Morning Reads for Friday, June 7, 2013

Ever heard this one? “The devil is beating his wife.” My grandmother taught it to me.
– Bison on the Beltway.
New toys to watch while sitting on the deck at Tubby’s Tankhouse.
– How will Georgia’s Senators vote on immigration?
– Now Chip Rogers needs help with his pricey new job? Oh, puhleezz.

– Not that anyone’s counting
– “There is no national interest; there is only political advantage.
– Komen learns the first rule of holes the hard way.
– “Battered Obama Supporter Syndrome.
– “I’m not having fun at this party. Can someone drive me home now?
– Just following orders, sir…

Random Everywhere:
Paul Krugman is now a Dilbert cartoon. And it’s not what you think it is.
– Why Google Reader really got axed.
– Microsoft reorganizing. No Word as to who gets the multi-colored blinky Windows.
– Egad. Keith Olbermann returning to airwaves as a baseball commentator for the post-season. On TBS. Oh, the horror.


      • Ellynn says:

        This link is missing my favorate map for “What you call the thing in a hall you drink water from”. It’s in the orginal set of maps on his website, but not the link you have. He may have passel and fixin there. I was miffit that the map with “y’all” and “you all” did not have the up Mississippi valley term of “youse all”. That’s half of MN, all of WI and Upper MI.

        • Scott65 says:

          I was disappointed that the sweet carbonated beverage had it wrong. In the south we dont call it a coke…its a Cocola (spelled phonetically…since I have no idea how to spell it). My Grandfather used that term (and he was as southern as you get)…another word is “Fog” try it with a Yankee and you’ll see the difference.

          • Scott65 says:

            another good one is the city of Chattanooga…if you’ve lived there a long time…you here people pronounce it Chattanuga (2 syllables)…my Dad still says it that way

  1. Dave Bearse says:

    Komen’s single digit percentage funding of Planned Parenthood breast cancer screening, and Planned Parenthood in turn spending a single digit percentage of money from other sources on abortion services, was a penny too much Komen money for pro-lifers whose extremism has damaged a good organization.

    Komen cuts half its 3-Day walks, cites low numbers. Read more here:

    • sockpuppet says:


      When you believe that abortion is murder – as pro-lifers sincerely do – extremism is no virtue and moderation is no vice. Most who adhere to the pro-abortion position pretend that pro-lifers don’t really believe that abortion is murder and are really just trying to oppress women. But honestly, the vast majority of pro-lifers do believe that abortion is murder, and they have an increasing amount of medical science on their side. (Which is why the pro-abortion side quickly shifts to issues like women’s rights, access to birth control etc. rather than evaluate the science to see whether the beliefs of the anti-abortion side has any factual basis.)

      Incidentally, this article – from a Catholic anti-abortion site (I am not Catholic by the way so I do not oppose birth control, I just oppose forcing Catholics to pay for it) has a different take on this Komen issue.

      See this blurb (impossible because it opens with it): “In early 2012, after the breast cancer charity Komen for the Cure announced it would end its relationship with Planned Parenthood, the group quickly saw a 100 percent spike in fundraising.”

      That’s the deal. You see, before this controversy, very few people beyond anti-abortion and pro-abortion activists knew that Susan G. Komen donated to Planned Parenthood anyway. Once this controversy erupted, people received the information that they should have always had, and made their decisions accordingly. People who believe that abortion is murder stopped subsidizing what they believe to be murder by way of donating to Komen. Many of them started donating to other breast cancer charities instead. (For example, the Avon breast cancer walk has not experienced the decline that the Komen one has.) So, pro-lifers want to fact breast cancer too. Imagine that. What an amazing contradiction and moral/political/ideological inconsistency! Right up there with claiming that people who support capital punishment for violent criminals that have committed unspeakable acts against the innocent cannot TRULY be “pro-life”, right?

      Do you believe that people should be compelled into supporting something that they find morally repugnant, or that they their doing so without their knowledge because of the organizations taking money from them not being upfront about where the money is going is a good thing? Why?

      And for the record, plenty of pro-choice abortion rights people also believe that abortion is murder or is something akin to it. Their position is that reproductive choice wins out, or that the legal rights of the mother wins. Here is a column from an abortion rights advocate that concedes this publicly, and yes these things do get spoken of privately in polite company all the time. But more open, honest dialogue like this needs to take place, no?

