Erik Wemple, WaPo media-watcher, has trouble with Rachel Maddow's linkage of the Koch brothers to every progressive evil under the sun. Yes, the PowerGuys were on this a couple of days ago, but it is nice to see these psychotic breaks get lamestream notice.
My two cents: when Ms. Maddow was asked to read an on-air retraction and apology she set progressive hearts aflutter with her defiant "I do not play requests". What she should have said is, "I do not appear on reality television".
Lots more from the Ace.
How much filthy oil money did the the Koch Bros. pay you to write this post?
Posted by: Account Deleted | January 09, 2014 at 01:21 PM
The Koch brothers like immigration reform so naturally Madcow is against it.
Posted by: henry | January 09, 2014 at 01:25 PM
Watch for those glass shards, they are sharp
'http://www.absoluterights.com/plagiarism-miss-maddow/
of course, they both missed the point, which is why the Deep Water horizon wasn't going to be all that.
Posted by: narciso | January 09, 2014 at 01:28 PM
Fool or knave;
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/02/01/rachel-maddow-slams-conservatives-sarah-palin-for-fake-story-on-satirical-website/
Posted by: narciso | January 09, 2014 at 01:32 PM
Meanwhile back in Benghazi we have 4 dead Americans. Mrs. Smith wants the truth and no one knows where Obama was that night or where Hillary was either. Lois Lerner was setting bowling pins up in Cincinnati, Doug Shulman was on his 121st visit to the White House looking for Easter Eggs and some nerd in Hawai'i was about to steal the USA's top secret treasure trove wtihout a wimper.
James Rosen was being followed and the AP was being wire tapped. Eric Holder was burning emails authrorizing the running of guns to the Mexicans and Brian Terry was still dead.
How do I know all this? Because Obama told me he read about in the newspapers.
No one has been fired but the deputy to Chris Stevens has been demoted for speaking the truth. Jay Carney has grown a beard to protect nationally recognized smirk which conceals his total ignorance and complicity in all the lies.
But Obama read all about it in the newspapers.
Posted by: JIB | January 09, 2014 at 01:34 PM
Next Step: when the Koch's move completely out of Warren Wilhelm's NYC, and decamp to income tax free Fla, and stopp giving to NYC cultural institutions, MadCow* will shriek that the Koch's are refusing to be hostages on Wilhelm's Farm.
*H/T Henry.
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | January 09, 2014 at 01:34 PM
NK, I thought that was normal JOM dictionary usage...
Posted by: henry | January 09, 2014 at 01:37 PM
Henry-- I am sure you're right, but I am a JOM incompetent...
just ask bgates!
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | January 09, 2014 at 01:45 PM
http://www.birtherreport.com/2013/07/video-maddow-attacks-wayne-allyn-root.html?m=1
http://www.birtherreport.com/2013/07/obama-classmate-wayne-allyn-root-rips.html?m=1
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 09, 2014 at 01:49 PM
I quite enjoy the source of this particular outrage, which is the notion which the government - which the vile progs believe ought to use financial incentives to compel the purchase of health care, and to restrict the purchase of soda, and to shape behavior in hundreds of thousands of other ways - descends into tyranny when it attempts to use financial incentives to prevent people who are given money as a reward for their existence from using some of it to buy things which the government has outlawed anyway.
How long until the left demands incandescent light bulb testing for welfare recipients?
Posted by: bgates | January 09, 2014 at 01:52 PM
That Maddow fellow is a spunky little guy, no?
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 09, 2014 at 02:01 PM
Here's AllahPundit on the Christie Presser. he's too cynical about Christie and waaayyyy to accommodating of Obummer for my taste, but I think he has the Bridge substance right: http://hotair.com/archives/2014/01/09/heartbroken-christie-fires-aide-over-bridgegate-maintains-he-knew-nothing/
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | January 09, 2014 at 02:01 PM
Rhodes Scholar, could patriarch like Cecil snorfle, or would it be a chortle,
Posted by: narciso | January 09, 2014 at 02:02 PM
'little guy'? He has hands like a 1930s butcher.
