Mark Bittman of the Times continues to be outraged that food processors try to make things people will enjoy. Ann Althouse delivers a beat-down.
I blame the seemingly-cute Keebler elves, who flit about holding cute little bows and arrows to people heads forcing them to eat cookies they don't want. And (of course!) we all blame Evil Corporations, because we all know there isn't a mom-and-pop bakery, or a mom, or a pop, or a grandma anywhere that adds sugar, salt and butter to their recipes to make them more appealing.
And do let me add: Mr. Bittman seems to be worried about the moral fiber of the Great Unwashed, rather than his own. His lead:
In the last few years, it’s become increasingly clear that food companies engineer hyperprocessed foods in ways precisely geared to most appeal to our tastes.
"Our tastes"? We are not talking about food that Mr. Bittman talks up. And a bit later:
The problems are clear, but grouping these industries gives us a better way to look at the struggle of consumers, of ordinary people, to regain the upper hand.
Ahh, we are talking about "ordinary people", not NY Times columnnists with their vast education and resources. They won't listen to him, darn it, but maybe if he bloviates with sufficient urgency we can pass a law. Maybe!
Hi, I'm Sue and I'm a cookie addict. I blame the elves too.
Posted by: Sue | February 26, 2014 at 09:43 PM
What if it was geared to not appeal to our tastes? Would they be bitching about not being able to make something people liked?
Posted by: Sue | February 26, 2014 at 09:45 PM
Did anyone know this was today?
http://freebeacon.com/the-imperial-presidency/
What we need is more RINOs.
Posted by: Threadkiller | February 26, 2014 at 09:49 PM
...are...
Posted by: Threadkiller | February 26, 2014 at 09:49 PM
But they are ok with the dispensing of pot, and the sharing of needles, because that has no negative consequences,
Posted by: narciso | February 26, 2014 at 09:50 PM
I drink a lot of Tito's, and smoke a good Vegas 5 Maduro torpedo daily. In the evening I will occasionally attack a wee dram or two of MacAllan 10.
I do not do these things because they afford me some of life's simple pleasures and, although I am aware that they pose certain risks, I have weighed the risks against the rewards and made my choice. No, I do them because I have been duped, principally by large corporations and their advertisers, into thinking that I enjoy these things.
I have done those things which I ought not to have done, and I have left undone those things which I ought to have done, and there is no health in me.
Please, before it's too late: pass all laws necessary to bring me into line.
Posted by: Danube on iPad | February 26, 2014 at 09:58 PM
--What if it was geared to not appeal to our tastes?--
You're thinking of the organic aisle.
Posted by: Ignatz | February 26, 2014 at 09:58 PM
"Please, before it's too late: pass all laws necessary to bring me into line."
You have a choice: death, or ugga bugga.
Posted by: MarkO | February 26, 2014 at 10:05 PM
Ig,
True.
Posted by: Sue | February 26, 2014 at 10:09 PM
Rove is on Hannity telling us that the reason that Ted Cruz is being attacked by Republicans is because Ted Cruz attacked them first.
He also tells us that people who talk with Ted Cruz come away wondering what it is he wants them to do.
I do not know what the real story is but I do not buy Rove's version.
Posted by: daddy | February 26, 2014 at 10:17 PM
Rove is upset because Ted Cruz is doing exactly what he said he would do in his campaign unlike his gutless herd of RINOs who never mentioned comprehensive immigration reform when fishing for votes.
I was hoping this thread would be about my fellow Maryland native Stacie Keibler instead of anything dealing with that idiot Mark Bittman.
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 26, 2014 at 10:28 PM
"...the struggle of consumers"
Not to worry, Mark. Warren Wilhelm, Jr. will join the struggle and lead his people and you to the light.
Posted by: Frau Zahnartzt | February 26, 2014 at 10:29 PM
there's a pic of Keibler at the Puffington Host, which is a mite bit NSFW.
Posted by: narciso | February 26, 2014 at 10:31 PM
I guess a longer lens, makes a difference:
Posted by: narciso | February 26, 2014 at 10:35 PM
>>> Stacie Keibler <<<
Iggy will be along any minute.
Happy Birthday to DaveMA.