      • Dave Bearse says:

        People may decide to not donate to Komen because Komen provides funding to Planned Parenthood for breath cancer screening, but it’s ridiculous conflate donations to Komen with subsidizing abortion, but that’s what extremists do.

        I suspect that many if not most people that consider themselves pro-life do not think all abortions are murder. Otherwise there would not be so many people that would allow exception for incest, or would approve one murder to reduce the likelihood of serious injury or death of another as in the case of abortion for the health of the mother.

    • Ellynn says:

      I think it has more to do with the 3 day race itself then any bad PR. The race limits for fund raising went from $1500 to $2300 at a time most people where losing jobs or at the very least raises and hours. My friend who did the Chicago race twice stopped two years ago due to just finding people who wanted to back her. The cost to a runner to stay in a large city for 3 days is no small thing either. She would spend almost $1000 for her and her family for the 4 nights she was in Chicago. When I walk the 5K, it’s a 20 min ride from my house and 3 hours of my time; and in return SGK gets about $300 of funds. The large city races also take alot of overhead funds to support. You need to mantain an event location for over 3 days. Police overtime in a place like Chicago for 4 to 3 days is a high ticket item. SGK has also had issues of how much they spend on research vs. overhead. If you want more bang for your dollar, the American Cancer Society spends more on just breast cancer research then SGK.

      • Ed says:

        ACS also doesn’t bully people who want to use a color (!) for marketing purposes, over-hype the risk of “breast cancer” or have selling consumer goods as its key activities.

        • Ellynn says:

          Down Boy!!! I said overhead for God sake. Marketing, selling stuff and over hype – I mean “Education”, are Overhead.

          Most of my personal funds go to the ACS. I lost my dad just last month to stage 4 renal cancer. Cancer also killed my grandfather, an uncle, 7 great aunts/uncles and a cousin. Not one had breast cancer or died from the same type as another. I also have 6 other aunts/uncles who have survived cancer (again, no breast cancer in the lot). The ACS is my only hope of survival if (or most-likely WHEN) I get some form of cancer.

          Also, did I mention I HATE the color pink… (unless it’s a Pychodelic Furs song, then it’s ok…)

        • I walked away from Komen after Karen Handel’s decision to defund Planned Parenthood. I posted this on my blog:

          As pointed out the other day on NPR (, Brinker is still there and even staffers think they organization suffers from the lack of change in leadership.

          Brinker and others at Komen are interested in remaining in power no matter the outcome for the organization, or the women they claim to serve.

    • saltycracker says:

      So if a large corporation does not like some communities standard of aesthetics they trick a trick play like Chick-fil-lay pitching a tent in their parking lot ?
      I’d suggest they turn the other cheek while trying to work something out.

        • sockpuppet says:

          I just see a corporation making money and creating jobs and tax revenue while harming no one. The folks selling the chicken sandwiches in those tents – many of them teenagers on their first job or low wage workers – need the opportunity and the money. And their customers get more choice and convenience. Meanwhile, the folks concerned about aesthetics aren’t low income folks looking for work and likely have cooks (illegal immigrants perhaps?) to prepare their meals, or they have nice (foreign) luxury cars to drive them to more upscale, socially acceptable eating establishments.

          And let the aesthetics crowd be the ones to turn the other cheek. Or at the very least not oppress the poor and devour widow’s houses by throwing these low income workers out of work by closing down this “out of the box” tent operation. And considering that this is Alabama, they are the sort who would throw these people on the unemployment line on one hand and complain about having to support them with their tax dollars going to welfare on the other. (At least the west coast and northeastern elitists are consistent … they are perfectly willing to pay taxes in order to keep low income people from working the jobs that they don’t want them to have.)

          A win for Chik-Fil-A, a win for the workers, a win for consumers, a win for the free enterprise system, and a win for America. The only losers are the ones who could have gotten Chik-Fil-A to use one of their better looking restaurant designs (i.e. their Truett’s Diner 50s motif) to uphold their community standards but instead have to look at people hawking chicken sandwiches out of a tent every day. Serves ’em right.

          • saltycracker says:

            BS – It.Is.None.Of.Our.Business.
            This is not a matter we intrusively need to dictate how people will run their community.

