"The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing."


Glenn Reynolds:

Barack Obama:
"Impossible to transcend."

Albert A. Gore, Jr.:
"An incontinent brute."

Rev. Jeremiah Wright:
"God damn the Gentleman Farmer."

Friends of GF's Sons:
"Is that really your dad?"

Kickball Girl:
"Keeping 'em alive until 7:45."

Hired Hand:
"I think . . . we forgot the pheasant."

I'm an
Alcoholic Yeti
in the
TTLB Ecosystem

Tuesday, January 31, 2012

We're shocked! SHOCKED!

Because, really: what kind of asshole pokes their finger in the face of the President of the United States?


Everything Old is New Again: Milton Friedman, 1979

Labels: ,

Monday, January 30, 2012

"I am Daenerys Stormborn, and I will take what is mine with fire and blood."


Stuff Catholic Girls Say

We think we'd have organized this a bit differently, and saved the best for last: "I can totally see myself marrying him if he doesn't become a priest" and "I don't know if I should date right now, I'm discerning being a nun."


Thursday, January 26, 2012



Saturday, January 21, 2012

Caturday Morning


Thursday, January 19, 2012

When Parody Fails

From our "this is a joke, right?" department:
Six House Democrats, led by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), want to set up a "Reasonable Profits Board" to control gas profits.

The Democrats, worried about higher gas prices, want to set up a board that would apply a "windfall profit tax" as high as 100 percent on the sale of oil and gas, according to their legislation. The bill provides no specific guidance for how the board would determine what constitutes a reasonable profit.

The Gas Price Spike Act, H.R. 3784, would apply a windfall tax on the sale of oil and gas that ranges from 50 percent to 100 percent on all surplus earnings exceeding "a reasonable profit." It would set up a Reasonable Profits Board made up of three presidential nominees that will serve three-year terms.
More HERE.




Monday, January 09, 2012

"Lasers are not a cost-effective method of bacon preparation."

Just one of the very practical conclusions reached along the way to answering the question, "Why can't we use lasers as ray guns?"


Sunday, January 08, 2012


We know we've been lax around here respecting end-of-year reviews, lists of the 10 best cat videos of 2011 and suchlike. But we'd not like it thought that we were without resolutions for the New Year.


Saturday, January 07, 2012

Living in a fantasy world

Here's a clip of Representative Ron Paul from 1984. He's railing about computer surveillance by the Government. At the time, of course, it was just one more example of what a kook he is. Unless, of course, you happened to have read William Gibson's debut novel, also published that year.


Friday, January 06, 2012

Relationship Advice

From the Washington Post.


Sounds to us like performance art

We're keen students of the "alcohol may have been involved" genre, and so certainly didn't miss this:
A Colorado woman dropped her pants at a museum and rubbed her rear end all over a painting valued at $30 million, according to police.

Carmen Tisch, 36, was arrested after scratching, punching and, well, rubbing her butt against Clyfford Still's "1957-J no.2" and causing an estimated $10,000 damage to the artwork at the Clyfford Still Museum in Denver. Police believe she was drunk during the late December incident.


The oil-on-canvas abstract expressionist painting was spared additional damage when the woman tried to urinate on it but apparently missed.

"It doesn't appear she urinated on the painting or that the urine damaged it, so she's not being charged with that," Kimbrough said according to the Denver Post.
We expect at any moment the announcement that Ms. Tisch is herself a noted performance artist, and was actually acting pursuant to a substantial Government grant. In fact, we think that the posterior polishing of abstract art makes a profound artistic statement.

If you're wondering, here's the painting in question, although we have no idea whether this image is before or after the "damage." Without a side-by-side comparison of before-and-after, it's unclear how one could tell.

Labels: ,

Rick Santorum?

We saw this at Ace of Spades and, as he notes, the source of the clips is not entirely clear.  But it certainly doesn't conflict with anything we're read about Santorum:

Santorum is the Anti-Mitt du jour, and the rap on him is that he's a "Big Government Conservative." Jennifer Rubin thinks that's nonsense:
First, Santorum is to the right of Perry in some important ways. Santorum opposed the Troubled Assets Relief Program; Perry wrote a letter on the day of the Senate vote urging Congress to pass legislation to avert a meltdown. Santorum, as we saw in the debates, is likewise to the right of Perry (and Newt Gingrich, for that matter) on immigration.

Indeed, Santorum’s supposed deviations from conservative orthodoxy are similar those of his rivals. He voted for earmarks and highway funds. Gov. Perry took the money. Santorum voted for Medicare Part D; Gingrich lobbied for it, and Perry said in a debate that he wouldn’t repeal it.