Posted by: rich@gmu | February 26, 2014 at 10:38 PM
That very minute rich. :)
BTW right click above for a couple more cookies.
Posted by: Ignatz | February 26, 2014 at 10:39 PM
or any second...
Posted by: rich@gmu | February 26, 2014 at 10:41 PM
wow, one of beasts girlfirends?
need a name!
Posted by: rich@gmu | February 26, 2014 at 10:42 PM
fucking hate this job (that ought to get a flag!)...
Posted by: rich@gmu | February 26, 2014 at 10:44 PM
that is Stacey Keibler, now what were we talking about?
Posted by: narciso | February 26, 2014 at 10:47 PM
I knew I could count on Iggy.
HB Dave.
I think we have the perfect casting for "Dumb and Dumber Go to the Comedy Club".
http://ht.ly/u2Oms
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 26, 2014 at 10:47 PM
I don't know either, daddy. I do know that, much as I love everything Ted Cruz says, there is something about him that repels me a bit, and strongly persuades me that he would be a very poor choice for national office. I don't think many people like him.
I suppose Reagan's 11th Commandment tells us that we should not speak ill of Ted Cruz. Apparently Ted himself is immune to the requirements of the Commandment.
The Commandment also seems not to apply when the "fellow Republican" is in fact a RINO, or is a fnorker. Hard to keep track of these Commandments and what they require of us.
Posted by: Danube on iPad | February 26, 2014 at 10:48 PM
Wretchard's latest on the PC universe is worth reading. I trust you all know where to find it.
Posted by: DrJ | February 26, 2014 at 10:48 PM
Will someone remind me of the procedures to nominate Majority leaders in the House and Senate? I am asking because, if we do win back the Congress, will Mitch McConnell and John Boehner still be in charge of our chill-rens future.
I remember jumping Jim Jeffords and Trent Lott Fing it up. Any guesses?
==============================
Also, sorry I ranted and left the other night. I missed a lot of nice comments. Miss you all and yes, Captain, it is so cold here that the dogs charge outside, stop, and return, with their tails between their legs pronto!!!
But, my Cardinals are fat!
Posted by: Ann | February 26, 2014 at 10:51 PM
Happy birthday, DaveMA. May your coming year be a really, really good one.
Posted by: Frau Steingehirn | February 26, 2014 at 10:52 PM
Happy birthday, Dave (MA)! I missed you when I was out your way.
Posted by: DrJ | February 26, 2014 at 10:54 PM
Got any links of Cruz bashing a specific Republican?
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 26, 2014 at 10:55 PM
Happy B-Day, Dave.
Posted by: Ignatz | February 26, 2014 at 10:57 PM
Cruz, pointed out the three timew we followed the leadership strategy of keeping one's head down, 2006, 2008, and 2012, the party got shellacked, whereas when it stood for something in 2010, it succeeded,
Posted by: narciso | February 26, 2014 at 10:58 PM
Hey Ann; we got so angry at you leaving we started sniping at each other. Not really but it's probably been winter reaching critical mass that's got us so cranky. Anyway it's always good to read you.
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 26, 2014 at 11:00 PM
Any law we pass, goes out with the tide, any law they pass, is as permanent as the statue of Ozymandias,
Posted by: narciso | February 26, 2014 at 11:01 PM
Happy Birthday Dave in MA.
Posted by: Jim Rhoads f/k/a vnjagvet | February 26, 2014 at 11:04 PM
'welcome to the party, pal'
http://freebeacon.com/irreconcilable-conflict/
Posted by: narciso | February 26, 2014 at 11:09 PM
LOL, Captain.
I just emailed Janet and CC and told them this place is just to exhausting to read considering we have such bigger problems to solve.
Carp, who is going to care about the law when there is no longer anyone that upholds it.
And Happy Birthday to everyone that I have missed.
Posted by: Ann | February 26, 2014 at 11:12 PM
Ann I don't know about the Senate rules but Boehner was voted on by the House Repubs and received 220 votes while requiring 214, so it was a fairly narrow victory. TBH it didn't seem like anybody else wanted the job although I'm sure Cantor did but didn't wish to upset his good buddy Johnny.