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | January 09, 2014 at 02:02 PM
Make no mistake, it was an exercise in 'draining the swamp' like they call it in counterinsurgency;
http://news.yahoo.com/police-group-opposes-obama-civil-rights-nominee-233421694.html
Posted by: narciso | January 09, 2014 at 02:04 PM
They have gone ALEC's sponsors, after Nutrasystem's Vanderslip, Adelson, et al, but Don Corzione, Soros, who was convicted in absentsia no, Mozilo, et al are untouched, only Fab a lower level drone was scalped for Vampire Bank.
Posted by: narciso | January 09, 2014 at 02:09 PM
From the previous thread - 70% conservative. But a really dumb quiz, really. About what one would expect from Time Magazine...
Posted by: James D. | January 09, 2014 at 02:09 PM
What is "Time Magazine"
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | January 09, 2014 at 02:12 PM
This would be a problem for the Koch Brothers if MSNBC had any viewers.
Posted by: boatbuilder | January 09, 2014 at 02:15 PM
Karl Wasserman Rove: http://conservativereport.org/karl-rove-the-authentic-chair-of-the-dnc/
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 09, 2014 at 02:17 PM
The Architect has been a genius from the get go:
Oh yes, we're in the best of hands.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 09, 2014 at 02:20 PM
"Oh yes, we're in the best of hands."
Who, exactly, is in Karl Rove's hands? I'm certainly not.
Posted by: Danube on iPad | January 09, 2014 at 02:33 PM
I've known some curious Rhodes Scholars. One failed an easy bar exam. And, he's really not bright. But, the title is a pass.
Posted by: MarkO | January 09, 2014 at 02:34 PM
Who, exactly, is in Karl Rove's hands? I'm certainly not.
A lot of major Republican donors.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 09, 2014 at 02:35 PM
You repeat yourself, Ed;
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303933104579302480571979884
Posted by: narciso | January 09, 2014 at 02:37 PM
Her Masters was in health policy, essentially how Reagan allowed the AIDS epidemic to happen, she had a derivative tract about 'the Milirary Industrial conplex, 'Drift' which was pretty weak, even for the genre.
Posted by: narciso | January 09, 2014 at 02:39 PM
Her Masters was in health policy, essentially how Reagan allowed the AIDS epidemic to happen
Another Pitzer slumn? The school must be so proud.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 09, 2014 at 02:46 PM
That Maddow fellow is a spunky little guy
He somehow reminds me of Justin Bieber if Bieber was a man.
Posted by: bgates | January 09, 2014 at 03:02 PM
It looks to me as if the NYT held the Christie story in order to squelch the Gates story. At the request of their bosses in the WH, no doubt.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 09, 2014 at 03:07 PM
Pdf layers: a tutorial (for anyone who is interested).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcWQw2AAIho
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 09, 2014 at 03:07 PM
Now that the Christie Presser is over and you all have had a chance to digest his performance and that of the press, how would you compare it to the Presser Hillary gave 24 hours after Benghazi? How about the one Obama gave 24 hours after Benghazi, then?
Posted by: JIB | January 09, 2014 at 03:08 PM
Tammy Bruce gave an interesting reading of a recent interview of Ailes. First, it's very positive and maybe I should temper some of my criticisms of Roger A (surely the second resolution of the new year I break). Second, she commented on him stating (paraphrasing) that in a wall of multiple television screens he wanted the attention going to Fox, that it explains the hiring of so many hawt wimmenz.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 09, 2014 at 03:09 PM
Didn't the NYT and Bergen Record and other Media Teammates get the subpoenaed emails from the Jersey Dems all at the same time?
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | January 09, 2014 at 03:15 PM
"From the previous thread - 70% conservative."
Did you fudge it to appear more atavistic? I think the outliers here represent a sectored anomaly.
Posted by: fake the ignorance | January 09, 2014 at 03:16 PM
Yes, he's always been a showman, but Megyn wouldn't retain her audience if not for her perspicacious questioning, therein lies the difference, as for that survey,
I like documentaries, but the 'End of History' no longer provides, neither does A&E, BBC America,is occasionally interesting in that regard, IE i've found is less than optimum for these platforms, so I deferred to Firefoz and no on to Chrome,
Posted by: narciso | January 09, 2014 at 03:21 PM
The problem with the quiz is twofold;
1. It improperly conflates cultural values with political ones, especially ones which may tend very narrowly to one political pole or the other, and,
2. It imagines a political world with only two poles.
A third problem might be that the questions were apparently written by an imbecile.
