This is how a caption *ought* to work

Showing her Georgia Power bills in the one warm room of her home, Raymeica Kelly explains how her mother, sister and herself were turned away from the Energy Assistance Program on Wednesday morning after standing in line for four hours. All three complained that the system the Macon-Bibb County Economic Opportunity Council uses to give out the assistance needs improving.

Apparently, the system that distributes big screen TVs and XBox 360s* works just fine. So that's good news, anyway.

* that being the 'capitalist' part of the economy.

Hat tip: Nanny State Liberation Front

Media spin analysis

As if you needed any more, but here's what I consider a perfect example of media spin, of the subliminal subgenre.

The picture at the right accompanies another story on global warming*. The story itself is both unimportant and unremarkable - a bunch of government scientists with their models assure us that "predictions are 'an innately more difficult area of science to get some robustness on,' but stresses these papers represent a 'conservative' analysis." So it's GIGO bullshit, but at least it's conservative GIGO bullshit.

But that picture, what is it doing on this news story? First of all, the caption** is of no help; it tells us neither what, where, nor when we are looking at. But what the image shows is the easy and therefore deceptive part, for we are looking at a bridge and some dried mud. The bridge, looking forlorn and abandoned in the background, makes us think it's probably somewhere in Europe***. The image's name (t1larg.drought.turkey.gi.jpg)**** reveals that this is a large picture taken in Turkey during a drought. But since Turkey is not mentioned in the story, nor is any specific drought nor bridge, nor do we learn when the picture was taken, we must conclude this is not a picture of this story.

Or is it? From our facts (or their lack) about the picture, it's obvious that it is the image of dried mud and abandoned civilization in Europe that is most important.  The story itself does contain predictions of 'more severe drought' which, of course, draws the mind back to the picture. How does the mind connect these?  "The future is dried mud and abandoned civilization," thinks the brain without thinking.

And therein lies the 'spin.'  Pictures on news stories are expected to relate to the story in a real and concrete way.  A story about Obama's latest speech is accompanied by a picture that shows him giving the speech and a caption that says Obama is giving a speech. A story about the Korean troubles shows Korean soldiers with a note that tells us who they are. But here we have a story about scientists predicting what might happen if their computer models are correct and if their policy prescriptions are not followed. In this case, CNN has presented an image objectively unrelated to that story, as if it were a fact that is actually happening as a part of that story, to subliminally support a speculative and theoretical argument in that story.

* Climate change, whatever.
** "Current emission rates are putting the world on track for dangerous temperature rises in the 21st century, scientists say."
*** though obviously not from this week, since the whole continent is under like 7 feet of snow if I read other stories on CNN correctly.
**** Yes, I cheated, we're not supposed to look that closely.

Gloria Borger is still an idiot

film at 11:

Now I get it. For Boehner, [not compromising] makes more sense because it's really a matter of political survival. Why? Because there's a huge gap between how Democrats and Republicans view compromise. According to a recent Gallup Poll, 59% of Democrats think it's a good thing. As for Republicans, not so much -- 41% say their leaders should instead "stick to their beliefs."

Look at the numbers again. Is 'compromise' a good thing or a bad thing? Well 59% of Democrats say it's a good thing. That means that 41% of Democrats say it's a bad thing*. "Not so much" for the Republicans, where 41% say compromise is a bad thing**, leaving 59% to say it's good. Obviously, this "huge gap" proves that Republicans are, well, something, and I'm sure Gloria is not pleased with whatever it is either.

* Or have no opinion, which is hard to believe, as they seem to have an opinion on everything.
** leaders should instead "stick to their beliefs."

UPDATE: No good deed goes unpunished*:

Strangers banded together to pull a deer out of the freezing water of the Patapsco River on Thursday night.

“We seen the deer going under,” said Khalil Abusakran. “It couldn’t maintain. It was starting to freeze, and it was really getting bad.”

Abusakran brought a raft, and Jim Hart joined him...

But in the excited aftermath of the rescue, a natural resources police officer on the scene wrote both men a ticket...

They say they were ticketed for not wearing life vests, although both are over the age for mandatory use of flotation devices.

“No, we didn’t have vests on, but we’re not 16 years old,” Abusakran said. “There were personal floating devices on the boat.”