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 26, 2014 at 11:12 PM
I think if they hadn't lost a dozen seats or so, due to the 'cunning, cunning' strategy that was chosen, probably affected their disposition,
Posted by: narciso | February 26, 2014 at 11:17 PM
Holy shit; Leon just delivered a major slattering to the children of the cornhole. Let the return fire begin!
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 26, 2014 at 11:21 PM
Dave (in MA) - Happy Birthday. Hope you had a great day !
- - - - - -
Ann - Don't go away again, please. It has always been a pleasure to hear your take on things.
Posted by: Patriot4Freedom | February 26, 2014 at 11:24 PM
doodlemum this evening:
http://doodlemum.com/2014/02/26/dead/
Yes, it features Arnie the cat.
And with the I will say goodnight.
Posted by: DrJ | February 26, 2014 at 11:25 PM
Ah just when you think the world is too absurd, it catches up with you:
Posted by: narciso | February 26, 2014 at 11:32 PM
If Harry Reid switches parties and becomes a Republican, can we no longer speak ill of him?
Posted by: Threadkiller | February 26, 2014 at 11:40 PM
narciso - re your pic of Queen LaFattazz . . .
Does it seem to you that she has had some recent plastic surgery? Her face seems to have some more newly-rounded features than before.
It might be interesting to compare some before-and-after pics (before her 17-day "vacation" in Hawaii away from *all* TV cameras), but I'd be afraid of permanent blindness.
Posted by: Patriot4Freedom | February 26, 2014 at 11:47 PM
"Got any links of Cruz bashing a specific Republican?"
I'll have to look around tomorrow. In the meantime, I guess the Commandment is, "Thou shalt not speak ill of any specific Republican."
But while I conduct my research, let me ask whether any of the following are "specific Republicans" of whom no ill should be spoken:
--John McCain
--Lindsey Graham
--John Boehner
--Mtch McConnell
I just want to be sure about what the Commandment really means.
Posted by: Danube on iPad | February 26, 2014 at 11:51 PM
I think he meant that Commandment for other public party figures; I doubt very much that Reagan would have wanted to curtail our debates.
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 26, 2014 at 11:56 PM
Happy Birthday, Dave (in MA), just under the wire.
Posted by: jimmyk | February 26, 2014 at 11:56 PM
Posted by: daddy | February 27, 2014 at 12:05 AM
Posted by: daddy | February 27, 2014 at 12:08 AM
Here's what wiki has about Reagan's eleventh commandment:
While popularized by Reagan, "The Eleventh Commandment" was created by then California Republican Party Chairman Gaylord Parkinson. In his 1990 autobiography An American Life, Reagan attributed the rule to Parkinson, explained its origin, and claimed to have followed it:[3]
The goal was to prevent a repetition of the liberal Republican assault on Barry Goldwater, attacks which contributed to Goldwater's defeat in the 1964 presidential election.[1] East Coast Republicans like Nelson Rockefeller labeled Goldwater an "extremist" for his conservative positions and declared him unfit to hold office.[1] Fellow Republican candidate for Governor George Christopher and California's liberal Republicans were leveling similar attacks on Reagan. Hoping to prevent a split in the Republican Party, Parkinson used the phrase as common ground. Party liberals eventually followed Parkinson's advice.
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 27, 2014 at 12:12 AM
Hey,
TM just got an aside from Insty:
THE MOST MASSIVE OBJECT IN THE UNIVERSE.
UPDATE: Tom Maguire writes: “The most massive object in the universe – NOT Barack Obama’s ego? My sense of proportion is restored by science.”
Posted by: daddy | February 27, 2014 at 12:15 AM
Bless you, DrJ. I needed a shot of Doodlemum.
Posted by: Frau Steingehirn | February 27, 2014 at 12:25 AM
"The goal was to prevent a repetition of the liberal Republican assault on Barry Goldwater, attacks which contributed to Goldwater's defeat in the 1964 presidential election."
Good to know. The goal was not to prevent a repetition of the conservative Republican assaults on the likes of McCain, Graham , McConnell et. al.
Important to keep up on the meaning of these Commandments.
Posted by: Danube on iPad | February 27, 2014 at 12:32 AM
I doubt very much that Reagan would have wanted to curtail our debates.
Indeed.
