Search This Blog

Sunday, November 30, 2014

CNN is lying when they say Ferguson protests were ‘peaceful’

Here’s a quiz for you folks in the media: What happens if you’re out doing “man on the street” interviews but none of the men on the street fit your “narrative”?

If you’re CNN, you stop interviewing them.

It has been remarkable to watch the last few days as America’s self-styled “most trusted news network” has sent out teams of reporters to various areas of Ferguson, Mo., ostensibly to cover the protests there. While their cameramen are watching cars on fire and stores being looted, the reporters ramble on about how “most people here” are “peaceful protesters.”

Where are these peaceful protesters? The reporters can’t seem to find any. Instead, they turn to outside experts and some carefully vetted religious leaders to talk about “the real message” of the protests.

On Tuesday night, CNN correspondent Jason Carroll was reporting, “Most of the protesting we saw in front of the Ferguson Police Department tonight was peaceful.” Then as he started trying to explain the fires burning behind him, he was approached by three of the protesters, who proceeded to get in his face and yell at him because he was promoting a “certain narrative” — the police narrative. “You don’t understand!” one screamed.

Saturday, November 29, 2014

One in three Americans has put off seeking medical treatment in 2014 due to high costs

The lied when they called it "The Affordable Care Act."

Obamacare, of course, had promised that it would help make health care more affordable for everyone, but the number of people who can’t afford a trip to the doctor has actually risen three points since 2013, before most Obamacare provisions took effect.

The hardest-hit: the middle-class. Americans with an annual household income of between $30,000 and $75,000 began delaying medical care over costs more in 2014, up to 38 percent in 2014 from 33 percent last year; among households that earn above $75,000, 28 percent delayed care this year, compared to just 17 percent last year.

Of course. Obama is a member of the ghetto part of the Democrat party. The middle class are his class enemies.

Percentage of Americans Putting Off Medical Treatment Because of Cost

U.S. CEOs threaten to pull tacit Obamacare support over 'wellness' spat.

Well, he's screwed everyone else over, why did they think that fat cat corporate execs would be protected?

Sunday, November 23, 2014

What’s the difference between Obama and a Latin American Caudillo?

Ruling by presidential decree is a characteristic of the typical Latin American “Republic.”

Does anyone care what the Brazilian or Venezuelan congresses do? What the Mexican Senate and Chamber or Deputies decide? Populated by powerless eunuchs, many of el Presidente’s own party, they don’t matter except as a fa├žade.

So what’s the difference between the way Americans are ruled today and the way the heirs of Peron and Chavez rule their country? Is there that much difference between Obama and the rule of the president of Mexico whose term is often labeled the "six-year monarchy" because of the seemingly unchecked power that historically has resided in the office? 

Less and less.

And while the term “imperial presidency” has been bandied about for many years in this country, it has never been more blatantly practiced than by the current occupant of the White House. No other American president has ever had the brass to tell the American people that he will rule them with a phone and a pen.  And the Democrats in congress and the press cheered him on.

Debate in the Federalist Society, an organization that tries to advance the notion that the constitution should be the basic law of the land, pointed out that over many years Congress has ceded its power to the President.

“If Congress wants to restrain the discretion of the president, they are supposed to do what the separation of powers encourages them to do: Write the statute tightly so that it will be actually administered the way you want it administered," Baker said. "The reality is many members of Congress don’t care how it is administered until somebody squawks about it. They don’t read the statutes, so how do they know how it is going to be administered.”

Members of the Republican party, at least those who are actually opposed the Imperial Presidency (instead of paying lip service to it) are hoping the courts will bail them out. That's what they thought would happen the last time the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of ObamaCare.   How did that work out?

“I do not think the executive is subordinate to the judiciary, and if the executive is not subordinate to the judiciary and has the power to independently interpret the Constitution, it can’t be exercised only at the veto point when a prior president may have signed the bill,” ... “The president who inherits the bill has to have the opportunity to interpret it himself and not be bound by the prior administration. The idea that the prior administration can tie the hands of a subsequent administration doesn’t make sense to me.”