The ticket itself doesn’t check off any specific violation, just a $90 fine...

What makes you think you need to break a specific law in order to get a citation these days? Guy hasn't been around recessions very much, I think.

* At least in Bethany's Maryland.

The endless well

Let me just blame the victim for a bit:

LONG BRANCH — For John Feal, a Senate vote on a bill to fund health care for 9/11 first responders* was one more slap in the face...

“The United States Senate and the Republican Party need to man-up on their patriotism and they need to do what is morally right,” he added. “They owe this to us because it is the last slap in the face that we take.”

"They owe this to us." You have got to be freaking kidding me. John Feal lost half a foot in the cleanup. I'm sorry, but I expect that via Worker's Compensation, Union health insurance, and almost $40 billion in government, private, and insurance payouts to workers, victims' families**, and just people who live in the neighborhood, that bill is paid. And since the government's portion was borrowed, it will be paid with interest forever.

The idea that American people are somehow unpatriotic if we don't cough up another $7 thousand million dollars*** to perpetually support victims is preposterous. But it's good to see the old American spirit hasn't died. No, not the one where you feel entitled to mooch off everyone else because something bad happened to you, near you, or was heard about by you. I'm talking about the ability to take anything - even other people flying planes into buildings - and turn it into a profit opportunity.

* Except that the bill was not for 'first responders' any more than Feal himself was one. It funded research and medical clinics for respiratory problems associated with the aftermath.
** Averaging $1.6 million per family.
*** Or the next $7 thousand million, or the thousands of millions that follow that.

Thank you, ToeVaris

Hopefully Webb can be everything T-Jack was supposed to be and never was.

There is no bad news

In the world of half-sized glasses:

Rising interest rates for now are generating views that the economic glass is half-full, even though the trend would seem to counteract aggressive monetary policy from the Federal Reserve.

...[T]he Fed's long-expected announcement Nov. 3 that it was launching QE2 instead preceded a move higher in rates. Economists say that's because the easing has increased confidence the central bank will continue to intervene in the economy, and they say rates might be even higher had the Fed not intervened.

So try to keep this straight: Dropping rates are good, because it means that the Fed's QE2 program is working. Rising rates are good because the rise shows confidence that the Fed will continue to give us low rates*. The rates are rising now because people now believe the Fed will continue to intervene in the economy, but rates would have risen in the past if people did not now believe the Fed would intervene.

Bernanke would do the nation a great service by starting every speech telling us how many basis points were "created or saved" by his Not Printing Money(™) program. Then we would have something really objective to measure this all by.

* Even though their program to lower rates raised them instead.

Does everyone need to work?

or are we asking the wrong questions?

FORTUNE -- What happens to a nation's collective psyche when millions of once-productive people remain out of work for months or even years? ... there is the psychological toll on individuals and families -- and on the nation.

Early on in the recession, popular culture seized on the romantic notion of tightening our belts and looking inward to frills-free fun with our friends and families, after a decade of borrowed hyperconsumption. Now we need to ask a less romantic question: What happens when millions of Americans lose the habit of work, a habit that lends balance, structure, dignity -- and, of course, economic support -- to lives?

We already know what happens when millions of Americans lose the habit of work: they begin to elect politicians who will pay them to continue to not work*.  Problem solved, right?

But that aside, the question arises about this idea that everyone needs to have a job. That somehow, people who are not employed by someone else and paid in duly recorded-and-taxed wages are somehow not contributing to society. They are letting us all down by not 'contributing' to 'our' economy and they are destroying themselves in the process. It is assumed that we** need to do something about that, like changing tax rates or passing tax credits or something. Anything.

But do young mothers have an obligation to work outside the home to avoid causing psychic damage in otherwise unemployed daycare workers and in themselves***? Should we avoid gardening lest we disemploy legions of truckers, grocers, and lettuce-pickers? Or can we finally decide that, 'romantic' or not, we have likely seen the limits of debt-driven consumption for the next two decades at least? The bubble is not coming back, and the jobs that relied on building and selling all the things we found out we really didn't need are not coming back. And we**** need to make some adjustments in the face of that new reality. Mike T mentioned a "fundamental philosophical revolution" that needs to take place, and this is probably a part of that - the debt/consumption philosophy has failed or is at least in the process of failing, so whatever replaces it will be a revolution almost by definition.