And finally, Santorum has put together an aggressive spending reduction plan. He’s for the balanced-budget amendment. He’s embraced Rep. Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform plan. He’s in favor of Social Security reform, against energy subsidies, for privatizing Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and in favor of repealing Obamacare. The guy is no liberal when it comes to spending taxpayer money. Is he to the right of Gingrich? Yes. To the left of Ron Paul? Yes. But so are most GOP voters.

What Santorum “lacks” is the bomb-throwing rhetoric and contempt for government that oozes from Perry. He doesn’t suggest that the Fed chairman is a traitor. He’s not planning to arrest judges like Newt Gingrich. He’s not advocated a goofy scheme to devolve Social Security to the states. He didn’t urge Congress to refuse to raise the debt limit. In a word, he doesn’t disdain governing.


Thursday, January 05, 2012

Happy Perihelion

Tuesday, January 03, 2012

Wait, wait! I almost forgot! It's 2012!


Monday, January 02, 2012

I guess this is the "Change" part


Guys who work are tacky

It's difficult to have any other take-away from this piece in last week's New York Times:
HORSEHEADS, N.Y. — At the Glamour and Glow boutique in the local mall here, crystal necklaces and fake fur vests have been hot-ticket items the last year.

When the drilling workers head home between long stretches of work in this gas-rich region, explained Christy Spreng, the shop’s owner, they need gifts for their wives and girlfriends. “They know what they want,” she said. “They’ll say: ‘Looks good. Wrap it up.’ ”

Sales are up 60 percent at the boutique this year. At the two Holiday Inns here in Chemung County, occupancy has been at or near capacity for months at a time. And in the nearby town of Big Flats, the regional airport has added flights, parking spaces and restrooms, and is extending a runway to accommodate larger jets.
Hoping its sophisticated readers won't miss the point, the Times thoughtfully provides a link to Glamour and Glow's website, permitting a titillating frolic for virtual slummers.

While even the Times can't miss the economic boomlet, the article mostly tut-tuts about pollution, rising home prices, and dirty hands. Thus this:
Mr. Santulli, the Chemung County executive, attributes at least half of its tax revenue growth to the increased activity of the extracting industry on both sides of the border.

He said 28 gas-related companies employing more than 1,000 had leased or bought more than one million square feet of commercial space in the county as a staging area for current and future drilling operations in the region.

Many businesses provide support and technological services for gas fields. One of the biggest, Schlumberger Technologies, is completing a 400,000-square-foot plant in Horseheads that will employ 400 people by next year.
is dizzyingly juxtaposed with this:
Ann Crook, the manager of Elmira Corning Regional Airport in Big Flats, estimates one of five passengers flying in or out has some tie to the gas industry. Some are workers who head straight to the airport after working their final shift, which has prompted her to invest in some degreasing soap for the restrooms. “They do some serious cleanup here,” Ms. Crook said.
This is nothing new, and it's all about class. People with advanced degrees and clean hands who churn out incoherent dreck have never been comfortable with guys who work for a living, get dirty, and are concerned about momma bein' happy.

We'll be on the lookout for the next thoughty Times piece about the economics of food stamps, where the lede is a similarly condescending critique of the fashion sense of welfare queens.


If There'd Always Been an Internet

From Retronaut.


Sunday, January 01, 2012

Everything you need to know

It is customary to commence a new year either with resolutions to amend one's life, or a review and evaluation of the year just past.  We are in no position to do either, as we've resolved to make no resolutions, and judge 2011 to have been an average year: worse than 2010, likely to be better than 2013.  Average.

Instead, we provide something for you to ponder.  Perhaps it's a metaphor.  Perhaps it's a sign.

Last evening, someone tossed the following question into cyberspace: "I baked a potato (skin rubbed with olive oil and kosher salt before cooking), and stupidly left it in a cold oven for a few days. Looks ok (kind of shriveled, but not bad). Is it safe to reheat and eat?"

As we write, this query has stimulated 22 responses.

We don't pretend to have fully considered this, but offer the following observations upon which you may think it profitable to meditate:
  1. Someone contemplated this matter for an unknown period of time without coming to any conclusion or taking any definitive action;
  2. Someone believed the question to be of sufficient importance and complexity so as to warrant the solicitation of advice;
  3. Counsel was sought from unknown, unidentifiable third parties;
  4. Nearly two dozen individuals found the question to be of sufficient interest, and judged their own knowledge to be adequately authoritative, that they responded;
  5. The responses conflict and reach no conclusion or consensus.
Welcome to 2012.  We've been waiting for you.  We are doomed.