Reagan also uses the term "personal attacks." It's hard to imagine the 11th Commandment means that two candidates competing in a primary campaign can't criticize each other's positions. And I'm sure Reagan criticized Ford in 1976. But criticisms should end once the nomination is settled. Reagan did endorse Ford, as I recall, in contrast to Rockefeller's behavior toward Goldwater.
Posted by: jimmyk | February 27, 2014 at 12:40 AM
DoT, were there a lot of prominent conservatives who attacked McCain once he got the nomination in 2008? Not that I recall. Ditto for Romney in 2012. I'm sure you can find examples of conservatives attacking moderate nominees, but it's a lot harder to find them than the other way around.
And CH is certainly right that it referred to public figures, not blog comments or conversations around dinner tables.
Posted by: jimmyk | February 27, 2014 at 12:48 AM
Some terms are hard to define.
Posted by: Threadkiller | February 27, 2014 at 12:49 AM
Happy belated Birthday, Dave in MA.
Posted by: pagar plus | February 27, 2014 at 06:13 AM
RINO PC version: Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican except tea party supporters and Ted Cruz.
Posted by: sbwaters | February 27, 2014 at 06:31 AM
If you get a chance, watch the Rubio speech in response to Tom Harkin declaring Cuba is paradise and we should be just like them.
Posted by: Jane on Ipad | February 27, 2014 at 06:37 AM
Rubio's speech - http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/rubio-senate-floor-venezuela-new-cuba_783425.html
Posted by: Janet - the districts lie fallow, while the Capitol gorges itself | February 27, 2014 at 06:43 AM
Mark Bittman has a terrific chocolate chip cookie recipe that calls for TWO STICKS OF BUTTER. Granted, it's unsalted and the sugar ratio isn't too bad, but still. He is one to thrown stones at the Keebler elves' home. Must say that his entire "How to Cook Everything" book is pretty good.
I wish Karl Rove would go away. The networks keep him around to curtail the Tea Party and he happily obliges.
Anyone watching House of Cards? My husband commented that it was interesting they don't flat out say which party Underwood belongs to, you have to guess and it's made murky by the fact that he's from SC.
Posted by: Robin, baking with butter | February 27, 2014 at 06:50 AM
I have to say that I think Bittman might be on to something - GS Thin Mints are a cookie that I cannot stop eating once I've started. Someone needs to shut down those cookie sales pronto!
Posted by: Robin, baking with butter | February 27, 2014 at 06:56 AM
Oh gosh, I've killed another thread....
Posted by: Robin, baking with butter | February 27, 2014 at 07:03 AM
Robin, it's just the morning "where the hell is that coffee?" lull. Everybody will be back.
Posted by: henry | February 27, 2014 at 07:08 AM
I learned to cook from Craig Claiborne..that's when the NYT was worth reading. He taught readers to appreciate all kinds of food,introduced them to every sort of ethnic food and food supplier, gave all sorts of people career boosts when he promoted their their native cooking. Bittman is a leftwing snob. Had he not introduced us to delicious Sullivan St bakery's marvelous no knead bread recipe, I'd categorize him as a worthless substitute for what was once a great feature.
Posted by: clarice | February 27, 2014 at 07:14 AM
Happy Belated Birthday Dave!
Posted by: Marlene | February 27, 2014 at 07:18 AM
Robin:
GS Thin Mints are a cookie that I cannot stop eating once I've started. Someone needs to shut down those cookie sales pronto!
I work at an office with the manufacturing plant attached. princess hit and run is in girl scouts and mrs hit and run is the cookie mom. One of my co-workers also has a daughter in girl scouts and is the co-cookie mom. Another co-worker works out in the factory and also has a daughter in the troop.
It goes like this. The second co-worker gives notice that it's girl scout cookie time and starts taking orders. She then gives the list of her fellow workers' orders to first co-worker, who then relays it to me. I then take the order form to mrs hit and run who gets all the cases and loads me up.
I drive to work. At the end of the second co-workers shift, we head out to my car and transfer the cases from my car to hers. Since it's quittin' time, all the other workers are headed to their cars.
Pretty quickly, everyone sees that the cookies are being delivered and we're surrounded.