So with that in mind, let me just say that, instead of being feared as "long-term unemployment," it's ok if young mom decides to spend the next decade doing work that's more important than hawking perfume at the mall. And rather than paying rent on a beachfront condo in Florida, it's ok if grandma and grandpa move into the McMansion basement to help mom and dad make the mortgage. It's ok even if it means the children aren't going to Disneyland ever again. It might be important even if GDP shrinks, if vacancy rates climb, or if tourism suffers as a result.

* oh there's plenty of other bad stuff, especially if they teach their kids not to work and or they reach a critical mass in any geographic area. But this is not about that.
** That's 'we' in the collective sense; when most columnists say 'we' they mean 'the government.'
*** "The only kind of work which permits an able woman to realize her abilities fully, to achieve identity in society in a life plan that can encompass marriage and motherhood, is the kind that was forbidden by the feminine mystique, the lifelong commitment to an art or science, to politics or profession. "
-- Betty Friedan.
**** That's 'we' in the personal sense rather than the collective. The government will continue under the old weltanschauung as long as it can be maintained.

Crime enough for a man

that needs not a woman, apparently:

A popular Columbia professor was charged Thursday with incest - accused of a sick sex relationship with a female relative, prosecutors said.

Political science Prof. David Epstein, 46, bedded the young woman over a three-year period ending last year, according to court papers...

Sources said the victim was over 18 when the relationship began in 2006 and that the two often exchanged twisted text messages.

I'll admit that the least surprising thing about this story is that some HuffPo blogger was boffing a (presumably) hot younger female relative. But what caught my eyes is that a) she was an adult, and b) there's no mention of her being arrested or charged.  In fact, she is referred to as "the victim" of this heinous moonbat lovefest.

Folks who have been here a while might have noticed that I have no truck with any "mens' rights," movement or otherwise. I don't whine that women get a better deal in the court system, and I frankly laugh if some guy suffers "domestic abuse*" at the hands of his wife.  That sort of thing goes with my personal code of chivalry**.  Men are primarily responsible for whatever state they find their society in and have no right to whine that their womenfolk are too uppity.  God called Adam on the (forest) carpet when his wife made the first fruit basket, after all.  So whatever this post is***, it's not that.

But it sort of reminds me of the story of Jesus and the Woman caught in Adultery.  Which is why if it were me writing in the dirt in front of the temple with an angry mob picking up rocks, and only one person caught in the very act which of a necessity demands two, I would probably write, "Where's the chick?"

UPDATE: some might wonder if "heinous moonbat lovefest" is just a cheap shot at liberals, since the guy undoubtedly is one and I'm not.  I don't think so.  When a non-liberal does this - or when some fundamentalist Christian preacher is busted boffing little boys - it is almost always understood that there is hypocrisy involved, i.e. that he's doing what is, in fact, religiously unlawful for him. He is in the Wrong (capital W) and knows it. For liberals and especially atheists**** - who do not recognize Christian sexual mores - this is not the case. We ought not be surprised that someone who does not believe in conservative sexual morality does not abide by it. 

* Non-lethal, obviously.
** Plus I hit a girl back once and I didn't like it, though she liked it even less, I suspect.
*** And I don't really know.
**** While there may be no atheists in foxholes there are plenty in cornholes; I've known too many gay atheists to think those facets of their personalities unrelated.

Sarah Palin sucks at hunting

I know she was shooting uphill, but geez.

UPDATE: One thing I love about our annual Christmas party* is that just about all of our scientists are from Eastern Europe or Southeast Asia. Which means that we have a million different dishes on the table, and I don't know what any of them are. But they are all fantastic**. This year's winner was these little meat pies - spicy beef*** wrapped in a tortilla, shaped like a slice of orange. I sure wish I knew what that was.

* Besides that I was looking like Tom Selleck. Minus the hat, mustache, chest hair, and dashing good looks, of course. Hawaiian shirts FTW!
** except stuff made with cabbage.
*** I hope.