Posted by: Ignatz | January 09, 2014 at 03:27 PM
I choose Door #3 Ignatz!!
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | January 09, 2014 at 03:28 PM
Well therein was the first problem, which led to all the others,
Posted by: narciso | January 09, 2014 at 03:29 PM
Speaking of Door #3--
Mythbusters New Year marathon reminded me of the 'Monty Hall Paradox' dilemma. That Monty was one smart guy.
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | January 09, 2014 at 03:35 PM
NK, do you mean the "should you keep your door or switch" thing?
That bugged me forever, until I finally grasped the logic behind it.
Posted by: James D. | January 09, 2014 at 03:39 PM
Rachel Maddow is what you get when Pajama Boy's sex change operation is complete. But I may have that backwards and Pajama Boy is Rachel Maddow after the sex change ooperation is complete.
It's so hard to tell either way. My confusion is understandable.
But I do know that the being who calls itself Rachel Maddow needs to be bitchslapped by her viewer. But then he'll just get up and leave the room and she'll have no audience at all.
Posted by: Comanche Voter | January 09, 2014 at 03:44 PM
If conservatives stopped watching MSNBC to fill their daily outrage quota, would there be anyone at all left outside of loony bins watching this carp?
Posted by: clarice | January 09, 2014 at 03:46 PM
James--- Yep
'switch' being Monty's genius of understanding game theory and more importantly, human nature.
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | January 09, 2014 at 03:48 PM
I have never watched MSNBC.
Posted by: MarkO | January 09, 2014 at 03:49 PM
Well as a general rule, one is only made aware by Newsbuster and other sites, but as with HLN, you can never reach the null set,
Posted by: narciso | January 09, 2014 at 03:50 PM
I always thought the Monty Hall Problem demonstrated pretty clearly just how limited the human mind is when even advanced mathematicians and statisticians either couldn't grasp or couldn't even agree on why it is better to switch when the only things at issue are three doors, two goats and a car.
Posted by: Ignatz | January 09, 2014 at 03:51 PM
Ignatz-- that's why Monty's genius really was understanding the human mind, not a simple game. I was alone with the Dogs on New Year's day when I watched the Mythbusters and was reminded of Monty Hall. So a few days later when my PhD wife came home from sking I ran the scenario by her, and she immediately said no difference switching or sticking, and given the choice she'd stick. When I pointed out she played the probabilities wrong, she immediately got it, rolled her eyes and said big deal. But to me the point is that even someone who deals with data and probabilities for a living, 'assumes' no difference, and sticks. That fascinates me.
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | January 09, 2014 at 03:57 PM
You should always switch. If you just imagine that it's 10 doors, or 100, instead of three, it becomes totally obvious why.
Posted by: James D. | January 09, 2014 at 03:58 PM
Switch Yes-- in Monty's game, because the 2 choices are different games with totally different probabilities. They are not equally random choices.
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | January 09, 2014 at 04:00 PM
I'm not ready to call Monty a genius: In particular, I'm not sure the precise scenario envisioned in the puzzle actually occurred on the show--in particular, we don't know whether Monty pre-committed to offer the switch, or only did so depending on what was chosen first. In the latter case you can't conclude anything without knowing what Monty's decision process is. But beyond that, I doubt Monty had done the math.
I always thought the Monty Hall Problem demonstrated pretty clearly just how limited the human mind is
Maybe, but sometimes these problems are just not stated in a way that makes them so clear cut. So they are more like optical illusions. At the same time, there is plenty of other evidence on the limitation of the human mind, such as those same smart people voting for Barack Obama.
Posted by: jimmyk | January 09, 2014 at 04:06 PM
Did you fudge it to appear more atavistic? I think the outliers here represent a sectored anomaly.
Or maybe this is a better question:
Did you sector it to appear more outlier? I think the anomaly here represent a atavistic fudge.
You're a fucking idiot.
Posted by: lyle | January 09, 2014 at 04:19 PM
He doesn't dissapoint, which means he always does;
http://twitchy.com/2014/01/09/disgrace-to-journalism-david-gregory-asks-horrifically-stupid-christie-question/
Posted by: narciso | January 09, 2014 at 04:32 PM
Jimmy-- one of the published 'proofs' of Monty's paradox included an interview with Monty. He in fact understood the probabilities (in truth, as Ig points out, they are not that complicated), but Monty explained, when a contestant chose a GOAT, he was careful to offer a 'switch', because of his belief that the contestant would misunderstand the odds, and have a natural inclination to 'stick'. He claimed he wanted to minimize winners because that would keep the excitement for the show. If they picked the car he would consciously use words like choice or option and apparently people were more likely to switch.
