lot" was to stand naked. thus it makes perfect sense as an ironicism, sort of the way Glenn Reynolds likes to say "the country's in the very best of hands." or the way i like to respond to "how are you" with "i couldn't be better if i'd been rolled in crumbs and deep-fried."
Posted by: macphisto | October 20, 2009 at 03:37 PM
"how are you"
"about the same"
"??? same as what?"
"as before"
Posted by: PD | October 20, 2009 at 04:09 PM
Wait, these boom-bust cycles are natural and can't be stopped by giving more power to the government?
Nuts. Well, maybe the statists can just take power at the point of a gun, as their favorite philosopher Mao Tse-tung said.
Posted by: Jim Ryan | October 20, 2009 at 04:09 PM
Well it obviously isn't getting repealed prior to Barry leaving office since the bill to repeal would need his signature.
T'ain't necessarily so. First, it's always possible it could be such a bust that the repeal would pass over a veto. Second, it's not like the courts are completely immune to politics; a really big election reversal would make it more likely the courts would look funny at it. And third, it doesn't have to be funded even if not repealed.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | October 20, 2009 at 09:31 PM
Illinois workers who are paid by the state to care for severely disabled people in their homes have voted down an effort to unionize.
What's the over-under for the NLRB refusing to accept the election results?
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | October 20, 2009 at 09:46 PM
the greatest faith
Harumph.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | October 20, 2009 at 09:49 PM
ChaCo, hunny-chile, do you think that you could possibly switch to using blockquote rather than italic to set off quotes? Those get closed automatically at the div boundary...
Posted by: cathyf | October 20, 2009 at 09:55 PM
Grumph. I even previewed that one.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | October 20, 2009 at 10:36 PM
Perception relies more on expectation than people realize.
Posted by: boris | October 20, 2009 at 11:03 PM
The time delay in processing the 3D complex surroundings takes too long to permit real time interaction with commonly experienced motion. One way, perhaps the only way, to make that possible is for perception analysis to apply sufficient extrapolation of already processed information into the future about 10 .. 40 milliseconds.
That is why expectation is so heavily employed in the process. It is also the source for most optical illusions.
Posted by: boris | October 20, 2009 at 11:15 PM
So how do we manage the episodes of fierce motion?
================================
Posted by: Maybe we don't. | October 20, 2009 at 11:35 PM
"So how do we manage the episodes of fierce motion?"
Waiting at a stoplight with 4 people in the car. An unexpected accident between two moving cars happened right in front of us. I immediately asked each of the others what they just saw. All different.
Accidents I have observed I could track in real time had a slow motion video quality. Accidents I have observed that were unexpected have a completely different quality ... jumbled impressions with plastic and changing sequence in memory.
The difference is expectation. The first type comply with time exptapolation. The second lack basis for extrapolation.
Posted by: boris | October 20, 2009 at 11:49 PM
Yes, you are talking about perceptions to be described. How do we cope so well within fierce motion if we are processing it without expectation?
======================
Posted by: I dunno; maybe we don't do that well. Some, certainly, better than others. | October 21, 2009 at 12:58 AM