So in 2008 with Democrats in control of both houses of congress and with the election of Obama, the nation was set on a new course. Barack and Michelle promised to “fundamentally transform” America, and with the assistance of the Democrats in the senate and house, they are well on their way. But because of the resistance by a majority of the American people and a minority of conservatives in congress, they have done so less by legislation and more by executive fiat.

Is there a constitutional remedy?  Yes, theoretically.  Impeachment is a remedy for a president who commits "high crimes and misdemeanors."  Those would include taking actions which he lacks the authority to take.  Charles Krauthammer calls amnesty via an executive order an impeachable offense.   But the Republicans are afraid of trying to remove Obama from office, even if they had the votes to convict, which they do not.

Obama has been applauded by the press because they support the direction he is taking the country. They approve of socialized medicine and government control in general … in fact there is very little about socialism they don’t support. But with the support of the goals, they have turned a blind eye to the means. They like the Caudillo when he’s ruling in their favor, believing – perhaps incorrectly – that the next Caudillo will continue the trend. That’s to be seen, but in the meantime the constitution is kicked to the curb and the rule of law is replaced by the rule of the strongman.

In the Banana Republics, the rulers often change when the military stages a coup. The problem with the Caudillo system is that it invites extremism.  Riots in the streets in reaction strong-man rule often leads to ambitious military officers restoring calm and occupying the centers of power.  Often the military has the greatest legitimacy among the competing power centers.  The current ruler of Egypt is the most recent example.  

In the US, the Gallup Poll shows that the military is the institution in which Americans have the greatest confidence with 74% approving "a great deal or quite a lot."   The presidency comes in 7th at 29% and congress is dead last, even lower than TV news.  

 Don't say we were not warned.

Saturday, November 22, 2014

The Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect

The late Michael Crichton’s 2002 essay “Why Speculate?”:

Media carries with it a credibility that is totally undeserved. You have all experienced this, in what I call the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. (I call it by this name because I once discussed it with Murray Gell-Mann, and by dropping a famous name I imply greater importance to myself, and to the effect, than it would otherwise have.)

Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect works as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward-reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.

In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story-and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read with renewed interest as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about far-off Palestine than it was about the story you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I’d point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all.

But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn’t. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia.

American troops to fight on in Afghanistan: Obama kicks military under the bus

Leaked to the NY Times by Team Obama:

In an announcement in the White House Rose Garden in May, Mr. Obama said that the American military would have no combat role in Afghanistan next year, and that the missions for the 9,800 troops remaining in the country would be limited to training Afghan forces and to hunting the “remnants of Al Qaeda.

But a secret order by Obama changed that.

Mr. Obama’s order allows American forces to carry out missions against the Taliban and other militant groups threatening American troops or the Afghan government, a broader mission than the president described to the public earlier this year, according to several administration, military and congressional officials with knowledge of the decision. The new authorization also allows American jets, bombers and drones to support Afghan troops on combat missions.

To me that sounds as if Americans will be in combat under any conceivable circumstance. It sounds as if the military and the new Afghan government convinced Obama that if his Afghan strategy was carried out, the war would be lost before he left office.

So, despite prior promises, Obama doesn't want Afghanistan to turn into another Libya on his watch. One Benghazi is enough.  

According to the report in the NY Times, official print house organ of the Obama administration:

“… generals both at the Pentagon and in Afghanistan urged Mr. Obama to define the mission more broadly to allow American troops to attack the Taliban, the Haqqani network and other militants if intelligence revealed that the extremists were threatening American forces in the country.

And if things go wrong, will the Commander in Chief be responsible? You have to be kidding me. It’s going to be the fault of the military. As one administration official put it:

“… the military pretty much got what it wanted.”

[Cue Obama voice] "You can'r blame me, I gave the military what it wanted.  The Commander in Chief?  Not me; it's the military's fault."

The Limbaugh Theorem in action.

Why do so many people not know that Bill Clinton raped women?

Reading a story recently about the Bill Cosby rape allegations.  I enjoy reading the comments at the end of many stories (one of the benefits of the internet).  Someone brought up the subject of Cosby being treated differently from other alleged rapists like Bill Clinton.