If we're lucky, a majority of the mob are those who actually placed orders, not those cookie junkies desperately looking for a quick fix. I'd feel safer if the company allowed me to carry on the property.
We could probably sell the cookies at twice the price and not lose any volume.
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | February 27, 2014 at 07:24 AM
You know, Clarice, just by some odd coincidence, my mother was born in a tenement just a few doors down from where the Sullivan Street bakery is.
Posted by: peter | February 27, 2014 at 07:25 AM
My mother baked sweets every day when we were kids. I don't think I had a "store bought" cookie until I started doing my own grocery shopping. Her cookies and cakes probably had enough white sugar,white flour and butter to last a lifetime.
Looks like the midwest and northeast are stuck in the polar vortex.
Posted by: Marlene | February 27, 2014 at 07:26 AM
Repost, for Ig, re:16 year old at Wolf of Wall Street:
That was a complete and total accident by my sister, the minister's wife. It was the day after it came out to the raves. She'd had my parents and my brothers family and my sister with her for five days, over Christmas, due to power failures at their homes. Unexpectedly hosted the rest of the rest of the family too for Christmas dinner. She shall be given a pass on this one. At least the 14 year old wasn't there!
She spent most of the movie with her hand over the 16 year old's eye's. At one point she told him "Close your eyes and don't open them until I tell you."
His comment on leaving:"Mom, don't ever tell anybody I saw that."
My husband did say that now things were even with her husband the minister, who shocked us by taking our then 12 year old to Austin Powers. (Yeah baby)
Posted by: anonamom | February 27, 2014 at 07:29 AM
Underwood is a fairly conservative Democrat, Robin, he went to to the Citadel, they call it the Sentinel, he has little patience for clea energy, Season 1, his former chief aide, is a lobbbyist for an oil company, his wife runs an environmental concern, but discards that when needs must, pushes for charter schools, against
an obstinate teacher's union rep, the cause celebre, sezual assault in the military, gets crushed in the course of the season,
Posted by: narciso | February 27, 2014 at 07:31 AM
An interesting tidbit from this morning's musings. Remember Tom Steyer, the hedge fund billionaire in the news recently?
Well, it turns out the DoEd's data and privacy concern rules and summit this week which I already decided deserved multiple pinocchios, were run by common sense media. CSM is run by Jim Steyer, Tom's brother. Jim also has a Center for the Next Generation that Tom is on the board of.
Now isn't all that useful? Especially since all the privacy seems to be determined to mislead that the key is Big Data and paradata and "educational" includes behavioral, emotional, values, and beliefs shifts? All educational uses of data are of course permissable as this Admin is interpreting the law.
It's almost like mo and bo travel and party and he golfs while the real transformations occur out of site.
clarice-I can remember Franey's? column in the NYT when I was first learning to cook in my early 30s. I knew so little initially I can remember looking in the spice aisle for a clove of garlic.
Posted by: rse | February 27, 2014 at 07:31 AM
yes, it's a racket rse, just like the Rathke brothers, I guess they were aiming for a slightly more malevolent version of Clinton,
the writer worked on Hillary's campaign, Madame Underwood turns out as nearly soulless as Gosnell's gal, in her ambition,
Posted by: narciso | February 27, 2014 at 07:39 AM
I think she's being a little naive,
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/2014/02/26/culture-wars-its-all-fun-and-games-until-someone-gets-hurt/
we see now that the outrage since Bowers has been in part orchestrated, and this is exactly where they've wanted to go, re the Europen model
Posted by: narciso | February 27, 2014 at 07:47 AM
history is calling again;
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/02/27/pro-russian-forces-seize-crimean-parliament-building/
Posted by: narciso | February 27, 2014 at 08:08 AM
Russian Flags flying on Ukranian Govt Buildings?
I thought the POTUS said not to do that?
Posted by: Old Lurker | February 27, 2014 at 08:12 AM
Happy Birthday DAVE!!
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | February 27, 2014 at 08:12 AM
Jimmy Fallon Video: Lip Sync Battle with Paul Rudd
http://commoncts.blogspot.com/2014/02/jimmy-fallon-video-lip-sync-battle-with.html
Posted by: Steve | February 27, 2014 at 08:13 AM
Crimea/Greater Ukraine-- it's getting serious now. Will Putin be cautious and only grab Crimea and use only nonmilitary hostile acts against the new Ukraine gov't? Or is Ukraine becoming the new oil/gas energy source for the EU too much of a risk and he shoots the moon?
