The unfortunate message is that a compliant media will endanger national security to enhance the reputation of this administration; but not post facto worry about finding how it was lost and why Americans were killed — if it might question the administration’s judgment. Of all the things written about the four Obama years, one of the most telling will be how an entire industry forfeited its integrity for political purposes and lost its reputation.
Which do you think will have a bigger effect on voters in a swing state, Nurse Bloomberg’s endorsement of Obama, or this devastating editorial in the Las Vegas Review-Journal?
At least more Nevada voters will know what happened in Benghazi.
[Update a couple minutes later]
At least Jake Tapper is reporting on it: “The Benghazi drip, drip, drip.”
People should realize that this is very much like 1972 (the Watergate break-in had happened that summer). We may be sparing ourselves another impeachment by removing the president on Tuesday.
2. Democrats always screw you twice. First by working their will on you and second by delivering a lot less than they promised they would. The women in the story are complaining about this but that’s because they’re foreigners and don’t understand that this is actually standard Democrat operating procedure in this country. Just ask the workers trying to collect their government pensions in California. Indeed, Senator Bob’s approach to sex could even be considered the Democrat’s central philosophy: “You will bend over for us and in return we will promise to give you money and stuff… and then will give you a lot less than we promised.” If that were short enough to put on a campaign sign, people would be waving it at Obama’s campaign stops. Instead it’s just been shortened to “Forward!” Because “Over!” didn’t sound quite right.
3. It’s Democrat, not Republican, programs that send jobs out of the country. I mean, come on, are you going to tell me there are no prostitutes in America who can be screwed and then screwed again? There are plenty of them!
Maybe not when it comes to Bob Menendez. Perhaps he was offshoring because Dominiquenas were just doing the jobs that Americans won’t do.
…one can think that Silver is probably right about the Electoral College, and simultaneously think that the 78.4 percent number is basically meaningless. Or rather, that it is impossible to formulate the epistemological difference between “There is a 78.4 percent chance that Obama will win” and “There is a pretty good chance Obama will win.”
My problem with it is that I don’t believe that he knows all of his data inputs to three figures. Yes, I know that’s how the polls purport to measure them, but three figures of precision are meaningless unless you also believe that the number is accurate. As another plug for my (still to be published) space safety book, here’s a relevant excerpt:
One of the very first things that scientists and engineers are taught is that you can’t get an answer more precise than the precision of the least precise factor from which it is derived. For example, we know the gravitational constant to many places, but when you multiply it by a mass that you only know to two places, that is the maximum precision that can be reasonably used to express the local gravitational field for that body. A good professor will mark down an answer on a student’s test that, while accurate, is unjustifiably precise. When I see engineers doing the same thing, I tend to think that they’re trying to impress the innumerate who don’t understand the difference between precision and accuracy. And I think that the safety numbers for Ares I were precisely wrong.
As is Nate’s election prediction. To me, it would be more credible if he just said 80%, though I still don’t buy it.
Another popular bumper sticker consists of the word “Coexist” formed out of traditional iconic symbols: a crescent, a cross, a tao, a star of David, etc. It’s a pleasant enough sentiment, and it allows liberals to think they’re somehow above the fray when it comes to the ongoing struggle between the post-Enlightenment West and totalitarian Islam. Except if you’re imagining a world of peaceful coexistence, you’re not taking a neutral position. You’re coming down on the side of the West. Liberals are in the thick of the war; they just don’t have the stomach to accept it. Their aspirations for peace — a peace in which individuals are free to act according to the dictates of their own consciences — place them squarely on the side of heterogeneity over unity of belief, of personal autonomy over selfless obedience, of reason over faith. Radical Islam is at war with everything liberals hold dear. Liberals just don’t want to get their fingernails dirty.
As he notes earlier, they’re not really liberals — they just imagine they are.
Of course, conservatives have bumper stickers, too, but they tend not to as much, because it’s an often apparently invitation to get their car keyed. By those “liberals” who preach civility.