A woman responded that cheating on your wife was different than rape.  It was obvious that the only woman sexually associated with Bill Clinton today in the minds of most people is Monica Lewinski.

The women that Clinton was accused of raping, like Juanita Broaddrick are not remembered of dismissed as unbelievable trailer trash.

Meanwhile, accused white liberal rapist and former president Bill Clinton has no such problems. He still dominates Democratic politics, commanding an average $195,000 per speech imparting his wisdom and insights. Past allegations of rape and groping and using his power and charm to seduce women are ignored – or secretly admired.

The Clinton Foundation hauls in millions, supporting Bill; his wife, stand-by-your-man former New York State senator, former secretary of state, and potential presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton; daughter Chelsea; and hundreds of hangers on in style. Women of all backgrounds, especially feminists, flock to his speeches as he tells them what they want to hear.

Clinton's alleged victims haven't fared so well. Paula Jones was dismissed as "trailer trash" by Clinton, defending himself against her claims of rape, which he later settled for $850,000. Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrrick were scorned and mocked by Clintonistas after going public with their claims. Gennifer Flowers, charmed by Clinton in exchange for sex and talk of marriage, was mocked as silly – someone who couldn't even spell her first name correctly. Mention Monica Lewinsky, the 22-year-old starry-eyed intern in the Clinton White House and Clinton charmee, and (sometimes nervous) laughter erupts. Except from the victim herself. No complaints from liberal women about the degrading treatment of their "sisters."
It's Liberal Privilege.

I guess that there has been enough time to "Hoover" the e-mails and remove any incriminating ones

30,000 "lost" Lerner e-mails "found."

Let’s get the obvious out of the way first: They will find no smoking gun that definitively ties the White House to the targeting scandal. Those emails — if they ever existed — would have been destroyed long ago. It’s not likely that there is any kind of electronic or paper trail that leads back to the White House. These guys may not be the brightest bulbs in the room, but is there anyone in Washington stupid enough to leave bread crumbs for a prosecutor to follow?

After the manifold the ObamaCare lies, Benghazi, Fast & Furious, and the Gruber tapes does anyone with the brains of a newborn still believe that the Obama administration is even capable of telling the truth?

I guess that Obama doesn't want al Qaida to take over Afghanistan until he leaves office

In a Shift, Obama Extends U.S. Role in Afghan Combat

Friday, November 21, 2014

Emperor Obama Speaks, Democrat Eunuchs Hasten to Obey

"Pass a bill," Obama said. His faithful minions, having emasculated themselves during the first six years of his reign, cheered his imperial decree.

'Obama issued an oral royal decree that will be followed by a written regal decree, as any good monarch would do,' said Texas Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert

But for pure imperial condescension, you can't parody how Obama spoke of his newly legal serfs. They pick our fruit and make our beds. I hope they know their place. 

HEH:  "President Obama made his executive amnesty announcement last night, and this weekend he will submit himself to another hard-hitting interview with former Bill Clinton adviser George Stephanopoulos."

Thursday, November 20, 2014

Team Obama lies about ObamaCare enrollment, Ezra Klein covers.


Just a "harmless error" anyone could have made it.

Ezra Klein         @ezraklein
This is such a dumb, unforced error by the Obama administration: 
The term you're looking for is "lie." RT @ezraklein This is such a dumb, unforced error by the Obama administration
 What a coincidence!

  Charles C. W. Cooke         @charlescwcooke
The exact number of plans needed for Obamacare to reach its target were erroneously included in the total. Amazing. 

Larry the Cable Guy asks a fair question

Larry The Cable Guy         @GitRDoneLarry
Honest question? How come Cosby is toast and Clinton is toast of the town? That's a fair question is it not?

I, For One, Support Our New Imperial Ruler

The What-the-Hell Presidency

Bud Norman on Obama unleashed.  This is how Republics become dictatorships.

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

Gruber and the Democrats go Head to Head

The nut of why this whole episode is so infuriating, when it isn’t enervating, are the repeated insults done to America’s collective intelligence by those who believe themselves to be members of a superior class. That condition is made even more insufferable by those Obamacare supporters who are attempting to rewrite the history of the ACA in order to airbrush Gruber out of the picture.