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | February 27, 2014 at 08:17 AM
Volodya, answered pray I don't alter the deal,
any further,
Steve, we avoid that jibbring idiot for a reason,
Posted by: narciso | February 27, 2014 at 08:19 AM
I get the distinct impression that this humorless fool Bittman is the kind of guy to order beet salads and then something with tofu in it at a fancy restaurant.
As the old joke goes:
"Doc, if I eat that diet will I live longer?"
Answer: No, but it will sure make it seem like it.
Posted by: GMax | February 27, 2014 at 08:19 AM
sbw - re your mandates comment at 10:34 Tuesday night:
<< It is as silly for government to mandate I bake a wedding cake for someone who wants me to do so against my will as it would be for the government to mandate the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition model should marry me against her will simply because I want her to. >>
I am generally opposed to mandates, and to unfunded mandates in particular. However, after lengthy consideration of the demands it would burden me with, I have nevertheless decided that I would allow the government to mandate that the S I swimsuit model of my dreams should marry me.
I would have to trust that my boyish charm, dashing good looks, wit and intelligence - Hah ! - would convince her to voluntarily agree to the mandate. If not, well, we all have dreams, don't we?
Posted by: Patriot4Freedom | February 27, 2014 at 08:21 AM
"GS Thin Mints are a cookie that I cannot stop eating once I've started."
I've come to realize my entire life has been dominated by cravings - so thin mints are not the only thing I can't stop eating once started. I figured everyone had these cravings but some people were much better at saying "no" to them.
(Clarice look away). So in the beginning of October I took processed foods out of my diet as much as I could. I did it because of my choking and excema both of which I decided were an allergy because no MD could help.
And lo and behold, for the first time in my life I don't have endless unstoppable cravings. If anything, at this point, my problem is not eating enough. Apparently if I'm not eating processed flour and sugar I really don't care much about eating.
It's been 20 weeks and I doubt I will ever go back.
Posted by: Jane | February 27, 2014 at 08:21 AM
Dunno, NK.
Who in the world has the will and the might to oppose whatever Putin wants to do? I don't see the opposing, even latent, power bases that produced WWI and WWII. Were I Putin, I would probably go for it now so that my country would ascend fast enough to counterbalance the rising China using the cash flow stream from selling his energy to the wimp "states" of Europe.
Posted by: Old Lurker | February 27, 2014 at 08:26 AM
P4F-- heh;
Jane-- I discovered that 5 years ago, lost 60lbs of body fat (67 totsl) over 5 months. I gained back 15-18 lbs over time (darned fat cells never disappear they just shrink), so it's back to no processed sugar and very low carbs for several months and try to stay on the wagon. It's tough, but all this carb/blood insulin stuff is true for me.
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | February 27, 2014 at 08:27 AM
No, there is none, OL specially since the Ukraine gas find is a game changer, the pipeline issues in the Caucasus were a small motivating factor.
Posted by: narciso | February 27, 2014 at 08:30 AM
The Rubio speech is wonderful.
The Anchoress link is interesting.
This is where overturning the will of the people...& a "news" media that does nothing but advocate for one side, gets us.
It makes one side bold.... & turns the other side to anger & frustration as their vote is cast aside.
No serious examining of consequences...no hard questions for the left....where is all this going?
Already, through voting & the legislative process citizens have voiced their opinion on redefining marriage...but it just gets thrown out. It's like saying that we get to vote, but only one outcome is allowed...so if Americans vote wrong, it will not be allowed.
The voting & legislative process have become a charade....you feel like you got your say, but really the elites will let you know what the law is gonna be.
Even when we win, we lose.
Posted by: Janet - the districts lie fallow, while the Capitol gorges itself | February 27, 2014 at 08:32 AM
You layout the upside for Putin going for it now; I would add to that, time is not on his side. Demographically and economically. Russia's christian population is collapsing, and if Ukraine/EU frack like hell, they could tell GaProm to pound sand much sooner than later. But Ukraine is vast and nationalistic, blue bereted Russian Paratroopers would find at least 2/3rds of Ukraine a dangerous place. High risk of failure. And if Putin goes for Ukraine and fails, his whole powerbase could collapse. This is serious.