  2. sockpuppet says:

    6 routes on the table for high speed rail to Charlotte:

    1. A Norfolk Southern Corp. (NYSE: NSC) line that would run through Doraville, Suwannee, Tocoaa, and Greenville.
    2. A CSX Corp. (NYSE: CSX) Athens route that would go through Lawrenceville and Athens before heading to Charlotte.
    3. A CSX Augusta route that would head east before turning north and connect Augusta and Columbia.
    4. An Interstate 85 corridor route that would follow Interstate 85 all the way north.
    5. A route that would follow Interstate 20 and then Interstate 77. The route would also go through Augusta and Columbia.
    6. A route nicknamed the “Greenfield” option. The corridor would allow for a grade separated rail line, something preferred for optimal speed on high speed rail.

    Can we combine 2 and 5 please? Or at the very least do 5 and then make some connection between Athens and the rail connection in Augusta. Find some way to hook Macon and Columbus up too. Something that should have been done 30 years ago when it was a lot cheaper, but oh well …

  3. Noway says:

    As long as they are dragging people up to the Hill for testimony, bring the head of the NSA and get him to explain what the NSA is sucking up in their microphones. And then ask HIM if they listen in on members of Congress’ conversations.

  4. saltycracker says:

    Paul Krugman a Keynesian economist and unabashed champion of the welfare state as the most socially responsible, will make a wonderful Dilbert character.

  5. Ed says:

    I get that idioms rarely mean anything but what’s the etymology behind “the devil beating his wife”? It makes less than no sense.

    • sockpuppet says:

      I read the NY Times oped page every day. Sorry, no deal on this one fella. This is merely the NY Times continuing their same opposition to the Patriot Act policies that they had under Bush. (By the way: I opposed the Patriot Act from the beginning, just as I opposed its predecessor when it was first proposed by Bill Clinton after the Oklahoma City federal building bombing). The NY Times has consistently criticized Obama for continuing Bush’s war on terror policies. But that is ideological criticism from the left that harms Obama in no way, and is no different from the criticisms of the neo-con media of the Bush administration for not being hawkish enough during the Iraq War (i.e. abandoning the attempt to limit civilian casualties and to even consider putting the use of nuclear weapons to stop the insurgency as an option) and not trying to enact still more tax cuts. Or in other words, the New York Times has criticized Obama’s stimulus spending to revive the economy for years. Why? Because they said that it wasn’t large enough. The NY Times stated that it needed to be at least double the size that it was. Now that we have gotten a disappointing jobs report with a slowdown in manufacturing, I expect another “the stimulus was too small” column from Krugman shortly.

      Sorry, but this IS NOT the same as demanding investigations and resignations over Benghazi, the IRS scandal or the AP scandal. When the NY Times DID call for a special prosecutor, they did so not because they felt that the Obama administration did anything wrong, but instead depicted it as a damage control move because the investigations would harm the administration’s poll numbers/perception and be used by Congress as an excuse to not act on Obama’s agenda. It was two weeks ago, a “debate” between Gail Collins and alleged conservative David Brooks where they pretty much agreed on everything, including the idea that a special prosecutor would be a good idea because it would exonerate Obama, make Obama’s critics look ridiculous, and free Obama and Congress to do the important work of enacting Obama’s agenda. Oh yeah, and that while the IRS thing was VERY BAD and they felt VERY SORRY for those conservative groups, that THE REAL CULPRIT was Citizens United and a lack of campaign finance laws (meaning that the IRS employees and managers should not be held responsible for their breaking existing laws, including leaking confidential information to ProPublica and the Human Rights Campaign).

      So, you see, there is “criticism” from your ideological mates and, you know, actual criticism. Case in point: when Rush Limbaugh and Mike Huckabee had no choice but to gently jab Bush over the Halliburton/Blackwater Iraq reconstruction taxpayer ripoff of hundreds of billions scandals, that wasn’t real criticism. But when both hammered Obama for years over losing relative pennies to Solyndra and over the GM buyout when compared to the sheer size and scope of the Iraq reconstruction fiasco? THAT was real criticism. (The public didn’t buy it because they knew that it was hypocritical to talk about GM and Solyndra but not the Bush administration using the Iraq War as an opportunity to line the pockets of his friends and contributors with taxpayer money for work that was never done.)

      And feel free to call me an idiot again for pointing that out. And when you do, I will take it as a compliment again. Thanks in advance for playing.

Comments are closed.