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | January 09, 2014 at 04:33 PM
More from the tutor:
http://www.youtube.com/user/nyatnagarl/videos
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 09, 2014 at 04:36 PM
LOL, Lyle.
Posted by: Ignatz | January 09, 2014 at 04:40 PM
but Monty explained, when a contestant chose a GOAT, he was careful to offer a 'switch', because of his belief that the contestant would misunderstand the odds, and have a natural inclination to 'stick'.
But that's the point: If the contestant realizes that Monty has discretion over when to offer the switch, unless he knows Monty's decision process, all bets are off, so to speak. And if Monty's rule is anything other than "Always offer the switch," the proof is irrelevant to the problem facing the contestant.
Posted by: jimmyk | January 09, 2014 at 04:41 PM
Garage Door Update.
Great guy showed up today from Frontier Garage Doors. Tore this off, pulled that off, nailed this, screwed that, replaced this panel, oiled and greased all the mechanisms, shot the breeze great, talked bad about the Lower 48, and had a smile on his face the whole time underneath his scraggly beard:) I love this place.
All's well that ends well, and the Nepalese Cab driver just gushed thanks over the phone when I told him to forget all about it.
And for the record that's the same garage door that the bear came in thru 2 years back.
And momma has just ordered me to go pay my Library fines and fill up my Beer jugs pronto, so that I can walk the dogs later this afternoon and not have them waiting in the car like I usually do when I run those errands.
Haven't caught up with Rachel Maddow and Chris Christie yet, but I thought this brand new picture from our brand new Exo-Planet telescope is amazing. This is Beta Pictoris B---the small dot circling the blued out Star:
And here's a bit of the story on this new camera and it's first photo.
Posted by: daddy | January 09, 2014 at 04:42 PM
The contestant always gets a second 'pick'.
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | January 09, 2014 at 04:43 PM
congrats Daddy.
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | January 09, 2014 at 04:45 PM
More damning evidence from Sharyl Attkisson, via Daniel Greenfield, on Benghazi:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/hillarys-state-department-renewed-benghazi-lease-wo-security-requirement/
Posted by: jimmyk | January 09, 2014 at 04:45 PM
The contestant always gets a second 'pick'.
That contradicts this: "Monty explained, when a contestant chose a GOAT, he was careful to offer a 'switch.'" Why would he have said that if he *always* offered a switch?
Posted by: jimmyk | January 09, 2014 at 04:48 PM
Monty Hall is actually still alive. Born 1921, but still with us. Just a heads up for those speaking of him in the past tense.
Posted by: Theo | January 09, 2014 at 04:55 PM
If they picked the car, he would still reveal a goat and offer them the option or choice to switch. same game, slightly different words to manipulate the contestant. Monty was sly.
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | January 09, 2014 at 04:55 PM
Apologies Monty. I bet he's still sly.
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | January 09, 2014 at 04:56 PM
If we are ever told the truth about Stevens' trip to Benghazi, all will be revealed.
Posted by: MarkO | January 09, 2014 at 04:58 PM
Odds aside it is human nature that losing "their" car by switching would be far more traumatic than sticking with a goat and not getting a car they never "had".
Posted by: boris | January 09, 2014 at 05:04 PM
from narciso's link, here's David Gregory's tweet -
David Gregory ✔ @davidgregory
Follow
.@peterbakernyt isn't the burden for him to prove he didn't create an atmosphere where underlings thought this was okay? #TweetThePress
Posted by: Janet - the districts lie fallow, while the Capitol gorges itself | January 09, 2014 at 05:08 PM
Beuty, Lyle.
I have watched zero seconds of MSNBC.
Posted by: Danube on iPad | January 09, 2014 at 05:10 PM
*Beauty*
Posted by: Danube on iPad | January 09, 2014 at 05:11 PM
Maddow is plenty bright. If only she were just a bit more honest . . .
Posted by: Cecil Turner | January 09, 2014 at 05:11 PM
. . . isn't the burden for him to prove he didn't . . .