You're not fooling anyone, you know

Locking horns with a liberal named "Moderate" over the weekend reminded me of how undercover moonbats often give their game away in how they describe themselves*. They really wish to hide their flaming moonbattery** in the verbal equivalent of a shell game, but orange light keeps peeking out wherever the audience looks. Like an urbanite trying to fake a hick accent to pick up venereal diseases chicks at a Honky-Tonk***, just by opening their mouths they betray the fact that they really have no experience in this place. Their natural context is utterly alien to the one they are feigning.

A good example might be the Mainstream Coalition, a political opponent from back in my old JoCo GOP days. Self-promoted as the 'moderate' alternative to the ascendant Radical Right, it was stuffed, top to bottom, with liberals****. No matter the position the organization took, you just new that it was going to be indistinguishable from those of the ACLU, Americans United, the Democratic Party, or GLAAD. Progressive, moderate, mainstream, it doesn't matter - each meant and means "moonbat in hiding."

So I laughed when that latter euphemism that popped up in another context recently:

WASHINGTON — White House spokesman Robert Gibbs says President Barack Obama is a "committed, mainstream Christian" – contrary to the claims of Fox News Channel host Glenn Beck.

Beck recently claimed that Obama practices a version of Christianity that is not recognized by most people. Beck says this "liberation theology" is all about "oppressors" and "victims." ...

Gibbs says, "I can only imagine where Mr. Beck conjured that from."

It was conjured from the guy who performed Obama's marriage, most likely. Not that I care about Obama's Christianity (or lack thereof) a whit, nor that Beck's Mormonism is 'recognized' any more widely than Wright's Liberationism.  But it is rather funny that, when accused of being a moonbat, his spokesman defends Obama with a word that only a moonbat would use.

* By which I mean, it didn't take me all the way to "There is no wealth tax so their ill-gotten gain will remain protected" to know this guy was a barker. Real moderates don't think in the kind of axis-political imagery that words like 'moderate' or especially 'mainstream' presume. They don't think, "I repose within a bubbling brook of reasonableness that flows between muddy banks of extremism." They say, "I'm an independent" and go back to watching TV.
** Look, I understand. I'd be embarrassed about it as well.
*** Yes, we really have such things around here. Both.
**** Not limited to anti-war fanatics, abortion activists, lactivists, hacktivists, tree huggers, bunny huggers, tokers, jokers, pole smokers, Village People cosplayers, rustlers, cutthroats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperadoes, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, half-wits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass kickers, shit kickers, and United Methodists.

By 'compromise' they mean 'Toga Party'

As much as liberals are complaining that the GOP rolled Obama, if this immediate trillion dollar increase in the national debt* is an unqualified GOP victory, then I'm just going to have to stand with Chuck Schumer in hoping liberals kill the deal.

Doing nothing is generally preferable to doing what Republicans and Democrats agree on. Like Augustine's famous prayer concerning chastity, the GOP's plea seems to be, "Give us fiscal responsibility, but just not yet."  And by "yet" they mean, "any time it really matters."

UPDATE: Oh, good grief:

"I've said before that I felt that the middle class tax cuts were being held hostage to the high-end tax cuts," [President Obama] said. "I think it's tempting not to negotiate with hostage takers, unless the hostage gets harmed. ... In this case, the hostage was the American people. And I was not willing to see them get harmed..."

Extending tax cuts for the wealthy is the "holy grail" for Republicans, he said. It "seems to be their central economic doctrine..."

As is the case when Obama speaks, the words claim the exact opposite of the truth. Since Day 1 it has been the GOP who wanted tax cuts for everyone. Period. No distinctions. The Democrats drew a subjective line at $200,000 or $250,000 and then constantly claimed that the nation could not "afford a giveaway" of $700b on one side of that line but could not live without one 4x as large on the other. Singling out the "the rich" for tax punishment has been the liberals' Holy Grail, and an emotional one at that. The proof?  Although Republicans are not gleeful over the deal, moonbats are freaking despondent about it.