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | February 27, 2014 at 08:34 AM
"If Putin goes:
http://faustasblog.com/2014/02/venezuela-cuba-nicaragua-russia-to-add-military-bases-overseas/
Meanwhile the US cuts the military beyond all reason and Sen Harkin tells us how much we're going to enjoy communist Cuba.
Posted by: pagar plus | February 27, 2014 at 08:40 AM
The thing about Russia is the ratio of its natural resource wealth to population. The US has about the same number of people not working (therefore living off others) as the entire population of Russia. The national debt in the US approaches 100% of GDP just as the Russian ratio approaches zero. And Europe is a joke.
So Narc is correct "there is none".
Posted by: Old Lurker | February 27, 2014 at 08:42 AM
Who in the world has the will and the might to oppose whatever Putin wants to do?
Exactly right. Same with the Dems. here....they should go for it.
Posted by: Janet - the districts lie fallow, while the Capitol gorges itself | February 27, 2014 at 08:43 AM
Crimea is like Abkhazia and South Ossetia in the last Caucasus dustup, a Russian reboubt, of course they were able to coerce a more amenable leadership in Tblisi.
Posted by: narciso | February 27, 2014 at 08:43 AM
NK,
The weirdest part for me is I don't find it tough at all. It's a lot of work, but I don't mind that part, and I love not being dominated by cravings.
Posted by: Jane | February 27, 2014 at 08:45 AM
Rubio's speech is wonderful. And an added benefit is it makes Tom Harkin look like an ignorant fool.
Posted by: Jane | February 27, 2014 at 08:46 AM
No, Jane a knave not a fool;
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1642
when they always pick the wrong side, and suffer no consequence for it, one has to reconsider the classification,
Posted by: narciso | February 27, 2014 at 08:49 AM
But the upside to Putin is huge - Peter the Great huge - and the downside (since he can and will kill people) leaves him still in control of Mother Russia where he can lick his wounds until the next opening.
Posted by: Old Lurker | February 27, 2014 at 08:50 AM
The polar vortex is indeed here and not only that, we have wind. I had to go out this morning and filled the car up and was about frozen, even with a Carhart sweatshirt hood up, coat on over that, and gloves.
When it warms up this weekend we have another winter storm moving in. Bah.
Regarding diet: I have removed most sugar, processed foods, white flour, white pasta, and white rice. My daughter wanted to do the Sugarbusters diet so I complied, since I need to lose weight anyway.
I seem to have less ravenous hunger and sleep better, which is interesting. I also seem to have more energy.
Posted by: Miss Marple | February 27, 2014 at 08:51 AM
Top Men:
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/199399-divided-republicans-turn-to-rep-waters-for-help-on-flood-bill
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 27, 2014 at 08:52 AM
OL's8:42 will be the story of the rest of our adult lives. The Debt and it's consequences. I know I'm a broken record on this, but the Debt is and will be more pervasive in our everyday lives, it's driving everything now (Just like a badly overleveraged real estate deal ;) The defense cuts? driven by the Debt, OPM is running out, no politician will cut Soc Sec or MediCare, even Medicaid is sacrosanct now-- that's welfare. Blue Hell Bankruptcies-- Detroit is just the beginning. One issue after another is driven by USA's debt. Time is not on Russia's side, but they've got a geopolitical genius running the show, and he doesn't have creditors to worry about. He can move; no one will stop him; his only risk is failure. Will he go for it?
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | February 27, 2014 at 08:55 AM
Broken record or not, you nail it well, NK.
Posted by: Old Lurker | February 27, 2014 at 08:59 AM
MissM/Jane-- congrats to you both. If your carb cravings are gone forever, you're lucky. I seem to lapse out of laziness after 8 months or so. It's a siege battle for me.
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | February 27, 2014 at 08:59 AM
Polar vortex time here too; along with the obligatory "less than an inch" prediction that is exceeded within a half hour.
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 27, 2014 at 08:59 AM