The Federalist’s Sean Davis has a compelling piece on this phenomenon, and it’s worth your full attention. It concludes…

Come. On. I hate to break it to you all, but Gruber doesn’t get to be an architect of Obamacare and Romneycare when you want to use his authority and credentials to bash Republicans or spin for the law, and then radically transform into one of three Jon Grubers who just happens to live in Obama’s neighborhood once Gruber becomes a massive liability for the Left.

Gruber was one of the key architects of Obamacare. He didn’t just build econometric simulation models based on the law. He was also involved in drafting its key components. And he was paid enormous sums of money for his advice and counsel. These are facts. Accept them, learn to deal with them, and give the embarrassingly bad Gruber Truthing a rest.

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

What did the press know and when did they know it?

The reaction of the MSM to the Gruber tapes is revealing. Today’s article by Chris Cillizza tries to misdirect the issue into a personality conflict between Gruber and Conservatives whom he thinks are the object of Gruber’s charge that the American people are stupid. His article, about Gruber as catnip for conservatives, tries to make the story about Conservative pique, not the fact that Gruber did something that you are never supposed to do when you pull a sting: expose the sting. A good sting never ends, but Gruber ended the ObamaCare sting. So the press, after hoping it would simply die because of lack of oxygen, is desperately trying to change the subject.

But Cilliza is wrong, not just on the focus, but also on the issue of whom Gruber classified as stupid. Conservatives were always opposed to ObamaCare. And not just conservatives. ObamaCare passed without a single Republican vote. The lies and deception described by Gruber fooled only Liberals. Liberals who were fed the story the Obama administration was feeding to its media accomplices. No tax, lower cost, better coverage, no changes if you were happy.

But were Liberals in the media really fooled, or were they simply promoting the Obama/Gruber/Democrat lies because they were being Good Germans? I mean, really. What non-comatose human being believes you can insure 30 million more people, provide more services, cover pre-existing conditions, and reduce the cost to the average family by $2500? Melissa Francis tells of being called on the carpet at CNBC for her criticism of ObamaCare’s math and told that she was “disrespecting the office of the President.”

I believe that the average reporter and editor is functionally innumerate, but that doesn’t pass the smell test. Like Good Germans, the press corps knew, but didn’t want to know.

So now one of the architects of the conspiracy couldn’t keep his mouth shut. And the lies and deception have been uncovered, not by the complicit press that does not want to know what was really going on, but by a guy who lost his health insurance policy thanks to ObamaCare and spent hours searching the internet. Because everything that you say in public gets recorded. And citizen journalists are looking where the Good Germans of the press don’t want you to go.

Fire Mary Landrieu

Sunday, November 16, 2014

In which Ann Althouse gets hammered

Ann Althouse decide to take up the cudgels for Rose Eveleth.  Defending this sexist, Feminist, coyote-ugly harridan when she tweeted a series of comments criticizing the shirt that one of the rocket scientists that just landed a spacecraft on an asteroid, Matt Taylor, wore.  She tweeted: "Thanks for ruining the cool comet landing for me asshole"

Right; that's what was in his mind when he put on his shirt: "I'm going to ruin Rose Eveleth - and every other feminist harridan's day - when I get interviewed for landing a spacecraft on a comet."

Althouse decided to throw in with this Feminist jerk by posting a critique of Glen Reynolds' comments, stating - among other things that fashion is more important than space travel.  I suppose that a mind that works that way explains why she voted  for Barack Obama. 

Here's the beginning of Reynolds' essay:

Better not to land a spaceship on a comet than let men wear sexist clothing.
So how are things going for feminism? Well, last week, some feminists took one of the great achievements of human history — landing a probe from Earth on a comet hundreds of millions of miles away — and made it all about the clothes.