* "The package would cost about $900 billion over the next two years, to be financed entirely by adding to the national debt, at a time when both parties are professing a desire to begin addressing long-term fiscal imbalances." Yes, it uses 'cost' entirely incorrectly**, but given that no one seems to have any desire to cut any spending whatsoever, a trillion dollars in new debt is the difference between doing this and doing nothing.
** a tax cut does not 'cost' anything

(hat tip: Dr. L)

Eight things to do in the TSA Penalty Box

If you ever find yourself locked up by the TSA for following their rules, here are a few things you can do to pass the time*:

1. Pretend like you're a mime locked in glass box.
2. Silently deliver Lincoln's Gettysburg Address to the other travelers. Pound the lectern for emphasis.
3. Practice your "Crane." You never know if they will try to sweep the leg.
4. Sneak up on and squash huge imaginary spiders. Don't forget to wipe your feet after each kill.
5. Stare at an old lady until you get her attention. Then mouth "help me" over and over.
6. Mimic every move the nearest TSA not-an-officer makes.
7. Talk on an invisible telephone with the guy in the next cage. Vehemently disagree with him.
8. The Ethiopian Shim Sham Sand Dance**.

* The extra time you gave yourself so TSA could not use your schedule against you.
** Seize this, Honkus.

Pancakes tomorrow to celebrate

How progressives measure poverty

Jamelle Bouie says it has nothing to do with what you own:

With microwaves, air conditioning and cell phones, it’s clear that poor people aren’t nearly as poor as we think they are*! I mean, it’s not as if poverty is concentrated in the nation’s two warmest regions — the South and the West — where air conditioning is a necessity, and it’s not as if cell phones are a cheaper alternative to landlines, and critical to navigating the world of low-wage service jobs. I guess you could call microwaves luxuries, but even that’s ignoring the fact that the [poor] are for (sic) more likely to consume frozen and prepared foods that need microwaving.

So in Samuelson’s column, what you have is another attempt to minimize the actual poverty of poor people by pointing to items that are actually necessary to surviving in [a] low-wage service economy.

Most people think of poverty like the dictionary does: poverty is a lack of things that are necessary - a lack of money, a lack of food and shelter, a lack of the "stuff" one absolutely needs to get along in whatever society they live. But as soon as someone points out the obvious fact** that American "poor" have the necessities and then some, Progressives, who love the poor***, get all up in arms. "The poor have air conditioning? Well it's hooooooooottttttt outside." As if it was cooler 100 years ago when not even the rich had A/C. But I especially like the argument that the poor have microwaves because they are more likely to eat the kinds of food that need to be microwaved. In other words, the poor, more than the rich, eat foods that someone else has already prepared for them. All we can reasonably expect of the poor is that they chew and swallow. Demand more than that from them and you obviously hate the poor.

Only in a Progressive Wonderland could a person who does not have to work, is constantly bedazzled with endless forms of entertainment and an unending array**** of ready-prepared food, and who lives in environmental comfort possibly be considered poor. Through most of human history it was only the king who could live that way. Now it's the most woebegotten among us, apparently.

Poverty, to the progressive, is simply a question of numbers and formulas, of relative comparisons completely disassociated from real life, and has absolutely nothing to do with whether a person's physical needs or even wants are being met. Its measurement is concerned mostly with how many credentialed experts must be hired to 'solve' a problem their programs do not measure and purposely do not address.  You think I'm kidding in that last assertion, but I'm not.  Modern measurements of poverty specifically exclude the help that comes from the very programs Progressives push to 'fight' poverty, like Medicaid, subsidized housing, and food stamps. Progressives and poverty advocates insist that poverty be measured only by cash income.

But that begs the question: if someone's food, shelter, and medicine is paid for by others, why in the world would they need income?

Well, besides for a cell phone, of course.

* That this is actually sarcasm might be missed because in the interest of space I have destroyed the context.
** It's unarguably a fact. American poor have more food, more shelter, better health care and more life options than have existed anywhere else in the world at any time prior to the last half-century. We have the richest poor who have ever lived.
*** which is why they work so hard to keep the ones we have.
**** not to mention quantity

Picture hat tip: NPR

I need to use this before Obama caves

The horrified progressives over on Huffington Post yesterday were so cute*.  It seems they actually thought Obama was going to take a principled** stand with the Democrats rather than working with the Republicans.  If Obama could make a habit of this, he might turn out to be as popular a president as Mr. Clinton eventually did.

* If Obama has lost HuffPo, he's lost middle America.
** "Principled" here meaning "stubbornly clinging to an arbitrary number."