Typical lefty logic . . . but at least they recognize it's only to be applied to GOP targets.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | January 09, 2014 at 05:14 PM
I suspect that's right, Boris, but that's exactly how sharpies can part fools (or just people prone to those irrationalities) from their money.
And I'll say it one more time before giving up: The described behavior of Monty does not match the stylized scenario of the 'puzzle.' Among other things,"He claimed he wanted to minimize winners" shows that he was being strategic.
Posted by: jimmyk | January 09, 2014 at 05:17 PM
I have never watched more than a second or two of MSNBC, depending on the speed of my remote and dexterity of my index finger, but that Maddow chap and his twin sister seem to share the same affinity for eyeware and hairstyles.
Posted by: lyle | January 09, 2014 at 05:18 PM
Whatever happened to our Ambassador that was soliciting child prostitutes in Belgium?
Our State Dept. is one sick place.
Mosque repairs. Money to Gaddafi's kid's "charities". Electric car fueling stations. Liquor. Sculpture.
...but security? not so much.
Posted by: Janet - the districts lie fallow, while the Capitol gorges itself | January 09, 2014 at 05:20 PM
Great link, daddy. Earth-based imagers have difficulty in planetary observations employing a coronagraph due to the atmospheric wavelength errors; but it looks like the high-order adaptive optics are working well.
Posted by: Beasts of England | January 09, 2014 at 05:20 PM
Gregory was talking about Obama, right?
Hey, have we determined whether the evidence fits Porch's speculation about the WH having this Christie thing in their back pocket for a rainy day?
Posted by: Extraneus | January 09, 2014 at 05:21 PM
I am with Porch, and I still maintain that there is a subgroup within NSA which is looking for stuff on conservatives and Republicans. It was inserted into the larger NSA organization in early 2009.
All politicians and their staff should assume that their every communication is being monitored by Obama.
Posted by: Miss Marple | January 09, 2014 at 05:34 PM
AllahPundit ruminates on the possibility of Christie running as an independent.
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/01/09/rush-limbaugh-why-arent-christies-rino-pals-rushing-to-his-side/
The F'nork would deserve it, unlike the rest of us.
Posted by: Extraneus | January 09, 2014 at 05:36 PM
Gregory getting slattered over at Twitchy for that lame comment. Think, David, before you write sometihng so blatantly stupid when you consider what the guy in the WH has done by fiat.
Posted by: JIB | January 09, 2014 at 05:36 PM
David Gregory could have been a member of Heaven's Gate. He has the focus of a true believer.
Posted by: MarkO | January 09, 2014 at 05:38 PM
I agree with Porch.
I had a long explanation of why, but it was eaten by Type Pad.
Posted by: Miss Marple | January 09, 2014 at 05:40 PM
Now, after 4 refreshes, my comment has appeared above.
I think I will go get a glass of wine.
Posted by: Miss Marple | January 09, 2014 at 05:41 PM
the Hive mind, is a sad thing to be part of;
http://twitchy.com/2014/01/09/partisan-hypocrite-eric-boehlert-slammed-after-criticizing-christie-for-obama-like-explanation/
like the Puppet Nasters in Heinlein.
Posted by: narciso | January 09, 2014 at 05:42 PM
Did Christie succeed in tamping down Bridgegate?
He certainly succeeded in tamping down Gatesgate.
Posted by: Extraneus | January 09, 2014 at 05:51 PM
I have watched zero seconds of Monty Hall.
Posted by: Danube on iPad | January 09, 2014 at 05:54 PM
I have involuntarily watched MSNBC when it's been on the television in front of me at the gym. Similar to having CNN forced on me at the airport.
I don't know that I've ever watched David Gregory's MTP. That would be too much to stomach.
Posted by: jimmyk | January 09, 2014 at 06:05 PM
Not one of your better hires, Roger;
http://therightscoop.com/howard-kurtz-robert-gates-book-is-a-betrayal-erick-erickson-oh-simmer-down/
Posted by: narciso | January 09, 2014 at 06:09 PM
Legalize the lawbreaking;
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/01/freedomworks-ceo-new-irs-guidelines-target-tea-party-and-exempt-unions/
Posted by: narciso | January 09, 2014 at 06:15 PM
When in London during the invasion of Iraq we were pretty much stuck on MSNBC even though we had Fox. So we flipped back and forth. I have to tell you that the first two or three days on MSNBC were for some reason a lot better than those on Fox.