Yes, that's right. After years of effort, the European Space Agency's lander Philaelanded on a comet 300 million miles away. At first, people were excited. Then some women noticed that one of the space scientists, Matt Taylor, was wearing a shirt, made for him by a female "close pal," featuring comic-book depictions of semi-naked women. And suddenly, the triumph of the comet landing was drowned out by shouts of feminist outrage about ... what people were wearing. It was one small shirt for a man, one giant leap backward for womankind.

What is it about women like this?  People who have never accomplished anything except manipulate words?  And the Althouse types, college professors, who - thanks to Jonathan Gruber - are now exposed to the entire country as elitist pigs who consider the American people "stupid."

Sunday, November 09, 2014

Elbert Guillory: "Why I Am a Republican"

The meaning of the 2014 elections

The 2014 midterm election was interesting for several things.  First, it was a repudiation of Obama-ism only 2 years after he was re-elected.  The “dense-pack” strategy (having one scandal after another take the previous one off the front pages) of Team Obama didn't work.  The “independent” voters finally saw failure follow failure and realized that the things they were promised were either lies or that Obama was incompetent.  Either way, they abandoned him, big time. 

Keeping in mind that the “Black” vote was a Republican lock for nearly a century after the Civil War, it’s very interesting that there is the beginning of a reaction against Democrats among Blacks.  For the first time in my lifetime several videos castigating Democrats for what they have done to Blacks have gained wide popularity.  The assumption that the Black vote is a lock for Democrats is not valid.  The grand experiment of urban centers run by Black Democrats using Democrat Party principles is gradually creating awareness - among those who want something better than a welfare handout - that Democrats view them the same way as slave-owners did their plantation slaves, bodies to be exploited.

The “war on women” theme deluded the Democrats into believing that they had a winning issue.  Instead, it boomeranged.  It made the male “gendergap” worse.  It alienated married women.  And it was carried to such an extreme that even the reliably Liberal press got tired of it.  Some by denying that it was a theme, others by calling one of its major practitioners “Mark Uterus.”

Democrats believe that demographics are their salvation, assuming that the patterns of the past can be overlaid on the future.  That’s the problem with a lot of things, like the subject of Global Warming, a mixture of chemistry, modelling and politics.  It’s also the problem with the assumptions that you “own” a demographic group.  The Democrats don’t own the Blacks, the youth, the Hispanics or the women.  They just assume that they can scare - or bribe - these groups into voting for them.  The problem becomes one of finding the resources for the bribe, for keeping the fear alive.  Detroit is its own antidote.

Tuesday, November 04, 2014

2014 Has Spoken: Women Voters Care About More Than Just Lady Parts

This is just funny:

Robin Williams joked that “God gave men both a penis and a brain, but unfortunately not enough blood supply to run both at the same time.” When it comes to politics, the Lena Dunhams, Cosmopolitans, and ladypartsjustice.coms want to overlook the humor of that joke and make the female equivalent the focal point of their politicized lives. ...

As a man, I’m probably not supposed to have an opinion on this, but I totally do. As a father of daughters, I’m actually quite opinionated on the matter. Whereas I get to make decisions based on a whole raft of factors, apparently I’m supposed to teach my daughters to ask only one question: How will this affect your vagina?

With this election, the vagina and effects upon it are on front and center, much like artwork at the Dunham household. Because women don’t have to worry about the economy, job opportunities, international relations, or anything else. It’s all about the beaver.

Am I overreacting? Perhaps, but all my blood is flowing to my upper head at the moment and it’s about to explode. On the other hand, the smart set has declared that everything is a women’s issue. One might argue that if everything is a women’s issue, then nothing is, but that would do a disservice to the divide and conquer mentality of the politics of the personal.

Why Does Everyone Act Like Women Are Dumb Sexpots?

From hygiene companies to politics to art to the United Nations, everything must begin and end with “as a woman.” If it were just a celebration of the awesomeness that is woman, and seriously I do love y’all, that would be great. Just as I love being a man, because it’s great, love being a woman. Goose, gander, and all that.

Read the whole thing.

Saturday, November 01, 2014

Why don't the Dems run on their accomplishments?