Fron that point on it was turtels all the way down. Even David Shuster was watchable and pretty supportively patriotic during those days. Don't suppose MSNBC made their later TV decisions based on politics do you?
Posted by: JIB | January 09, 2014 at 06:18 PM
Even Olbermann, wasn't that insufferable back in that day, but it slowly was absorbed by the nutroots, which were growing in that era, I'm sure Fenton affiliates, Levick outfits, had nothing to do with it,
Posted by: narciso | January 09, 2014 at 06:33 PM
Even David Shuster was watchable and pretty supportively patriotic during those days.
Any pretense the left has of patriotism is just that. If no one were looking, there isn't one of them who'd put hand to heart during the national anthem. They'd be thinking of slavery, banana farms in Central America, etc.
Posted by: Extraneus | January 09, 2014 at 06:41 PM
"Was" looking? I have no idea what's right, but it seems as if "were" is usually safer.
Frau?
Posted by: Extraneus | January 09, 2014 at 06:45 PM
Pop Quiz:


Which one is one is the stuffed, brainless simian puppet and which one is the bongo monkey?
Posted by: Ignatz | January 09, 2014 at 06:46 PM
JIB a "news" or more properly these days a 'news and opinion" cable or broadcast network is only as good as its cast of newsreaders, editors researchers etc.
In some ways you could compare it to an NFL or NBA team--where long term success depends upon making smart draft picks.
Compare and contrast say Rachel Maddow with Megan Kelly. I know Ms. Maddow was a Rhodes Scholar; Ms. Kelly was President of a small law school's Law Review---but then had a stellar if somewhat short career as a litigator.
One is a very attractive lady with a nice personality--at least as demonstrated on air. One is a somewhat less attractive lady (I'm being charitable here) with a personality that is as full of snark and smirk as Pajama Boy.
I'm a long time San Diego Chargers fan. I can recall the draft when the Indianapolis Colts and San Diego Chargers had the #1 and #2 draft choices. The Colts took Peyton Manning; the Chargers took Ryan Leaf.
I'm not saying Rachel Maddow is Ryan Leaf--for one thing despite her lumberjack shirt, she can't throw a 25 yard spiral. But in terms of comparative ability and probable longevity in the public eye--well Rachel is Ryan. And Megyn bids fair to have a career at least as long as Manning's. Who knows, she may last as long as Barbara Walters.
Posted by: Comanche Voter | January 09, 2014 at 06:47 PM
"Were" is the correct choice when in the subjunctive mood, as where a condition contrary to fact is under discussion. Since MSNBC actually does have some viewers, that would be the choice here.
Use "was" when not in the subjunctive, e.g., "I always called home if I was going to be late for dinner."
Posted by: Danube on iPad | January 09, 2014 at 06:57 PM
sub·junc·tive
[suhb-juhngk-tiv] Show IPA Grammar .
adjective
1.
(in English and certain other languages) noting or pertaining to a mood or mode of the verb that may be used for subjective, doubtful, hypothetical, or grammatically subordinate statements or questions, as the mood of be in if this be treason. Compare imperative ( def 3 ) , indicative ( def 2 ) .
I guess I'll stick with "were," although I'm still not clear on what the hell the subjunctive is. Fortunately, I went with math and science for a career.
Posted by: Extraneus | January 09, 2014 at 07:02 PM
http://www.cashill.com/intellect_fraud/obamas_magical.htm
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 09, 2014 at 07:03 PM
What is "Time Magazine"
Certainly not a News magazine.
Posted by: daddy | January 09, 2014 at 07:05 PM
--I'm a long time San Diego Chargers fan.--
You have our deepest sympathies.
Posted by: Ignatz | January 09, 2014 at 07:10 PM
Single payer is inevitable:
"New drugs would only be licensed for the NHS if they help those judged to be a benefit to wider society under proposals from the health watchdog.
Pharmaceutical firms on Thursday night warned that the move could lead to new medicines being denied to the elderly.
"A senior professor also said that the plans could threaten the well-being of older people and were 'deeply suspect', while charities questioned the ethics of the policy."
Posted by: Danube on iPad | January 09, 2014 at 07:12 PM