ObamaCare; Iraq; open borders to help the Dreamers, disregard of the rule of law to circumvent obstructionist do-nothing Republicans, use of federal agencies including the IRS and Department of Justice, to harass and intimidate Conservatives; and freedom of movement between Ebola Africa and America?

These accomplishments are big time; and they go along way to fulfilling the declared intention of Obama to transform America in its fundamentals.

What's a "Micropurchase" and why are we buying government employees coffee at Starbucks?

The government defines any purchase of less than $3000 a "micropurchase."   For this purpose, government employees are issued credit cards.  Given the number of federal employees, their contempt for the taxpayer, and their propensity to commit fraud, it's no surprise that those "micro" items add up to macro dollars.

The federal government has spent at least $20 billion in taxpayer money this year on items and services that it is permitted to keep secret from the public, according to an investigation by the News4 I-Team.
The purchases, known among federal employees as “micropurchases,” are made by some of the thousands of agency employees who are issued taxpayer-funded purchase cards. The purchases, in most cases, remain confidential and are not publicly disclosed by the agencies. A sampling of those purchases, obtained by the I-Team via the Freedom of Information Act, reveals at least one agency used those cards to buy $30,000 in Starbucks Coffee drinks and products in one year without having to disclose or detail the purchases to the public.
A series of other recent purchases, reviewed by internal government auditors, include wasteful and inappropriate purchases by government employees -- including a gym membership and JC Penney clothing -- that were not detected or stopped until after the purchase was completed.
The agencies and their leaders refuse to explain how and where they spent your money.

Medical Science Doesn’t Support Official Rhetoric On Ebola

In early September, President Obama assured West Africans in a video address that the first defense against the spread of Ebola was to get the facts on the disease’s transmission right. The problem now facing the United States is that the president, with the support of healthcare officials, may have played loose with the science “facts,” luring many Americans—including healthcare workers at the Dallas Health Presbyterian Hospital initially at the center of the country’s Ebola threat, as well as the latest Ebola victim from New York City—into a false sense of security and increasing risks to themselves and to everyone who crossed their paths.

The science of Ebola has not been—and can’t be—fully congruent with the official Ebola rhetoric, which has suggested that key terms such as “symptoms,” “bodily fluids,” “contagion,” and “contact” are more fixed facts of science than they necessarily are. After the apparent facility with which Ebola was transmitted to nurses attending the Liberian-American Ebola patient in Dallas, many Americans have understandably lost confidence in official Ebola pronouncements ...

Read the whole thing.   Is this politics, stupidity, arrogance, incompetence, or hate?  As applied to the Obama administration , they are not mutually exclusive.

For example, just when are Ebola patients infectious?

Healthcare officials and media pundits have played “symptoms” as, again, tightly defined on-off switches: “When you have the identified symptom [at some ill-defined fever], you have Ebola and are contagious. When you don’t have the symptom, you can’t be contagious, even if you have been infected.” The New York Times reported the New York doctor checked his temperature twice a day, and when he showed a fever, he checked himself into the hospital where he was put in isolation. The doctor did what he should have, according to Doctors Without Borders in a comment to the New York Times: “Self-quarantine is neither warranted nor recommended when a person is not displaying Ebola-like symptoms.”

This suggests the doctor was only infectious when he identified his symptoms, at the time he took his temperature. Was it not possible for him to become infectious before he took his temperature, and was mingling with people on the streets of the city? Even if he had identified his symptom at the exact time he became infectious, could he have not been infectious a minute or an hour earlier? Contrary to official pronouncements, infectiousness and symptoms do not necessarily and always occur simultaneously. The long history of medical science, and common sense, suggest that some unknown count of victims are likely to be infectious some unknown amount of time before the symptoms are detected, because the active progression of the disease brings on the fever, not the other way around. This means Americans have good reason to be guarded when hearing absolute medical pronouncements on when people are infectious.

And about that 21 day observation period:

 The media continues to parrot official announcements that exposed people can be declared clear of the disease if after 21 days (the “maximum incubation period for the disease to develop,” according to the New York Times editors, and most other officials commenting on the issue), they do not show the elusive “symptoms”—as if science can, and does, pinpoint a clear demarcation in time after which exposed people can be, with virtual certainty, deemed clear of the disease, or are no longer able to transmit it to others. The process of science generally can identify (imperfectly) how likely people’s contagiousness varies with time from exposure. Typically, studies can identify something of a bell-shaped curve for the distribution of the days that people can show symptoms following their infection. In the case of Ebola, the CDC has determined that from the day of infection to ten or so days it, the count of people who exhibit symptoms rises with each passing day. The count of people exhibiting symptoms declines afterwards, perhaps approaching but never reaching zero. (That is, the “bell curve” for the distribution of when people exhibit symptoms may have a long right tail.)
According to a study from Drexel University, possibly12 percent of infected victims never show the fever symptom during the currently recommended 21-day quarantine period.
Scientists generally make a judgment call, picking a time period when contagiousness reaches an acceptably low level (medically and, sometimes, politically). This means that once the required time period has been reached, there is still likely to be some prospect, however remote, that a “small” but “acceptable” percentage of the infected people can still be symptomatic.

Rod Liddle: The top 10 most fatuous phrases in the English language

3. Diversity 
Something brilliant, to be championed. We all love diversity, don’t we? As used by the left it means ‘lots of ethnic minorities’. Quite often it is deployed to mean precisely the opposite of its original meaning. As in ‘the area is very diverse’, referring to a place populated exclusively by Bangladeshis.
4. Denier
A horrible and recent confection of, again, the liberal left. You can be a ‘climate change denier’, which means you might doubt that global warming will cause quite the catastrophic circumstances — annihilation of all living creatures, earth burned to a crust, polar bears howling in agony — dreamed up by the maddest, gibbering eco-warriors. You can be a ‘sexual abuse denier’, which means you have one or two doubts about Operation Yewtree. The term was appropriated from the Holocaust, of course: the implication being that to deny that absolutely all 1970s celebrities were busy molesting kiddies is on a par with denying that Nazi Germany murdered six million Jewish people. Nice.
 6. Wrong side of history
If someone says you’re on the wrong side of history, it is their smug and stupid way of telling you that you are wrong and they are right, no more. Conservatism is always on the wrong side of history because it is innately opposed to profound social change. Social change is always good, you see, even when it is utterly calamitous or pointless or unnecessary.
Read the whole thing.

Lena Dunham, popular Liberal celebrity and child molester

In the collection of nonfiction personal accounts, Dunham describes using her little sister at times essentially as a sexual outlet, bribing her to kiss her for prolonged periods and even masturbating while she is in the bed beside her. But perhaps the most disturbing is an account she proudly gives of an episode that occurred when she was seven and her sister was one. Here’s the full passage (p. 158-9)
She appears to see nothing wrong with her perversion.

Stacy McCain:

You want to talk about hate? When rich white lesbians start telling women to vote Democrat because of “street harassment,” while at the same time refusing to denounce a celebrity pervert like Lena Dunham for diddling her own sister, you may fairly accuse me of hating that kind of shameless hypocrisy. But unless or until these feminists prove to me that they actually are Our Moral Superiors, they have no right to make any demands of me, or you, or any ordinary law-abiding American citizen trying to get along in the real world.

The Democrats War on Women as Demonstrated by Feminist Democrats

 Via Stacy McCain
The implicit assumption of the Democrat Party’s “War on Women” meme is that the sexist misogyny by which all women are allegedly victimized is officially endorsed by The Republican Party. Never mind the fact — as the viral video ironically demonstrated — that women’s victimization is quite often perpetrated by constituencies of the Democrat Party coalition. Feminism is a left-wing political ideology that serves the partisan interests of the Democrat Party and, when feminists aren’t busy offering to provide oral sex to Democrat men, they are busy accusing Republicans of being The Party of Rape.

It does not really matter whether you are male or female, black or white, straight or gay. The only thing liberals really care about is whether you vote Democrat, because the liberal’s sense of self-esteem is dependent on his belief that, by voting Democrat and encouraging you to do likewise, he proves himself worthy as one of Our Moral Superiors. (Thomas Sowell’s book The Vision of the Anointed explains this brilliantly.)